Sukkalmah dynasty Epartid dynasty
Dynasty
A map of theNear East detailing the geopolitical situation in the region during the Sukkalmah dynastyc. 1600 BC occupied by various contemporaneouscivilizations such as those of the:   Hattians   Minoans   Elamites   Hyksos   Egyptians   Assyrians   Babylonians   Sumerians   Eteocypriots   Dilmunites   Nubians Adamdun Anshan Awan? Der Eshnunna Hidali? Hurti? Kimash? Liyan Shimashki? Susa Urua? class=notpageimage| A clickable map of Iran detailing cities that may have been occupied by the Elamites.
Parent family	Shimashki dynasty
Country	Elam
Founded	c. 1980 BC
Founder	Shilhaha (fl. c. 1980 – c. 1635 BC) (Eparti II,fl. c. 1980 – c. 1830 BC)
Final ruler	Kutir-Nahhunte II (fl. c. 1710 – c. 1450 BC)
Final head	Siwe-Palar-Khuppak (r. c. 1778 – c. 1745 BC)
Historic seat	Susa
Titles	List Sukkalmah Sukkal Sukkal of Susa Sukkal of Elam and Shimashki and Susa Sukkal and Ippir of Susa King ofAnshan and Susa King of Simashki Enlarger of the Empire Governor of Elam Prince of Elam Governor of Susa Shepherd of the people of Susa Shepherd ofInshushinak
Connected families	Awan dynasty
Dissolution	c. 1450 BC
The Elamites remained a major source of tension for theSumerians,Akkadians,Amorites,Assyrians,Babylonians, andKassites centuries after the Old Elamite empire reached its peak during the reign of Siwe-Palar-Khuppak.

History ofGreater Iran
Pre-Islamic BCE / BC Prehistory Kura–Araxes culture c. 3400 – c. 2000 Helmand culture/Jiroft culture 3300-2200 Proto-Elamite civilization 3200–2800 Elamite dynasties 2800–550 Lullubi/Zamua 3100-675 Marhaši 2550-2020 Bactria–Margiana Complex 2400–1700 Gutian Dynasty 2141-2050 Avestan period c. 1500 BCE – 500 BCE Kingdom of Mannai 10th–7th century Neo-Assyrian Empire 911–609 Urartu 860–590 Median Empire 728–550 Scythian Kingdom 652–625 Achaemenid Empire 550–330 Ancient kingdom of Armenia 331 BCE – 428 CE Seleucid Empire 330–150 Caucasian Iberia c. 302 BCE – 580 CE Greco-Bactrian Kingdom 250–125 Parthian Empire 248 BCE–224 CE Caucasian Albania 2nd century BCE – 8th century CE Roman Empire 27 BCE – 330 CE CE / AD Kushan Empire 30–275 Sasanian Empire 224–651 Afrighid dynasty 305–995 Hephthalite Empire 425–557 Kabul Shahi kingdom 565–879 Dabuyid dynasty 642–760 Bagratid Armenia 880s – 1045 Alania 8th/9th century – 1238 / 9 Kingdom of Georgia 1008–1490
Islamic Rashidun Caliphate 637–651 Umayyad Caliphate 661–750 Abbasid Caliphate 750–1258 Shirvanshah 799–1607 Tahirid dynasty 821–873 Dulafid dynasty 840–897 Zaydis of Tabaristan 864–928 Saffarid dynasty 861–1003 Samanid Empire 819–999 Sajid dynasty 889/90–929 Ziyarid dynasty 928–1043 Buyid dynasty 934–1055 Sallarid dynasty 941–1062 Ghaznavid Empire 975–1187 Ghurid dynasty pre-879 – 1215 Seljuk Empire 1037–1194 Khwarazmian dynasty 1077–1231 Sultanate of Rum 1077–1307 Salghurids 1148–1282 Ilkhanate 1256–1353 Kart dynasty 1231–1389 Ottoman Empire 1299–1923 Muzaffarid dynasty 1314–1393 Chupanid dynasty 1337–1357 Jalairid Sultanate 1339–1432 Timurid Empire 1370–1507 Qara Qoyunlu Turcomans 1407–1468 Aq Qoyunlu Turcomans 1378–1508 Safavid Empire 1501–1722 Mughal Empire 1526–1857 Hotak dynasty 1722–1729 Afsharid Iran 1736–1750 Zand dynasty 1750–1794 Durrani Empire 1794–1826 Qajar Iran 1794–1925
v t e

TheSukkalmah (c. 1900 – c. 1500 BC) orEpartid dynasty (named after the titlesukkalmah used by many of the dynasty's rulers; as well as, theeponymous founderEbarat II/Eparti II),^[1][2] was an early dynasty ofWest Asia in the ancient region ofElam, to the southeast ofBabylonia. It corresponds to thethird Paleo-Elamite period (dated toc. 1880 – c. 1450 BC). The Sukkalmah dynasty followed theShimashki dynasty (c. 2200 – c. 1900 BC).[3]^[4] The title ofSukkalmah means "Grand Regent" and was used by some (but not all) Elamite rulers.^[3] Numerous cuneiform documents and inscriptions remain from this period, particularly from the area ofSusa, making the Sukkalmah period one of the best documented in Elamite history.^[3]

