New Light on Šimaški and Its Rulers

Kar-da<sup>KI</sup>-ka 21<sup>st</sup> ce. B.C.E. Karda Land of Valiant Mountain People Central Zagros East Terminological Analysis

“…Its acceptance could also be decisive for the assessment of 51 Steinkeller, 2007: ZA 2007 216, footnote 3. 52 Curtis, 1990: Ancient Persia.…”

Dual power in Susa: Chronicle of a transitional period from Ur III via Šimaški to the Sukkalmaḫs

“…New evidence, based on the study of Chantier B from Susa's Royal City published in MDP 55, has recently led to a new chronology for the beginning of the Sukkalmaḫ at. The basic argument for this is the early dating of the rule of Atta-ḫ ušu which, based on my study of Chantier B, can be dated at least eighty years earlier than the generally accepted chronology as stated most recently in Steve et al 2002. Since then, responses in defence of the generally accepted chronology have been offered by Vallat (2007Vallat ( , 2009, a new inscription of the Šimaškian ruler Idattu has been published (Steinkeller 2007), and new insights on the chronology and history of this period have been formulated by Glassner and Steinkeller and presented at the International Congress on Susa and Elam, Ghent University, December 2009. At the same time I have been working on additional material from the same early period in Susa, 2 putting things in a wider perspective in order to develop a chronological and historical perspective on the transitional period between the loss of control by the Ur III empire and the institutionalization of the Sukkalmaḫ regime, in order to come to a chronologically solidly grounded and coherent socio-economic history of the early Sukkalmaḫ at.…”

“…It is known that three Šimaškian kings, Kirname, Tazitta and Ebarat, were contemporaries 24 so here again, rulers listed as sequential were in fact simultaneous and doubt was cast on the chronological reliability of this document. However, Steinkeller (2007: 221–2) has published a new inscription of Idattu I, who described himself as the grandson of Ebarat I and the son of Kindattu. Hence, Steinkeller concluded that at least for the line of Ebarat I, the Šimaškian king list is to be considered a genuine chronological source.…”

“…Based on his new reading of the inscription, Glassner puts forward the theory that Ebarat II ruled as king over Anšan and Susa while Šilhaha, being his Sukkalmaḫ, exercised authority in his name over Elam and/or Šimaški. He refers to an inscription published by Steinkeller (2007) in which Kiten-rakittapi, Sukkalmaḫ of Elam and teppir , calls himself a servant of Idadu, king of Anšan, Šimaški and Elam 33 . Steinkeller (2007: 222 n. 29) concluded from this inscription that the Sukkalmaḫ of Elam was a deputy of the king of Anšan and that the later (Old-Babylonian) Sukkalmaḫs of Susa were also dependent on the rulers of Anšan.…”

“…Since then, responses in defence of the generally accepted chronology have been offered by Vallat (2007, 2009), a new inscription of the Šimaškian ruler Idattu has been published (Steinkeller 2007), and new insights on the chronology and history of this period have been formulated by Glassner and Steinkeller and presented at the International Congress on Susa and Elam, Ghent University, December 2009. At the same time I have been working on additional material from the same early period in Susa, 2 putting things in a wider perspective in order to develop a chronological and historical perspective on the transitional period between the loss of control by the Ur III empire and the institutionalization of the Sukkalmaḫ regime, in order to come to a chronologically solidly grounded and coherent socio-economic history of the early Sukkalmaḫat.…”