ELAM, ancient country encompassing a large part of the Persian plateau at the end of the 3rd millennium B.C.E. but reduced to the territory of Susiana in the Achaemenid period. The name Elam is derived from Greek Aylam, itself borrowed from Hebrew ¿Ela@m; the Elamites called their country Ha(l)tamti/Hatamti "lord country," which the Akkadians rendered Elamtu and the Sumerians designated with the ideogram NIM "high, elevated."

i. The history of Elam.

ii. The archeology of Elam.

iii.Proto-Elamite.

iv. Linear Elamite.

v. Elamite language.

vi. Elamite religion.

vii.Non-Elamite texts in Elam.

For a long time scholars confused Elam with Susiana, equivalent to the plain and lower Zagros foothills in the present Persian province of K¨u@zesta@n. Two important factors have recently modified this understanding, however. First, Tal-e Malyan (Ma@l^a@n) in Fa@rs has been identified as the ancient center of the component kingdom of Anshan (q.v.; Hansman; Lambert; Reiner, 1973b), and, second, it has been established that Susa and Elam were distinct entities (Vallat, 1980). In fact, during the several millennia of its history the limits of Elam varied, not only from period to period, but also with the point of view of the person describing it. For example, Mesopotamian sources permit establishment of a relatively detailed map of Elam in the late 3rd millennium B.C.E., owing in particular to the "Geography of Sargon of Akkad" (ca. 2300 B.C.E.; Grayson; Vallat, 1991), a Neo-Assyrian representation of the extent of Sargon's conquests. It seems that Mesopotamians in the late 3rd millennium B.C.E. considered Elam to encompass the entire Persian plateau, which extends from Mesopotamia to the Kav^r-e Namak and Daæt-e Lu@t (see DESERT) and from the Caspian (q.v.) to the Persian Gulf. Elamite cultural, if not political, influence in that period extended far beyond those limits, however, reaching Central Asia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and the southern shores of the Persian Gulf (Amiet, 1986). It should be emphasized that during the last centuries of the 3rd millennium Susiana was sometimes a political dependency of the Mesopotamian empires centered first on Akkad and later on Ur and was included only for a brief period in the Elamite confederation, which embraced the kingdoms of Awan (probably in the Zagros), Simaæki (in Assyrian ˆimaæki; see Steve, 1989, p. 13 n. 1; probably extending from Kerma@n to the Caspian), and Anshan (the present province of Fa@rs with its natural outlet to the Persian Gulf in the vicinity of Bu@æehr, q.v.). Furthermore, this entire definition was Meso-potamian. For the people of the Persian plateau, Awanites and Simaækians, Elam meant the country of Anshan (Vallat, 1980; idem, 1991; idem, 1993).

When the Elamites, in alliance with the people of Susiana, brought an end to the empire of Ur in 2004 B.C.E., they annexed Susiana, where the Epartid, or sukkalmah, dynasty was founded by the ninth king of Simaæki; the dynasty thus had its origins on the plateau. It is difficult to determine the eastern limits of the Epartid kingdom, but the decline of its power in the 18th century B.C.E. (see below) probably led to a reduction of influence in the east. As for the "kings of Anshan and Susa" of the Middle Elamite period (1500-1100 B.C.E.), according to the available documents, they controlled at least the territory of the present-day provinces of K¨u@zesta@n and Fa@rs with Bu@æehr.

In the 1st millennium B.C.E. the spread of populations speaking Indo-Iranian languages and dialects onto the Persian plateau forced the Elamites to relinquish one area of their empire after another and to take refuge in Susiana, which only then became coterminous with Elam. It is this reduced territory that is referred to in the annals of Aææurbanipal (q.v.; see, e.g., Aynard, pp. 38-61), the Achaemenid inscriptions (Weissbach), and the Bible and Apocrypha (Daniel 8:2; Esdras 4:9).

Despite recent progress, Elamite history remains largely fragmentary. Because there are few indigenous sources, attempts at reconstruction must be based primarily on Mesopotamian documentation. By far the largest proportion of the known Elamite texts have been excavated at Susa, a city that, from its foundation ca. 4000 B.C.E., alternated between subjection to Mesopotamian and Elamite power (Amiet, 1979). The earliest levels excavated at the site furnished remarkable pottery that has no equivalent in Mesopotamia, whereas in the succeeding period (levels 22-17 in the excavations conducted by Le Brun, 1978, pp. 177-92) the archeological material is identical with that of Mesopotamia in the Uruk period. From about 3200 B.C.E. the influence of the Persian plateau can be observed in the presence of numerical and then proto-Elamite tablets identical with those found in smaller numbers at different sites on the plateau, as far away as ˆahr-e Su@kòta in S^sta@n (Vallat, 1986). The proto-Elamite script (see iii, below), which has defied all efforts to decipher it, remained in use until about 2700 B.C.E., but it was in the little-known period that followed, between the end of the Proto-Elamite period and the establishment of the dynasty of Awan, that Elam began to emerge from anonymity. The first attestation of the name of the kingdom is in a text of the king Enmebaragesi of Kish, who ruled in about 2650 B.C.E. But it is only from the beginning of the Akkadian period that Elam really enters into history. In the following survey the variable orthography of proper names has been standardized, in the interests of simplification.

The Old Elamite period (ca. 2400-1600 B.C.E.).

In the Old Elamite period three dynasties ruled in succession (Table 1). The kings of the first two, those of Awan and Simaæki, are mentioned in the king list from Susa of the Old Babylonian period (Scheil, 1931). In this document twelve names are mentioned, followed by the phrase "twelve kings of Awan," then by twelve more names and the phrase "twelve Simaækian kings." In contrast to similar texts from Mesopotamia, neither a regnal year nor any mention of parentage appears in this simple document; nor is there any indication that the two lists are exhaustive. But, despite the somewhat artificial character of this document, some of the individuals mentioned are also known from other sources, Susian or Mesopotamian. The third dynasty, that of the Epartids, often called "of the sukkalmahs" because of the title borne by its members, was contemporary with the Old Babylonian period in Mesopotamia.

The Awan dynasty (ca. 2400-2100 B.C.E.). The Awan dynasty was partially contemporary with that of Sargon of Akkad (2334-2279 B.C.E.), and its last king, Puzur-Inæuæinak, is thought to have reigned in the time of Ur-Nammu (2112-2095 B.C.E.), founder of the Third Dynasty of Ur (Wilcke, p. 110). At that point the information in the sources becomes more explicit, for the Mesopotamians were attracted by the natural riches of the Persian plateau that they themselves lacked (wood, stone, metals). The records of their military campaigns provide important indications for the reconstruction of the history and geography of Elam.

Although nothing is known of the first seven kings enumerated in the Old Babylonian king list, the eighth and ninth are mentioned (in inverse order) in reports of the campaigns of Sargon and his son Rimuæ (Hirsch, pp. 47-48, 51-52; Gelb and Kienast, pp. 180-81, 188, 206-07). The primary purpose of these Akkadian expeditions was the economic exploitation of Elamite territory, including Marahaæi (Baluchistan, q.v. i-ii). It seems, however, that they were raids, rather than real conquests of this vast territory. The Akkadian king Maniætusu (2269-55 B.C.E.) continued to fight in the south, where he achieved a victory at ˆehirum on the Persian Gulf, which he then crossed in order to subdue an alliance of thirty-two cities on the Arabian coast (Gelb and Kienast, pp. 220-21). In the reign of the Akkadian Naram-Sin a treaty (König, 1965, no. 2) was concluded between Naram-Sin's vassal ruling at Susa and a king of Awan, perhaps Hita (Cameron, p. 34); it is the first known Elamite text to have been written in cuneiform characters, but interpretation remains difficult.

The last king in the king list, Puzur-Inæuæinak (Gelb and Kienast, pp. 321-37), conquered Susa, then Anshan, and he seems to have managed to impose an initial unity on the Elamite federation by subduing also the king of Simaæki. His successors, however, were unable to hold Susa within the Elamite sphere. Puzur-Inæuæinak left several documents in his name at Susa. Some are inscribed in Akkadian and others in linear Elamite, a script of which only a few signs have been deciphered with certainty (Vallat, 1986; see v, below); these signs may have been derived from proto-Elamite. But the establishment of the Elamite kings at Susa was of short duration. Several years later ˆulgi of Ur (2094-47) retook the city with the surrounding region, which once again became an integral part of the Mesopotamian empire and remained so until that empire collapsed.

The Simaæki dynasty (ca. 2100-1970 B.C.E.). Of the twelve Simaækian kings mentioned in the king list from Susa, nine have been documented elsewhere (Stolper, 1982, pp. 42-67). The first part of this period was characterized by incessant Meso-potamian attacks on the Persian plateau; the principal objective, though rarely attained, seems to have been Simaæki, the homeland of the Elamite kings, in the area of modern Kerma@n. These campaigns alternated with periods of peace, marked by dynastic marriages. For example, ˆu-Sin of Ur, after having given one of his daughters in marriage to a prince of Anshan, led at least two expeditions to the southeastern coast of the Caspian (Kutscher, pp. 71-101). It seems that the Mesopotamians alternated between peaceful and more forcible approaches, in order to obtain the raw materials they needed. But Mesopotamian power was weakening. The last king of the dynasty of Ur, Ibbi-Sin (2028-04), was unable to penetrate very deeply into Elamite territory, and his agent Ir-Nanna no longer controlled more of the eastern empire than the countries along a northwest-southeast line from Arbela to Baæime on the north bank of the Persian Gulf (Thureau-Dangin, pp. 148-51). In 2004 the Elamites, allied with the "Susianans" under the leadership of Kindattu, sixth king of Simaæki, conquered Ur and led Ibbi-Sin away to Elam as a prisoner.

The Epartid or sukkalmah dynasty (ca. 1970-1600 B.C.E.). This long period of nearly three centuries still seems one of the most confused in Elamite history, despite the greater abundance and variety of the available documentation. Modern historians (König, 1931; Cameron, p. 229; Hinz, p. 183) have been misled by three factors that have completely distorted historical reconstruction.

First, the order of succession and the genealogy of the rulers of this period were distorted by a misinterpretation of the expression "son of the sister of ˆilhaha" (Ak. ma@r aha@ti(-æu) æa ˆilhaha). It was believed that the correct translation of ma@r aha@ti was "nephew," as in Mesopotamia, and that the term referred to a real biological relationship. The result was a theory about the division of power between the direct and collateral lines specific to Elam. The reality was quite different: The words "son of the sister of ˆilhaha" do not mean "nephew" but rather "son that ˆilhaha sired with his own sister" and are evidence of royal incest, which ensured the legitimacy of the heir. Furthermore, the expression was only a title, as is confirmed by its use for centuries after the death of ˆilhaha, for example, by Untaæ-Napiriæa and Hutelutuæ-Inæuæinak. It may be added that this Akkadian expression was rendered in Elamite as ruhu-æak, ruhu meaning "son" when referring to the mother and æak "son" when referring to the father. There is thus no question of the word "sister" (Vallat, 1990, p. 122; idem, 1994).

A second factor, which played just as negative a role in historical reconstruction as the first, is a text of ˆilhak-Inæuæinak, who enumerated those of his royal predecessors who had restored a temple of Inæuæinak (König, 1965, no. 48); the majority of historians have considered that this enumeration provides a chronological scheme that has only to be completed by insertion of the names of kings who are not mentioned in it. Although generally early sovereigns are mentioned first in the text and the most recent ones last, within each group there are obvious contradictions with other documents. These distortions result from enumeration according to lineages; sometimes the direct line is given, then the collateral lines, but sometimes the collateral lines precede the direct line, without relation to actual chronology. For the sukkalmah period the order is Eparti (Ebarat), ˆilhaha, Siruk-tuh, Siwe-palar-huppak, Kuk-Kirmaæ, Atta-huæu, Temti-halki, and Kuk-Naæur. Although the sequence Eparti, ˆilhaha, Siruk-tuh, Siwe-palar-huppak in the direct line is correct, the two kings mentioned next, Kuk-Kirmaæ and Atta-huæu, are not in the correct place, for they ruled between the reigns of ˆilhaha and Siruk-tuh. Kuk-Kirmaæ was thus a collateral, as is confirmed by the fact that in this list he is designated "son of Lankuku," an individual unknown elsewhere, who probably never ruled; it is probable that he was the brother of a sukkalmah who died without a direct heir or whose heir was too young to reign. Further confirmation comes from the inscriptions of certain high functionaries who served him after having been in the service of Idaddu II, tenth king of Simaæki. He could thus not have reigned in the 15th century B.C.E., as had been incorrectly supposed. Temti-halki and Kuk-Naæur, the last two sukkalmahs known, were probably in the direct line.

Finally, an inscription of Atta-huæu (Sollberger, 1968-69, p. 31; Vallat, 1989, no. 101) has been considered as evidence that Eparti, ˆilhaha, and Atta-huæu were contemporaries, constituting the first "triumvirate" of the dynasty. In fact, from different documents, particularly cylinder seals (q.v.) of servants of these sovereigns, it is possible to demonstrate (Vallat, 1989, no. 34) that between ˆilhaha and Atta-huæu six sukkalmahs or sukkals exercised power: Pala-iææan, Kuk-Kirmaæ, Kuk-sanit, Tem-sanit, Kuk-Nahhunte, and Kuk-Naæur I, a group that reigned in the 20th century B.C.E. and not in the 16th century, as most commentators have believed (e.g., Hinz and Koch, p. 555).