The title of sukkal-mah, “great sukkal,” first appeared inGirsu within an inscription byUrukagina, roughly meaning “prime minister” or “grand vizier.” It continued to be in use in theUr III period inLagash.^[5] The Ur III sukkalmahs in Lagash reported directly to the king, and was the form adopted by the Elamite rulers.^[6] Siwe-palar-huppak also called himself “likawe rishakki” and “merrik Hatamtik” (governor of Elam), and the first phrase may be the Elamite rendering of the title of sukkalmah.^[7] It is likely that likawe by itself means sukkal, with risha being Elamite for “great”.^[8]

The creation of the Sukkalmah governmental structure is generally attributed to Ebarat II. However, an inscription from the reign of Idattu I referred to Kiten-rakittapi as the sukkalmah of Elam, likely implying that the sukkalmah of Elam was subordinate to the king ofAnshan. De Graef suggests that this structure was implemented earlier, perhaps already in the reign of Ebarat I.^[9] Steinkeller further suggests that the later sukkalmahs in the Old Babylonian Period were also working under the king of Anshan^[10] and De Graef agrees that it was the case at least for the early period.^[11] Glassner connects this situation to the one between Ebarat II and Shilhaha, with Shilhaha as the sukkalmah under Ebarat.^[12] De Graef further adds Atta-husu, who was the sukkal in Susa during the reign of Idattu I and continued to hold the position under Ebarat.^[13]

Some rulers were attested with multiple titles outside of sukkalmah, and it is generally suggested that they ascended to become the sukkalmah later in life.^[14][15][16]

The political structure of the Sukkalmah dynasty is commonly argued to be a triumvirate, between the sukkal of Elam, the sukkal of Susa and the sukkalmah, the latter being the highest authority. However, recently De Graef suggests a more complicated structure, with at least two sukkalmahs and multiple sukkals and other governors ruling smaller regions^[17] which could also solve the seemingly chronological issue between the numerous different rulers of the early Sukkalmah period.^[15] Mofidi-Nasrabadi also considers the possibility that a single person could have occupied multiple positions.^[14] The title “ensi (governor) of Susa” was also used in the sukkalmah period.^[18][14] Potts also cautions against the assumption of a simple triumvirate, as it doesn't accommodate the numerous other positions attested during the Sukkalmah period.^[16]

There were two titles involving the position of sukkalmah and king, “Anshan and Susa” and the “Elam and Shimashki.” Mofidi-Nasrabadi argues that they were just two different variations of the same title and position, likely explaining the other variant used by some Sukkalmah period rulers, “Susa and Shimashki.”^[19] Unlike Mofidi-Nasrabadi however, De Graef believes that the titles “sukkalmah of Anshan and Susa” and “sukkalmah of Elam and Shimashki” referred to two separate positions, being the two main sukkalmahs.^[17] she also suggests that the sukkalmah of Anshan and Susa was a more prestigious position than the sukkalmah of Elam and Shimashki.^[20] De Graef's hypothesis is accepted by Wicks.^[21]

Atta-husu is the first to refer to himself as the son of the sister (ruhu-sak) of Shilhaha, which likely points to his prominence in the establishment of the new governmental system. That fact that he is also the first ruler not mentioned in the Shimashkian King List (ShKL) to become king with other rulers being sidelined could also suggest a dynastic break.^[22] In total, at least eleven Sukkalmah period rulers have identified themselves as the son of the sister of another ruler, including Shilhaha.^[23] The Babylonian Chronicles had also detailed that the successor of Ummanigash (Huban-nikash I), Ishtarhundi (Shutruk-Nahhunte II), was the son of his sister.^[24]

This term has had many different interpretations, with Koschaker first proposing possibilities in 1933 such as incestuous marriage, marriage between different social classes, an indication of lineage through a particular female line, or legitimate descendant of a distant ancestor.^[25] Some scholars such as Hinz^[a] and Vallat^[27] believe in royal incest within the Elamite ruling families. Potts points out that prior to theAchamenid period there were no undisputed references to incest in Elam.^[28] While Waters had claimed that the deaths of successive Neo-Elamite kings point to incestuous conditions, Gorris reveals that some of them were murdered, while the two successive kings, Huban-menanu and Huban-haltash I that did both suffer from a stroke is not indicative of incest, and the relationship between them is still disputed.^[29] Another cited example comes from the Neo-Elamite local ruler Hanni of Ayapir, in which one line is sometimes translated to “Ḫuḫin, beloved sister-wife,” but has more recently been translated as “beloved lawful and true wife” instead by Quintana.^[28] Instead Potts suggests that the title “son of the sister” reflects anavuncular succession, drawing on cases across history and different cultures where an uncle to nephew succession is favoured.^[30] De Graef agrees that this reflects the existence of an avuncular line of succession alongside a patrilineal line of succession.^[31] She also refers to the incest theory as outdated.^[7]

The title “son of the sister of Shilhaha” appears in cases where plausible descent is impossible, such as the sukkalmah Shiruktuh,^[32] the late sukkalmah Temti-Halki and the later Middle-Elamite ruler Humban-numena.^[23] De Graef had opted to interpret “son of the sister of Shilhaha” as meaning the legitimate ruler through a fictitious descent.^[17] Potts also believes that in cases like Humban-numena, the title would serve as establishing descent, and also incorporating heroic qualities from the distant ancestor.^[33]

The Sukkalmah dynasty is presumed to start with Ebarat II, as he was previously believed to have created the sukkalmah structure. As such, the Sukkalmah dynasty is also sometimes known as the Epartid dynasty.

