Iranica Antiqua, vol. XXXIX, 2004

THE BERLIN LETTER, MIDDLE ELAMITE CHRONOLOGY AND SUTRUK-NAHHUNTE I’S GENEALOGY

BY Jeremy GOLDBERG

The Berlin letter (VAT 17020) appears to be a Neo-Babylonian copy of a 12th century Elamite royal letter to Babylonia1. The editing of this text by van Dijk in 1986 has had a major impact on Elamite chronology by unveiling a series of marriages connecting Middle Elamite kings with 14th-12th century Babylonian rulers2. The start of this series is marked by a broken synchronism between Pahir-issan (the second Igihalkid king, formerly dated to around the end of the 14th century) and a Kurigalzu3. Since a Burnaburias occurs two marriages later and no king Burnaburias is known following Kurigalzu II, Pahir-issan’s contemporary would appear to be clearly identifiable as the early 14th century Kassite Babylonian king Kurigalzu I4. This identification fits very well with Burnaburias II’s appar- ent position as ’s second successor. However the resulting backdating of the early Igihalkid dynasty by up to a century has had a number of unhappy chronological consequences5:

(1) A Haft Tepe text (HT 38) indicates that Tepti-Ahar (apparently the last Kidinuid Elamite king) militarily repulsed Kadasman-dKUR.GAL (“undoubtedly a man of comparable stature”)6. Since dKUR.GAL is attested

1 See J. VAN DIJK, 1986, especially 169-70; cf. F. VALLAT, 2000, 8-10 for the nature of VAT 17020 = BE 13384 = VS 24,91. 2 See in particular for this impact M.-J. STEVE and F. VALLAT, 1989. 3 Cf. concerning the dating of Pahir-issan e.g. M.-J. STEVE, H. GASCHE and L. DE MEYER, 1980, 100-101; E. CARTER and M. STOLPER, 1984, 36. 4 See J.A. BRINKMAN, 1976, 14-21 for the Kassite royal sequence pertinent to this article. 5 Cf. J.-J. GLASSNER, 1991, 125: “révisions déchirantes”. 6 See S.W. COLE and L. DE MEYER, 1999, 44 for this characterization of Tepti-Ahar’s foe. HT 38 has been published as P. HERRERO, 1976, 102-103 no.6. See recently on the Kidinuid sequence F. VALLAT, 2000, 12-15. 34 J. GOLDBERG as referring to at OB and elsewhere, this ruler can be very nicely identified on philological grounds (as very widely accepted prior to 1986) with one of the known Kassite Babylonian kings named Kadasman-Enlil7. However on the now-usual view even Kadasman-Enlil I (apparently the immediate successor of Kurigalzu I) already falls within the period of the Igihalkid-Kassite alliance. Attempts to accommodate this conflicting evi- dence by a Kidinuid / Igihalkid overlap are hard to square with evidence for early Igihalkid occupation of Susa, less than 15 km. from Haft Tepe8. Very recently, it has been suggested that “it is quite possible” to identify HT 38’s Kadasman-dKUR.GAL with Kadasman-Harbe I (Kurigalzu I’s father), since equations are known linking dKUR.GAL with Enlil and Anum, both of whom are linked to Harbe (a Kassite god) by other equations9. However this identification is uncompellingly roundabout and lacks justification from evi- dence for Kassite influence at Haft Tepe10.

(2) No room is left for the challenge issued to a Babylonian king Kurigalzu (at least ostensibly II) by an otherwise unknown and seemingly Hurrian-named (i.e. hardly Igihalkid) Hurpatila ‘king of Elammat’ ( iii 10-19)11: If the series of Igihalkid-Kassite intermarriages cited by the Berlin letter indeed started under Kurigalzu I, there would appear to be no political space left for a non-Igihalkid Elamite king to issue such a challenge to Kurigalzu II. And the alternative, identifying Hurpatila’s Babylonian contemporary as Kurigalzu I (pace Chronicle P), is hard to fit timewise with the currently- favored short Babylonian chronology or the now seemingly hard-to-avoid (albeit problematic) Tepti-Ahar / Kadasman-Harbe I synchronism12.