Taking into account the corrected interpretations on these three points, it is possible today to write a coherent, though incomplete, history of the Epartid dynasty. The Simaækian kings who succeeded Kindattu were installed at Susa after the fall of the empire of Ur. The Simaækians Idaddu I and Tan-Ruhurater II (who married Mekubi, daughter of Bilalama of Eænunna in Mesopotamia) built or restored temples at Susa. But Eparti II, though named as the ninth Simaækian king in the king list, was the founder of a new dynasty, called the Epartids by modern historians. It is surprising that the first Epartid sovereigns reigned at the same time as the last "Simaækian kings," Idaddu II, Idaddu-napir, and probably Idaddu-temti. Eparti, the first of his dynasty, was at least partially contemporary with the sukkalmah-sukkal group (see below); the second, ˆilhaha, is mentioned in two documents from the time of Atta-huæu, contemporary with Sumu-abum (1894-81 B.C.E.), the first king of the first dynasty of Babylon. The last Epartid, Idaddu-temti, is known only from the king list. It is not known how power was divided, for, although Idaddu II and Idaddu-napir are attested at Susa, Kuk-Kirmaæ bore the title, among others, "sukkal of Elam, of Simaæki, and of Susa" (Thureau-Dangin, pp. 182-83), which implies that he ruled the entire Elamite confederation. Despite these titles, it is probable that the last Simaækians governed the eastern part of the empire while the first Epartids governed the western part.

At any rate Eparti, ˆilhaha, and their immediate successors lived in troubled times. Rulers of several Mesopotamian states attempted to retake Susa from the Elamites. Several raids are known, particularly those of Gungunum of Larsa, and it was perhaps because of such a raid that Atta-huæu seized power. In fact, there are several indications that he was a usurper: Unlike all his predecessors and successors Atta-huæu was not associated with any other sovereign in the economic and juridical documents. His titles, too, are unusual. Although he called himself "son of the sister of ˆilhaha," it was probably in order to legitimate himself a posteriori; he also bore the title "shepherd of the people of Susa," which no other dynast during that period assumed, with the exception of a certain Tetep-mada, who may have been his successor.

The name of Siruk-tuh, which appears on a tablet from ˆemæarra, permits linkage of Elamite history with Mesopotamian chronology, for he was contemporary with the Assyrian ˆamæi-Adad I (1813-1781 B.C.E.). But the best-known sukkalmah of the dynasty is Siwe-palar-huppak, who for at least two years was the most powerful person in the Near East. According to the royal archives of Mari, kings as important as Zimri-Lim of Mari and Hammurabi of Babylon addressed him as "father," while calling each other "brother" and using the word "son" for a king of lesser rank (Charpin and Durand). But the interventions of Siwe-palar-huppak and his brother and successor, Kudu-zuluæ, in Mesopotamian affairs (as far away as Aleppo) did not last long (Durand, 1986; idem, 1990; Charpin, 1986; idem, 1990). Siwe-palar-huppak's suzerainty was broken by an alliance led by Hammurabi, which put an end to Elamite ambitions in Mesopotamia.

The reigns of Kutir-Nahhunte I and his thirteen successors as sukkalmah or sukkal down to Kuk-Naæur III, the last known sukkalmah, are documented only in the juridical and economic records from Susa (Scheil, 1930; idem, 1932; idem, 1933; idem, 1939) and in some rare royal inscriptions (Thureau-Dangin, pp. 184-85; Sollberger and Kupper, pp. 262-64). These documents suggest that daily life in Susa and Elam was quite insular. Although no military activity is noted in the documents, it is astonishing that so many royal or princely names are attested at the same time. For example, Kutir-Nahhunte is associated with five potential heirs: Atta-mera-halki, Tata, Lila-irtaæ, Temti-Agun, and Kutir-ˆilhaha; only the last two, however, attained supreme power, the status of sukkalmah. Following them Kuk-Naæur II, a contemporary of Ammisáaduqa, king of Babylon (1646-26 B.C.E.); Temti-raptaæ; Simut-wartaæ II; Kuduzuluæ II; and Sirtuh exercised power in an order that cannot yet be established with certainty, despite association with royal names in the texts. The three last known sukkalmahs, Tan-Uli and his two sons Temti-halki and Kuk-Naæur III, all three of whom were styled "son of the sister of ˆilhaha," constituted a group that is linked by no document to its predecessors. These different factors raise the question whether, during the second half of this period, palace intrigues had not replaced international conflicts.

This dynasty, which was remarkable for its duration, was also characterized by a progressive "semitization" of the royal line; owing to the annexation of Susiana to the Elamite empire, the sukkalmahs ensured that Susa would remain a major center. This process is reflected in different spheres. For example, the Elamites did not impose their language on the Susians; the vast majority of the documents from this period excavated at Susa, most of them juridical or economic texts related to daily life in the name of the sukkalmah or a sukkal, were written in Akkadian. Similarly, the Susians preserved their Suso-Mesopotamian pantheon, at the head of which was Inæuæinak, the tutelary divinity of the city (see vi, below). Gods of Elamite origin were rare. Finally, this semitization, or westernization, is illustrated by the titulary. The title "king of Anshan and Susa" borne by Eparti, the founder of the dynasty, was soon abandoned in favor of titles that had belonged to Mesopotamian functionaries posted in Susiana or Elam during the Ur III period. The supreme power was held by the sukkalmah. It happened that the ruler delegated certain powers to his children, who were then given the title "sukkal of Elam and of Simaæki" while in charge of the eastern provinces of the empire and "sukkal of Susa" when governing Susiana. This last title could be replaced by "king of Susa."

It is thus necessary to set aside the theory of the division of Elamite power (Cameron, pp. 71-72). The succession to the throne was based on male primogeniture, with, however, an important additional element: the different degrees of legitimacy exemplified by the primacy of endogamy over exogamy. The child born to a union of the king with an Elamite princess, that is, a foreigner, was legitimate. The child born to a union of the king with his own sister had a higher degree of legitimacy. An elder son born to the marriage of a sovereign with a princess outside the family (exogamy) thus had to cede the throne to a younger brother born to a later union of the king and his sister (endogamy). The supreme degree of legitimacy was accorded to the son born to a union of the king with his own daughter. That was the case some centuries later with Hutelutuæ-Inæuæinak, who seems to have been the son of ˆutruk-Nahhunte by his daughter Nahhunte-utu (Vallat, 1985). In the eventuality that a sovereign had no male heir or an heir was too young to exercise power then, as often elsewhere, power was secured by a collateral branch (Vallat, 1994).

The association of a "sukkal of Elam and of Simaæki" and a "sukkal of Susa" with the supreme authority of the sukkalmah was not the rule. It sometimes happened, however, that the king associated his children in power for practical reasons: It is probable that, as in the Achaemenid period, the court left the extreme heat of Susa in summer and took refuge on the more temperate plateau. It was thus prudent to leave a trusted man in charge of the low countries.

The Middle Elamite period (ca. 1500-1100 B.C.E.).

The Middle Elamite period was marked by a sharp reversal from the preceding period. It was, in fact, characterized by an "elamization" of Susiana. The kings (Table 2) abandoned the title sukkalmah or sukkal in favor of the old title "king of Anshan and of Susa" (or "king of Susa and of Anshan" in the Akkadian inscriptions). The Akkadian language, still in use under the first family of rulers, the Kidinuids, became rare in the inscriptions of the later Igihalkids and ˆutrukids. Furthermore, in this period the Elamite pantheon was imposed in Susiana and reached the height of its power with the construction of the politicoreligious complex at Ùog@a Zanb^l (q.v.).

The "dynasty" of the Kidinuids (ca. 1500-1400 B.C.E.). The term "dynasty" for the Kidinuids is perhaps improper, for there is no indication of any filial relationship among the five rulers who succeeded one another in an order that is not yet certain: Kidinu, Inæuæinak-sunkir-nappipir, Tan-Ruhurater II, ˆalla, and Tepti-Ahar (Steve, Gasche, and De Meyer, pp. 92-100). Susa and Haft Tepe (ancient Kabnak) have furnished evidence (Reiner, 1973b; Herrero) of a break between the period of the sukkalmahs and the Middle Elamite period. The first element was the titulary: Kidinu and Tepti-ahar styled themselves "king of Susa and of Anzan," thus linking themselves with an old tradition. Both also called themselves "servant of Kirwaæir," an Elamite divinity, thus introducing the pantheon from the plateau into Susiana. As in the preceding period, however, they continued to use Akkadian in all their inscriptions.

The Igihalkid dynasty (ca. 1400-1210 B.C.E.). Until quite recently the Igihalkid dynasty seemed one of the best known in Elamite history. It was believed (e.g., Stolper, 1984, pp. 35-38) that, following a raid by the Mesopotamian Kassite ruler Kurigalzu II (1332-08 B.C.E.) against a certain Hurpatila, king of Elam, Igi-halki seized power, in about 1320, power that he than passed on to his six successors, the most celebrated of whom was Untaæ-Napiriæa, who built the famous ziggurat at Ùog@a Zanb^l (ca. 1250). This period ended with Kidin-Hutran, who put an end to the grandeur of the Kassites by winning two victories over Enlil-nadin-æumi (1224) and Adad-æuma-iddina (1222-17).

Combined information from a letter now in the Vorderasiatisches Museum, Berlin (Van Dijk, 1986) and two fragments of a statue rediscovered in the Louvre (Steve and Vallat, pp. 223-38) has, however, led to a complete revision of this scheme. The letter in Berlin is a Neo-Babylonian document written in Akkadian, whereas the statue fragments contain an inscription in Elamite. The letter was addressed by an Elamite king whose name is lost but who may well have been ˆutruk-Nahhunte (see below) to assert his claim to rule Babylonia; the name of the person to whom it was addressed is also not preserved in the letter. In support of his claim the king mentioned the names of all the Elamite kings who had married Kassite princesses, followed by the names of the children born of these unions. For example, the immediate successor of Igi-halki, Pahir-iææan, married the sister or daughter of Kurigalzu I, whose reign ended in 1374 B.C.E., which implies that the Igihalkid dynasty was older by about a century than had previously been thought. Furthermore, two previously unknown kings, Kidin-Hutran, son of Untaæ-Napiriæa (who could not have been the Kidin-Hutran who fought the Kassites), and his son Napiriæa-untaæ, are mentioned in this text. As the fragments of the Louvre statue are attributed to another Kidin-Hutran, son of Pahir-iææan, there must have been three kings of the same name in this dynasty: Kidin-Hutran I, son of Pahir-iææan; Kidin-Hutran II, son of Untaæ-Napiriæa; and Kidin-Hutran III, whose paternity is unknown. The number of kings known to have succeeded to the Elamite throne has thus been raised from seven to ten, without any certainty that the list is complete. In fact, the first surviving description of this dynasty occurs in a text of the ˆutrukid ˆilhak-Inæuæinak (König, 1965, no. 48), in which he enumerated those of his predecessors who had restored a temple of Inæuæinak. As for the Berlin letter, only the dynasts who married Kassite princesses or their children are mentioned in it. A king who belonged in neither of these two categories would remain unknown. Finally, it can now be confirmed that Hurpatila was not an Elamite king but king of a country known as Elammat (Gassan).

The main characteristic of this dynasty is to have "elamized" Susiana; the religious complex at Ùog@a@ Zanb^l, ancient Dur-Untaæ (or AÚl Untaæ-Napiriæa), is evidence of this policy, which had been initiated under the "Kidinuids." Whereas the Epartids had adopted their titulary, gods, and language from the Susians, the Igihalkids emphasized the Elamite aspect of Susiana. Documents written in Akkadian are thus especially rare from their rule, and most are only curses against those who might tamper with dedicated works, as if such outrages could come only from Mesopotamia. Second, the old royal title "king of Anshan and of Susa" was revived. Finally and most important, the gods of the plateau appeared in force in Susiana. For example, the attitude of Untaæ-Napiriæa at Ùog@a Zanb^l is revealing. The king began by constructing a small ziggurat in the middle of a courtyard 105 m2 surrounded by temples. This first ziggurat bore the obligatory dedication to the tutelary god of Susa and Susiana, Inæuæinak. But very quickly the king changed his mind and undertook construction of a large ziggurat. The small one was destroyed, and the buildings that surrounded the square courtyard were incorporated in the first story of the new monument, which consisted of five stories, each smaller in area than the one below (Ghirshman; Amiet, 1966, pp. 344-49). It must be emphasized that the new building was dedicated jointly to Napiriæa, the principal god of Anshan, and to Inæuæinak, who was always mentioned second, or even third when Kiririæa, the associate of Napiriæa, was also named. The primacy of the Elamite component over that of Susa was thus reflected on the divine plane. But the situation was even more complex. Within three concentric walls at Ùog@a Zanb^l temples were constructed for different gods of the new Suso-Elamite pantheon, and it seems that all the constituent elements in the Elamite confederation were represented (Steve, 1967). For example, Pinikir, Humban, Kirmaæir, and Nahhunte probably belonged to the Awanite pantheon, whereas Ruhurater and Hiæmitik were of Simaækian origin. Among the Anshanite gods the pair Napiriæa and Kiririæa, as well as Kilah-æupir and Manzat, can be mentioned. Other divinities of Suso-Mesopotamian origin, like Inæuæinak, Iæmekarab, Nabu, ˆamaæ, and Adad, helped to establish a balance between Elamite and Susian power. The creation of this city from nothing had more a political than a religious character, for it implied the cultural and political subjugation of Susiana by the old Elamite confederation. Curiously, this huge complex was quickly abandoned. No king other than Untaæ-Napiriæa left his name there, and ˆutruk-Nahhunte reported having carried some inscriptions from Dur-Untaæ to Susa. Nothing is known of the two immediate successors of Untaæ-Napiriæa, Kidin-Hutran II and Napiriæa-Untaæ. The campaigns led by the last sovereign of the dynasty, Kidin-Hutran III, against the Kassite kings Enlil-nadin-æumi and Adad-æuma-iddina of Babylonia are evidence that the good relations that had existed between the two royal families had quickly deteriorated.