The transition between the Shimashki period and the Sukkalmah period remains unclear.^[34] Vallat had suggested that the sukkalmahs from Susa took power from the Shimashkian kings^[5] and that the last kings of Shimashki were vassals of the early sukkalmahs before they lost power.^[35] Potts expands on this theory, suggesting that the offense by Gugunum ofLarsa in which he claimed to have destroyed Bashime in his third year and Anshan in his fifth may have contributed to the demise of Shimashki.^[36] The fact that Atta-husu never bore the title of sukkalmah could possibly be an indication that he ascended his position through less legitimate means, perhaps following Gugunum's invasion. Potts further suggests that Gugunum actually held power in Susa for a brief period, and Atta-husu was his vassal.^[25] De Graef argues that the tablet from Susa using the year name of Gugunum cannot be taken as indication of Larsa's extended rule over Susa, as it is the only tablet that references so.^[37] She also argues that since Atta-husu was a contemporary of Ebarat II and Shilhaha, he cannot be a contemporary of Gugunum, believing the reference to the 16th year name of Gugunum in Susa dates to 1822 BCE and thus to have reigned after the early sukkalmahs.^[37] However, the reign of Gugunum is generally dated to around 1932-1906 BCE following the middle chronology,^[38] bringing him closer to the early sukkalmahs. While Atta-husu never used the title sukkalmah, he was attested as sukkal of Susa and teppir (high ranking judicial official) alongside more traditional titles such of Shepherd, which De Graef argues is indicative of Atta-husu being a transitional figure.^[22] However, De Graef does believe some kind of interdynastic struggle is possible, seeing how Ebarat II succeeded Idattu I as king instead of Tan-Ruhurater, the governor of Susa and (possibly eldest) son of Idattu, who was probably the next in line.^[39] Atta-husu referring to himself as “son of the sister of Shilhaha” despite being a son of Kindattu (possibly the one known as the son of Tan-Ruhurater) could also be indicative of this interdynastic shift.^[22]

De Graef believes that the Shimashki period should not be considered to be separate, and has advocated for removing the Shimashki period and grouping it with the Sukkalmah period.^[40]

Vallat's theory that Atta-husu was contemporary with Sumu-abum ofBabylon based on a supposed ascension year name of Sumu-abum can be rejected, most notably because Sumu-abum never actually held power in Babylon and thus would not have had year names.^[41]

Around the time of Ebarat II's reign, Temti-Agun, Shilhaha and Pala-iššan were all attested as a sukkalmah.^[9] Temti-Agun was named in an inscription on a gunagi vessel along with Ebarat II, which Glassner believes to be for the occasion when Ebarat died.^[42] Pala-iššan was the brother of Temti-Agun.^[43] The reign of Pala-iššan is still very uncertain, and Glassner believes that Temti-Agun was likely the immediate successor of Shilhaha. Following her reconstruction separating the sukkalmah of Elam and Shimashki and the sukkalmah of Anshan and Susa as separate positions, De Graef instead argues that Pala-iššan was the older brother and thus more immediate successor.^[44] Temti-Agun likely succeeded Atta-husu as the sukkal and teppir of Susa.^[20] Kuk-sanit, who De Graef claims to be a brother of Temti-Agum^[45] but is actually attested as a son of Temti-Agum instead^[46] later became the teppir (and likely also sukkal) of Susa.^[47] Pala-iššan is attested with a Kuk-kirwash, another “son of the sister of Shilhaha.” Kuk-kirwash is in turn mentioned together with Tem-sanit and Kuk-Nahhunte.^[48] A Kuk-nashur is attested together with Kuk-Nahhunte, although the name Kuk-nashur is difficult to situate due to the numerous attestations of the name.^[49] For example, Mofidi-Nasrabadi had suggested that three different Kuk-nashurs were present in the reign of Temti-Agun II.^[50]

Despite the involvement of Elam in international affairs, most of the Elamite rulers remain unnamed in Mesopotamian sources.^[49] Earlier on Tan-ruhurater married a daughter of Bilalama of Eshnunna, and Elam was seemingly at war with Der.^[51] Later, Sin-iddinam of Larsa claims to have destroyed Anshan and Eshnunna in his 6th year.^[52] In Sin-iddinam's letter toUtu, he mentions conflicts with Elam, Shimashki and Subartu.^[53] A few years later, Elam established an alliance with Zambija ofIsin,^[54] and later Sin-iqisham of Larsa claims in his 5th year name (around 1837 BCE) to have defeated Uruk, Kazallu, and the armies of Elam and Zambija.^[55][54] Around this time Ipiq-Adad II ofEshnunna was defeated by Elam, the same yearShamshi-Adad I ascended to the throne of his father. WhileShiruktuh had been suggested to be the ruler of Elam during this period, the letter that mentions him dates to 1785 BCE, which would require Shiruktuh to have reigned for over 50 years.^[56]

