Download - "Resisting Empire: Elam in the First Millennium B.C." in Settlement and Society: Essays Dedicated to Robert McCormick Adams (ed. E. Stone; Cotsen Institute of Archaeology 2007)

139

R

ESISTING

E

MPIRE

: E

LAM

IN

THE

F

IRST

M

ILLENNIUM

BC

E

LIZABETH

C

ARTER

A

BSTRACT

Early in the first millennium BC, the Elamites were on the periphery of thepowerful Assyrian Empire; by the last half of the millennium, they becamepart of the Achaemenid core, their political power and “cultural capital”subsumed within the Persian imperial style. This paper documents how theElamites maintained their cultural and political independence despiteintense Assyrian pressure and discusses the subsequent acculturation

1

of theElamites into the larger, international Iranian world of the last half of thefirst millennium BC. The Elamites adjusted and adapted their customs overthe millennia and maintained a cultural presence in southwestern Iran longafter their political demise (Potts 1999).

H

ISTORICAL

B

ACKGROUND

During the late second millennium, the Elamites of southwestern Iranformed a union of highland and lowland folk, who came together to defeatthe Babylonians. This combination of local powers carried the seeds of itsown destruction, as small polities grew increasingly independent. The formerunion crumbled under pressure from Nebuchadnessar I (1125–1104). Thecapitals of Susa in Khuzistan and Anshan in Fars had already declined inimportance by 1100–1000 BC (E. Carter 1994; de Miroschedji 1990). Textualsources for the period from 1000 to 744 BC are absent from Elam, and it is

1

For a review of the definitions of acculturation and the distinctions between assimila-tion and acculturation, see B. J. Stone 1995. Here the term is used to describe theprocess that takes place when cultures come into direct and continuous contact withsubsequent modifications in the original cultural patterns of either or both groups.

Stone_07N.fm 39 Tuesday, November 21, 2006 5:01 PM

E

LIZABETH

C

ARTER

140

only in the mid-eighth century that written documents provide any signifi-cant information (Waters 2000).

The Elamites of the late second millennium, possibly pushed by a pro-longed drought (Neumann and Parpola 1987), apparently turned increas-ingly to pastoralism and plunder for their livelihood (E. Carter 1984). InBabylonia, Chaldea, and Iran, the first centuries of the first millennium BCare periods of tribal growth and urban decline. Scattered Mesopotamiansources show that Chaldeans and Aramaeans had moved into the areas ofsouthwestern Iran formerly under Elamite control, especially along the riverUlai (the modern Karkheh) and in the Pusht-i Kuh (western Luristan)(Brinkman 1984b; 1986; Cole 1996a; 1996b). To the southeast in the terri-tory of Anshan, the Persian tribes appear to have entered Fars at this time (E.Carter 1994; Stronach 1974), and the Medes were consolidating their powerbase in northwestern Iran (Roaf 1995).

Elamite territory lay in the midst of these forces in the middle plains ofcentral Khuzistan, the upland valleys of southeastern Khuzistan, and westernFars (E. Carter 1994). To the northwest of Susa, particularly on the upperreaches of the Karkheh River, Elamite cultural traditions remained alive inLuristan, but our sources are mute on the ethnic background of the popula-tion. Tribal boundaries were permeable, and Kassite, Elamite, and Aramaeangroups frequently moved between highlands and lowlands in the Pusht-i Kuh(Brinkman 1986). Layard’s description of the relationship between the Arabs ofthe Trans-Tigridian corridor and the Lurs of the Pusht-i Kuh in the nine-teenth century offers a reasonable ethnographic parallel to the fluid situationsketched from the texts:

During the summer the tribes [Beni Lam Arabs] congregate near that river [Tigris] and on the borders of the vast inland marshes formed by its waters. In the winter and spring they usually encamp in the sandstone and gypsum hills running parallel to the great range, or in the plains at the foot of the mountains. They mix with the Feili tribes of the Pusht-i-Kuh, and pasture their flocks on their lands for which they yearly pay a small sum to the Wali Ali Khan. They are usually on good terms with the inhabitants of the mountains, whose chiefs continually take refuge in their tents when opposed by the government or expelled by their own tribes. The Arab Sheikhs at the same time frequently seek asylum among the I’liyáts of the hills. Thus it is for their mutual interest to be on friendly terms. (Layard 1894: 46–47)

In the eighth century, a shift of the Euphrates River course back toward theold centers of settlement in Babylonia was in part responsible for a rebirth ofurban life. The southern and eastern trade routes increased in importance atthis time. Wool, livestock, and slaves from the Zagros, metals from the Iranian

Stone_07N.fm Page 140 Tuesday, November 21, 2006 5:01 PM

R

ESISTING

E

MPIRE

: E

LAM

IN

THE

F

IRST

M

ILLENNIUM

BC

141

Plateau and Oman, camels, purple dyes (?), and incense from Arabia wereamong the essential commodities of this trade. Babylonia’s cities managed thetrade and reaped the profits (Cole 1996a; 1996b).