The ˆutrukid dynasty (ca. 1210-1100 B.C.E.). Under the ˆutrukids Susa regained its greatness, which had been somewhat eclipsed by Ùog@a Zanb^l, and Elamite civilization shone in all its glory. The riches of ˆutruk-Nahhunte and his three sons and successors, Kutir-Nahhunte II, ˆilhak-Inæuæinak, and Hutelutuæ-Inæuæinak permitted these new "kings of Anshan and of Susa" to undertake frequent military expeditions against Kassite Mesopotamia and to embellish the Elamite empire and particularly Susiana with luxuriously restored temples.

ˆutruk-Nahhunte, son of Hallutuæ-Inæuæinak, perhaps following the Babylonian rejection of the Elamite claims to sovereignty in the Berlin letter discussed above, undertook several campaigns against Mesopotamia, whence he carried off a number of trophies, which he had inscribed with his name. It is thus known that he raided Akkad, Babylon, and Eænunna, from the last of which he carried off the statues of Maniætusu. It was he who brought to Susa such renowned documents as the code of Hammurabi and the stele of Naram-Sin. In 1158 B.C.E. he killed the Kassite king, Zababa-æuma-iddina, and placed his own eldest son, Kutir-Nahhunte, on the throne of Babylon. When ˆutruk-Nahhunte died Kutir-Nahhunte succeeded him and continued his policy in Mesopotamia, putting an end to the long Kassite dynasty by deposing Enlil-nadin-ahi (1157-55 B.C.E.). He reigned only a short time before he was succeeded by his brother ˆilhak-Inæuæinak, who left a large number of inscriptions in Elamite, recording his numerous campaigns against Mesopotamia, on one hand, and, on the other, dedicating to the gods temples that he built or restored; for example, on one stele twenty temples "of the grove" in Susiana and Elam are mentioned (König, 1965, no. 48). The last king of the dynasty, Hutelutuæ-Inæuæinak, who called himself sometimes "son of Kutir-Nahhunte and of ˆilhak-Inæuæinak" and sometimes "son of ˆutruk-Nahhunte, of Kutir-Nahhunte, and of ˆilhak-Inæuæinak," was probably a son of ˆutruk-Nahhunte by his own daughter, Nahhunte-utu (Vallat, 1985, pp. 43-50; idem, 1994), apparently another example of incest in the royal Elamite family. Less brilliant than his predecessors, Hutelutuæ-Inæuæinak had to abandon Susa briefly to Nebuchadnezzar (1125-04 B.C.E.). He took refuge at Anshan, where he built or restored a temple (Lambert; Reiner, 1973b), then returned to Susa, where his brother ˆilhina-amru-Lagamar may have succeeded him. With this king Elamite power faded from the political scene for a long time.

The Neo-Elamite Period (1100-539 B.C.E.).

The essential element that distinguished the Neo-Elamite period was the massive arrival of Iranians on the Iranian plateau, which had the result of reducing still further what remained of the former Elamite empire. Although these invaders appeared only late in the Elamite texts, they were documented in Assyrian sources, where two groups of Medes were distinguished: the Medes or "powerful Medes" and the "distant Medes" or "Medes who live beside Mount Bikni, the mountain of lapis lazuli." The first group, which occupied the region around Ecbatana (q.v.; modern Hamada@n), was well-known because of its frequent and often warlike contacts with the Assyrians, but the second group, which encompassed all the tribes that held territories between the region around modern Tehran and eastern Afghanistan was not; the Achaemenids (and following them Herodotus) designated the latter group by their proper names: Parthians, Sagartians, Arians, Margians, Bactrians, Sogdians, and probably neighboring peoples. In the Assyrian annals, however, all these Iranian tribes were confused under the general appellation "distant Medes." An identification of Mount Bikni with Dama@vand (q.v.; Cameron, p. 149) or Alvand (Levine, 1974, pp. 118-19) must thus be rejected. An identification with the sources of lapis lazuli in Badakòæan was not only credited by some classical authors but also lends a certain coherence to history, whether recorded by Assyrians, Elamites, or Iranians (Vallat, 1993).

The slow progression of the Medes and the Persians across the plateau pushed the Elamites in the region of Anshan toward Susiana, which had been the second center of their empire for almost a millennium and a half. The country of Anshan gradually became Persia proper while Susiana then—and only then—became known as Elam. In most sources of the period, particularly those from Mesopotamia, Susiana is designated as Elam. Nevertheless, the Neo-Elamite kings (Table 3) still called themselves "king of Anshan and of Susa," except for the last three, Ummanunu, ˆilhak-Inæuæinak II, and Tepti-Humban-Inæuæinak.

Neo-Elamite I (ca. 1100-770 B.C.E.). No Elamite document from this first phase of two and a half centuries provides any historical information. The tablets from Malyan (Stolper, 1984), which M.-J. Steve (1992, p. 21) attributes to the beginning of the period, reveal that Anshan was still at least partially Elamite, for almost all the individuals mentioned in them had names of Elamite origin. Mesopotamian tablets from the same period offer very little additional information; it is known only that the Babylonian king Mar-biti-apla-usáur (984-79 B.C.E.) was of Elamite origin and that Elamite troops fought on the side of the Babylonian king Marduk-balassu-iqbi against the Assyrian forces under ˆamæi-Adad V (823-11 B.C.E.).

Neo-Elamite II (ca. 770-646 B.C.E.). Only after the middle of the 8th century B.C.E. does the Babylonian Chronicle (Grayson, 1975) provide the elements of a historical framework, particularly the role of Elam in the conflicts between Babylonians and Assyrians. The king Humban-nikaæ (743-17 B.C.E.), son of Humban-tahra and brother of Humban-umena II, came to the aid of Merodach-baladan against the Assyrian Sargon II, which seems to have had little permanent result, as his successor, ˆutruk-Nahhunte II (716-699), son of Humban-umena II, had to flee from Sargon's troops during an attempt on the region of De@r in 710. The Elamite was again defeated by Sargon's troops two years later; finally he was beaten by Sargon's son Sennacherib, who dethroned Merodach-baladan and installed his own son Aææur-nadin-æumi on the throne of Babylon. ˆutruk-Nahhunte was then murdered by his brother Halluæu, mentioned in the Babylonian Chronicle (698-93). After several skirmishes with the troops of Sennacherib, Halluæu was assassinated and replaced by Kudur, who quickly abdicated the throne in favor of Humban-umena III (692-89). Humban-umena recruited a new army, including troops from Ellipi, Parsumaæ, and Anshan, in order to assist the Babylonians in the battle against the Assyrians at Halule on the Tigris in 691. Each side proclaimed itself the victor, but Babylon was taken by the Assyrians two years later. Elamite relations with Babylonia began to deteriorate during the reign of Humban-haltaæ II (680-75), son of Humban-haltaæ I (688-81), which may explain why his brother and successor, Urtak (674-64), at first maintained good relations with the Assyrian king Aææurbanipal (668-27), who helped him by sending wheat during a famine. But peaceable relations with Assyria also deteriorated, and it was after a new Elamite attack on Mesopotamia that the king died. He was replaced on the throne by Te-Umman (664-53 B.C.E.). The new king was the object of a new attack by Assurbanipal, who, after the battle of the Ulaï in 653, put an end to the king's life. After this victory Aææurbanipal installed in power the son of Urtak, who had taken refuge in Assyria. Humban-nikaæ II (Akkadian Ummanigaæ) was installed at Madaktu, an advance post toward Mesopotamia, and Tammaritu at Hidalu, a retreat in the eastern mountains on the road to Anshan. These two towns thus functioned as capitals from the beginning of the 7th century, to the detriment of Susa. The war that broke out between Aææurbanipal and his brother ˆamaæ-æum-ukin, whom he had installed on the throne of Babylon, provided some respite for the Elamites, who profited from it to fight among themselves. Tammaritu captured the throne of Humban-nikaæ II and was in turn driven out to Assyria by Indabigaæ, who was himself killed by Humban-haltaæ III in 648. The collapse of the Elamite kingdom seems even clearer when it is realized that a certain Umba-habua reigned at Bupila and that Pa'e was called "king of Elam" at B^t-Imbi. The coup de grace, however, was delivered by Aææurbanipal in 646, when he sacked Susa after having devastated the whole of Susiana (Streck; Aynard; Grayson, 1975).

The defeat of the Elamites was, however, less devastating than Aææurbanipal made it appear in his annals, for after his victory the Elamite kingdom rose from the ashes with ˆutur-Nahhunte, son of Humban-umena III.

Neo-Elamite III (646-539?B.C.E.). So far nothing has been known about the century between the sack of Susa by Aææurbanipal in 646 and the conquest of Susiana, thus of Elam, by the Achaemenids, perhaps by Cyrus in 539. This apparent gap in the history was owing in fact to two errors of interpretation by modern scholars, who, first, considered that the Neo-Elamite kings ˆutruk-Nahhunte, son of Humban-umena; ˆutur-Nahhunte, son of Humban-umena; and sometimes even ˆutur-Nahhunte, son of Indada, were the names of a single sovereign (Hinz, 1964, pp. 115-20). Now, it is possible to show that they belonged to three different individuals. The first, who reigned from 717 to 699, is known from the Mesopotamian sources. He was the son of Humban-umena II (ca. 743), whereas ˆutur-Nahhunte was the son of Humban-umena III (692-89) and reigned after the fall of Susa. As for ˆutur-Nahhunte, son of Indada, he was a petty king in the region of Èza/Mala@m^r in the first half of the 6th century (Vallat, 1995).

The second error of interpretation was to have considered the names of the Elamite kings mentioned in the Mesopotamian documents as simple distortions of the names of kings known from their inscriptions at Susa. For example, it was believed that the name ˆutruk-Nahhunte was rendered ˆutur-Nahhunte in Assyria and Iætar-hundu in Babylonia. Again, it can be demonstrated from internal analysis of the Elamite documents that these identifications are erroneous and that, with the exception of ˆutruk-Nahhunte II, all the Neo-Elamite kings known from Susian inscriptions reigned after Aææurbanipal's sack of Susa (Vallat, 1996).

For this period no text furnishes a synchronism with Mesopotamia. Nevertheless, one group of more than 300 tablets (Scheil, 1909) can be dated by the iconography of their seal impressions to the first quarter of the 6th century. Analysis of the language of these documents, which was no longer classical but not yet Achaemenid, reveals details that permit a chronology in relation to other inscriptions. In addition, on one of these tablets a king (Ummanunu) and on another the name of Humban-kitin, who was probably the son of ˆutur-Nahhunte, are mentioned (Vallat, 1995). It is thus possible to locate the reigns of ˆutur-Nahhunte, son of Humban-umena III; Hallutaæ-Inæuæinak, son of Humban-tahra II; and Atta-hamiti-Inæuæinak, son of Hutran-tepti in the second half of the 7th century. Ummanunu, who is mentioned in the tablets from the Acropolis, appears to have been the father of ˆilhak-Inæuæinak II, himself the father of Tepti-Humban-Inæuæinak. These three individuals ruled in succession between 585 and about 539, at a time when Elamite royalty seems to have been fragmented among different small kingdoms, though it is not possible to determine that there was any sort of vassal relationship with the king of Susa. It is thus known that ˆutur-Nahhunte, son of Indada ruled in the region of Mala@m^r; Humban-æuturuk, son of ˆati-hupiti, probably in the region of Kesat in what was later Elymais; and the first Achaemenids over the city of Anshan. It is interesting to note that the three kings at the end of the 7th century (ˆutur-Nahhunte, Hallutaæ-Inæuæinak, and Atta-hamiti-Inæuæinak) still called themselves "king of Anzan and of Susa" or "enlarger of the kingdom of Anzan and of Susa," whereas Ummanunu and ˆilhak-Inæuæinak II bore the simple title "king," without any further specification, and Tepti-Humban-Inæuæinak did not even allude to his royal position! This last known king of Elam did boast, however, of having led a campaign in the Zagros.

The Achaemenid period (539-331 B.C.E.).