Meanwhile, around 1834 BCE, a new dynasty was installed in Larsa. It’s founder, Kudur-mabuk, had a linguistically Elamite name, along with his father Shimti-Shilhak^[57] and daughter Manzi-wartash. However, none of Kudur-mabuk's titles are Elamite, and he calls himself the father (“sheikh”) of the Yamutbal.^[58] Steinkeller argues that instead of only having previously entered Elamite service as had been argued, the family of Kudur-mabuk actually had strong Elamite cultural ties. Personnel bearing Elamite names were among the entourage of Kudur-mabuk and his son Rim-Sin, and one letter roughly from the reign of Sin-iddinam explicitly identifying a Kudur-mabuk (and his singers) as Elamites likely refers to him.^[59] Some scholars like Steinkeller,^[60] De Graef^[61] and Wicks^[62] consider Kudur-mabuk to be Elamite, with De Graef further suspecting his father Shimti-Shilhak to be connected to the Elamite rulers. Charpin classifies them as “Elamitized Amorites”^[57] while Wasserman and Bloch suggest he was an Elamite who settled among the Yamutbal.^[63] Steinkeller points out that Elamites and Amorites had many interactions in the zone bordering Elam and southern Mesopotamia,^[64] and Wicks adds that Larsa had many attested Elamite names, second only to Susa.^[62]

The circumstances surrounding Kudur-mabuk taking the throne of Larsa, and whether he was acting on his own or as some kind of Elamite proxy, is unclear.^[58] Steinkeller believes that it is likely connected to the conflicts experienced towards the end of Sin-iddinam's reign, likely described in Sin-iddinam's letter to Utu.^[65] De Graef suggests that the activities of Kudur-mabuk and the almost simultaneous attack on Eshnunna by Elam were coordinated, and that Kudur-mabuk probably still had close contacts with Elam.^[61]

Later, in Shamshi-Adad's 28th year (around 1785 BCE), Shiruktuh was mentioned in a letter, describing how the “king of Elam” contributed 12,000 troops in a joint expedition with Eshnunna, Shamshi-Adad, and perhaps the Turukkeans against the Gutians.^[58] A fragmentary Elamite inscription listing conquests can likely be attributed to Shiruktuh, especially if the restoration of one of the names as Indassu (Indasu, king of the Gutians) is followed.^[66] Another letter from Shemshara mentions the “father and great overseer” which may be a variation on the sukkalmah title.^[32] Shiruktuh and his nephewsSiwe-palar-huppak and Temti-Agun II all mention an “amma-hashtuk” which may refer to the queen mother by the name of W/Pelkisha, perhaps a sister of Shiruktuh.^[7]

From the letters in this period, especially those fromMari in the reign ofZimri-Lim, it is clear that the rulers of Elam enjoyed a prestigious position in international affairs. The negotiations between Zimri-Lim andHammurabi of Babylon regarding the ownership of multiple cities near their border had the sukkalmah of Elam as the mediator.^[67] It would seem Hit (one of the most contentious cities) was assigned to Zimri-Lim by the sukkalmah.^[68] The authority of the sukkalmah of Elam was recognized by Qatna in Syria.^[68] While the Amorite rulers on the same calibre as Hammurabi and Zimri-Lim addressed each other as brothers (denoting equal rank), the sukkalmah of Elam would be referred to as their father (denoting superior rank).^[69][70] In one letter sent by Ishme-Addu of Ashnakkum to Ibal-Addu of Ashlakka, Ishme-Addu claims to hold the hands of the Elamites and the king of Eshnunna at the back of his neck. Sasson points out that Ishme-Addu is prone to hubris.^[71]

However, texts from Mari seem to be confused on the positions and government in the Elamite state. They mix the titles of sukkal with king, with Siwe-palar-huppak sometimes being referred to as the “king of Anshan” and Kudu-zulush (the sukkal of Susa) as the “king of Susa.”^[72] It would appear that the sukkalmah is commonly referred to as the “sukkal of Elam.”^[73] There is other evidence pointing to a general unfamiliarity with Elam in Mari, such as writing Kudu-zulush in reverse as Shulshi-kudur and mistaking a position as a proper name.^[74] Despite the clear direct involvement of Elam in international diplomacy during this time, many letters addressed from the sukkalmah only mention him by title, remaining anonymous.^[75]

Between Zimri-Lim's 8th and 10th (7th and 9th) years,^[b] contacts with Elam increased, and Mari received tin from Elam on multiple occasions. Eventually the sukkalmah (Siwe-palar-huppak) requested for both Zimri-Lim and Hammurabi of Babylon's military assistance against Eshnunna, and both obliged. Eshnunna would have been captured sometime between Zimri-Lim's 8th to 10th (7th and 9th) year.^[76] Although the fall of Eshnunna was originally taken advantage of by some of the rulers, such as Hammurabi who retook Maniksum and Upi, cities originally lost to Eshnunna, soon the Elamites began an offensive into Mesopotamia. In fact, Hammurabi was reprimanded by Siwe-palar-huppak for taking advantage of the situation and threatened to attack Babylon if he doesn't return the cities.^[77] Elam eventually besieged Maniksum and then Upi.^[78]