7 See e.g. J.-J. GLASSNER, 1991, 119-120. The OB text in question (part of MDAI 57 no.1) is a bilingual version of an III diplomatic letter that was apparently copied (and translated?) in the late OB period, i.e. not long before Tepti-Ahar. Cf. also on Tepti-Ahar and dKUR.GAL the evidence cited by D. POTTS, 1999, 201-202. 8 See e.g. J.-J. GLASSNER, 1991, 125 for this proposed overlap; contrast later evidence (EKI 48, 48b) for early Igihalkid building activity at Susa (also D. POTTS, 1999, 195, 198 with references for building activity by Tepti-Ahar at Susa). 9 S.W. COLE and L. DE MEYER 1999, 45, followed by e.g. F. VALLAT, 2000, 11-12. 10 Cf. J.-J. GLASSNER, 2000: reading HT 38’s presumable RN as Kadasman-Harbe appears unjustified unless reasons can be adduced for reading Harbe in such PNs attested at Haft Tepe as Ibni-dKUR.GAL and ÌR/Warad-dKUR.GAL. 11 See recently on Hurpatila e.g. M. GASSAN, 1989; M.-J. STEVE and F. VALLAT, 1989, 232 n.31; J.-J. GLASSNER, 1991, 125-126. 12 See point (1) above for this synchronism between Tepti-Ahar and the father of Kuri- galzu I. The short Babylonian chronology provides at most c.70 years (c.1470-1400) for THE BERLIN LETTER 35

The generally accepted resolution of this conundrum (see n.11 above) has been to distinguish between and a minor state Elammat located on the Elamite-Babylonian border. However there is no unambiguous evi- dence in favor of the existence of a distinct state Elammat whereas straightforward evidence does exist (albeit from a late period) for identify- ing this state with Elam13. This solution also seems to complicate matters unnecessarily by distinguishing between Kurigalzu II’s evidently memo- rable conquest of ‘all of Elammat’ (Chronicle P iii 16) and texts of a Kuri- galzu (on this scenario: I) that claim a conquest of Elam reaching as far as Susa and even Marhasi east of Elam14. Another objection to this solution is that demoting Hurpatila doesn’t help explain his ability to challenge Kurigalzu II with an Igihalkid ally of behind his back in Elam.

(3) An uneconomical distinction must be made between a Kidin-Hutran whom the Berlin letter identifies as a son of Untas-Napirisa (lines 12-14) and the Kidin-Hutran who attacked Babylonia in the wake of Tukulti- Ninurta I’s late 13th century conquest (Chronicle P iv 14-22)15. This dis- tinction is especially undesirable due to a break after Kidin-Hutran in the Berlin letter’s series of Elamite-Babylonian intermarriages — a break that fits perfectly with Chronicle P’s late 13th century rupture in Elamite- Babylonian relations16.

the five known Kidinuid rulers (F. VALLAT, 2000, 12-16) Neither factor seems to leave enough time for a post-Kidinuid / pre-Igihalkid Elamite power which was strong enough to mount a challenge to Kurigalzu I (and which seems to have been characterized by much stronger Hurrian political influence than indicated during either the Kidinuid or Igihalkid periods). 13 See n.11 above for the evidence involved. Cf. M. GASSAN, 1989, 229: this distinc- tion “aurait besoin d’être confortée par des attestations nouvelles et pas seulement de source babylonienne”; M.-J. STEVE and F. VALLAT, 1989, 232 n.31: “il importe de souligner que plusiers rédactions récentes désignent l’Elam par KURE-lam-mat”. In spite of this initial caution, the current view (so e.g. F. VALLAT, 2000, 12 n.25) is that Hurpatila “a été éliminé de l’histoire élamite par M. Gassan en 1989”. 14 Contrast J.-J. GLASSNER, 1991, 126 in particular concerning a distinction between these campaigns. See for the pertinent texts of Kurigalzu P. STEINKELLER, 1982, 263 n.99; E. CARTER and M. STOLPER, 1984, 35; J.-J. GLASSNER, 1991, 126 with references. Note that Kurigalzu’s claims appear to be substantiated as far as Susa is concerned by the Berlin letter’s generally accepted implication that its Kurigalzu installed the Igihalkids. 15 A supporting argument for this distinction is that there is no time between Kidin- Hutran and Hallutus-Insusinak for the reign of Napirisa-Untas (M.-J. STEVE and F. VALLAT, 1989, 228). However this argument is very weak since no text is known from the latter two reigns. 16 In spite of the concurrent conflict involving , Chronicle P’s very negative portrayal of Kidin-Hutran’s Babylonian campaigns (iv 14-22) seems to confirm that these 36 J. GOLDBERG