Babylonian advancement meant that Elam gained as well—a patternobserved over the millennia (de Miroschedji 2003). Renewed internationaltrade traversed Elamite territories, and these regions profited since they pro-duced wool, supplied pack animals, and controlled access to the metalsources. Susa, the most famous of the Elamite cities, also prospered (seebelow), but we have little direct evidence of its role in the larger transre-gional economy documented for Babylonia.

Until 750, the Assyrians had limited interest in the Zagros, and theElamites remained sheltered in their mountain valleys. There is no evidencethat the Assyrians had any expansionary goals toward the east, nor did theElamites want to come into direct conflict with the Assyrians.

2

Later in theeighth and seventh centuries, when the Assyrians and Elamites did fight, itwas “nearly always the direct result of Babylonian efforts to maintain orregain its independence from Assyria” (Gerardi 1987: 256). These circum-stances suggest that the southern trade routes had become important alterna-tives to the western trade routes controlled by the Assyrians and their vassals.The Elamites provided military aid to the Babylonians not only for directmonetary gain, through bribes and a share of the booty, but also to maintainthe commercial advantage they had when the Babylonians controlled theinternational trade routes.

Elam was unstable—nineteen kings ruled Elam during the reign of Sar-gon II (721–705 BC) alone (Gerardi 1987: 257, 259, fig. 9)—and the Assyri-ans used Elamite disunity to keep them under control. The Elamites,nevertheless, were successful up to a point in avoiding the full force of theAssyrian army. Even after the destruction of Elam by Assurbanipal in 646BC, the persistence of the mountain polities in southeastern Khuzistan andthe resiliency of Susa between 646 and 550 BC bear witness to the successthat Elamites had against the Assyrians (Potts 1999: 259–308).

T

HE

L

ANDSCAPE

OF

R

ESISTANCE

IN

E

LAM

The Archaeological Record in Susiana

Because textual sources for the Neo-Elamite I (1000–775 BC) period are lack-ing, archaeology perforce plays a large role in our discussion of the early Neo-

2

The Elamites avoided direct confrontation with the Assyrians by occasionallymaking treaties with them and resisted them by selectively giving political refugeto the Babylonian opponents of Assyria (Gerardi 1987; Stolper 1984).


E

LIZABETH

C

ARTER

142

Elamite period. First in this chain of evidence is R. McC. Adams’s survey in theKhuzistan plain (Adams 1962) (Figure 41). One of the major results of his sur-vey was to identify a sharp population drop during the middle of the first mil-lennium BC. He linked this desertion of the plain directly to the Assyrianconquest. Subsequent surveys (E. Carter 1971; de Miroschedji 1981c) andexcavations at Susa (de Miroschedji 1981a; 1981b) and the reexamination ofexcavated materials from Al Untash Napirisha (E. Carter 1992) show, however,that the desertion of the plain was a longer and more complex process.

Figure 41. (FACING PAGES): Map of Khuzistan and adjacent areas showing sites mentioned in the text.


R

ESISTING

E

MPIRE

: E

LAM

IN

THE

F

IRST

M

ILLENNIUM

BC

143

The Elamites, instead of facing the Assyrians, appear to have moved out oftheir path—creating their brand of a “landscape of resistance.” De Miroschedji(1981a) outlined a ceramic chronology through his excavations in the VilleRoyale II (Neo-Elamite: NE I 1000–775 BC; NE II 774–522 BC)

3

and resur-veyed sites in the northern portions of the Susiana plain (de Miroschedji1981c) (Figure 42). Around Susa, the number of settlements had already begunto decline during the Late Middle Elamite period (ME II–III, ca.1350–1000BC) (E. Carter 1994). On the northern Susiana plain by 1000 BC or so, over

Figure 41.

(C

ONTINUED

):

Map of Khuzistan and adjacent areas showing sites mentioned in the text.


