We’ve introduced some Elamites to our Kassite story already, but now we need to get the big picture. Last time we really talked about the Elamites – they were invading Sumer in the aftermath of the fall of Akkad under the rulership of Puzur-inshushinak.

His eventual defeat by the kings of Uruk IV and Ur III, Utu-hegal and Ur-nammu respectively, was accompanied by a reference to a Kirnamme, the first king of the Shimaski dynasty. They interacted variously with Ur III and Isin-Larsa kings, through a series of 12 documented kings.

Around that time, probably a bit before the end of those kings, another Elamite power structure appeared called Sukkulmahs; we have long lists of them, but no chronology and few interactions to date.

The political structure of Elam during the Sukkalmah period is not entirely clear; whereas some scholars believe there to have been a single line of rulers reigning in sequence, others believe, due to the different titles and capitals attested, that rulership was exercised as a triumvirate, with the paramount ruler (the sukkalmah at Susa) ruling together with junior rulers (sukkals) of “Elam” and “Shimashki” (Wiki, list of kings of Elam).

This “dynasty” would have been broadly contemporary with late Isin/Larsa and the early Kassites; following them is a very poorly attested dynasty called the Kidinuids for about a century; even the order of those kings is unknown;

Though they are grouped together by historians as a dynasty for convenience, there is no evidence that the five kings assigned to the Kidinuid dynasty were related to each other. The chronological sequence of the five kings is not certain either… (Wiki, list of kings of Elam).

We insert a 6^th king into this area called Hurbatila, who engaged Kurigalzu I in chronicle P. Clearly the documentation of this period is so poor, there is plenty of room for him. Following the defeat of the Kidinuids, probably at the hands of the Kassites, a new dynasty arose.

In our present state of knowledge we have no idea how the situation at Kabnak, Susa or Anshan may have evolved from the period just discussed to one in which a new dynasty appeared claiming Igi-halki as its founder. (Archeology of Elam, Potts, henceforth AOE)

It is not clear how the Igihalkid dynasty came to an end, but Kidin-Hutran III, who died at some point in the early reign of the Babylonian king Adad-shuma-usur (r. 1216–1187 BC), is generally regarded to have been the last member.

The third and last dynasty of the Middle Elamite period is typically referred to as the Shutrukid dynasty, after its founder Shutruk-Nahhunte I (Wiki, list of kings of Elam).

Following the Shutrukids we enter the Elamite dark age, at least three centuries of utter darkness from the Elamite side. But we have learned that if there is no record of several centuries, it’s probably because… they didn’t exist.

The Elamite dark age, like all the others, exists only as a number in a textbook, created to make the Assuruballit I-Amenhotep III connection work. Since that connection is flawed, we delete the dark age that was created to make sense of it.

That means all these dynasties slide forward to fill the non-existent gap; unfortunately, if we move them forward by four centuries, the same amount as the Kassites they are linked to, it creates an overlap with the later Neo-Elamite dynasty, and at first we are concerned; did we err?

Then we realize that, more than usual, historians are really making it up as they go with the Elamites. At least in this case, they are fairly open about that fact. But we don’t have to make it up as we go – we simply have to apply our secret hack to understanding history:

We listen to it.

THE DARK AGE

Elamite history has always been dependent on Mesopotamian history. We have few native king lists, none of which provide the length of reigns or of dynasties. So we are entirely reliant on the mentions of Elamite kings in Babylonian texts to reconstruct their history.

It is clear that, given the paucity of indigenous Elamite sources at this time, we are to some extent a prisoner of the Assyrian royal inscriptions and the Babylonian Chronicle which present us with a sequence of Elamite rulers through foreign eyes. In this regard it is important to note that the scarcity of references to Anshan at this time leaves us very much in the dark about contemporary historical events in the highlands. (AOE)

From the days of Enmebaragesi whom the SKL tells us was the one “who made the land of Elam submit” around ‑2120, to their conquest by Assurbanipal in ‑646, they were a frequent thorn in the side of their neighbors.

Because of that, between the Mesopotamian records and what few king lists and monuments the Elamites left us, we are able to construct a nearly continuous list of Elamite kings from the time of Chedorlaomer to Nebuchadnezzar.

…Except for a dark age from ‑1100‑760. Roughly 400 years. Curious, isn’t it, how frequently we find dark ages of roughly this length in this period of history?

Elamite Dark Ages (c. 1000–760 BC) The Neo-Elamite period spans the centuries from the fall of the Shutrukid dynasty to the rise of the Achaemenid Empire. After the defeat of Hutelutush-Inshushinak in 1100 BC, the historical record of Elam is extremely scant for well over three centuries, a period often called the “Elamite Dark Ages”. As a result, the political organization and administration of Elam in the early Neo-Elamite period is more or less completely unknown. (Wiki, List of Elamite kings)

Two things are odd about this period; it supposedly began 100 years later than all the other supposed dark ages such as Hittites and Babylonians; and even stranger, according to their neighbors the Elamites were alive and diplomatically active during this time:

…Some form of Elamite royal authority appears to have been active from at least the late 9th century BC onwards, since Elamite troops were sent to support the Babylonian king Marduk-balassu-iqbi against the Assyrian king Shamshi-Adad V (r. 824–811 BC). An Elamite ambassador to Assyria is also attested in the reign of the Assyrian king Adad-nirari III (r. 811–783 BC). (Ibid.)