With the Achaemenids in general and Darius I (q.v.) in particular Susa regained its previous greatness, but Elam lost its independence, becoming the third "province" of the empire, after Persis and Media. Curiously, in that period, though the country was called Elam (Elamite Hatamtu, Akkadian NIM) in the sources, in Old Persian it was called Susiana (Uja). Susa eclipsed the other capitals, like Anshan and Pasargadae, in Cyrus' time and even Persepolis, founded by Darius himself, and Ecbatana. It is striking, for example, that officials traveling to such distant destinations as Egypt, India, or Arachosia departed from Susa and returned to Susa, as confirmed in numerous archival tablets found at Persepolis (Hallock, nos. 1285-1579). Furthermore, these documents were written in Elamite, as if Darius had wished to make use of a class of scribes belonging to an already existing administration. The majority of royal inscriptions were written in Old Persian, Akkadian, and Elamite versions, but Elamite had by then absorbed Iranian influences in both structure and vocabulary. The Elamite gods, after having benefited from a final revival of the cult under Darius and Xerxes, disappeared forever from the documents. Elam was absorbed into the new empire, which changed the face of the civilized world at that time.

Bibliography: (For abbreviations found in this bibliography, see "Short References.") P. Amiet, Élam, Auvers-sur-Oise, France, 1966. Idem, "Archaeological Discontinuity and Ethnic Duality in Elam," Antiquity 53, 1979, pp. 195-204. Idem, L'âge des e‚changes inter-iraniens, 3500-1700 avant J.-C., Notes et Documents des Muse‚es de France 11, Paris, 1986. J.-M. Aynard, Le prisme du Louvre AO 19.939, Paris, 1957. J. A. Brinkman, Prelude to Empire. Babylonian Society and Politics, 747-626 B.C., Occasional Publications of the Babylonian Fund 7, Philadelphia, 1984. G. G. Cameron, History of Early Iran, Chicago, 1936. D. Charpin, "Les Élamites aà ˆubat-Enlil," in Fragmenta Historiae Elamicae, Me‚langes offerts aà M.-J. Steve, Paris, 1986, pp. 129-37. Idem, "Une alliance contre l'Élam et le rituel du lipit napiætim," in Contribution aà l'histoire de l'Iran. Me‚langes offerts aà Jean Perrot, Paris, 1990, pp. 109-18. Idem and J.-M. Durand, "La suzerainete‚ de l'empereur (sukkalmah) d'Élam sur la Me‚sopotamie et le 'nationalisme' amorrite," in L. De Meyer and H. Gasche, eds., Me‚sopotamie et Elam. Actes de la XXXVIeàme Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Mesopotamian History and Environment, Occasional Publications 1, Ghent, 1991, pp. 59-66. J.-M. Durand, "Fragments rejoints pour une histoire e‚lamite," in Fragmenta Historiae Elamicae. Me‚langes offerts aà M.-J. Steve, Paris, 1986, pp. 111-28. Idem, "Fourmis blanches et fourmis noires," in Contribution aà l'histoire de l'Iran. Me‚langes offerts aà Jean Perrot, Paris, 1990, pp. 101-08.

M. Gassan, "Hurpatila, roi d'Elammat," AIUON 49/3, 1989, pp. 223-29. I. J. Gelb and B. Kienast, Die altakkadischen Königsinschriften des dritten Jahrtausends v. Chr., Freiburger altorientalische Studien 7, Stuttgart, 1990. R. Ghirshman, Tchoga Zanbil (Dur Untash) I. La ziggurat, Me‚moires de la Mission arche‚ologique en Iran 39, Paris, 1966. A. K. Grayson, "The Empire of Sargon of Akkad," Archiv für Orientforschung 25, 1974-77, pp. 56-64. Idem, Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles. Texts from Cuneiform Sources V, Locust Valley, N.Y., 1975. R. T. Hallock, Persepolis Fortification Tablets, Oriental Institute Publications 92, Chicago, 1969. J. Hansman, "Elamites, Achaemenians and Anshan," Iran 10, 1972, pp. 101-25. P. Herrero, "Tablettes administratives de Haft-Te‚pe‚," CDAFI 6, 1976, pp. 93-116. W. Hinz, The Lost World of Elam, London, 1972. Idem und H. Koch, Elamisches Wörterbuch, AMI, Ergänzungsbd. 17, Berlin, 1987. H. Hirsch, "Die Inschriften der Könige von Agade," Archiv für Orientforschung 20, 1963, pp. 1-82. F. W. König, "Geschichte Elams," Der Alte Orient 29, 1931, pp. 1-38. Idem, Die elamischen Königsinschriften, Archiv für Orientforschung, Beiheft 16, Graz, 1965. R. Kutscher, The Brockmon Tablets at the University of Haïfa. Royal Inscriptions, Haifa, 1989. M. Lambert, "Hutelutush-Insushnak et le pays d'Anzan," RA 66, 1972, pp. 61-76. A. Le Brun, "Chantier de l'Acropole I," Pale‚orient 4, 1978, pp. 177-92. L. Levine, "Geographical Studies in the Neo-Assyrian Zagros II," Iran 12, 1974, pp. 99-124. P. de Miroschedji, "Note sur la glyptique de la fin de l'Élam," RA 76, 1982, pp. 51-63. E. Reiner, "Inscription from a Royal Elamite Tomb," Archiv für Orientforschung 24, 1973a, pp. 87-104. Idem, "The Location of Anshan," RA 67, 1973b, pp. 57-62. V. Scheil, Textes e‚lamites-anzanites, 3e se‚r., Me‚moires de la De‚le‚gation en Perse 9, Paris, 1907. Idem, Actes juridiques susiens, Me‚moires de la Mission arche‚ologique en Perse 22, Paris, 1930. Idem, "Dynasties e‚lamites d'Awan et de Simaæ," RA 28, 1931, pp. 1-8. Idem, Actes juridiques susiens (suite: n° 166 aà n° 327), Me‚moires de la Mission arche‚ologique en Perse 23, Paris, 1932. Idem, Actes juridiques susiens (suite: n° 328 aà n° 395), Me‚moires de la Mission arche‚ologique en Perse 24, Paris, 1933. Idem, Me‚langes e‚pigraphiques, Me‚moires de la Mission arche‚ologique en Perse 28, Paris, 1939. E. Sollberger, "A Tankard of Atta-huæu," Journal of Cuneiform Studies 22, 1968-69, pp. 30-33. Idem and J.-R. Kupper, Les inscriptions royales sume‚riennes et akkadiennes, Paris, 1971. M.-J. Steve, Tchoga Zanbil (Dur-Untash) III. Textes e‚lamites et accadiens de Tchoga Zanbil, Me‚moires de la De‚le‚gation arche‚ologique en Iran 41, Paris, 1967. Idem, "La fin de l'Élam. À propos d'une empreinte de sceau-cylindre," Stud. Ir. 15, 1986, pp. 7-21. Idem, Nouveaux me‚langes e‚pigraphiques. Inscriptions royales de Suse et de la Susiane, Me‚moires de la De‚le‚gation arche‚ologique en Iran 53, Nice, 1987. Idem, "Des sceaux-cylindres de Simaæki?" RA 83, 1989, pp. 13-26. Idem, "Élam. Histoire continue ou discontinue?" in L. De Meyer and H. Gasche, eds., Me‚sopotamie et Elam, Actes de la XXXVIeàme Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Meso-potamian History and Environment, Occasional Publications I, Ghent, 1991, pp. 1-9. Idem, Syllabaire e‚lamite. Histoire et pale‚ographie, Neuchâtel-Paris, 1992. Idem, H. Gasche, and L. De Meyer, "La Susiane au deuxieàme mille‚naire. À propos d'une interpre‚tation des fouilles de Suse," Iranica Antiqua 15, 1980, pp. 49-154. M.-J. Steve and F. Vallat, "La dynastie des Igihalkides. Nouvelles interpre‚tations," in Archaeologia Iranica et Orientalis. Miscellanea in Honorem Louis Vanden Berghe, Ghent, 1989, pp. 223-38. M. W. Stolper, "On the Dynasty of ˆimaæki and the Early Sukkalmahs," ZA 72, 1982, pp. 42-67. Idem, Texts from Tall-i Malyan I. Elamite Administrative Texts (1972-1974), Occasional Publications of the Babylonian Fund 6, Philadelphia, 1984. Idem, "Political History," in E. Carter and M. W. Stolper, Elam. Surveys of Political History and Archaeology, Near Eastern Studies 25, Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1984. M. Streck, Assurbanipal und die letzten assyrischen Könige bis zum Untergange Niniveh's, Vorderasiatische Bibliothek 7, Leipzig, 1916. F. Thureau-Dangin, Die sumerischen und akkadischen Königsinschriften, Vorderasiatische Bibliothek 1/1, Leipzig, 1907.

F. Vallat, Suse et l'Élam, Recherche sur les grandes civilisations, Me‚moire 1, Paris, 1980. Idem, "Kidin-Hutran et l'e‚poque ne‚o-e‚lamite," Akkadica 37, 1984, pp. 1-17. Idem, "Hutelutuæ-Inæuæinak et la famille royale e‚lamite," RA 79, 1985, pp. 43-50. Idem, "The Most Ancient Scripts of Iran. The Current Situation," World Archaeology 17/3, 1986, pp. 335-47. Idem, "L'expression ADDA LUGAL an-æan uà MU˜ˆ.EREN dans un texte d'Atta-huæu," Nouvelles assyriologiques breàves et utilitaires, 1989a, pp. 75-76 no. 101. Idem, "Le scribe Ibni-Adad et les premiers sukkalmah," Nouvelles assyriologiques breàves et utilitaires, 1989b, pp. 23-24 no. 34. Idem, "Re‚flexions sur l'e‚poque des sukkalmah," in Contribution aà l'histoire de l'Iran. Me‚langes offerts aà Jean Perrot, Paris, 1990, pp. 119-27. Idem, "La ge‚ographie de l'Élam d'apreàs quelques textes me‚sopotamiens" in L. De Meyer and H. Gasche, eds., Me‚sopotamie et Elam. Actes de la XXXVIeàme Rencontre Assyrio-logique Internationale, Mesopotamian History and Environment Occasional Publications 1, Ghent, 1991, pp. 11-21. Idem, "Succession royale en Élam au IIeàme mille‚naire," in Cinquante-deux re‚flexions sur le Proche-Orient ancien offertes aà Le‚on De Meyer, Mesopotamian History and Environment, Occasional Publications 2, 1994, pp. 1-14. Idem, "ˆutruk-Nahunte, ˆutur-Nahunte et l'imbroglio ne‚o-e‚lamite," Nouvelles assyriologiques breàves et utilitaires, 1995, pp. 37-38. Idem, "Nouvelle analyse des inscriptions ne‚o-e‚lamites," forthcoming. Idem et al., Les noms ge‚ographiques des sources suso-e‚lamites, TAVO, Beihefte, Re‚pertoire ge‚ographique des textes cune‚iformes 11, Wiesbaden, 1993. J. Van Dijk, "Iæbi-Erra, Kindattu, l'homme d'Élam et la chute de la ville d'Ur," Journal of Cuneiform Studies 30, 1978, pp. 189-208. Idem, "Die dynastischen Heiraten zwischen Kassiten und Elamern. Eine verhäng-nisvolle Politik" Orientalia 55, 1986, pp. 159-70. F. H. Weissbach, Die Keilinschriften der Achämeniden, Vorderasiatische Bibliothek 3, Leipzig, 1911. C. Wilcke, "Die Inschriftenfunde der 7. und 8. Kampagnen (1983 und 1984)," in B. Hrouda, Isin. Iæa@n-Bahr^ya@t III. Die Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen 1983-1984, Abh. Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Phil.-hist. Kl., N.F. 94, Munich, 1987, pp. 83-120. T. C. Young, "The Early History of the Medes and the Persians and the Achaemenid Empire to the Death of Cambyses," Cambridge Ancient History IV, 1988, pp. 1-52.

(FRANÇOIS VALLAT)

The archeological use of the term "Elam" is based on a loose unity recognizable in the material cultures of the period 3400-525 B.C.E. at Susa in K¨u@zesta@n, at Anshan (q.v.) in Fa@rs, and at sites in adjacent areas of the Zagros mountains, particularly in the modern provinces of Loresta@n, Kordesta@n, and Kerma@n (Figures 1, 2; Carter, 1984, p. 103). Text-based definitions (see i, above; cf. Steinkeller, 1988; idem, 1990) often lead to interpretations that are at odds with those derived from the study of material culture. This article is based on evidence from controlled excavations and surveys in the geographically diverse areas called Elam in a general cultural sense, though not in a more precise geographical sense. Most of the archeologically excavated material comes from the large site of Susa.

The archeological record.

Susa was excavated almost continuously from the late nineteenth century until the Persian revolution of 1357 ˆ./1978. Both Jacques de Morgan and Robert de Mecquenem, the successive directors of the French archeological mission from 1897 to 1946, were trained as mining engineers and brought that background of large-scale earth removal to archeology. They were also uninterested in the excavation of mud-brick buildings and little concerned with archeological contexts and associations. Roman Ghirshman, director from 1946 to 1967, adopted the "organic" method of excavation, clearing large areas of mud-brick buildings, in order to gain an idea of the overall city plan in the 2nd millennium B.C.E. Controlled stratigraphic excavations at the site began only in the 1960s, when first M.-J. Steve and then Jean Perrot became directors of the French archeological mission at Susa. Although large numbers of objects were found in earlier campaigns, the relative chronology of this material has only recently been established (Carter, 1992, pp. 20-24). Other excavations, in K¨u@zesta@n, Fa@rs, Loresta@n, and Kerma@n, have been so much smaller in scale and shorter in duration that comparisons with Susa are difficult (for summaries of these smaller excavations and surveys in both K¨u@zesta@n and the highlands, as well as comprehensive bibliographies, see Carter, 1984, pp. 108-10; Hole, 1987, pp. 293-321).