It had been suggested that one major reason for the invasion was to control the tin trade, and the route from Eshnunna to Shubat-Enlil is linked to trade routes so moving from Eshnunna to Shubat-Enlil is likely not a coincidence.^[79][80] Heimpel had suggested that Elam played a major part in the supply of tin into Mesopotamia^[81] and Peyronel believes Eshnunna's control of the tin route is related to their relationship with Shamshi-Adad's kingdom and Elam.^[82] It is also noteworthy that the Elamites kicked the Assyrian merchants out of Shubat-Enlil when they took the city, as Assyrian merchants included tin in their trades.^[79] Sasson suggests that the invasion of Eshnunna may be “a rematch from earlier battles.”^[83] An Elamite general by the name of Kunnam was installed in Shubat-Enlil.^[84]

The Elamite invasion elicited a strong reaction from the Mesopotamian Amorite leaders. Hammurabi called for a mobilization of troops requiring every man to participate, including merchants and also freeing slaves.^[85] He also sent envoys to Larsa to ask for support, and while initially seeming optimistic, ended up not receive troops from Larsa, withRim-Sin claiming that they would be ready in case of an attack and that the Elamites have plans to move elsewhere. Charpin connects this ambivalence to the Elamite roots of Rim-Sin's family,^[86] while Heimpel wonders if Larsa and Babylon had a rivalry, or that perhaps Elam was occupying parts of Larsa's territory, connecting it to a reference of a time when “the claw of Elam was torn from the land of Larsa by the great gods” as written in a letter.^[87] Siwe-palar-huppak also encouraged a rebellion by the Mutiabal in Babylonian territory.^[88] At some point, Siwe-palar-huppak also sent an ultimatum to both Babylon and Larsa, telling each to join him to attack the other.^[89] Eventually the Elamites began to lay siege to Hiritum.^[88]

At the same time, Zimri-Lim was away with troops to help Yarim-Lim ofAleppo.^[90] The news about the Elamite invasion was received by him inUgarit.^[91]

Atamrum, former king of Allahad who for unknown reasons took refuge in Eshnunna and led their troops,^[92] allied with Elam and led an army of Elamites and Eshnunneans to attack Razama (after Elam told Atamrum to abandon taking Ekallatum.) As for Zimri-Lim's allies/vassals of the region, Qarni-Lim of Andarig was killed and Sharraya of Razama was being attacked.^[93] Haya-Sumu of Ilan-Ṣura submitted to the Elamites, with a sarcastic remark that Zimri-Lim would save him just like he saved Shub-Ram and Sammetar.^[94] Ibal-Addu of Ashlakka also listed multiple kings that “grasped the hem of your lord (Zimri-Lim)” but were killed in this chaos, including Sammetar who was apparently killed, wrapped in leather and delivered to the Elamites by his own people. Ibal-Addu ends each king asking why Zimri-Lim did not save them.^[95][96] Sammetar was replaced by Ishme-Addu, who submitted to Kunnam (the Elamite general) along with Haya-Sumu and Addi-Addu.^[94] Ishme-Addu reprimanded Ibal-Addu for continuing to support Mari, claiming that Zimri-Lim and the entire land gave tribute to the sukkalmah, so there is nothing to resist anymore.^[97]

Other Mari texts portray this event as a difficult time for Mari. There was a surge in prophecies and divine messages likely to legitimize actions and gain support, and oaths were sworn by the entire population of Mari.^[98] One letter called onEa to let the gods drink water mixed with doorpost dirt from Mari to take an oath to not harm the city. In the same letter, a message from a priest ofDērītum was relayed that the area belongs to Zimri-Lim and the “lance of the Elamites” would break.^[99] The tribute paid by Tuttul to Mari was bewitched and their people openly took the side of Elam.^[100] Durand thinks the stressful reaction of Mari to fighting Elam is reminiscent of a vassal rebelling against a suzerain.^[98] He also suggests that the Yaminites were allied with Elam via Eshnunna, perhaps explaining Tuttul's conduct and why Zimri-Lim had trouble conscripting the Yaminites.^[101] Wasserman and Bloch point out it seems Zimri-Lim also had trouble conscripting Yaminites and some of the Simalites too.^[102]

Eventually Zimri-Lim and Hammurabi signed an alliance that none of them would make peace with Siwe-palar-huppak without consulting the other first.^[103] Yarim-Lim would also side with Mari and Babylon against Elam, although Yarim-Lim also died that same year.^[90] Yarim-Lim also sent a letter to the king ofDer that included a direct threat of war, which Wasserman and Bloch suggests may be indication that Der sided with Elam.^[90] Durand believes that trans-Tigridian Der may have been another extension of Elamite power, and the threat by Yarim-Lim is likely situated in that context.^[104]