How can there have been an active functioning government at the same time as a dark age? Most of the late bronze age collapse dark ages left behind an utter blank from ‑1200 to ‑800, as if aliens snatched the entire civilization off the face of the earth, only to return them intact after four centuries.

It looked this way because most of the dark ages were coexistent; the Hittites, Egyptians, Mitanni were all dated from each other; so if one culture seemed to disappear due to an artificially created dark age, then naturally they all disappear together.

But the Elamites are completely unique in that historians have proof that there was a functioning government during the dark age – and there is a very good reason for that. Alone of all civilizations, the Elamites were able to be dated against three neighboring cultures;

Primarily they interacted with the Kassite Babylonians, who were thrust four centuries into the past, which created the main Elamite dark age when the Elamites who they contacted were moved back along with them.

But they also interacted with the Assyrians who were not moved into the past; and occasionally with the Babylonian vassals of the Kassites directly, who likewise were left more-or-less where they belonged in history.

This means that, alone of all cultures, the Elamites left behind some diplomatic evidence of their actions in the dark age, because they were dated against three cultures, only one of which was pushed into the past incorrectly.

By far, the vast majority of communication was directed, naturally, to the Kassite masters who were geographically closer to Elam in any case; far less went directly to the Babylonian vassals of the 4^th through 9^th dynasties.

But enough to prove that the Elamites were alive and well throughout this period, to the consternation of historians.

TOO MANY KIDIN-HUTRANS

When it fits the narrative, historians will literally move heaven and earth to keep a connection – Kurigalzu II and Assuruballit I, for example. But when a connection is inconvenient to their big picture, they simply invent a new king by that name to explain it away.

We introduced the Berlin letter’s genealogy in the last chapter, and below you’ll find the traditional understanding of the Elamite family tree as summed up by Potts; note he connects to Kurigalzi I incorrectly; note also the abundance of Kidin-hutrans.

Kiden-hutran I and II are believed to have lived in the same generation, and to have ruled successively, differentiated only by their different ancestors. Surprisingly, a single generation later historians insert yet another Kidin-hutran III, not because he is named in the king lists, but because he must exist.

However, although not named in the letter, presumably because he did not take a Kassite bride, a third Kidin-Hutran has been postulated by some scholars for the simple reason that an Elamite king by this name was active in the last quarter of the 13th century and cannot, therefore, be synonymous with Kidin-Hutran II (AOE, Potts)

Note that the sole reason he must exist is that a Kiden-hutran was doing something during the late Kassite empire. The source for Kiden-hutran’s invasion is the ever-helpful Chronicle P; to us, a cornerstone; to them, a stumbling block. It tells us…

At the time of Enlil-nadin-šumi, the king, Kiden-Hutran, king of Elam, attacked. He went into action against Nippur and scattered its people. Der and Edimgalkalamma he destroyed, carried off their people, drove them away, and eliminated the suzerainty of Enlil-nadin-šumi, the king.

At the time of Adad-šuma-iddina, Kiten-Hutran returned and attacked Akkad a second time. He destroyed Isin, crossed the Tigris, and devastated Maradda. He brought about a terrible defeat of a vast population. With oxen ... he removed ... to wasteland. (Chronicle P).

The obvious conclusion is that this refers to one or the other of the known Kiden-hutrans who ruled near that time, suggesting that their timeline should move to lock in the connection. But they can’t accept that, because it is chronologically impossible with their version of history. There is no wiggle room here.

So because they’ve had to push the Berlin letter’s contents back to parallel Kurigalzu I and insert gaps to fill the extra space, the “unhappy chronological consequence” was that, to keep the generations together, Kiden-hutran I and II must have lived no later than one and four generations after Kurigalzu I, respectively (Refer to the chart above).

That, in turn means that they cannot have been active in the time of Enlil-nadi-shumi a hundred and fifty years later, and so they have to invent an otherwise unknown but clearly powerful and long-reigning king, naming him Kiden-hutran III.

No inscription records his existence, nor his obvious conquests, making his existence extremely dubious – yet you will find his name in the textbooks. Because they have to explain the evidence, and they won’t reexamine their basic conclusions about Assuruballit.

However, if we simply accept the obvious reading of Kurigalzu II as the ancestor of the Elamite brides, we can move these kings far later – incidentally eliminating the awkward generational gaps – and suddenly Kiden-hutran II is in precisely the right place to attack the late Kassite kings!

The following chart shows the correct ancestry, as reconstructed by Jeremy Goldberg, a rare academic who supports the literal and obvious reading of the Berlin letter and Chronicle P. Kiden-hutran II now lives at the same time as Kurigalzu II (around ‑1230, their dating), and thus makes Kiden-hutran III unnecessary.