E

LIZABETH

C

ARTER

144

half the twenty-one Neo-Elamite I sites were new foundations, and ten of thethirteen new sites were on the east side of the Diz River. The foundation ofsites KS-633 and KS-643 near KS-120, Deh-i Noh, may be linked to the frac-tionalization of the major Middle Elamite settlement there. Likewise, theestablishment of new settlements (KS-566, -570, -571) may reflect the breakupof the large (100 hectare) Middle Elamite settlement at Al Untash Napirisha,

Figure 42. (FACING PAGES): (A) Northern Khuzistan in the Neo-Elamite I period (ca. 1000–775 BC), after de Miroschedji 1981c.

3

Historic periodization based on linguistic and historic criteria generally uses threephases: NE I = 1000–743 BC; NE II = 743–653 BC; NE III = 653–550 BC. For adiscussion of the various schemes, see Waters 2000: 3–4. Archaeologists can distin-guish only two phases on the basis of the excavated ceramic materials.


R

ESISTING

E

MPIRE

: E

LAM

IN

THE

F

IRST

M

ILLENNIUM

BC

145

where only squatter occupations and a few impoverished burials can be datedto the early first millennium (E. Carter 1992; Ghirshman 1968). The southernportion of the Susiana plain appears to have produced very little Neo-Elamitematerial, but needs to be reexamined in the light of new ceramic data.

In the Neo-Elamite II period (774–522 BC), the population on the Susi-ana plain declines even further. The two largest Neo-Elamite I sites, KS-3A-B and KS-7, are abandoned. De Miroschedji’s (1981c: 169–172) work identi-fied only six sites of the period in northern Susiana. The most important wasKS-369 (12 hectares), which is situated 5 kilometers southwest of ChoghaMish (KS-1) (Figure 42b). Chogha Mish might offer a partial explanation for

Figure 42. (CONTINUED): (B) Northern Khuzistan in the Neo-Elamite II period (ca. 725/700–520 BC), after de Miroschedji 1981c.


E

LIZABETH

C

ARTER

146

the precipitous drop in Elamite settlement in northern Khuzistan. Theceramic assemblage identified there as Achaemenid contains a number ofearlier types that find parallels with Godin II and Nush-i Jan Late Mediantypes dated around 600 BC (Delougaz and Kantor 1996: 10–18; R. Stronach1978). These materials suggest that contemporary, but ceramically distinctgroups may have occupied part of the Susiana during the Neo-Elamite IIperiod and remained unrecognized by researchers looking for Elamite mate-rials.

De Miroschedji (1981c: 172)

4

suggests that, given the politics of theperiod, the foundation of Elamite sites in northern Khuzistan should be datedbefore Assurbanipal's conquest in 646 BC. If his reconstruction is correct, thenthe Susiana conquered by Assurbanipal can be seen as a region whose popula-tion had declined but which included a group of settlements on the southeast-ern edge of the Susiana plain. The survey data show a continued developmentof the area on the lower course of the Lureh between it and the Diz (Figure42b). The growth of this sector of the plain on the road to the Ram Hormuzpossibly should be seen as an effort to expand in the direction of the Elamitesettlements in southeastern Khuzistan.

5

At Susa, the state-sponsored buildings of earlier times are conspicuous bytheir absence (Malbran-Labat 1995: 205) in the Neo-Elamite I period. Monu-mental works of metal sculpture, so distinctive of the Middle Elamite period(see, for example, Harper, Aruz, and Tallon 1992), are unknown during theNeo-Elamite I period. A comparison of the archaeological assemblages earlierand later than the Neo-Elamite I period show that luxuries were few and farbetween around the turn of the millennium in Susa. But by the middle of theeighth century, as noted above, prosperity returned to lowland Babylonia, andSusa appears to have been part of that mini-renaissance.

The best-known ruler of the time, Shutruk Nahhunte II (717–699 BC),took the name and title: King of Anshan and Susa, enlarger of the realm(Waters 2000: 111–116). This act appears to have been an attempt to tie hisrule to the powerful Middle Elamite dynasty founded by Shutruk Nahhunte I(ca. 1165 BC). The early excavations at Susa revealed a small temple deco-rated with glazed tiles and inscribed with the name of Shutruk Nahhunte II,which reuses earlier construction materials and is possibly recycled fromMiddle Elamite II–III (ca. 1350–1000 BC) times (Amiet and Lambert 1967;

4

De Miroschedji’s (1981c: 172) suggestion that mobile pastoralists, recent Ara-maean immigrants, formed a high percentage of the population in Khuzistanappears unsupported.

5

Perhaps it is not accidental that Assurbanipal’s annals record that the Elamite,Ummanaldas, fled south from Madaktu and used the Diz as his line of defense(Gerardi 1987: 195–196).