The setting.

Elam was distinct from the contemporary civilizations of Sumer and the Indus valley in the episodic cultural and political integration of large expanses of geographically diverse territory. The lines of communication between Susa and Anshan, the largest cities of Elam, as well as with other, more distant mountain regions, were limited in number and generally difficult, owing to rugged topography. Neither Susa nor Anshan was centrally located in its own region or lay directly on major international trade routes; both could easily be bypassed through the Persian Gulf, on the sea route between Mesopotamia and the Indus valley. Susiana, the plain in which Susa is located, was the only large lowland region in Elam, an extension of the Mesopotamian plain. It is the best known from excavations, but, because of its location, its material culture was also the most heavily influenced by Mesopotamia of any Elamite region. Many upland valleys in the folds of the Zagros were linked with Susa culturally or politically at various points in its history. Most prominent were the Kor river basin in Fa@rs ca. 500 km southeast, where Anshan was situated, and Loresta@n and Kordesta@n, where the Simaæki lands may have been located (Henrickson, 1984; for another view, see i, above). These highland areas, which are still for the most part unexplored, are considered to have been the Elamite core. The southeastern Zagros, where large deposits of copper ores have been identified, are known through excavations at Tepe Sialk (S^a@lk), Tepe Yahya (Yaháya@), Tall-i Iblis (Ebl^s), and Shahdad (ˆahda@d). Excavated finds suggest that this region was part of the Elamite cultural world, at least in some periods (cf. Amiet, 1986, pp. 160-70, referring to the region as "trans-Elamite"). Both Susiana in the west and the regions to the southeast in the Kerma@n range should perhaps be considered the Elamite periphery. Mobile pastoralism and agriculture formed the basis of economic life in Elam, but trade and exchange with lowland Mesopotamia, particularly in metals, timber, and various stones, also played a part in the Elamite economy from as early as the 4th millennium B.C.E. (Alizadeh, 1988; Algaze, pp. 11-18).

The Proto-Elamite (Susa III/Banesh) period, ca. 3400/3200-2800 B.C.E.

The Proto-Elamite period was characterized by a distinctive assemblage of artifacts and an artistic style distributed from Loresta@n in the west to Kerma@n in the east. The artifacts include administrative texts written in the still undeciphered proto-Elamite script (see iii, below; Plate I); a distinctive glyptic style (Pittman, 1992a; see CYLINDER SEALS, p. 485); ceramics (cf. Le Brun, 1971, figs. 60-66; see CERAMICS vi); and various stone and metal objects made from materials mined, worked, or both in the Iranian highlands and shipped east and west. The establishment of a city at Anshan during the Proto-Elamite period (also called Banesh after the corresponding archeological phase in central Fa@rs) and smaller outposts at Tepe Sialk and Tepe Yahya in the eastern highlands suggest that the foundations of the union between lowland and highland regions characteristic of later Elam were first laid in the late 4th millennium. The archeological evidence also indicates that in the Kerma@n range an indigenous population coexisted with a foreign, Proto-Elamite group; the latter had an administrative technology and material culture closely linked to, if not imported from, those known from Susa or Anshan (Carter, 1984, pp. 115-32).

Susa remains the site of reference for any discussion of the Proto-Elamite period, as controlled stratigraphic work on the Acropole (Le Brun, 1971; idem, 1978) has led to a more exact definition of the assemblage. Earlier excavations had also yielded more than 1,450 tablets written in the Proto-Elamite script and a large corpus of contemporary seals and sealings (Damerow and Englund, p. 2 n. 4; Harper et al., pp. 70-77 nos. 48). Excavations at Anshan (Sumner, 1974; idem, 1976) have revealed the construction of a city wall and a sequence (ABC levels IV-II) of mud-brick public buildings dated to the Proto-Elamite (Banesh) period (Plate II). Most remarkable are the building phases from levels III and II in operation ABC. The level-III structure was precisely constructed and had painted walls (Plate III); the level-II building was a fragmentary large structure containing twelve painted pithoi, indicating a central storage facility. Some idea of daily life in Proto-Elamite Anshan can be gained from a building characterized by domestic installations and areas of small-scale craft activity, called TUV, on the edge of the city (Nicholas). By 3000 B.C.E. Anshan, estimated at 50 ha (Sumner, 1988, p. 317), had become the largest known settlement in Elam. Contemporary Susa is estimated at less than 11 ha. There were no other large settlements in Susiana during the Proto-Elamite period. The rapid growth of Anshan, coinciding with the decline of population in Susiana, led J. R. Alden (1982, p. 620; 1987, pp. 159, 164 table 28) to suggest emigration from lowland Susiana to Anshan just before 3000 B.C.E.

The Old Elamite period (ca. 2600-1600 B.C.E.).

The dynasties of Awan and Simaæki. The period in which these two dynasties reigned corresponds approximately to periods IV-V at Susa (ca. 2600-1900 B.C.E.; Schacht). At sites in the Kerma@n range Proto-Elamite administrative texts and associated glyptic and ceramics fell into disuse at some time between 2900 and 2800. At Anshan a gap in the sequence occurs at ca. 2600, and the site was not reoccupied on an urban scale until the Kaftari phase (ca. 2200), when the Proto-Elamite city wall was repaired (Sumner, 1988, p. 317). Proto-Elamite tablets and seals disappeared at Susa at about the same time as in the Kerma@n range. Statues and wall plaques found without clear contexts on the Acropole indicate the presence of a temple of Mesopotamian type, albeit a rather poor example (Amiet, 1976). Susian ceramics datable to the mid-3rd millennium are not of Mesopotamian inspiration, however. Monochrome-painted wares decorated with birds, plants, and geometric motifs (Henrickson, 1986, pp. 15-16 table 3) and accompanying plain wares have their closest analogues in assemblages from Loresta@n and Kordesta@n (Godin III6-5; CERAMICS vii).

Susa grew from approximately 11 to 46 ha during the 3rd millennium. According to textual sources, it was a border city alternately under control of the highland polities of Awan and Simaæki and the Akkadian and Ur III empires of Mesopotamia. To a degree these shifting relations are reflected in the archeological record, for example, the increasing popularity of Akkadian glyptic and ceramic types and the disappearance of monochrome-painted wares in Susa IVB (Carter, 1980, pp. 25-30). After the Akkadian period, seals (CYLINDER SEALS, pp. 486-92) and ceramics in Susiana continued to be strongly influenced by Mesopotamian styles through the 3rd and most of the 2nd millennia; at Susa, for example, buff-ware cups, bowls, and goblets were similar to, though not identical with, Mesopotamian pottery forms (CERAMICS viii).

Only a few small scattered settlements appeared elsewhere in Susiana during the last centuries of the 3rd millennium. Tepe Mussian (Mu@s^a@n), on the Deh Loran (q.v.) plain 90 km to the northwest of Susa, was the only other large town (14 ha) of this period in K¨u@zesta@n (Schacht, pp. 174-75; Wright, 1981, pp. 192-95).

In Loresta@n, in the Poæt-e Ku@h, several small groups of stone-built underground burial chambers have been investigated; they are located apart from settlement sites. These cemeteries, datable ca. 2600-2400 B.C.E., attest to a period of prosperity in the region (Vanden Berghe, pp. 39-50). Funerary goods in the larger tombs included copper or bronze weapons and ceramic pots closely paralleling those of Susa IVA and Godin III6-5 (Henrickson, 1986, pp. 23-25). Around 2400 these tombs were superseded by smaller stone cist graves also grouped in cemeteries isolated from settlement sites. Claire Goff (pp. 150-51) points out that new settlements were appearing along traditional migration routes during the late 3rd millennium and that these changes in the locations of settlements away from prime farming land may have reflected a shift from agriculture to stock breeding and the beginning of transhumance in the region. Farther north the establishment of towns at sites like Godin (Gowd^n) Tepe, Girairan (Gereyra@n), and Tepe Giyan (G^a@n) indicate a period of growth in Loresta@n. The painted-ceramic assemblage called Godin III, dating from the mid-to-late 3rd millennium, though modified over time, continued in use in Loresta@n until the second half of the 2nd millennium, when it was superseded by Iron I wares (Henrickson, 1987).

During the second half of the 3rd millennium B.C.E. cities, presumably the centers of larger states, also grew up in the areas southeast of Anshan. Shahdad, on the western edge of the Daæt-e Lu@t, and Shahr-i Sokhta (ˆahr-e Su@kòta) in the Helmand river valley on the Afghan border are the two best-known sites (Hakemi; Lamberg-Karlovsky and Tosi). It is possible that Shahdad (ˆahda@d) should be considered an Elamite center, but limited excavation and publication of the archeological finds prevent final identification. Material remains discovered there and at Tepe Yahya, 250 km to the southwest, date from the late 3rd through the early 2nd millennium. These finds show links with the east (in ceramics, compartmentalized stamp seals, various exotic stones) and the west (cylinder seals, stone and ceramic vessels, a Proto-Elamite B inscription; Carter, 1984, pp. 136-41; Amiet, 1986, pp. 160-70). Growth in the Shahdad region may perhaps have been initially stimulated by an earlier Proto-Elamite presence in the area, but by the mid-3rd millennium the city was the major urban center in the region, identified by Piotr Steinkeller (1982; 1990) with Marhaæi and by François Vallat (1993, pp. cxiii-cxviii) with Simaæki.

At Tepe Yahya a workshop for making chlorite vessels was discovered in level IVB (ca. 2600-2300 B.C.E.). Chlorite vessels decorated in the intercultural, or "old," style were shipped from Yahya and presumably neighboring sites to Mesopotamian temples, as well as to destinations in the east (Kohl, pp. 464-66). A simpler, "new," style of chlorite vessel and "Persian Gulf seals" were found together at later sites on the Persian Gulf and in Susa and Mesopotamia. These discoveries, as well as the use of Omani copper in Mesopotamia by the mid-3rd millennium, attest to use of the sea route between Mesopotamia and eastern Iran in the late 3rd millennium. By period IVA (ca. 2300-1800 B.C.E.) Tepe Yahya had reached its maximum size and come within the sphere of influence of the Shahdad culture (de Miroschedji, 1973; Carter, 1990, pp. 97-98).

The Sukkalmah Period (ca. 1900-1600 B.C.E.). Early in the 2nd millennium Susa expanded and became a city covering an estimated 85 ha. New towns and villages appeared all over the Susiana plain and in the surrounding upland valleys (Schacht, pp. 177-80; Carter, 1984, pp. 146-55). Anshan and the Ku@r river basin also experienced a period of growth, and settlement in both areas reached a peak that remained unparalleled until the Achaemenid period (Sumner, 1988; de Miroschedji, 1990, p. 49-62). The distribution of small settlements across the Susiana plain and the Ku@r river basin suggests the agricultural exploitation of the two plains and the use of irrigation canals (Sumner, 1989; Carter, 1984). Texts from Susa and the relatively large number of villages and towns found in the plains indicate a high level of agricultural development in the period. Susa became a political capital and an international city active in Near Eastern politics and trade, a locus of cultural and commercial interchange between the mountain folk of the Zagros and the inhabitants of the Mesopotamian plain.

The excavations in Ville Royale A and B at Susa, conducted by Roman Ghirshman (for a complete bibliographic summary, see Steve et al., pp. 148-54), yielded archeological and architectural sequences spanning most of the 2nd millennium B.C. and provided evidence of town planning. Courtyard houses of mud brick opened from large intersecting streets or from smaller alleys. The dead were frequently buried in baked-brick (family?) tombs under house or courtyard floors; this custom remained in use at Susa until the middle of the 1st millennium.

In this period the repertoire of buff-ware ceramics at Susa was expanded to include such new forms as the "Elamite flask" with painted decoration and gray wares; these objects permit cross dating with the Kaftari assemblage at Anshan (Carter, 1979; idem, 1984, fig. 10).

Contemporary Anshan is much less well-known than Susa. The Kaftari ceramic assemblage, characterized by painted buff ware decorated with rows of birds (Plate IV), is clearly a local development, as are the plain and painted Kaftari red wares (cf. CERAMICS vi). These vessels were used along with plain buff wares reminiscent of Susian and Mesopotamian types. Cuneiform documents from Anshan also underscore the ties of the city with the lowlands in the sukkalmah period. There was a scribal school at Anshan (Stolper, 1976, pp. 90-91), and all known documents were written in both the language and format usual in Mesopotamia. So far no Elamite tablets from the early 2nd millennium B.C.E. have been found in Anshan, but it seems possible that they will appear in future excavations. The glyptic includes Mesopotamian-inspired pieces, an eastern group of cylinder and stamp seals distinguished by ladies in "crinolines," and "popular style" seals, usually of bitumen (cf. CYLINDER SEALS, pp. 489-90).

There is still little archeological evidence for this period from areas farther east, but to the northwest, in Loresta@n and Kordesta@n, the older towns of the Godin III4-3 cultures continued to be occupied.

The Middle Elamite period (ca. 1600-1000 B.C.E.).

The beginning of the Middle Elamite period is marked historically by the disappearance of the dynasty of the Sukkalmahs and the revival of the royal title "king of Susa and Anshan." The end is conventionally placed at ca. 1000 B.C.E. Few changes in material culture can be identified before the 8th century, however (de Miroschedji, 1981a; idem, 1982, pp. 60-63), and there are gaps in the written sources at both the beginning and the end of the period.