Nor does it stop there. He believes that Kiden Hutran I, son of Pahir-issan and Kiden Hitran II, son of Untas-napirisa may actually be the same individual as well:

…A theoretical alternative that Kidin-Hutran and Unpahas-Napirisa were each ‘son of Pahir-issan’ in the sense of later descendent takes on flesh from the here-proposed marriage of Humban-nimena to a daughter of Pahir-issan, which would make Kidin-Hutran son of Untas-Napirisa the great-grandson of Pahir-issan. Conflating this Kidin-Hutran with Kidin-Hutran ‘son of Pahir-issan’ seems strongly supported by the otherwise quite suspicious circumstance that no known ruler can be dated between these homonyms (except by rejecting §ilhak-Insusinak’s sequence) — i.e. they seem to be dated to the same time. (The Berlin Letter, Middle Elamite Chronology and Sutruk-Nahhunte I’s Genealogy, Goldberg)

On the Wikipedia king list of Kings of Elam, you will find Kiden Hutran II as the immediate successor to Kiden-hutran I. This is suspicious, because they both lived in the same place at the same time by the same name; the only reason to differentiate is because they claim different fathers.

But since the word “father” is often used metaphorically to refer to grandfathers, especially in Elamite tradition, it seem easier to believe they are the same person than two different kings. For example…

The last king of the dynasty, Hutelutuš-Inšušinak, who called himself sometimes “son of Kutir-Nahhunte and of Šilhak-Inšušinak” and sometimes “son of Šutruk-Nahhunte, of Kutir-Nahhunte, and of Šilhak-Inšušinak,” (https://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/elam-i/)

Obviously, he cannot be the son of three different men; so an Elamite tradition naming different men as “father” cannot be used to separate two otherwise identical-seeming kings. Hence Kiden-hutran I and Kiden-hutran II and Kiden-hutran III are the exact same person.

So in his chart above, which we fully agree with (except for the absolute dates, of course), Goldberg has only a single Kiden-hutran; not three, which is what is required by other historians to attempt to explain their faulty chronology. But now I ask a philosophical question:

If it is good science to invent not one but two otherwise unknown kings to explain the known facts of history…

How can they complain if we postulate another Assuruballit? Especially when we have significant evidence that a king by that name did exist around the 11^th century?

Fair’s fair, after all.

SHUTRUKIDS?

Because of the aforementioned mistakes made in interpreting these documents, a large gap was created in Elamite history, partially filled with kings who really do not belong there (Hurbatila, two extra Kiden-hutrans, etc).

In a further attempt to fill the awkward gaps, reign lengths were also lengthened arbitrarily, so that completely unattested kings were given decades of rule; Napirisha-untash for example must have ruled for decades in their reconstruction. Yet…

Nothing is known of the two immediate successors of Untaš-Napiriša, Kidin-Hutran II and Napiriša-Untaš” (https://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/elam-i/)

That’s because Kidin-hutran II did not exist, and Napirisha-untash probably only ruled for a year or two at most. Then following Kidin-hutran III who also did not exist, they insert a large gap which leads them to believe “somehow” the dynasty ended with him.

Then, at some later point, another dynasty was founded by Shutruk-nahunte to which they gave his name. This is presented confidently in Wikipedia and textbooks, but the truth is much more murky when you look at the authoritative sources...

We have no clear idea of how the Igihalkid dynasty came to an end, but it is thought that Kidin-Hutran [III] died early in the reign of his Kassite counterpart Adad-shuma-usur …What followed is unclear. The next historical figure to call himself ‘king of Anshan and Susa’ is Shutruk-Nahhunte, son of Hallutush-Inshushinak. Of the latter, we know nothing apart from his name as given by his son on more than 450 inscribed bricks from Susa… (Archeology of Elam, Potts)

Wikipedia gives a gap of about 30 years between these dynasties; they suggest the dynasty was founded by Hallutush-inshushinak, although literally nothing is known about him except that his son named him as a predecessor.

The third and last dynasty of the Middle Elamite period is typically referred to as the Shutrukid dynasty, after its founder Shutruk-Nahhunte I … Son of Hallutash-Inshushinak", unconnected to the previous royal dynasty. Married a daughter of the Babylonian king Meli-Shipak (r. 1186–1172 BC). (Wiki, List of Kings of Elam)

And this is where I get very annoyed with historians, and you’ll agree with me when you realize what they’ve done. See that statement there – “unconnected to the previous royal dynasty?” Compare that with the fact that Shutruk-nahunte is almost unanimously believed to be the author of the Berlin letter.

The Berlin letter… whose ENTIRE PURPOSE was to show Shutruk-nahunte’s ancestry through the entire Igi-halkid dynasty and back to the Kassite kings of Babylon! “Unconnected,” my foot. These are professionals, people!

When you delete the no-longer necessary Kiden-hutrans and all the gaps that don’t need to be there, and reduce the reigns of unattested kings from decades down to a year or two… then suddenly, Shutruk-nahunte was separated by no more than a generation from Kiden-hutran the one-and-only.