R

ESISTING

E

MPIRE

: E

LAM

IN

THE

F

IRST

M

ILLENNIUM

BC

147

Heim 1992). One of Shutruk Nahhunte II’s texts also records that he rein-stalled statues of earlier Elamite rulers before the cult image of Inshushinak(Montagne and Grillot-Susini 1996: 24–25).

In short, the revival of the Elamite language (or at least inscriptions),along with the use of an older royal titulary and the continuity of architec-tural and artistic traditions, point to a conscious Elamite revival in Susianaduring the Neo-Elamite II period. These references to the past do not meanthat the population of Susa was fundamentally Elamite,

6

but it does showthat the local rulers of an ethnically diverse city sought to associate them-selves with an earlier period when the Elamites were masters, not servants ofthe Babylonians. Vallat (1980) has argued that it is only at this time that low-land Susiana became a province of highland Elam. Regardless of whether hisview is correct, the use of Elamite in royal inscriptions tied Susa to its glori-ous past, linked it to the increasingly powerful highland polities to the northand east, and distinguished the Susians from both their Assyrian enemies andBabylonian allies.

Seen in this light, the reintegration of Susa with the adjacent mountainpolities, which were bound to them by tradition and trade, becomes a meansof resisting empire. By the eighth century BC, and probably earlier, a newpolitical and social landscape emerged in Elam. Susa was no longer the polit-ical center of Elam, but remained an important symbol of Elamite identity.The towns of Madaktu and Hidalu (Figure 41) now appear frequently in theAssyrian sources as the foci of political and military activity. The flight ofKudur Nahhunte (693–692 BC) from Madaktu to Hidalu also hints at theimportance of the upland regions to Elam’s political structure (Waters 2000:31–33) and underscores the links among the mountain strongholds in theZagros.

7

De Miroschedji (1986b) has suggested that Tepe Patak in the DehLuran plain (60 kilometers northwest of Susa) should be identified asMadaktu.8 Hidalu probably lies in the Ram Hormuz (150 kilometers to thesoutheast) or in the adjacent Behbehan region (E. Carter 1994).

Renewed contacts with the highlands set Susiana apart from the powersthat surrounded Elamite territory: the Assyrians and Babylonians to the west;the Medes to the north; and the Persians to the east. The effectiveness of

6 Stolper 1992: 259–260; the slightly earlier Neo-Hittite revival in north Syria(Dodd 2002) may offer a parallel to the Elamite revival in Khuzistan.

7 M. A. Stein’s (1940b) road from Behbehan to the Pish-i Kuh completely bypassesSusa and it seems likely that these mountain roads were well used in the Neo-Elam-ite period to connect the various highland regions that comprised the country.

8 The identification is not generally accepted; compare Vallat 1993: 162. It seemsmore likely that Madaktu lay in the upland valleys of Luristan, but its location isstill unknown.


ELIZABETH CARTER148

Elamite strategy is attested by its resiliency. Urban life in Susa survived andeven revived in the short period between the Assyrian conquest in 646 BCand the total takeover of the city by Darius in 522 BC (Potts 1999: 297–307).9

The Northwest Highlands

Surveys and excavations in Luristan show the appearance of numerous ceme-tery sites dating to the early first millennium BC, but permanent settlementsare very poorly attested (Vanden Berghe and Tourovets 1995). These burialgrounds are located along rivers and streams, primarily along the uppercourses of the Karkheh, the Saimarreh, and the Gar Ab.10 Likewise, VandenBerghe (1973a: 28) found sites along the smaller streams traversing theZagros and leading to the foothill road such as the Cham Ab, the Gulgul, andthe Dawairij. Most are isolated cemetery sites and were very likely the burialgrounds of mobile pastoralists (Figure 43).

Looted tombs in this region have yielded a large number of metalobjects, making precise dating difficult. Even excavated tomb groups are dif-ficult to date both because of the custom of reusing tombs (Vanden Berghe1973a) and the lack of comparative materials. Likewise, inscribed pieces11 arelimited in their usefulness in establishing a date for the burials since theyhave a long use life and were often heirlooms by the time they were includedin a burial. Nevertheless, the military character of many of these funeraryassemblages—swords, daggers, maceheads, quivers, and shields—is clear, andthey are common features of the Luristan Iron Age burials.