Middle Elamite I (1600-1350 B.C.E.). The archeological and art-historical distinctions that mark the beginning of the period are matters of debate (e.g., Carter, 1984, pp. 144-45; idem, 1994b; Steve, Gasche, and De Meyer, p. 78; Spycket, 1992a, pp. 230-33). This uncertainty reflects the absence of published stratigraphic information on the Ville Royale A at Susa and a scarcity of other documentation (cf. Vallat, 1990, pp. 124-25). Architectural remains from Susa AXII-XI include the large central building (ca. 1600-1450), possibly a beer hall and brothel associated with the cult (Trümpelmann, pp. 36-44), and a large courtyard house (the eastern complex) with a long construction history. The use of four pilasters attached to the long walls of the main reception room distinguished the Susian house plan from those common in Mesopotamia (Roaf, p. 82).

The major architectural remains known from this period are, however, at Kabnak (Haft Tepe) in the Susiana plain 25 km southeast of Susa. Excavated structures include a funerary temple and associated vaulted baked-brick underground tombs, as well as two mud-brick terraces (possibly the eroded cores of ziggurats) and adjacent rooms (Negahban, pp. 12-19, plans 1-7). One fragmentary inscribed stele found in the temple courtyard near the largest of the tombs indicates that the complex was part of a funerary cult center maintained by, if not built for, King Tepti-ahar in the 16th century B.C.E. (Reiner). Attached to the larger mud-brick terrace were a double-chambered kiln and a workshop area, providing evidence of metal, bone, mosaic, and shell-working, as well as ceramic production and the modeling of unbaked clay heads. Painted clay funerary heads first appeared in Middle Elamite I contexts at Kabnak and continued in use throughout the period (cf. Amiet, 1966, figs. 347-53; Spycket, 1992b, pp. 135-36; Negahban, pp. 37-39; Plate V).

Characteristic Middle Elamite I ceramic types include a variety of round-shouldered, button-, stump, or pedestal-based jars or goblets (Negahban, figs. 2-7; Gasche, type 20 a-b). The final date at which these forms were in use appears to have been ca. 1350, for they are unknown at AÚl Untaæ Napiriæa (Ùog@a Zanb^l, q.v.; the ancient city was also known as Du@r Untaæ). Glyptic of this period from Susiana shows close links with seals and sealings from Nuzi in northern Mesopotamia; the latter are well dated to the 15th-14th centuries B.C.E. (cf. CYLINDER SEALS, pp. 492-93).

Middle Elamite II-III (ca. 1350-1000 B.C.E.). The periodization followed here is less finely drawn than one based on texts. The written sources show that the Elamite kings of this period successfully invaded Mesopotamia and controlled the hinterlands of Susiana: the Persian Gulf coast and Fa@rs. This picture is confirmed by the distribution of archeological sites and finds from Fa@rs to Loresta@n (Figure 2). The use of the Elamite language in documents and inscriptions, as well as the development of distinctive art and architectural forms, underscores the rise of Elam as an international power. The royal sponsorship of metalworking and related technologies is revealed by finds from the major cities of K¨u@zesta@n. The demand for minerals and luxury goods in the sanctuaries and courts of the Late Bronze Age indicates that interregional and international trade in raw materials was an additional factor in the growing power of the Elamite kings of this period (Carter, 1984, pp. 156-81). The concentration of population in larger towns and cities during the Middle Elamite period suggests that pastoralism, trade, and plunder may have replaced an earlier life style in which both the Susiana plain and the Ku@r river basin were farmed extensively by a more settled rural population.

AÚl Untaæ Napiriæa is the major excavated site of the period. The ziggurat and its surrounding temples may have served as a kind of common sanctuary, where the major divinities of the entire realm were brought together (de Miroschedji, 1980, pp. 142-43). It appears that most of the city was never settled intensively (Ghirshman, 1966, pp. 7-10; idem, 1968, avant propos). In the royal quarter excavation revealed a group of three monumental buildings with large courts surrounded by long halls and storerooms. Palaces II and III may have served to house the royal entourage and can be dated to the time of Untaæ Napiriæa; Palace I, the hypogeum palace, was planned to include five vaulted underground tombs similar to those at Haft Tepe.

Architectural remains from Susa are poorly known from this period owing to the methods of the early excavators. To judge from the numbers of inscribed bricks found on the site, Untaæ Napiriæa was an active builder and restorer of sanctuaries, but the major preserved remains date from the ˆutrukid dynasty (ca. 1210-1100 B.C.E.). These rulers rebuilt the structures on the Acropole, using glazed bricks (Heim, 1992b, pp. 123-27). Restored plans, based on the inadequate records of the early excavators, include temples identified as those of Ninhursag and Inæuæinak in the central and western parts of the mound flanking the central ziggurat. An enigmatic southwestern structure yielded the stele with the law code of Hammurabi, the stele of Naram Sin, and a number of victory trophies brought back from Mesopotamia by the Middle Elamite kings. Through the display of such captured monuments and trophies it is probable that they attempted to establish Susa as a great city in the Mesopotamian tradition and to legitimize their dynasty as the successors of the defeated Kassite kings, who had ruled in Meso-potamia for around 400 years (Brinkman, pp. 86-90; Harper).

Inscribed baked bricks and pottery from Liyan (modern Bu@æehr) on the Persian Gulf and inscribed bricks from Tulaspid (Tolasp^d), not far from Fahl^a@n (90 km northwest of Anshan), reveal a Middle Elamite presence along the major trade routes between Susiana and Fa@rs in the latter half of the 2nd millennium B.C.E. (Pe‚zard, pp. 39-96; Herzfeld, pp. 176-78). In Fa@rs proper, no trace of artifacts of Susian style has been recovered outside Anshan (see Sumner 1988). Contemporary sites west of the Ku@r river are identified by the presence of painted Qaleh (Qal¿a) pottery (CERAMICS viii), those east of the river by Shogha (ˆog@a) and Teimuran (Teymu@ra@n) wares (Jacobs, pp. 157-70). The strong lowland cultural affinities of the Middle Elamite materials from Anshan, in contrast to the local character of the finds from archeological surveys of the surrounding Ku@r river region, suggest that in the late 2nd millennium the town was an isolated outpost of the kings of Susa (Carter, 1984, pp. 172-80). The highest point of the city was occupied by a variety of constructions, including a monumental structure covering more than 1000 m2 (Carter, forthcoming; idem and Stolper; Figure 3) and datable, by epigraphic, archeological, and radiocarbon-14 data, to the time of Hutelutuæ-Inæuæinak (ca. 1120), the last king of the Middle Elamite dynasty. The core of the building consists of an unroofed rectangular courtyard surrounded by a long, narrow corridor from which open rooms or suites. The entire structure has the same basic layout, pattern of access, and architectural decoration as those in the palaces at AÚl Untaæ Napiriæa in K¨u@zesta@n (cf. Ghirshman, 1968, plans 13, 14), but it is smaller and constructed without extensive use of baked bricks. Cuneiform texts written in Elamite were stored in the building, which thus functioned as some kind of administrative complex (Stolper, 1984). Many tablets were impressed with a distinctive seal, its design composed of deeply impressed points arranged in intersecting lozenge patterns (Carter, forthcoming; Plate VI).

The ceramics of Middle Elamite II-III are defined by excavated assemblages from AÚl Untaæ Napiriæa and Susa (Ville Royale II, levels 13-10). The most distinctive shape is the "Elamite goblet" (Gasche, type 19c), which became more elongated and cylindrical in phase III (de Miroschedji, 1981a, pp. 15-16; Ghirshman, 1966, pp. 91-92). These vessels are found as far north and west as Tepe Guran (Gora@n; Thrane, p. 31) in Loresta@n and as far south and east as Anshan. At Anshan the buff wares, with their parallels in the lowlands, were associated with Qaleh painted wares. Outside Fa@rs Qaleh painted wares have been discovered in Èdòa (Wright, 1979, figs. 42-43) and the Ra@mhormu@z region of eastern K¨u@zesta@n and in Loresta@n (Carter, 1994a; Schmidt, van Loon, and Curvers, pls. 109/g, k, e, 115/b). Only a few examples of Qaleh painted wares are known from Kabnak in Susiana proper (Negahban, fig. 13/153-55). The distribution of 2nd-millennium painted wares suggests that the ceramic traditions of the central Zagros were distinct from those in contemporary Susiana, where ceramics influenced by Mesopotamian wares prevailed.

The main evidence for Middle Elamite II-III glyptic is a group of more than 160 seals found at AÚl Untaæ Napiriæa (CYLINDER SEALS, pp. 494-96). They were votive objects and were found in association with numerous small animal figurines that must have served a similar purpose (Porada, p. 3). The cylinders in "pseudo-Kassite" and "elaborated Elamite" styles closely resemble Mesopotamian Kassite seals but are made of a distinctive dark-blue glass. Sealings in the latter style from as far away as Zubeidi (Zobeyd^) in the Jabal H®amr^n in Iraq reveal trade links between Elam and Kassite Babylonia (Boehmer and Dämmer, pp. 68-73). The majority of Middle Elamite II-III seals were made of faience, with banquet, hunting, and worship scenes (Porada, 1970, pp. 27-41, 57-74). The same types have been found at the sanctuary site of Surkh Dum (Sorkò-e Dom) in Loresta@n (e.g., Schmidt, van Loon, and Curvers, seals 65, 75, 77, 80).

The most outstanding works of art from the period are cast bronzes found by the early excavators at Susa. They include the headless bronze and copper statue of Napir-Asu, wife of Untaæ Napiriæa, found in the so-called "temple of Ninhursag" on the Acropole at Susa (Harper et al., pp. 132-34). The "sit æamsi" (lit., "sunrise") is a three-dimensional bronze model of a cult scene made for ˆilhak-Inæuæinak (Plate VII). The setting of this ritual scene between a ziggurat and a temple recalls the arrangement of cult installations discovered at the foot of the ziggurat at AÚl Untaæ Napiriæa and those presumed to have existed on the Acropole at Susa. In addition to metalwork, glass, faience, and glazing technologies were highly developed in the Middle Elamite II-III period (Heim, 1992a, pp. 202-04) and continued to flourish during the first phase of the Neo-Elamite period (de Miroschedji, 1981a, pp. 37-38). Discoveries of faience figurines and containers at Surkh Dum (Schmidt, van Loon, and Curvers, pls. 148-54) suggest the impact of lowland Elamite culture on the mountain folk of Loresta@n.

Characteristic of the popular arts in Elam in this period are terra-cotta figurines and models. Small round tables holding food offerings have been found at Susa and Haft Tepe (Trümpelmann, pl. 4). Terra-cotta models of beds are also typical of the late 2nd millennium B.C.E. but do not appear to continue into the Neo-Elamite period. Naked female figurines supporting their breasts with their hands came into fashion at mid-millennium and continued in use until ca. 1000 (Spycket, pp. 237-50). Figurines of hump-backed bulls were found in levels AXII-IX at the Ville Royale at Susa and have parallels at Kabnak, AÚl Untaæ Napiriæa, and Anshan (Carter, 1984, fig. 11). These objects suggest a continuity of popular religious beliefs through the latter half of the 2nd millennium.

Also suggesting continuity of religious beliefs are the rock-cut sanctuaries of the Elamite highlands: Ku@ra@ngu@n and Naqæ-e Rostam (Seidl, pp. 6-19) in Fa@rs and Ku@l-e Fara and ˆeka@fta Salma@n near Èdòa/Mala@m^r in eastern K¨u@zesta@n (de Waele, pp. 45-62). Ku@ra@ngu@n was begun under the sukkalmahs but was expanded during Middle Elamite II-III. Ku@l-e Fara and ˆeka@fta Salma@n were also carved in the Middle Elamite period but possibly usurped and reused later in the Neo-Elamite period (see below). These shrines indicate an Elamite presence in the mountains of Iran through the second half of the 2nd millennium B.C.E. and the early 1st millennium.

The Neo-Elamite period.

At the end of the 2nd millennium B.C.E. Susa rapidly lost its position of importance. Famines around the turn of the millennium appear from archeological surveys to have had disastrous effects on the farming populations of Susiana (de Miroschedji, 1981b, pp. 170-72; idem, 1990, pp. 58-60). By 1000 the Susian kings had also lost their foothold in Anshan, and new ethnic groups, or perhaps groups that had been subservient to Elamite populations, may have pushed the remaining Elamites into the valleys of eastern K¨u@zesta@n (Carter, 1994a).

Both archeological and historical records confirm the renewal of Susa late in the 8th century B.C.E. By that time, however, at least two other Elamite centers, Madaktu and Khidalu, had come to play major roles in Elamite politics (de Miroschedji, 1986). Excavations at Susa nevertheless provide some data on the period. A sounding in Ville Royale II produced eight levels dating from the second half of the 2nd through the first half of the 1st millennium. Pierre de Miroschedji (1981a, p. 40) dated levels 9-8 to Neo-Elamite I (ca. 1000-725/700) and levels 7-6 to Neo-Elamite II (ca. 725/700-520). Little imported pottery and few small objects are known from these excavations, but there is enough to show considerable continuity between the early Neo-Elamite phase and preceding late Middle Elamite. Shared features include ceramic types, faience objects, and glyptic styles. Neo-Elamite II was distinguished by disappearance of long-lived Elamite ceramic types like the "Elamite goblet," the vat, and the band-rim jar, as well as the introduction of new ceramic and glyptic types (Carter, 1984, pp. 184-85 fig. 12). The seals and impressions, for the most part discovered in the earlier excavations, include both examples closely related to contemporary Assyro-Babylonian cut-style seals and a more local group, characterized by pairs of confronted or entwined beasts framed by inscribed panels (de Miroschedji, 1982, pp. 51-63; CYLINDER SEALS, pp. 496-501).