And since the whole point of his letter was to show his illustrious lineage, there absolutely must have been a marriage link between him and Kiden-hutran. And he plainly told us there was; his exact words:

Pihiranu-dU married . . . [ the sister?] of the mighty Humban-immeni [married] his daughter; this one bore (him) Hundasha-naprisha. Hunda[shanaprisha] married the daughter of Burnaburiash; this one bore (him) Kidin-[hud]uru[di]sh. Kidin-[hudurudish] married the daughter of [. . .]-dduniash; this one bore (him) Nap[risha-h]und[ash?]. I, the [daughter’s]-son married the eldest daughter of Meli-shihu (Berlin Letter, following Potts)

Brackets enclose missing parts of words that were supplied by the translator. What we see for sure is that Kiden-hutran (called here Kidin-hudurudish) married the daughter of an unknown Babylonian king whose name ended in –dduniash, clearly a royal of some status.

Their child was Napirisha-untash, the last known king of the Igihalkids (if we delete the nonexistent Kiden Hutran III). As mentioned above, he is otherwise unknown and likely did not rule for very long.

Then an odd phrase is used; “I, the daughter’s son, married the eldest daughter of Meli-shihu.” What daughter’s son? Most historians lose a generation here, which you’ll see in the first genealogical chart from Potts.

But now we can reconstruct the lineage perfectly; the final Igihalkid king, Napirisha-untash had a daughter (or possibly a sister, it doesn’t matter much) who married Hallutash-inshushinak, probably a royal or noble in the Elamite court;

Their son was Shutruk-nahunte, who married the daughter of the Kassite king Meli-shipak. This is very clearly what the evidence they have says. Yet historians say that he was “unconnected to the previous royal dynasty.” You literally could not be more connected to the previous royal dynasty!

The circumstances whereby he became king are unimportant; perhaps Shutruk-nahunte defeated other claimants to the throne after his grandfather’s death, but more likely Napirisha-untash had no son, so the throne went to his daughter’s male heir. This is a well attested Elamite practice:

Humban-numena I clearly states in his brick inscriptions from Susa that he was chosen by the ‘great god’ by reason of his descent from his mother, and although the text is difficult to understand, he seems to claim that Inshushinak granted him kingship once he had re-established prosperity and restored the crown (AOE, Potts)

It doesn’t matter since in the end, he was seen as the legitimate heir. But he really doesn’t deserve his own dynasty in modern history books, since he based his own legitimacy on being a continuation of the previous one!

SHUTRUK AND BEYOND

Legitimate or not, the Babylonians rejected him and Shutruk-nahunte felt righteous indignation that they would accept all these other kings, but not an Elamite; not even one with such a noble lineage. So what he couldn’t get with diplomacy he took by force, which led to the final end of the Kassite dynasty.

The third phase (Middle Elamite III, c. 1200–1100 BC) saw the overthrow of the Kassites by one of the most important figures in Elamite history, Shutruk-Nahhunte. It was he, following his conquest of southern Mesopotamia, who brought to Susa such significant monuments as the law code of Hammurabi, the victory stele of the Old Akkadian king Naram-Sin, and many other pieces of Mesopotamian statuary, booty taken during his victorious campaign in 1158 BC. Shutruk-Nahhunte’s son and successor, Kutir-Nahhunte, meted out even more punishment to his western neighbours, removing the all-important cult statue of Marduk from his temple at Babylon. Likewise Kutir-Nahhunte’s successor, Shilhak-Inshushinak, campaigned widely, particularly in eastern and northeastern Mesopotamia (AOE, Potts)

We know these dates should be somewhere in the 8^th century, but not exactly where. If we trust our reconstruction of the Kassite timeline, the campaign above was not in ‑1158, but ‑737. We are not, however, confident of that date and we will return later to adjust it to be 25 years earlier.

After Shutruk-nahunte I, despite successes in Mesopotamia, the dynasty seemed to fade fast then the entire civilization appears – to historians – to slip into a dark age. The best summary of the traditional history I can find is from Iranicaonline.org:

When Šutruk-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 Šilhak-Inšušinak, who left a large number of inscriptions in Elamite, recording his numerous campaigns against Mesopotamia… The last king of the dynasty, Hutelutuš-Inšušinak, who called himself sometimes “son of Kutir-Nahhunte and of Šilhak-Inšušinak” and sometimes “son of Šutruk-Nahhunte, of Kutir-Nahhunte, and of Šilhak-Inšušinak,” was probably a son of Šutruk-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, Hutelutuš-Inšušinak 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 Šilhina-amru-Lagamar may have succeeded him. With this king Elamite power faded from the political scene for a long time. (https://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/elam-i/)

Ignore the Nebuchadnezzar reference for now; as mentioned in a previous chapter, this is derived from a faulty pastiche of a handful of different sources and we will devote a full chapter to addressing it soon.

What’s key for now is that this lineage above represents only two generations, according to the leading interpretation; all four of these successors were sons of a single king, Shutruk-nahunte; thus, they cannot have had combined reigns of more than 50 years or so after Shutruk-nahunte’s time.