The recent publication and analysis of comparative materials suggestthat the Luristan cemeteries range in date between ca.1200 and 600 BC. Thematerials from the Iron Age I and II (ca. 1200–800 BC) cemeteries like Bard-i Bal and Gulgul show cultural ties with the Elamite regions, but few parallelswith Mesopotamia (Vanden Berghe and Tourovets 1995). For example, anidol with two rampant mountain goats from Bard-i Bal shows a clear affinitywith older and contemporary Elamite artistic styles known from Susa

9 I suggest that the most logical date for the founding of the Village perse-achéménid(the area in the Ville des artisans of Susa, east of the main tell) (Ghirshman 1954) isjust before the rebuilding of the older areas of the mound by Darius, since the lev-eling required for the new structures on the Apadana would have displaced peoplefrom this area of the site.

10 Vanden Berghe (1971; 1973a) originally dated these burials somewhat earlier thanthe bulk of the comparative material now suggests. This article was completedbefore I received Overlaet 2003.

11 Brinkman (1968: 9–12) studied the inscribed pieces, Luristan bronzes from theantiquities market, and found them to date between the twelfth and tenth centuries.


RESISTING EMPIRE: ELAM IN THE FIRST MILLENNIUM BC 149

Figu

re 4

3.

Arc

haeo

logi

cal s

ites

in

Lur

ista

n (a

fter

Hae

rinc

k an

d O

verl

aet 1

998)

.


ELIZABETH CARTER150

(Vanden Berghe 1971: 20, fig. 14; compare Amiet 1988: figs. 39 and 71). AtKarkhai in the Abdanan region, just north of the Deh Luran plain, the gravegoods included a faience box (compare Amiet 1966: fig. 375, p. 498), a com-posite pin (de Miroschedji 1981a: fig. 40: 4-5), and an ink-pot metal vessel(de Miroschedji 1981a: fig. 40: 12)—all items closely paralleled at Susa in theNeo-Elamite II period.

On the other hand, near Aiwan in northwestern Luristan, burial goods ofIron III date (ca. 800–600 BC) show close ties to Assyria and north Syria andnot to the adjacent Elamite areas to the east and south (Haerinck and Overlaet1998; 1999; Vanden Berghe and Tourovets 1995). We have no certain way toidentify the ethnicity or politics of the people buried in scattered graveyardsof Luristan, nor can we be sure who made these items. Are the Assyrian-styleobjects found in Luristan imports, local work made in emulation of imperialstyles, or brought by some deported population from the north?

The distribution of the funerary assemblages and burial types neverthe-less appears to make a certain amount of historical sense. The grave goodsfound at the northwest edge of the Trans-Tigridian corridor east of theZagros front show closer connections to Assyrian and north Syrian styles;those found farther to the east and southeast appear local and/or Elamite. Inthe Pish-i Kuh (the eastern side of the Zagros front), two Iron Age sanctuarysites have been identified on the eastern branches of the Saimarreh River.Both are situated in large valleys and may have been places of pilgrimageand/or passages for peoples from the east and west of the Kabir Kuh. One isin the Hulailan Valley, near the site of Tepe Guran at a place called Tang-iHamamlan (Thrane 1964); and the other, called Surkh Dum, is located in theKuh-i Dasht. Tang-i Hamamlan was looted, and the rescue excavations couldonly tentatively confirm the presence of a shrine.

Numerous finds, however, came from the sanctuary at Surkh Dum(eighth to seventh century BC) (Muscarella 1981; Schmidt, van Loon, andCurvers 1989). At Surkh Dum, the persistence of Elamite artistic and reli-gious traditions in the mountains is clear. Votive pins stuck into the inter-stices of the walls are reminiscent of the tombs excavated in Luristan withElamite-related metal objects stuck in their walls (Vanden Berghe 1971: 18).The use of cylinder seals as votive offerings is also an Elamite practice wellattested at Al Untash Napirisha (Porada 1970). Faience and bone carvingsare manufactured in local styles but may share some features of Elamite tra-ditions (Muscarella 1981; Schmidt, van Loon, and Curvers 1989: 245–254,363–379). Some of the metalwork also shows close Elamite ties; particularlystriking is the goddess on the coiled serpent throne (Calmeyer 1995).

The site may have been an administrative center in the mountains formobile pastoralists moving between northern Susiana and the Pish-i Kuh



during the eighth and seventh centuries BC (Schmidt, van Loon, and Cur-vers 1989: 489). The ethnographic data suggest that the shrine12 was possiblya spot to make offerings and to perform oaths for the nomads on their bien-nial migration. Other interpretations of this unique building are possible, butthe ties to Elamite cultural traditions are clear. The metalworking that flour-ished during the first part of the first millennium in Luristan was a develop-ment with a background in earlier Middle Elamite craft traditions (Moorey1971: 302–309; Porada 1965: 45–73). Surely some of these people wereElamites, while others must have belonged to different ethnic or linguisticgroups but nonetheless appreciated Elamite artistic styles. The archaeologi-cal record alone does not allow us to specifically distinguish Elamite fromnon-Elamite in the mountains of Luristan.

