Between 1550 (the end of the sequence of sukkal-mah and of legal texts from Susa) and 1350 bc, Elam experienced its own dark age. However, this phase was different from the one attested in the rest of the Near East. In reality, this presumed ‘dark age’ appears to be so more in terms of textual evidence, rather than historical developments. The end of the previous period had already shown the presence of Hurrian personal names, which now appeared alongside Kassite names. Considering the proximity of Elam to the Zagros (home of the Kassites) and the area east of the Tigris (where the Hurrian elements originally came from), these influences are not surprising.
The linguistic relations between Elamite, Hurrian and other languages spoken in the Zagros are not clear enough to prove a Mesopotamian origin of these personal names. After all, they could have reached Elam directly from the mountains. Similarly, we do not know for sure the reach ofElamite influence to the north-west and the political status of the mountain tribes in relation to Elam. It is possible that the constant conflicts between Elam, Assyria and Babylonia were fought to gain control over the commercial routes crossing Iran, as well as the foothills between the Tigris and the Zagros.
In the mid-fourteenth century bc, Kurigalzu II defeated the Elamite king Hurba-tilla. However, the latter does not appear in the Elamite dynastic sequences. Therefore, it is possible to assume that he was a king of Susiana with a Hurrian name, and that his defeat and Kurigalzu’s expedition to Susa did not threaten the stability of the Elamite confederation. Shortly after, when Middle Elamite sources reappear, we find a completely different situation from the period of the sukkal-mah Susa ceased to be the political centre of Elam. The seat of power moved further inland, beyond the mountains, in Anshan (modern Fars). Consequently, Middle Elamite kings began to use the title of ‘king of Anshan and Susa’.
The official language (also for royal inscriptions) was once again Elamite, and not Babylonian, as it had been before the dark age. Finally, the succession was by now patrilineal, a predictable result of that evolution of Elamite society that began in the seventeenth and sixteenth centuries bc. Another particular aspect of the Middle Elamite kingdom was its local character compared to the time of the sukkal-mah - At the time of the sukkal-mah, the choice of Susa as capital showed a clear intention of becoming a constitutive part of the Mesopotamian political system and of Babylonian culture. Now, however, following a tendency that has been attested in Hatti and Mitanni, Elam strived to maintain its uniqueness, while presenting itself as one of the protagonists in this decidedly polycentric Late Bronze Age Near East.
Figure 21.3 Dur-Untash (Choga Zanbil): plan of the city with the processional roads, the royal palace (east), and the sacred complex (within the walls) featuring a ziqqurat in the middle.
The founder of the new Elamite dynasty was Ike-Halki. He was succeeded by Pahir-ishshan and Attar-kittah, possibly two contemporaries of Nazi-Marutash and Kadashman-Turgu. Elam was therefore part of that coexistence of different powers characteristic of the second half of the fourteenth century bc. At the same time as the rise of the Middle Assyrian state, the Middle Elamite state grew under Humban-nimena, Untash-Humban, Unpatar-Humban and Kidin-Hutran. Internally, the most influential Elamite king was Untash-Humban, who founded the city of Dur-Untash (Choga Zanbil, south-east of Susa). Dur-Untash was a small city, but certainly an important religious centre, with a ziqqurat that could have competed with the Babylonian ones and a rich set of temples and public buildings (Figure 21.3). Therefore, Elam was clearly influenced by the tendencies of the time (such as the foundation of Dur-Kurigalzu in Babylonia and Kar-Tukulti-Ninurta in Assyria), founding royal residences and artificial capitals ex novo. The buildings of Dur-Untash constitute the most imposing and significant remains of Middle Elamite culture (also due to their state of conservation). Even a single monument, such as the bronze statue of queen Napirasu, confirms that the reign of Untash-Humban constituted the apogee of the Middle Elamite period.
Meanwhile, the conflict between Assyria and Babylonia, and the subsequent decline of the Kassite dynasty, provided Elam with the perfect opportunity to embark on several military expeditions in Babylonia. Untash-Humban himself led an incursion against several Babylonian cities, taking away a considerable booty. The expedition of Tukulti-Ninurta against the Kassite king, Kashtiliash, constituted the crucial moment opening up an array of opportunities for the Elamites. Kidin-Hutran thus led two important expeditions, destroying the area east of the Tigris (Der and the Diyala Valley). He subsequently reached Nippur and other cities in the heart of Babylonia. The incursions did not provide long-lasting results, but allowed the Elamites to control certain areas in the Zagros foothills, especially the lands of Padan and Yal-man (Arman). The latter had been the main regions of the earliest Kassite kings and a crucial link between their native land and Babylonia. Not even Tukulti-Ninurta’s reaction and attack, reaching as far as the Persian Gulf, succeeded in removing these newly conquered lands from Elamite control.
We have already mentioned that the final fall of the Kassite dynasty, which took place in the twelfth century bc, was the result of further Elamite incursions led by Shutruk-Nahhunte and Kutir-Nahhunte. However, these expeditions, marking the highpoint of the Middle Elamite kingdom, took place after the Late Bronze Age. They therefore took place in a different political scenario, which has to be taken into consideration later on.
World History