Swear by Šamaš of heaven! Swear by Addu of heaven! These are the gods that Hammurabi, son of Sin-muballiṭ, king of Babylon, invoked (when taking this oath), “From now on, as long as I live, I shall indeed be enemy of Ṣiwa-palar-ḫuḫpak. I shall not let my servants or my messengers mingle with his servants, and I shall not dispatch them to him. I shall not make peace with Ṣiwa-palar-ḫuḫpak without the approval of Zimri-Lim, king of Mari and the Tribal-land. If I plan to make peace with Ṣiwa-palar-ḫuḫpak, I shall certainly consult with Zimri-Lim, son of Yaḫdun-Lim, king of Mari and the Tribal-land. If it is not a peaceful situation, we shall make peace with Ṣiwa-palar-ḫuḫpak (only) jointly.The oath sworn by my gods, Šamaš and Addu, to Zimri-Lim, son of Yaḫdun-Lim, king of Mari and the Tribal Land, I have bound and committed myself to him, joyfully and with complete sincerity.^[103]

Later, Siwe-palar-huppak offered to send a bow toHadad of Aleppo if asked, although he previously refused to. Considering the offer contains an allusion to a reestablishment of relationships, Charpin suggests that Siwe-palar-huppak is likely taking advantage of the death of Yarim-Lim to pull Aleppo from the anti-Elamite alliance.^[105] However, the new king of Aleppo, Hammurabi (not to be confused with Hammurabi of Babylon), would choose to continue siding against Elam.^[106]

The alliance between the Amorite leaders for the Elamite invasion had been attributed by Charpin and Durand to Amorite nationalism.^[107] Sasson however, expresses some doubts.^[108] Miglio had suggested another translation for the letter commonly cited for an Amorite nationalism, arguing that instead of a difference between Elamites and Amorites, it was a rhetorical question asking whether the Elamites would care about tribal differences instead of sweeping everyone away like the flood.^[109] Wasserman and Bloch however believe that the popular translation as a clear difference between the Amorites and the Elamites is correct.^[110]

The situation in the Habur region was still chaotic, with one letter describing that the Elamite army had swallowed all Šubartum. Hammurabi of Kurda (not to be confused with Hammurabi of Babylon) was reprimanded by the sukkal for suspected collusions with Mari or Babylon, being reminded that he was a vassal of Atamrum, who was in turn a vassal of Elam.^[111]Ishme-Dagan was denounced by the kings for allying with Mari and Babylon and taken to the sukkalmah at Eshnunna. Charpin believes that Ishme-Dagan was tortured and was then released after being bought out at Babylon, and then stayed at Babylon to recover his health, which was publicly criticized by a priest ofMarduk.^[112][113] Heimpel's interpretation on the chronology of events differed, with Ishme-Dagan being sick at Babylon, then took materials from the treasury of Marduk and personally presented them to the sukkalmah, which was publicly criticized by a priest of Marduk.^[114] Eventually it seems like Haya-Sumu reverted back to Mari, transmitting one of the most infamous descriptions on the conduct of Elam, that it “devours its enemies as well as its allies”,^[c] perhaps explaining why Haya-Sumu defected back to Zimri-Lim.^[115] Zimri-Lim would also send troops over to Babylon as reinforcement,^[113] with inquiries using divination for how trustworthy Hammurabi is.^[116]

At some point in the war, a drunk Kunnam accidentally leaked that Siwe-palar-huppak had informants in Zimri-Lim's court.^[117] Eventually, the Elamites abandoned their siege on Hiritum, with Atamrum also defected over to Zimri-Lim probably around this time.^[118] Heading upstream of the Tigris attacking Maniksum and Šittulum, but were then faced with the coalition assembled by Zimri-Lim. They retreated back to Eshnunna, looted the place, then retreated back to Susa.^[119] Although the invasion only lasted for a short time (Zimri-Lim's 10th to 11th years), it left a big impact on the region.^[120] Very quickly, Hammurabi of Babylon sought to reestablish relationships with Elam.^[121] Heimpel had previously wondered if tin was a reason behind why Hammurabi seemed eager to do so,^[81] and De Graef adds tin as a factor along with concerns with the reemerging Eshnunna under Silli-Sin.^[120] At one point Hammurabi received an incorrect report that the sukkal of Elam (possibly Siwe-palar-huppak) died, which he rejoiced to. However, it was quickly corrected that the sukkal was not dead but gravely ill.^[122][123]

Kudu-zulush is mentioned with Kutir-Nahhunte, a son of the sister of Siwe-palar-huppak, in an oath. Kutir-Nahhunte is mentioned with Temti-Agun II, and Temti-Agun II appears alongside Kuk-nashur II.^[80] Lila-irtash, Atta-mera-halki and Tata were mentioned with him, of which only Tata was given a title (sukkal).^[124] The reigns of the three were likely short and never ascended to sukkalmah.^[125]