Early excavations at Susa also revealed a small temple decorated with glazed tiles on the Acropole; it was datable to the time of ˆutruk-Nahhunte II (ca. 716-699 B.C.E.; Amiet, 1966, fig. 380), the most powerful of the Neo-Elamite kings. Burial vaults of mud or baked brick or both were also discovered in several areas at Susa. They yielded gold jewelry and richly decorated faience objects, including containers and small bird figurines. These burial practices are linked with earlier Elamite traditions (Heim, 1992a, p. 203). The rich funerary offerings also attest to a period of renewed prosperity at Susa in the 8th century B.C.E.

Scattered archeological evidence shows that eastern K¨u@zesta@n increased in importance during the late 2nd and early 1st millennia B.C.E. The only excavated site in the region is Tall-i Ghazir (Tal-e GÚaz^r) in the Ra@mhormu@z plain about 150 km southeast of Susiana and less than 50 km east of Ahva@z, surrounded by the foothills of the Bakòt^a@r^ mountains. The ceramic sequence found there parallels that known from Susa, and archeological surveys suggest that the period was one of population growth in the area (Carter, 1994a). Surveys in the Èdòa region, 80 km north of Ra@mhormu@z, have so far failed to reveal any material of the Neo-Elamite I and II periods (Bayani, p. 102). The inscriptions carved on rock reliefs at ˆekaft-e Salma@n, 3 km south of Èdòa, and Ku@l-e Fara, 7 km northeast, indicate that the region was part of a state called Aapir, ruled by Hanni, a contemporary of ˆutur-Nahhunte (for the dating of these reliefs, see de Waele, 1972; Carter, 1984, pp. 170-71; Stolper, 1984, pp. 170-71 nn. 364, 366).

The chance discovery of an extraordinarily rich tomb near Arja@n, on the road to Fa@rs 10 km north of Behbaha@n and 100 km southeast of Ghazir (Alizadeh, 1985, p. 49), also suggests that eastern K¨u@zesta@n was probably much more important in the period than can at present be proved. The Arja@n tomb contained a U-shaped bronze coffin of a type known in Mesopotamia (e.g., at Ur) and Iran (e.g., at Z^v^a). Objects inside it included a large, inscribed gold "ring," ninety-eight bracteates, a dagger, some textile fragments, and a silver rod. On the floor of the tomb chamber were an elaborate bronze stand, a lamp, a silver jar, a bronze jar, a bronze cup with rounded bottom, and ten cylindrical vases. The date of the tomb is disputed; both the late 8th century and the period between 640 and 525 have been suggested (Alizadeh, 1985, pp. 67-68; Vallat, 1984), but there is no doubt that it is of the Neo-Elamite II phase.

Northwest of Susiana in Loresta@n Neo-Elamite II material has been discovered at the Surkh Dum shrine, level IIB. These discoveries in turn confirm that the influence of ˆutruk Nahhunte II (ca. 716-699 B.C.E.), the most powerful of the Neo-Elamite kings, also reached into the mountains northwest of Susiana (Schmidt et al., p. 490). But the rising power of the Medes still farther to the northwest and of the Persians to the southeast appears to have pushed the Elamites of the early 1st millennium B.C.E. into the Bakòt^a@r^ mountains between Anshan and Fa@rs at the end of the period (Carter, 1995).

The rise of the Achaemenid empire brought an end to the existence of Elam as an independent political power but not as a cultural entity. Indigenous Elamite traditions (e.g., the use of the title "king of Anshan" by Cyrus (q.v.); the "Elamite robe" worn by Cambyses (q.v.) and seen on the famous winged genii at Pasargadae; some glyptic styles; the use of Elamite as the first official language of the empire; and the persistence of Elamite religious personnel and cults supported by the crown formed an essential part of the newly emerging Achaemenid culture in Fa@rs. Neo-Elamite traditions in domestic pottery, metallurgy, and glyptic, however, continued in use in K¨u@zesta@n until at least as late as ca. 520 B.C.E., when Darius I (q.v.) took Susa (de Miroschedji, 1985, pp. 296-303). Under Darius the entire city was rebuilt, and, although some Elamite traditions, like the extensive use of molded glazed-brick panels and the use of Elamite in official inscriptions and administration, persisted, they were minor elements in the newer and more international Achaemenid imperial styles.

Bibliography: J. R. Alden, "Trade and Politics in Proto-Elamite Iran," Current Anthropology 23/6, 1982, pp. 613-40. Idem, "The Susa III Period," in F. Hole ed., The Archaeology of Western Iran, Washington, D.C., 1987, pp. 157-70. G. Algaze, The Uruk World System. The Dynamics of Expansion of Early Mesopotamian Civilization, Chicago, 1993. A. Alizadeh, "A Tomb of the Neo-Elamite Period at Arja@n, near Behbaha@n," AMI, N.F. 18, 1985, pp. 49-73. Idem, "Socio-Economic Complexity in Southwestern Iran during the Fifth and Fourth Millennia B.C. The Evidence from Tall-i Bakun A," Iran 26, 1988, pp. 17-34. P. Amiet, Élam, Auvers-sur-Oise, 1966. Idem, "Contribution aà l'histoire de la sculpture archaïque de Suse," CDAFI 6, 1976, pp. 47-82. Idem, L'âge des e‚changes inter-iraniens 3500-1700 J.-C., Paris, 1986. M. I. Bayani, "The Elamite Periods on the Izeh Plain, " in H. T. Wright ed., Archaeological Investigations in Northeastern Xuzestan, 1976, Technical Reports 10, Ann Arbor, Mich., 1979, pp. 99-113. R. Boehmer and H. Dämmer, Tell Imlihiye, Tell Zubeidi, Tell Abbas, Baghdader Forschungen 7, Mainz, 1985. J. R. Brinkman, A Political History of Post-Kassite Babylonia, 1158-722 B.C., Analecta Orientalia 43, Rome, 1968. E. Carter, "Elamite Pottery, ca. 2000-1000 B.C.," JNES 38/2, 1979, pp. 111-28. Idem, "Excavations in Ville Royale I at Susa. The Third Millennium B.C. Occupation," CDAFI 11, 1980, pp. 7-134. Idem, "Archaeology," in E. Carter and M. W. Stolper, Elam. Surveys of Political History and Archaeology, Near Eastern Studies 25, Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1984, pp. 103-230. Idem, "Elamite Exports," in F. Vallat, ed., Contribution aà l'histoire de l'Iran. Me‚langes offerts aà Jean Perrot, 1990, pp. 89-100. Idem, "Bridging the Gap Between the Elamites and the Persians in Southeastern Khuzistan," in H. Sancisi-Weerdenburg et al., eds., Achaemenid History. Continuity and Change VIII, Leiden, 1994a, pp. 65-95. Idem, "Mittelelamische Kunstperiode (Middle Elamite (ME) Period)," RlA 8/3-4, 1994b, pp. 309-16. Idem, Excavations at Tal-e Malyan, Iran. The Middle Elamite Period, University Museum Monograph 75, Philadelphia, forthcoming. Idem and M. W. Stolper, "Middle Elamite Malyan," Expedition 18/2, 1976, pp. 33-42. P. Damerow and R. K. Englund, The Proto-Elamite Texts from Tepe Yahya, Cambridge, Mass., 1989. H. Gasche, La poterie e‚lamite du deuxieàme mille‚naire a.C., Me‚moires de la De‚le‚gation arche‚ologique en Iran 47, Leiden and Paris, 1973. R. Ghirshman, Tchoga Zanbil (Dur-Untash) I. La Ziggurat, Me‚moires de la De‚le‚gation arche‚ologique en Iran 39, Paris, 1966. Idem, Tchoga Zanbil (Dur-Untash) II. Temenos, temples, palais, tombes, Me‚moires de la De‚le‚gation arche‚ologique en Iran 40, Paris, 1968. C. Goff, "Lurista@n before the Iron Age," Iran 9, 1971, pp. 31-51. A. Hakemi, Catalogue de l'exposition. Lut, Shahdad (Xabis), Tehran, 1972. P. Harper, "The Mesopotamian Presence. Mesopotamian Mounuments Found at Susa," in P. Harper, J. Aruz, and F. Tallon, eds., The Royal City of Susa. Ancient Near Eastern Treasures in the Louvre, New York, 1992, pp. 159-62. S. Heim, "Glazed Objects and the Elamite Glaze Industry," in P. Harper et al., eds., The Royal City of Susa. Ancient Near Eastern Treasures in the Louvre, New York, 1992a, pp. 202-10. Idem, "Royal and Religious Structures and Their Decoration," in P. Harper et al., eds., The Royal City of Susa. Ancient Near Eastern Treasures in the Louvre, New York, 1992b, pp. 123-37. R. Henrickson, "ˆimaæki and Central Western Iran. The Archaeological Evidence," ZA 74, 1984, pp. 98-122. Idem, "A Regional Perspective on Godin III. Cultural Development in Central Western Iran," Iran 24, 1986, pp. 1-55. Idem, "Godin III and the Chronology of Central Western Iran circa 2600-1400 B.C.," in F. Hole, ed., The Archaeology of Western Iran, Washington, D.C., 1987, pp. 205-27. E. Herzfeld, The Persian Empire. Studies in Geography and Ethnography of the Ancient Near East, ed. G. Walser, Wiesbaden, 1968. F. Hole, ed., The Archaeology of Western Iran, Washington, D.C., 1987. L. Jacobs, Darvazeh Tepe and the Iranian Highlands in the Second Millenium B.C., Ph.D. diss., University of Oregon, Eugene, 1980. P. Kohl, "The Balance of Trade in Southwestern Asia in the Mid-Third Millennium B.C.," Current Anthropology 19/3, 1978, pp. 463-92. C. C. Lamberg-Karlovsky and M. Tosi, "Shahr-i Sokhta and Tepe Yahya. Tracks on the Earliest History of the Iranian Plateau," East and West 22, 1973, pp. 21-58. A. Le Brun, "Recherches stratigraphiques aà l'Acropole de Suse—1969-1971," CDAFI 1, 1971, pp. 163-216. Idem, "Le niveau 17B de l'Acropole de Suse (campagne de 1972)," CDAFI 9, 1978, pp. 57-154. P. de Miroschedji, "Vases et objets en ste‚atite susiens," CDAFI 3, 1973, pp. 9-79. Idem, "Le dieu e‚lamite Napirisha," RA 74, 1980, pp. 129-43. Idem, "Fouilles du chantier Ville Royale II aà Suse (1975-1977) I. Les niveaux e‚lamites," CDAFI 12, 1981a, pp. 9-136. Idem, "Prospections arche‚ologiques au Khuzistan en 1977," CDAFI 12, 1981b, pp. 169-92. Idem, "Notes sur la glyptique de la fin de l'Élam," RA 76, 1982, pp. 51-63. Idem, "La fin du royaume d'Anæan et de Suse et la naissance de l'empire perse," ZA 75, 1985, pp. 265-306. Idem, "La localisation de Madaktu et l'organisation politique de l'Élam aà l'e‚poque ne‚o-e‚lamite," in L. De Meyer et al., eds. Fragmenta Historiae Aelamicae. Me‚langes offerts aà M. J. Steve, Paris, 1986, pp. 209-25. Idem, "La fin de l'Élam. Essai d'analyse et d'interpre‚tation," Iranica Antiqua 25, 1990, pp. 47-95. E. Negahban, Excavations at Haft Tepe, University Museum Monograph 70, Philadelphia, 1991. I. Nicholas, The Proto-Elamite Settlement at TUV, University Museum Monograph 69, Philadelphia, 1990. M. Pe‚zard, Mission aà Bender-Bouchir. Documents arche‚ologiques et e‚pigraphiques, Me‚moires de la De‚le‚gation en Perse 15, Paris, 1914. H. Pittman, "The Proto-Elamite Period," in P. Harper et al., eds., The Royal City of Susa. Ancient Near Eastern Treasures in the Louvre, New York, 1992a, pp. 68-70. Idem, "The Late Uruk Period," in P. Harper et al., eds., The Royal City of Susa. Ancient Near Eastern Treasures in the Louvre, New York, 1992b, pp. 48-57. E. Porada, Tchoga Zanbil (Dur-Untash), Me‚moires de la De‚le‚gation arche‚ologique en Iran 42, Paris, 1970. E. Reiner, "Inscription from a Royal Elamite Tomb," Archiv für Orientforschung 24, 1973, pp. 87-102. M. Roaf, "The Diffusion of the 'Salles aà quatre saillants,'" Iraq 35, 1973, pp. 83-91. R. M. Schacht, "Early Historic Cultures," in F. Hole, ed., The Archaeology of Western Iran, Washington, D.C., 1987, pp. 171-203. E. Schmidt, M. van Loon, and H. Curvers, The Holmes Expeditions to Luristan, Oriental Institute Publications 108, Chicago, 1989. U. Seidl, Die elamischen Felsreliefs von Ku@ra@ngu@n und Naqæ-e Rustam, Iranische Denkmäler 12, Berlin, 1986. A. Spycket, Les figurines de Suse. Les figurines humaines IVe-IIe mille‚naires av. J-C., Me‚moires de la De‚le‚gation arche‚ologique en Iran 52, Paris, 1992a. Idem, "The Middle Elamite Period. Metal, Clay and Ivory Sculpture. Funerary Heads," in P. Harper et al., eds., The Royal City of Susa. Ancient Near Eastern Treasures in the Louvre, New York, 1992b, pp. 135-36. P. Steinkeller, "The Question of Marªaæi. A Contribution to the Historical Geography of Iran in the Third Millennium B.C.," ZA 72, 1982, pp. 237-65. Idem, "On the Identity of the Toponym LU´.SU(.A)," JAOS 108, 1988, pp. 197-202. Idem, "More on LU´.SU(.A=ˆimæki," Nouvelles assyrio-logiques breàves et utilitaires 1, 1995, pp. 10-11. M.-J. Steve, H. Gasche, and L. De Meyer, "La Susiane au IIe mille‚naire. À propos d'une interpre‚tation des fouilles de Suse," Iranica Antiqua 15, 1980, pp. 49-154. M. W. Stolper, "Preliminary Report on Texts from Tal-e Malya@n 1071-1974," in F. Bagherzadeh, ed., Proceedings of the IVth Annual Symposium on Archaeological Research in Iran, Tehran, 1976, pp. 89-100. Texts from Tall-i Malyan. Elamite Administrative Texts (1972-1974), Occasional Publications of the Babylonian Fund 6, Philadelphia, 1984. W. Sumner, "Excavations at Tall-i Malya@n, 1971-72," Iran 12, 1974, pp. 155-80. Idem, "Excavations at Tall-i Malya@n (Anshan) 1974," Iran 14, 1976, pp. 103-15. Idem, "Political History," in E. Carter and M. W. Stolper, eds., Elam. Surveys of Political History and Archaeology, Near Eastern Studies 25, Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1984, pp. 3-100. Idem, "Malija@n, Tall-e," in RlA, 1988, 7/3-4, pp. 306-20. Idem, "Anshan in the Kaftari Phase. Patterns of Settlement and Land Use," in L. De Meyer and E. Haerinck, eds., Archaeologia Iranica et Orientalis. Miscellanea in Honorem Louis vanden Berghe I, Ghent, 1989, pp. 135-61. H. Thrane, "Tepe Guran and the Luristan Bronzes," Archaeology 23, 1970, pp. 26-35. L. Trümpelmann, "Eine Kneipe in Susa," Iranica Antiqua 16, 1981, pp. 35-44. F. Vallat, "Kidin-Hutran et l'e‚poque ne‚o-Élamite," Akkadica 37, 1984, pp. 1-17. Idem, "Re‚flexions sur l'e‚poque des sukkalmah," in F. Vallat, ed., Contribution aà l'histoire de l'Iran. Me‚langes offerts aà Jean Perrot, Paris, 1990, pp. 119-27. L. Vanden Berghe, "La construction des tombes au Pusht-i Ku@h, Lurist@an, au 3e mille‚naire avant J.-C.," Iranica Antiqua 14, 1979, pp. 39-49. E. de Waele, "Shutruk-Nahhunte II et les reliefs rupestres dits ne‚o-e‚lamites d'Iseh-Malamir," Revue des arche‚ologues et historiens d'art de Louvain 5, 1972, pp. 17-31. Idem, "Travaux arche‚ologiques aà ˆeka@f-e Salma@n et Ku@l-e Farah preàs d'Izòeh (Ma@lam^r)," Iranica Antiqua 16, 1981, pp. 45-62. H. T. Wright, ed., Archaeological Investigations in Northeastern Xuzestan, 1976, Technical Reports 10, Ann Arbor, Mich., 1979. Idem, ed., An Early Town on the Deh Luran Plain. Excavations at Tepe Farukhabad, Memoirs of the Museum of Anthropology, The University of Michigan, 13, Ann Arbor, 1981.