The Southeastern Highlands

Surveys in the Ram Hormuz plain and small-scale excavations at the site ofTall-i Ghazir show that occupation there continued throughout the late sec-ond millennium BC well into Achaemenid times (E. Carter 1994; H. T.Wright and Carter 2003). Instead of declining in population like the middleplains of central Khuzistan, population rose during this period. Surveys (H.T. Wright, ed. 1979) in the Izeh region, 80 kilometers to the north of RamHormuz, have failed to discover any settlements of the period, but I suspectthat the modern town itself may cover the occupation. Rock reliefs at Shikaf-i Salman, 3 kilometers south of Iseh, and Kul-i Farah, 7 kilometers northeastof the city, carry inscriptions in Elamite that identify the region as part of asmall state called Aapir ruled by Hanni, a contemporary of Shurtur Nah-hunte, son of Idadu (not Shutruk Nahhunte II 717–699 BC) (De Waele,1981; Vanden Berghe 1986; Waters 2000: 111–116). The original reliefsappear to have been carved in the late Middle Elamite period (1300–1000BC) but the inscriptions added later. The one exception to this is the reliefcalled Kul-i Farah I, where the image and the inscription are apparentlyroughly contemporary. The panel shows the king, Hanni, with his general,Shutrutu, and his cupbearer, Shuturututa, musicians and priests participatingin a sacrifice. The text, although difficult, seems to recount the brilliantcareer of the ruler, including a suppression of a revolt and the construction ofa temple (Calmeyer 1990; Stolper 1990; Waters 2000).

The mention of Elamite divinities in the inscriptions and the scenes ofsacrifice and religious processions accompanied by musicians demonstratethat the Kul-i Farah reliefs were part of an important outdoor sanctuary.

12 For an overview of shrines in Luristan in the recent past and some of their ethno-graphically attested functions, see Mortensen and Nicolaisen 1993: 121 ff.


ELIZABETH CARTER152

Likewise, the spring sanctuary at Shakaf-i Suleiman appears to have been asacred spot. It is significant that a nonroyal personage—and supposed vassalof the Elamite king in Hidalu—could decorate the cliffs with his history andthose of his family and associates. The use of these reliefs in the Neo-Elamiteperiod also suggests a need to continue and elaborate Elamite traditions inthe highlands.

In addition to the rock reliefs from Izeh, two other much earlier rockreliefs appear to have had additions made to them in the Neo-Elamiteperiod: the first at Kurangun (Vanden Berghe 1986: 163), and the second atNaqshe Rustam near Persepolis in Fars (Seidl 1986). The latter addition wasmore certainly made in that period since the dress of the figures is visible,identifiable, and roughly datable.

The chance discovery of an extraordinarily rich tomb made near Arjan, 10kilometers north of the modern city of Bebahan (Alizadeh 1985) has producedanother Elamite inscription. The tomb was a stone-built underground chamber,situated outside the settlement and constructed in the style of the highlands, butwith plastered walls like an Elamite burial. It contained a U-shaped bronze coffinof a type used in Mesopotamia and Iran; metal objects and vessels were foundinside and outside the coffin. The objects inside the coffin included an inscribedgold ring, 98 round gold discs that were originally sewn on a garment, a dagger,some fragments of textiles, and a silver rod. Outside the coffin on the floor of thetomb chamber were an elaborate bronze stand, lamp, silver jar, bronze jar,bronze cup, and ten cylindrical vases. A gold ring, which can be described asAchaemenid in style with an Elamite inscription, was found. Vallat (1984) datesthe inscription (Kiddin Hutran, son of Kurlash) to the period between 640 and525 BC—post-Assyrian conquest and pre-Darius.

The mixture of Iranian, Assyro-Babylonian, Syrian, and Elamite identifi-able in the artworks placed in the burial are representative, I believe, of thebeginnings of the international, imperial Achaemenid style. The “Phoene-cian” bowl (Majidzadeh 1992) illustrates Elamite participation in the largerinternational world of the time and the close ties of the Elamites to theAchaemenid world (Briant 2002: 20–21; E. Carter 1994; D. Stronach 2003).

Much of what is known from southeastern regions of Elam appears topostdate the Luristan finds with an overlap in the seventh century when theElamites were able to resist Assyria. Both historical and archaeologicalrecords show that the Elamites were mobile, fragmented populations unableto mount a real challenge to the Assyrians. When threatened, they aban-doned the lowlands of Khuzistan, possibly first moving northwest intoLuristan and then turning southeast to eastern Khuzistan. Further publica-tion of materials from Luristan and future excavations in eastern Khuzistanand western Fars will no doubt allow a more detailed evaluation of this pro-posal.