Kuk-nashur II is mentioned together with a ruler (“king”) of Susa, Kudu-zulush II.^[124] Kudu-zulush II however, was never attested with the title of sukkal, so De Graef wonders if Kuzu-zulush II was actually a king, maybe an abbreviation of the later title “king of Susa and Anshan.”^[126]Abi-Eshuh, the grandson of Hammurabi, has a year name that appears to record another military conflict with Elam.^[127] While this military conflict does not have many contemporary references, it may be the one referenced byAshurbanipal referring to a statue ofNanaya that was taken to Elam 1635 years ago. Some scholars identify the Kutir-Nahhunte mentioned by Ashurbanipal as theShutrukid Kutir-Nahhunte with the 1635 years being an exaggeration on Ashurbanipal's part, but van Koppen believes Ashurbanipal was most likely referring to the sukkalmah by the same name.^[128] Naturally, van Koppen also disagrees with the other proposal to date Kudur-Nahhunte's attack to Samsu-iluna's reign.^[129] De Graef agrees with van Koppen's proposal.^[80] Kuk-nashur II was argued to be contemporary toAmmi-Saduqa based on a tablet discovered inDilbat, but the tablet itself is a copy of an original tablet likely predating Ammi-saduqa, and could have been a scribal practice considering the doodles on the tablet.^[130] A Kutir-Shilhaha who was a sukkal and then a sukkalmah is mentioned together with Kutir-Nahhunte and Kuk-nashur II. Another “king of Susa” is mentioned together with Kutir-Shilhaha, Tempti-raptash. Shirtuh, a son of Kuk-nashur II(/III?) is also known as “king of Susa.”^[131] Tan-uli, a sukkal and later a sukkalmah, is mentioned together with Temti-halki, also attested with sukkal and sukkalmah titles,^[132] and also a Kuk-nashur (III or IV?), a son of the sister of Tan-uli according to the later Geneaology of Shilhak-Inshushinak.^[133]

The following list should not be considered complete:

#	Depiction	Name	Succession	Title	Approx. dates	Notes
Isin-Larsa period (c. 2025 – c. 1894 BC)
Shimashki dynasty (c. 2220 – c. 1792 BC)
7th		Idattu I 𒀭𒄿𒁕𒁺	Son of Kindattu[134][d]	King of Shimashki	reigned c. 1945 – c. 1925 BC[135]	temp. of: Iddin-Dagan Bilalama Gungunum
8th		Tan-Ruhuratir	Son ofIndattu I	governor (ensi) of Susa	Uncertain,fl. c. 2028 – c. 1950 BC	temp. of: Shu-Ilishu Iddin-Dagan Bilalama
9th		Ebarat II 𒂊𒁀𒊏𒀜 E-b-r-t	Eponymous founder of the Epartid dynasty	Sukkalmah King ofAnshan andSusa King ofShimashki	Uncertain,m. c. 1973 BC toMatum-Niatum	temp. of: Shu-Ilishu Iddin-Dagan Shilhaha Atta-husu Temti-Agun I Pala-iššan
10th		Idattu II	son of Tan-ruhurater	governor (ensi) of Susa
11th		Idattunapir	Unclear succession	King of Shimashki	Uncertain,fl. c. 1928 – c. 1880 BC	temp. of: Sumuabum
12th		Idattutemti	Unclear succession	King of Shimashki	Uncertain,fl. c. 1928 – c. 1792 BC
"Twelve kings of Shimashki." — Shimashki King List
Epartid/Sukkalmah dynasty (c. 1980 – c. 1830 BC)
2nd		Shilhaha 𒂊𒁀𒊏𒀜 Shi-l-ha-ha	Son ofEbarat II	Sukkalmah King of Anshan and Susa	Uncertain,fl. c. 1980 – c. 1635 BC	temp. of: Ebarat II Atta-husu Temti-Agun I Pala-iššan Kuk-sanit Kuk-kirwash
		Attakhushu	Son of the sister ofShilhaha Son ofKindattu (II?)	Sukkal and Ippir of Susa Shepherd of the people of Susa Shepherd of Inshushinak		temp. of: Ebarat II Shilhaha Gungunum
		Kuk-Nashur I	son ofShilhaha[134]	Sukkalmah
		Palar-Ishshan	brother ofTemti-Agun I Son of the sister ofShilhaha[134]	Sukkalmah
		Temti-Agun I	son of the sister ofShilhaha	sukkalmah
		Kuk-Sanit	son ofTemti-Agun I
		Lankuku	Father ofKuk-Kirwash
		Kuk-Kirwash	son of the sister ofShilhaha son ofLankuku	Sukkalmah Sukkal of Elam and Shimashki and Susa		temp. of: Kuk-Nahhunte Tep-mada
		Tem-Sanit
		Kuk-Nahhunte
		Tetep-Mada		Shepherd of the people of Susa	Uncertain,fl. c. 1894 – c. 1790 BC	temp. of: Sumuabum
		Shirukduh	Descendant ofShilhaha?	Sukkalmah	Uncertain,fl. c. 1792 – c. 1763 BC	temp. of: Shamshi-Adad I?
		Shimut-Wartash I			Uncertain,fl. c. 1790 – c. 1763 BC	temp. of: Shamshi-Adad I?
		Siwe-Palar-Khuppak	Son of the sister ofShirukduh Descendant ofShilhaha(?)[8]	Sukkalmah Sukkal of Susa Prince/ruler/governor (menik)[8][136] of Elam	Uncertain,reigned c. 1778 – c. 1745 BC	temp. of: Hammurabi Zimri-Lim Shamshi-Adad I? Rim-Sin Kudu-zulush I
		Kuduzulush I	Son of the sister ofShirukduh	Sukkal of Susa	Uncertain,fl. c. 1765 – c. 1730 BC	temp. of: Siwe-Palar-Khuppak Hammurabi Zimri-Lim Rim-Sin
		Kutir-Nahhunte I	Son of the sister ofSiwe-palar-huppak Son ofKudu-zulush I?[137]	Sukkalmah?	Uncertain,fl. c. 1730 – c. 1700 BC	temp. of: Abi-eshuh?
		Lila-Irtash			Uncertain,fl. c. 1710 – c. 1698 BC
		Temti-Agun II	Descendant ofShilhaha(?)	Sukkalmah Sukkal of Susa	r. c. 1698 – c. 1690 BC[138]
		Atta-Merra-Halki			Uncertain,fl. c. 1710 – c. 1570 BC
		Tata		Sukkal	Uncertain,fl. c. 1710 – c. 1580 BC
		Kuk-Nashur II (/III?)	Son of the sister ofTemti-Agun Son ofNaririda[134]	Sukkalmah?	Uncertain,fl. c. 1790 – c. 1625 BC	temp. of: Ammisaduqa?
		Temti-Raptash		King of Susa	Uncertain,fl. c. 1625 – c. 1605 BC
		Shirtuh		King of Susa	Uncertain,fl. c. 1605 – c. 1600 BC
		Shimut-Wartash II			Uncertain,fl. c. 1605 – c. 1595 BC
		Kuduzulush II		King of Susa	Uncertain,fl. c. 1605 – c. 1590 BC	temp. of: Kutir-Shlhaha
		Temti-Halki		Sukkalmah Sukkal of Elam and Simashki and Susa	Uncertain,fl. c. 1710 – c. 1650 BC
		Tan-Uli	Descendant ofShilhaha (?)	Sukkalmah Sukkal	Uncertain,fl. c. 1690 – c. 1600 BC
		Kutir-Shilhaha I		Sukkalmah Sukkal	Uncertain,fl. c. 1650 – c. 1625 BC	temp. of: Tempti-raptash Shirtuh
		Kuk-Nashur IV	Son of the sister ofTan-Uli	Sukkalmah	Uncertain,fl. c. 1710 – c. 1698 BC
		Kutir-Nahhunte II			Uncertain,fl. c. 1710 – c. 1450 BC