All of the above problems would be avoided if lines 9-10 of the Berlin let- ter actually refer to a marriage-alliance between Pahir-issan and Kurigalzu II (c.1327-1303)17. Thus Tepti-Ahar (taken to be a contemporary of Kadas- man-Enlil I) would predate the Igihalkids, as would Hurpatila, while the above Kidin-Hutran’s would become neatly identifiable with each other (cf. fig.1 below). The only obstacle to this redating appears to be that aris- ing from line 13’s reference to a Burnaburias two marriages after that con- necting Pahir-issan to Kurigalzu: as already noted in this context, no Burnaburias is known following Kurigalzu II. However the Berlin letter’s Burnaburias is not explicitly called king, so this conundrum can theoreti- cally be solved by making him a hitherto unknown Babylonian prince18. Including a prince in this genealogy does not appear to pose any problem per se due to an apparent parallel in line 15: marat-su sá Ix-x-ddun-iá-às (in view of the very extensive dated documentation from contemporary , hardly referring to the daughter of a hitherto unknown Babylonian king)19. While identifying line 13’s Burnaburias as a hypothetical prince

campaigns should be construed in terms of a rupture with Babylonia. Identifying this rup- ture with the break in royal intermarriages after Kidin-Hutran son of Untash-Napirisa also fits very well both politically and chronologically with MDP 10, 85’s possible military conflict between Kastilias IV and Untas-Napirisa. [This good fit depends on Kidin-Hutran having already acquired his Babylonian wife before his father broke with Babylonia. However such a dating of this marriage is highly likely on chronological grounds since Untas-Napirisa probably ruled for a long time (as very widely accepted and strongly sug- gested by his extensive building activity) and Kidin-Hutran’s very shortly post-Kastilias IV role dates any conflict between his father and Kastilias IV (who only ruled for 8 years) to late in his father’s reign.] An objection to this interpretation of MDP 10, 85 on grounds of Untas-Napirisa’s extensive building activity and known strong Babylonian connections (see F. VALLAT, 1999, 113; cf. F. VALLAT, 2000, 8-10) seems vitiated by the just-indicated probable dating of any such conflict to quite late in this king’s reign. On the other hand, neither the reference to Kastilias in this broken text (based on Scheil’s reading of the end of a likely RN in line 3 as […-l]i-ia-as) nor its context can be considered at all certain. See for the reading of this text mooted here J.-M. DURAND, 2000; contrast F. VALLAT, 1999. 17 See J. BOESE, 1982, 23 for the Babylonian chronology used in this article. 18 In view of his name and role in the Berlin letter, such a prince would very likely be a predeceased (or superseded) crown prince. 19 See J.A. BRINKMAN, 1976, passim for the dated documentation from 14th-13th cen- tury Nippur. Another possibility (suggested by J. VAN DIJK, 1986, 162 note a) is that the just-cited phrase refers to a ‘daughter of [the land Kar]dunias’ (i.e. of Babylonia). How- ever this suggestion hardly fits with the determinative preceding this ostensible father’s broken name and the natural view of this passage is that an actual father was named (as elsewhere in this letter). On the scheme of this article, the non-royal status of …-dunias could well be connected in some manner to a decline in Elamite-Babylonian relations pre- ceding Kidin-Hutran’s attack on Babylonia (cf. above including n.16). THE BERLIN LETTER 37 remains far inferior — considered in isolation — to identifying him with the known Burnaburias II (who indeed appears to be dated two reigns after Kurigalzu I), this consideration must be weighed against the many unhappy consequences of the usual view. Further support for the just-proposed redating seems to emerge from its amelioration of a long gap in the Berlin letter’s detailed genealogy, line 16 of which is currently thought to skip from the grandson of a son-in-law of Burnaburias II (c.1354-1328) to a son-in-law of Melisihu (c.1181-1167). Such a gap is very awkward because this genealogy appears clearly intended to buttress its author’s claim (line 39) to be a legitimate candidate for the Babylonian throne as a descendent of Kurigalzu (‘son of the eldest daughter of the mighty king Kurigalzu’). This gap is also suspicious as part of a pattern: following the usual understanding of the Berlin letter, the sequence of Elamite kings actually attested on the ground in Elam skips the entire 13th century!20 However the fundamental problem concerning any gap in the Berlin let- ter’s genealogy is not its length, but its very existence: since the author’s summary of his claim to the Babylonian throne (lines 37-40) emphasizes his descent from the eldest daughter of Kurigalzu, the detailed genealogy that he provides going back as far as this ruler (lines 9-16) should trace this descent! While tracing a continuous line back to Kurigalzu is clearly impossible on the usual view of the Berlin letter, this does appear to be possible if the redating proposed above is combined with: (1) a new understanding of the detailed genealogy’s broken reference to Kurigalzu and his daughter, and (2) an appreciation for the author’s delicacy con- cerning the late 13th c. rupture in Elamite-Babylonian relations. Concerning Kurigalzu and his daughter, the pertinent passage in the genealogy has been read by van Dijk as follows21 (VAT 17020 lines 9-11):