Following him, a gap of three hundred years or so is postulated – the Elamite dark age – and then the rise of the Neo-Elamite dynasty. What’s strange is that after three centuries, the first kings still considered themselves descendants of these earlier kings!

In this regard, it is interesting to note that some 300 years after Nebuchadnezzar I and Hutelutush-Inshushinak, the Neo-Elamite king Shutruk-Nahhunte II (716–699 BC) referred on a tablet found at Susa to three of his ancient predecessors as having been king: Hutelutush-Inshushinak, Shilhina-hamru-Lagamar, and Humban-numena …

From the many brick inscriptions of Shilhak-Inshushinak, we know that Shilhina-hamru-Lagamar was Hutelutush-Inshushinak’s next younger brother …As for Humban-numena, this name does not appear in Shilhak-Inshushinak’s inscriptions as that of one of his sons, nor is it attested as that of a child of Hutelutush-Inshushinak… It is possible, however, that this Humban-numena came from another family and indeed reigned after Shilhina-hamru-Lagamar, which would extend the Shutrukid dynasty down to the middle or even the end of the eleventh century. (AOE, Potts)

Put yourself in the shoes of a king around ‑700; you write a tablet, and in that tablet you refer to your ancestors; but not to your father, nor your grandfather, but to a random group of three kings who reigned three centuries earlier, not mentioning a single king in between.

Do you find that believable? It’s bonkers, is what it is.

We find this sort of thing throughout history, every place where historians have erroneously inserted centuries that did not belong, we find people randomly referring to ancestors from supposedly centuries earlier.

But remember, even though historians are in the dark about who was ruling Elam during those three centuries, diplomatic efforts prove there was a ruling king of Elam during at least some of the time.

So why skip all of those kings and jump to such distant ancestors? And unimportant ones at that! Not Shutruk-nahunte, not Kiden-hutran, but minor kings at the trailing end of a dead dynasty… why claim them, if your aim is to lie about your impressive heritage?

But as always, if historians hadn’t been convinced that the dark age existed they would have read this list for exactly what it is; the list of his immediate predecessors and ancestors. Not from three centuries ago, but from three decades ago.

And this otherwise unknown Humban-numena would not be seen as a mystery, but as the bridge between the Shutrukids and the Neo-Elamites.

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-nikaš (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, Šutruk-Nahhunte II (716-699), son of Humban-umena II, had to flee from Sargon’s troops during an attempt on the region of Dēr in 710. (https://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/elam-i/)

This Shutruk-nahunte II is the same person who claimed Humban-numena, Shilhina-hamru-lagamar, and Hutelutush-Inshushinak as his ancestors. Historians are confused why he mentioned such ancient ancestors… only, they aren’t ancient; they were his immediate ancestors, as we expect. One was literally his own father!!

IRS 57 presents a genealogical quandary. Lines 4–7 list three kings who preceded Šutruk-Nahhunte II: Huteluduš-Inšušinak, Šilhina-hamru-Lagamar, and Huban-immena. Huteluduš-Inšušinak and Šilhina-hamru-Lagamar were sons of Šilhak-Inšušinak I, and Huteluduš-Inšušinak was king in the late eleventh century. Huban-immena is listed in lines 1–2 as Šutruk-Nahhunte’s father. With Huteluduš-Inšušinak and Šilhina-hamru-Lagamar, Šutruk-Nahhunte II established a link to the Middle Elamite kingdom, and his use of Middle Elamite titulary highlighted this link. (A survey of neo-Elamite history, Waters)

What good, we wonder, is the establishment of a link with a three-centuries-dead royalty? For perspective, that would be as if a young Italian today declared himself king of Sicily based on descent from kings who ruled in the early 1700s. At no point in history has that ever counted as legitimacy.

Note also that he used “Middle Elamite titulary”; they conclude that he reached back into the past to use archaic language to highlight his link to earlier rulers. Alternative: those rulers had lived in the previous generation, and the language had not changed at all.

According to the Babylonian Chronicle, Huban-nikaš I preceded Šutruk-Nahhunte on the Elamite throne. Huban-immena’s position in the Elamite hierarchy is unknown, since he left no surviving record and he is unattested in Mesopotamian sources. He may have been a member of the royal family, a local ruler of part of the kingdom subservient to Huban-nikaš, or perhaps even a monarch of a rival Elamite kingdom. These possibilities are speculative, and all that might be said with confidence is that Huban-immena was a man of some status to be married to the sister of the king, Huban-nikaš I. By placing Huban-immena in the company of Huteluduš-Inšušinak and Šilhina-hamru-Lagamar, Šutruk-Nahhunte legitimized his patrilineal descent. (Ibid)

When you read sources on the subject you will see a lot of confusion on who the ancestor of Shutruk-nahunte II was; most sources, including Wikipedia, claim his father was Indada; recent work however has shown that this parent belongs to a later king with a similar name.