• 
  TheSusanian Dynastic List—aregnal list dated toc. 1800 – c. 1600 BC andprovenanced atSusa. Its current location is theLouvre Museum, Sb 17729. It names twelvekings forAwan and another twelve forShimashki. Theeponymous rulerEparti II is the 9th named king on this list.^[139][140]
• 
  Seal impression of King Ebarat (𒂊𒁀𒊏𒀜), founder of the Sukkalmah Dynasty, also called "Epartid Dynasty" after him. He uses the title of king (𒈗Šàr, pronouncedShar) in the inscription.Louvre Museum, reference Sb 6225. King Ebarat appears enthroned. The inscription reads"Ebarat the King. Kuk Kalla, son of Kuk-Sharum, servant of Shilhaha"^{[141][142][143][144]}
• 
  Sculpture of a lion as a fountain head, Susa, Sukkalmah period.
• 
  Sealed tablet with a serpent god, Susa circa 17th century BCE. Inscription: "Tan-Uli, sukkalmah, sukkal from Susa and Shimashki, son of the sister of Shilhaha".^[145]
• 
  Men with daggers, Sukkalmah dynasty, 1940-1600 BCE, Susa, Louvre Museum Sb 1394.
• 
  SukkalmahAnshan cylinder, Louvre Museum, reference Sb 1515. Ruler enthroned, with his queen standing behind in a flouced garment, under overhanging vines.^[146]
• 
  Seal of Adaia attendant to Nin-Shubur, Sukkalmah dynasty, 1940-1600 BCE, Susa, Louvre Museum Sb 1418.
• 
  Cylinder seal mentioning Shilhaha, ca. 20th century B.C. Old Elamite
• 
  Cylinder seal, ca. 19th–18th century B.C. Elamite
• 
  Reception seal, Sukkalmah dynasty, 1940-1600 BCE, Susa, Louvre Museum Sb 1440

• Elam
• Awan (ancient city)
• Awan dynasty
• Shimashki dynasty
• List of rulers of Elam
• List of Assyrian kings
• List of kings of Babylon
• Sumerian King List
• List of kings of Akkad
• List of rulers of the pre-Achaemenid kingdoms of Iran
• List of monarchs of Persia

• Elamite kings
• Sukkalmah dynasty

• Articles with short description
• Short description is different from Wikidata
• Pages using multiple image with auto scaled images
• CS1 errors: periodical ignored
• CS1: long volume value