9 Ipi-hi-ra-nu-dU? Ix-d[a-a]t-gal-[…ahat-su??] 10 sá sarru dan-nu Iku-ri-gal-zu [i-ta-ha-az?] 11 Idhu-um-ba-an-im-me-ni ma-ra-s[u i-ta-ha-az]

20 The last Igihalkid attested on the ground in Elam (in their own records or those of later kings) is Kidin-Hutran son of Pahir-issan (following the sequence given by Silhak- Insusinak) or Untas-Napirisa (following the revised sequence given by M.-J. STEVE and F. VALLAT, 1989, 227) — both currently thought dated to the 14th century. 21 J. VAN DIJK, 1986, 161 38 J. GOLDBERG

This can be translated: ‘Pahir-issan [… married the sister(?)] of the mighty king Kurigalzu. Humban-numena [married] his daughter.’ This broken pas- sage has commonly been taken to mean that Humban-numena married a daughter of Kurigalzu and Pahir-issan married a sister or perhaps a daughter of Kurigalzu. However Vallat has very recently written of “l’u- nion de Pahir-issan avec la fille aînée de Kurigalzu”22, and such a marriage hardly seems avoidable: Kurigalzu’s eldest daughter doesn’t appear explic- itly in lines 10-11, but should do so somewhere in the detailed genealogy — i.e. in the broken line 9, as Pahir-issan’s wife — on the analogy of line 17’s reference to a marriage between the author and Melisihu’s ‘eldest daughter’ (who isn’t even mentioned in the author’s summary of his claim to the Babylonian throne). One this basis, the usual understanding of line 11 would be that Humban- nimena married a second daughter of Kurigalzu23. However this would iso- late the eldest daughter of Kurigalzu from the remainder of the genealogy (pace line 39) and can be avoided by taking ‘his daughter’ In line 11 to be a daughter of Pahir-issan (s.v. through his marriage to the daughter of Kuri- galzu). This is very attractive politically, as Humban-nimena would then be the son-in-law of his uncle / second(?) predecessor (cf. n.24 below). How- ever in view of the central role played by the eldest daughter of Kurigalzu in the Berlin letter, a better way to achieve the same result (traces and con- siderations of space permitting) would be to restore ma-ra-s[u-nu i-ta-ha-az] at the end of line 11. Humban-numena would then have explicitly married ‘their daughter’ (i.e. a daughter born from Pahir-issan’s marriage to the eldest daughter of Kurigalzu)24. Following either alternative to the usual