THE UNIQUE CASE OF THE ASSYRIAN RELIEFS

Thus the most pardoxical evidence of Elamite resistance to Assyria is fromthe city of Nineveh in the heartland of Assyria. Assurbanipal’s detailedrecords of his Elamite wars saved for posterity the people he most wanted toeliminate from historical memory. Indeed, Assurbanipal’s inclusion of theElamites in his records of conquest elevated Elamite status. In 653 BC, KingAssurbanipal of Assyria attacked the Elamite forces at an unknown locationalong the River Ulai (the modern Karkheh) in the province of Khuzistan.The sculpted walls of Room XXIII in the southwest palace of Sennacherib,Assurbanipal’s grandfather, record the events before, during, and after thebattle.13 These reliefs have been thoroughly studied (most recently by Curtis,Reade, and Collon 1995; Kaelin 1999), and the purpose of the remarks belowis to examine them as documentation of Elamite resistance to Assyria.

Even though Assurbanipal was victorious, the prominence14 given to thebattle with Te-Umman (Elamite, Tepti Humban Inshushinak, 664?–653 BC)tends to emphasize Elam’s dogged resistance to, rather than its destructionby, the Assyrians. The details of the setting, the method of attack (lightlyarmed Elamites and Babylonian allies racing down a hillside to attack theAssyrian army), and the identification of the actors in the drama by epigraphsmake it one of the most mimetic narratives in all of Assyrian art. The Elam-ites are still generic enemies; but their leaders are named and their familyrelationships mentioned in the epigraphs. These labels focus the attention ofthe viewer, literate or not, and provide specificity (Gerardi 1987: 94).

The images and their local details were designed to impress Elamite andother visitors to the palace and to illustrate the futility of revolution (Russell1991: 223–240). The portrayal of the Elamites as humans, without a divinemission to rule, is clarified in the epigraphs. Above the figure of a man beingbeheaded in the Till Tuba relief is written:

Te-Umman, king of Elam, who in fierce battle was wounded, Tammaritu,his eldest son, took him by the hand and to save (their) lives they fled.They hid in the midst of a forest. With the encouragement of Assur andIshtar I killed them. Their heads I cut off in front of each other. (Gerardi1987: 276)

13 The walls were of a fossiliferous limestone imported by Sennacherib but carved orrecarved by Assurbanipal (Russell 1999: 157).

14 In addition to the reliefs in Sennacherib's palace, a rendering of the same eventswas found in Assurbanipal’s north palace (Barnett 1976: 6–8, pls. 24–26).

Stone_07N.fm 3 Tuesday, November 21, 2006 5:01 PM

ELIZABETH CARTER154

Throughout the epigraphs Te-Umman calls on his son-in-law and his son,but Assurbanipal, of course, only relies on Ashur and Ishtar—a confirmationof Assurbanipal’s divine right to rule.

Assurbanipal (668–627 BC) had used various means to control the Elam-ites throughout his reign: foreign aid, installing local puppet rulers, makingtreaties, and finally his formidable military machine (Gerardi 1987: 250–258). Assurbanipal records in his annals the destruction of Susa and Elam ingraphic detail. He describes how he looted the city and desecrated its tem-ples. He destroyed the ziggurat of Susa, ripped off its bronze horns, and cutdown the trees in its sacred groves. Equally humiliating for the Elamites wasAssurbanipal’s violation of the royal tombs at Susa.

I pulled down and destroyed the tombs of their earlier and later kings, whohad not revered the deities of Ashur and Ishtar my lords, . . . and I exposedthem to the sun. I took away their bones to Assyria, I put restlessness ontheir ghosts, I deprived them of food-offerings and libations of water.(Translation Saggs 1984: 114)

The destruction of the royal tombs sends a clear message to the Elam-ites, one that is also illustrated on the upper left of the Till Tuba relief wherethe Gambilu, Elamite allies, are shown as captives grinding the bones of theirancestors (Russell 1999: fig. 60). In short, Assurbanipal tried to detach theElamites and their allies from their heritage, just as the Elamites had tried tonurture these links to past glory. His publicly displayed hatred of the Elam-ites may well have been a factor that pushed them into the arms of the risingPersian dynasty.