Neo-Elamite III (646-539?B.C.E.). So far nothing has been known about the century between the sack of Susa by Aššurbanipal 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 Šutruk-Nahhunte, son of Humban-umena; Šutur-Nahhunte, son of Humban-umena; and sometimes even Šutur-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 Šutur-Nahhunte was the son of Humban-umena III (692-89) and reigned after the fall of Susa. As for Šutur-Nahhunte, son of Indada, he was a petty king in the region of Īza/Malāmīr in the first half of the 6th century (Vallat, 1995). (https://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/elam-i/)

As a petty aside, we are shocked that modern scholars committed errors which caused an apparent gap in history of about a century. Shocked, flabbergasted even that such a thing could happen. Yes, I said it would be petty. I’m not proud of it, but there it is.

But more to our point, Shutruk-nahunte II is now believed to be the son of Humban-umena/Humban-numena (Both spellings of this name are attested, with and without the n; for proof, see “the orthography of the theophoric element hu (m) ban in Elamite and Mesopotamian onomastics,” Gorris).

Now if we do the obvious thing, and assume that Shutruk-nahunte II knew who his own father was, and further assume the obvious thing, that he was listing his immediate predecessors on the Elamite throne, then we have strong reason to believe that the three centuries of darkness was an “apparent gap in the history … owing in fact to two errors of interpretation by modern scholars.”

This would give us a continuous genealogy from Igi-halki all the way down to Neo-Elamite times, something no other researcher on earth can claim. And all we did was listen to our sources, and not assume we know more about ancient kings that the kings themselves did.

We have not forced any explanation to fit; we have simply listened to what the ancients said about themselves, following the latest modern research on the genealogy of these kings. Enough said.

Shutruk-nahunte II was the son of Humban-numena, not attested as king outside of Shutruk-nahunte’s own inscriptions; he in turn was the son of Humban-tahra, who was probably not king of anything; practically nothing is known of either king but the name.

The historian above speculated that Human-numena may have been “perhaps even a monarch of a rival Elamite kingdom.” That works for me, and means that Shutruk-nahunte II descended from a line of nobles or minor kings from some part of the Elamite empire, who lived contemporarily with the fading line of Shutrukid kings.

But in order for Shutruk-nahunte to be telling the truth about his ancestory, he had to be descended from those same Shutrukids, specifically Hutelutush-inshusinak and Shilhina-hamru-lagamar.

Thing is, they were brothers; meaning he wasn’t literally descended from both of them, since that’s impossible. But as has been noted, Elamite kings were prone to be somewhat broad in their definition of “fatherhood.”

Hutelutush-inshushinak himself called himself “son of Šutruk-Nahhunte, of Kutir-Nahhunte, and of Šilhak-Inšušinak,” even though Shilhak-inshushinak is known to be his own brother!

MARRIAGE LINKS

Given that, I consider it doubtful that Shutruk-nahunte II was literally descended from either brother; because if we are to believe Shutruk-nahunte II about his ancestry, Humban-tahra must have married the daughter or sister of Shilhak-inshushinak, or some other Shutrukid royal female of the time.

That connection also explains Shutruk-nahunte’s own name, which was given to honor the mother’s grandfather (give or take a generation). Elamite descent often goes through the nephew, which is what Humban-numena would be in this equation; that being true, it makes sense of the following fact, otherwise hard to explain…

The inscription commemorating the latter deed [constructing a temple] is interesting in that Hutelutush-Inshushinak says that he did it, not for the lives of his wife and offspring, but ‘for my life and the life of my brothers and sisters, for the life of my nephews, for the life of my nieces, of those of my house’ (AOE)

If Hutelutush is taken literally, then he ignored his offspring, if any, and blessed his brother Shilhina-hamru-lagamar, who would briefly reign after him, and also his “sisters” and his nephews and nieces; clearly there was an intent for them to carry on ruling after him.

The only conclusion that makes sense of all these facts is that Hutelutush’s sister married Humban-tahra, a king from a separate but allied Elamite kingdom. Then their son Humban-numena married the sister of Humban-nikash, a king from yet another Elamite kingdom, and then Shutruk-nahunte II ruled after him – perhaps for the very same reason, lack of male offspring by Humban-nikash.

Shutruk-nahunte II then would have held royal blood from every Elamite royal branch. Not only that, but his ancestry could be traced back through Shutruk-nahunte I, who was son of a daughter of Napirasa-untas, to the Igihalkids.

From that, we can trace it back to Igi-halki himself, whose son Pahir-issan married the daughter of Kurigalzu II, through a total of 12 generations. While the Elamites left us no reign lengths, unfortunately, we can use these generations to estimate how long the dynasty lasted.

Estimating around 20 years per generation places Kurigalzu II around ‑900, precisely where we placed him for many other reasons.

So in the end, the Elamites were able to help Mesopotamian chronology; all anyone had to do was listen to them.

P.S….

If you happen to be well versed in this subject, you may be screaming “But what about the captivity of Bel-marduk; when Shutruk-nahunte stole the idol of Marduk from Babylon, and Nebuchadnezzar I retrieved it from Hutelutush-inshushinak a generation later; that story happened in the ‑1100’s and discredits your whole theory!