(ELIZABETH CARTER)

Figure 1. Major settlements in Elam and adjacent areas, ca 3000-2000 B.C.E.

Figure 2. Major settlements in Elam and adjacent areas, ca 2000-640 B.C.E.

figure 3. Plan of the Middle Elamite building at Anshan (Tal-e Malya@n). after Carter, 1996, fig.6.

"Proto-Elamite" is the term for a writing system in use in the Susiana plain and the Iranian highlands east of Mesopotamia between ca. 3050 and 2900 B.C.E., a period generally considered to correspond to the Jamdat Nasr/Uruk III through Early Dynastic I periods in Mesopotamia. This span is represented in Iran by levels 16-14B in the Acropole at Susa (Le Brun, 1971), as well as Tepe Yahya (Yaháya@) IVC, Sialk (S^a@lk) IV2, and Late Middle Banesh (Baneæ). Proto-Elamite tablets are the earliest complex written documents from the region; the script consists of both numerical and ideographic signs, the latter sometimes assumed to represent a genetically related precursor of the Old Elamite language (see iv, below). This supposed precursor language is, however, unknown, and the script itself has been only partially deciphered. Nevertheless, conclusions about the contents of the Proto-Elamite texts can be drawn from contextual analyses and formal similarities to proto-cuneiform tablets from Mesopotamia. In particular, the structure of published documents containing accounts and the use of numerical signs and of certain signs for objects in bookkeeping can be somewhat clarified.

History of decipherment. Since the first Proto-Elamite documents were discovered at the turn of the century (Scheil, 1900, pp. 130-31; Friberg, I, pp. 22-26) approximately 1,450 Proto-Elamite tablets from Susa have been published. Recent excavations at other sites have proved that the script and numerical systems known from Susa were in use at administrative centers ranging across Persia as far as the Afghan border, including the sites of Sialk, Malyan (Mal^a@n), Yahya, and Shahr-i Sokhta (ˆahr-e Su@kòta; Damerow and Englund, 1989, pp. 1-2; Stolper, 1985, pp. 6-8; Sumner, 1976; Carter and Stolper, p. 253; Nicholas, p. 45). The texts, written on clay tablets, seem without exception to be administrative documents: receipts and transfers of grain, livestock, and laborers; rationing texts; and so on. There are neither literary nor school texts of the sort known as "lexical lists" from contemporary Mesopotamia. The earlier "numerical tablets" from Godin (Gowd^n) Tepe V and Chogha Mish (Ùog@a M^æ, q.v.), generally dated contemporary with Uruk IVb and level 17 in the Acropole at Susa, lack ideographic signs and are thus not classified as Proto-Elamite (Weiss and Young, pp. 9-10; Porada, p. 58)

Some scholars have attempted to demonstrate a link between the Proto-Elamite and Linear Elamite scripts (see v, below; Hinz, 1975; Meriggi, 1971-74, I, pp. 184-200; Andre‚ and Salvini), but adducing syllabic values proposed for Linear Elamite has not led to successful deciphering of Proto-Elamite. A preliminary graphotactical analysis of the Proto-Elamite texts has also met with only modest success (Meriggi, 1975; idem, 1971-74, I, pp. 172-84; Brice, 1962-63, pp. 28-33; Gelb, 1975). Other scholars have attempted to establish a connection between Proto-Elamite and proto-cuneiform, which first appeared in Uruk IVa (ca. 3200-3100 B.C.E.) and thus seems to predate Proto-Elamite by about a century (Langdon, p. viii; de Mecquenem, p. 147; Gelb, 1952, pp. 217-20; Meriggi, 1969; Damerow and Englund, 1989, pp. 11-28).

Advances in the decipherment of Proto-Elamite have been hindered to a certain degree by the absence of necessary philological tools. A first step would be a sign list sufficiently dependable and cleansed of redundant variants to offer an approximate idea of the number and frequency of signs in the scribal repertoire, as well as providing a transcriptional instrument for analysis of sign combinations and simple contexts. Such textual work is a pre-requisite for a complete edition of the Proto-Elamite texts.

Sign lists provided by early editors (Scheil, 1905; idem 1923; idem, 1935; de Mecquenem; Meriggi, 1971-74) have proved wanting (Damerow and Englund, 1989, pp. 4-7). The first serious attempt at a formal description and decipherment of Proto-Elamite script was undertaken in the 1960s and early 1970s (Brice, 1962-63; idem, 1963; Meriggi, 1971-74; Vaiman, 1989a). Most recent advances have resulted from a new understanding of the structure of the numerical sign systems, which has provided a powerful tool for semantic identification of a number of ideograms, including those for grain products, animals, and, it seems, human beings (Vaiman, 1989a; Friberg, I; Damerow and Englund, 1989).

Format and semantic hierarchy. Proto-Elamite texts are written on clay tablets similar in general shape and proportions to Mesopotamian clay tablets of the 3rd millennium B.C.E., including Uruk III proto-cuneiform tablets of the later phase. The tablets are thick oblongs, their height and width normally in a ratio of 2:3. Following the convention established in the earliest proto-cuneiform phase, Proto-Elamite scribes used both sides of the tablet. Regardless of the space remaining after two or more entries on the obverse, the scribe usually rotated the tablet around a vertical axis and recorded the totals along the upper edge of the reverse. Larger accounts could have a more complex format (Brice, 1962-63, pp. 20-21; Vaiman, 1989a, pp. 130-32; Damerow and Englund, 1989, pp. 11-13; Figure 1).

Three features distinguish Proto-Elamite tablets from proto-cuneiform documents, however. First, the Proto-Elamite documents were written in a linear script. Second, the first signs on a tablet, the heading, have approximately the same function as the proto-cuneiform "colophon," which is usually inscribed together with the final total on the reverse of the tablet; Proto-Elamite headings never contain numerical notations, however. Third, each entry normally includes an ideogram followed by a numerical notation, a divergence from the strict sequence of numerical sign followed by ideogram in proto-cuneiform texts.

The heading of a Proto-Elamite tablet generally specifies the purpose and authorizing person or institution; the best known such ideographic designation is the so-called "hairy triangle", which seems to represent a leading institution or possibly kin group in Elam. Qualifying ideograms were inscribed within this sign, apparently to designate subordinate institutions or groups (Dittmann, 1986a, pp. 332-66; Lamberg-Karlovsky, p. 210; Damerow and Englund, 1989, p. 16). Following these introductory sign combinations are the individual entries, in horizontal registers without regard to formal arrangement into columns (Figures 2 -3). The ideograms in Proto-Elamite text entries seem almost exclusively to denote persons, quantified objects, or both; sign combinations seeming to designate persons invariably precede those designating quantified objectswhen both appear in one notation. A sign or sign combination representing a person or title is often introduced by a sign representing his position. Objects are generally designated by ideograms in combination with qualifiers; as yet, however, there are no statistical means of testing the probability that certain signs functioned as qualifiers of presumed substantives.

In Proto-Elamite documents there can be multiple entries with different levels of internal organization. A text may consist simply of a sequence of entries of exactly the same type; an example would be a list of grain rations for a number of different recipients. A text may also embody a hierarchical order of transmitted information, as in the oft-encountered alternation of two different types of entry, perhaps a number of workers followed by the amount of grain allotted to them. In this instance the two entries may be considered to be combined in a more comprehensive text unit. A text may also, however, be highly structured, with many identifiable levels, reflecting, for instance, the organizational structure of a labor unit (Figures 2-3; Nissen, Damerow, and Englund, pp. 116-21).

That all entries seem to contain numerical notations suggests that they represent a bookkeeping system, rather than the distinct sentences or other comparable semantic units of a spoken language. This semantic structure is evidence of a close relation between Proto-Elamite and proto-cuneiform texts. Proto-Elamite headings correspond to the "colophons" that often accompany totals on proto-cuneiform texts. Entries in Proto-Elamite documents correspond to the physically encased notations on proto-cuneiform texts; curiously, the hierarchical structure of individual Proto-Elamite entries is not reflected in a syntactical structure, whereas in Mesopotamian texts this hierarchy continues to be represented in some measure by the graphic arrangement of cases and subcases. Despite different graphic forms, Proto-Elamite texts thus exhibit the same general semantic structure as that of proto-cuneiform texts. This relationship must be considered a strong indication of their relative chronology: The more developed linear syntax apparent in Proto-Elamite texts, in which the graphical arrangement of semantic units has been dispensed with, implies that proto-cuneiform is earlier. This conclusion is in full accord with the established stratigraphic correspondences between Susa and Uruk (Dittmann, 1986a, pp. 296-97, 458 table 159e; Dittmann, 1986b, p. 171 n. 1).

Numerical sign systems. Early work on the numerical notations in Proto-Elamite texts was hampered by inadequate identification of individual signs and in particular of sign systems, which were applied in Mesopotamia and Elam to record different types of objects. Initially there was an attempt to combine a large number of what are now recognized as incompatible numerical notations into a single "decimal" system (Scheil, 1905, pp. 115-18; idem, 1923, p. 3). This attempt was abandoned in 1935, when it was recognized that different numerical systems had been in use in Mesopotamia, particularly for enumeration of discrete objects and for measuring grain by capacity (Scheil, 1935, pp. i-vi). It was, however, mistakenly assumed that the sign