THE ACCULTURATION OF THE ELAMITES BY THE PERSIANS

How trustworthy are the reports of Assurbanipal? Elamite deportees turn upas far afield as Samaria and Egypt. There is even a letter that records thenames of administrators sent to Elam, although the exact date of the docu-ment is disputed (Potts 1999: 288–289). The textual and archaeologicalrecords outlined above show that the Elamites remained in their mountainvalleys and at Susa even after Assurbanipal’s conquest (Potts 1999: 289–308).Faced with the rise of the Neo-Babylonian dynasty on the west and theMedes on the north, the Elamites were left with little other choice than tothrow their lot in with the Persians. The situation appears to have beenmutually advantageous. The fragmented Elamite armies needed protectionfrom their enemies. The Persians needed the Elamites’ knowledge and possi-



bly sought to coopt their prestige,15 gained from many years of battling theAssyrians as allies of the Babylonians and along the Trans-Tigridian corridor.

The archaeological and historical records relating to Elam in the earlyfirst millennium BC are complex and diverse. Taken together, they provide apicture of how one peripheral state resisted a powerful empire only tobecome part of the imperial core of another dominant state. The archaeolog-ical record indicates that the Elamites of Susiana left their lowland citieswhen faced with political and environmental pressures. Settlement in thelowlands are abandoned and older centers such as Al Untash Napirisha andDeh-i No appear to fragment in the Neo-Elamite I period (1000–775 BC).By the end of the eighth century BC, the beginning of the Neo-Elamite IIperiod (774–522 BC), Susa sees a revival linked probably to the renaissanceevidenced in Babylonia, although the surrounding plain remains sparsely set-tled. The Elamite language reappears in Susa in royal inscriptions at thistime, and these texts were perhaps a conscious effort to tie the local Susianruler to a glorious past. The use of Elamite might well have been an act ofdefiance against both the Babylonians and the Assyrians.

The Elamites, according to Assyrian sources, used a wide range of tacticsto resist the Assyrian efforts to control them, including guerilla warfare,ambush, and flight. Most apposite is the retreat from Madaktu (perhapsnorthwest of Susa) to Hidalu in southeastern Khuzistan by Kudur Nahhunte(ca. 693–692 BC) or Humban Haltash III (648?–645? BC) (Waters 2000: 32,71) (Figure 41). To the Assyrians and the Babylonians, the Elamites pre-sented a more or less united front from the mid-eighth century into the reignof Te-Umman (ca. 664?–653 BC). But after this time, the Assyrians increasedtheir involvement in Elamite internal affairs, and the period is one of increas-ingly unsettled conditions and factional strife for Elam.

The impact of Assurbanipal’s defeat of Susa and other Elamite cities in646 BC is difficult to judge. The surprisingly rapid recovery of Susa between646 and 522 BC suggests that the blow may have been less than the Assryianrecords would have us believe. Also, by this time the Elamites were in closeand productive contact with the rising Persian Empire. When Assyria fell in612 BC, the Elamites had thrown their lot in with the Persians.

The early Achaemenids’ use of indigenous Elamite traditions in the for-mation of the new imperial culture was a means of gaining control over theElamites “cultural capital.” The placement of the new Achaemenid capitalcities and the decentralized political organization of southwestern Iran may

15 Persian links to the Medes are shrouded in legend but were of importance inestablishing the northwestern half of the empire and consolidating Central Asia. Avery similar process of acculturation perhaps took place there as well (Briant 2002:31–106).


ELIZABETH CARTER156

well have been based on Elamite practice (de Miroschedji 2003). The use ofElamite as the first official language of the empire and administration, andthe persistence of Elamite religious personnel and cults supported by thecrown, also became essential parts of the newly emerging Achaemenid impe-rial identity in Fars (de Miroschedji 1986a; 1990).

In the Cyrus cylinder, celebrating his capture of Babylon in 539 BC, theking portrays himself as the successor of Assurbanipal and reiterates his sup-port for the god Marduk. But Cyrus also refers to himself as king of Anshanand includes a list of his ancestors at this point in the inscription, stating hisfamily ties to an Elamite past (Brosius 2000: 10–11). Under Darius, the use ofElamite as an official language in inscriptions and administration persisted,but these were minor elements in the newer and more international Achae-menid imperial practices.

The reconstruction of Susa, the old Elamite capital, is an indication ofthe thoroughness of Achaemenid control and illustrates its importance as aregional center. Susians are shown on the Persepolis reliefs, and some Elam-ites are listed among the once rebellious peoples in the Bisitun inscriptions.But the Elamites are now shown as supporters of the new regime, part of theAchaemenid imperial core, not the defiant Elamites that resisted the Assyrianarmies for nearly a century.