I’m glad you asked; the answer deserves it’s own chapter.

And you’re partially right… it does discredit a theory. Whose… remains to be seen.

THE FINAL DATING

The Neo-Elamite kings can be securely dated based on the Canon of Ptolemy to ‑743‑717 for Humban-nikash I and ‑717‑699 for Shutruk-nahunte II. The middle Elamite kings can only be dated relative to Babylonian kings, which presents a problem.

Meli-shipak’s daughter was given to a king of Elam, probably Shutruk-nahunte I; this generally happens during the reign of the father of the bride, which we have dated to ‑762‑748; Shutruk-nahunte would conquer the Kassites in ‑738 or so, shortly after the Berlin letter was written.

You see the problem; this has Shutruk-nahunte I living almost at the same time as Shutruk-nahunte II, which given the generations involved is nearly impossible. Also, it’s difficult to believe that the Babylonian chronicle didn’t mention these things, since it records many events after ‑748.

Which means we need these events to be a bit earlier in the timeline. Kashtiliashu IV’s 4^th year being ‑797, the year of the Ra’ash, is a hill we are prepared to die on; but the sequence of events after that is murky.

The later Kassite kings are poorly attested, and were subject to regular Elamite invasions chiefly that of Kiden-hutran in the reigns of Enlil-nadin-sumi and Adad-shuma-iddina. (‑793‑786). Following these invasions, we are highly suspicious of the 30 year reign assigned to Adad-shuma-usur in the BKL;

There is surprisingly little contemporary evidence for this king considering the purported length of his reign, which was the longest recorded in the Kassite dynasty … The early part of his reign may well have been concurrent with that of the three kings preceding him on King List A, but it is quite probable that he followed them in ascending the throne of the city of Babylon. It is a characteristic trait of this tablet that concurrent kings and dynasties are presented successively as if one followed another … He may not have assumed authority throughout the country until around the 25th year of his 30-year reign, although the exact sequence of events and chronology remains disputed. (Wiki, Adad-shuma-usur)

Generally, a 30-year king leaves a ton of evidence of his existence; for him, we have almost none. That suggests, if his reign was indeed that long, it wasn’t that long in Babylon. He may have “reigned” in another part of the territory for much of his reign.

Much about this king is wrongly derived from the actions of the Adad-shuma-usur from Chronicle P, so you must read the Wikipedia page with caution; because what we actually know about this king is nearly zero.

The brevity of his reign over Babylon proper also explains the minimal contemporary inscriptions found. Only sixteen dated economic or legal texts attest to his reign, with just two of them from Babylon, bearing the curious double-dating formula adopted by Adad-šuma-uṣur and his immediate successors. These are inscribed 7 KAM 3 KAM and 9 KAM 3 KAM, speculated to represent his 27th and 29th years. Twelve of the extant tablets have provenance from excavation at Ur. (Wiki, Adad-shuma-usur)

Given this information, we would like to adjust the effective reign of this king, as Wiki suggested, down to five years – which would be much more consistent with the number of artifacts found.

And having adjusted the dates, we now revisit our earlier conclusions, pasting them verbatim but which dates adjusted:

The Neo-Elamite kings can be securely dated based on the Canon of Ptolemy to ‑743‑717 for Humban-nikash I and ‑717‑699 for Shutruk-nahunte II. …

Meli-shipak’s daughter was given to a king of Elam, probably Shutruk-nahunte I; this generally happens during the reign of the father of the bride, which we have dated to ‑785‑773; Shutruk-nahunte would conquer the Kassites in ‑761 or so, shortly after the Berlin letter was written.

With this cushion, we feel much happier about the genealogy; we now have about fifty years between Shutruk-nahunte I and II; that’s time for the necessary generations, and also puts the activities of Shutruk-nahunte well before the horizon of the Babylonian chronicle in ‑746.

Other solutions are possible, and we are surely wrong about the dates to some extent; but it’s a matter of decades, not of centuries. And we can prove this in one final way…

ADAD-SHUMA-USUR’S LETTER

Adad-shuma-usur’s most famous act, at least today, is the writing of an offensive letter to the Assyrian king Assur-nirari.

A fragment of an extraordinarily insulting letter … is addressed by Adad-šuma-uṣur, king of Babylon, to two rulers, Aššur-nerari III and Ilī-padâ, who are addressed as the “kings of Assyria.” (Wiki, Assur-nirari III)

Now remember, the “III” you see on these names is added by historians; it is never from ancient times. The only way the kings of the same name were distinguished in antiquity was through ancestry, but in this case, there is absolutely nothing to identify which Assur-nirari this is.

According to the traditional history, Adad-shuma-usur was one of the final kings of the Kassites, ruling around ‑1200. Looking at who was ruling Assyria at that time, there is a king named Assur-nirari III, hence the letter must be addressed to him. Reasonable.

However, as we have placed him in the years ‑790‑785, he is obviously no longer contemporary with Ashur-nirari III, so our theory breaks down. But wait! He is now contemporary with Ashur-nirari V, who ruled from 789‑779! Aren’t we lucky?

Furthermore, while little is known about him, Ashur-nirari III ruled at time when Assyria was powerful, and Kassites were weakening (in the traditional history). It would seem ill-advised to be so rude to an aggressive foreign power.

Nor was there, as far as we know, any particular reason to call him a weak moron. On the other hand, Ashur-nirari V was the last king to rule before the Assyrian state completely collapsed in the 8^th century, amid riots and famines and civil war. Wikipedia says of him…

… Based on the list of eponyms, Ashur-nirari’s reign was lackluster from a military perspective. The king is recorded to have stayed “in the land” (i.e. not campaigned) for almost every year of his reign, save for only three years…. It was customary for an Assyrian king to campaign every year which means that Ashur-nirari staying in Assyria could be a sign of domestic instability. Most Assyrian kings also undertook building projects, but no construction work conducted under Ashur-nirari V is known … Contemporary inscriptions that mention Ashur-nirari include an inscription by Sarduri II of Urartu, wherein Sarduri claims to have defeated Ashur-nirari in battle (Wiki, Assur-nirari V)

Now I ask you… doesn’t this guy sound like he deserves the following tirade from Adad-shuma-usur?

[The god Ash]ur to Aššur-nirari and Ilī-ḫaddâ [...through] slovenliness, drunkenness, and indecisiveness, things have taken a turn for the worse for you. Now there is neither sense nor reason in your heads. Since the great [gods] have driven you mad you speak [...]. Your faces [.....with] iniquitous and criminal counsel — Adad-šuma-uṣur, letter to Aššur-nirari and Ilī-ḫaddâ (Wiki, Adad-shuma-usur)

This dovetails perfectly with revolts and a major defeat in battle; “things have taken a turn for the worse for you,” indeed. And it so happens that this king is exactly where he needs to be in the timeline.

The general picture of a world in flames also dovetails perfectly with the situation that surrounded Adad-shumu-usur’s own Kassite successor (who was also Shutruk-nahunte’s father-in-law):

Meli-Shipak’s rule is understood to have been peaceful. Not so for the edges of his kingdom, where the catastrophic collapse at the end of the Bronze Age was starting to dramatically unfold with many of the cities of the Levant experiencing destruction. The city of Emar, situated in northern Syria, was sacked and a legal document was found on the floor in a private house there, dated to his second year … Historian Daniel Arnaud has concluded that only a very short time (“weeks”) elapsed between its preparation and the cataclysmic destruction of the city by “hordes of enemies” (Wiki, Meli-Shipak)

The historical situation is so bad that no one knows how the following king came to power after Assur-dan V, and – as we will discuss in the proper place – records were not kept in Assyria for around 30 years following his reign

Isn’t this a better context for Adad-shuma-usur to write an insulting letter to an ineffectual Assyrian king who couldn’t control his population, built nothing, didn’t campaign often and when he did, lost to the Urartians?

And those are just the failures we know about.

GOADING ASSYRIANS

We rest our case, but feel like mocking historians a little bit more. This letter was found in the libraries of Assurbanipal, written in Neo-Assyrian script. Based on this, historians believe it to have been copied from an earlier letter written in the 12^th century, when they believe these kings lived.

We ask… why? It is rare for mere letters to be copied; religious texts, king lists, textbooks, yes; but letters were, then as now, considered disposable correspondence, worth keeping as records for a generation or two perhaps, but not half a millennium – and copying them was expensive.

So why would the prideful Assyrian kings have bothered to copy and keep such an insulting letter addressed to the Assyrian kings in general? And they kept it not for a few years, but for upwards of four centuries?

…The letter [from Adad-shuma-usur] was carefully copied and preserved in the library at Nineveh. Grayson speculates it was kept to “goad” the Assyrians to vengeance. (Wiki, Assur-nirari III)

This is so hard to believe, historians feel compelled offer a weak explanation: “it was kept to goad the Assyrians to vengeance.” Vengeance against whom, we ask?

At the time of it’s alleged copying, the Kassite who wrote it was long dead, his civilization, even his language had long since disappeared in the traditional history.

Yet they expect us to believe that Assyrian kings from the 7^th century made copies of this letter to preserve it so they would get worked up and go to war? Really? Like they needed a letter for that? Haven’t you read anything about the neo-Assyrians, arguably the worlds first Nazis?

And somehow a four century old letter from a dead civilization to an unimportant Assyrian king was useful to inspire them?

This explanation fails the absurdity test. The fact is, this letter was written shortly before the end of Ashur-nirari V’s reign in ‑779, at a time when the Assyrians were beset by plague, famine, and civil war and the world seemed to be literally coming to an end.

The letter was never copied, it was found with the language and spelling of the late Assyrian period because it was written in that period. Which is, as always, the obvious conclusion anyway.

It was preserved in the library of Assurbanipal because it was deposited in the library by Assurbanipal’s immediate ancestors around a century earlier, and no one ever bothered to throw it away.

Occam’s razor.