22 F. VALLAT, 2000, 10 23 Contrast Steve and especially Vallat, who has consistently left open the identity of Humban-nimena’s father-in-law (M.-J. STEVE and F. VALLAT, 1989, 231 n.30; F. VALLAT, 1999, 113; F. VALLAT, 2000, 8). 24 The just-proposed marriage, together with the Berlin letter’s revelation of the reign of a Kidin-Hutran son of Untas-Napirisa, may also help solve the problem created by Silhak-Insusinak’s sequence of previous builders of the temple of Insusinak at Susa (EKI 48, 48b), which includes the Igihalkids Pahir-issan son of Igi-halki, Attar-kittah son of Igi-halki, Untas-Napirisa son of Humban-numena (who is himself attested elsewhere as a son of Attar-kittah), Unpahas-Napirisa son of Pahir-issan and Kidin-Hutran son of Pahir-issan before closing with Sutruk-Nahhunte I and Kutir-Nahhunte II. Earlier propos- als to make the two sons of Pahir-issan in this list offspring of an otherwise unknown Pahir-issan II have been vitiated by the publication in 1989 of a broken Susan text of Kidin-Hutran son of Pahir-issan that appears to refer to Igi-halki in close proximity to Pahir-issan (M.-J. STEVE and F. VALLAT, 1989, 224-225, 235-236). The resulting situation THE BERLIN LETTER 39 view of line 11, lines 12-14 would extend the chain of descent from Kuri- galzu through his eldest daughter down to the latter’s great-grandson, Kidin- Hutran son of Untas-Napirisa. If this Kidin-Hutran is identical with the like-named late 13th century foe of Babylonia, his son-successor Napirisa-Untas (lines 14-16) would be dated to around the end of the 13th century, probably making him the immediate predecessor of the early 12th century Sutrukid founder, Hallu- tus-Insusinak. Since the author of the Berlin letter was a son-in-law of Melisihu (c.1181-1167) and evidently dominated Babylonia militarily at the time this letter was sent (cf. his claim to the Babylonian throne and his threats to destroy Babylonia in lines 43-47), he can probably be identified (as currently generally accepted) with Hallutus-Insusinak’s son and suc- cessor, Sutruk-Nahhunte I. At first sight, dating Napirisa-Untas to c.1200 doesn’t quite bridge the genealogical gap preceding the author, as the descent of the former is immediately followed in line 16 by a statement about the latter: ‘… this one bore (him) Napirisa-Untas. I, the son of [the daughter25] married…’. has been very awkward because a literal understanding of Silhak-Insusinak’s sequence then makes Kidin-Hutran son of Pahir-issan a successor of his uncle, first cousin, first cousin-once-removed (a great builder) and brother. Steve and Vallat have attempted to smooth this succession (pp.227, 234) by proposing that Silhak-Insusinak’s sequence is in part ordered genealogically rather than chronologically. However the only justification for this view is that it produces a much more attractive sequence of rulers. 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 mar- riage 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 Silhak-Insusinak’s sequence) — i.e. they seem to be dated to the same time. Probable Susan resentment over Untas-Napirisa’s focus on Dur-Untas-Napirisa also provides a good motivation for the use of non-literal filiations at Susa by two of his sons. The only problem with this chronologically and politically harmonizing solution is that ‘son’ (sak) is not known to have been used in Elam for later descendent. However Hute- lutus-Insusinak’s reference to himself as the sak of Sutruk-Nahhunte I, Kutir-Nahhunte II and Silhak-Insusinak (EKI 61A) shows (however interpreted) that the range of this term extends beyond literal son, and a related term ruhu-sak (‘sister’s son’) was sometimes clearly applied after a lapse of time (see most recently on this term F. VALLAT, 1997 with references). 25 This restoration follows J. VAN DIJK, 1986, 161: mar-[martib]. Note b points to ‘[the king’s] son’ and ‘[his] son’ as alternatives, but neither appears apropos whereas van Dijk’s preferred reading as ‘son of the daughter’ is supported by the central role of this term in 40 J. GOLDBERG

However if Napirisa-Untas was the last Igihalkid and the dynasty-found- ing Hallutus-Insusinak fathered Sutruk-Nahhunte I (taken to be the author of the Berlin letter) by his predecessor’s daughter (a totally unsubstanti- ated but politically extremely plausible union), Sutruk-Nahhunte would lit- erally be a ‘son of the daughter’ of Napirisa-Untas26. The Berlin letter’s elliptic manner of expressing these last two links in Sutruk-Nahhunte I’s genealogy would serve to gloss over the break in intermarriages after Kidin-Hutran (as well as provide an allusion to Sutruk-Nahhunte’s status as a ‘son (descendent) of the daughter’ of Kurigalzu II and other - ian rulers). To recapitulate: A Kurigalzu and Burnaburias who appear two mar- riages apart in the Berlin letter (lines 10-13) can at-first-sight be com- pellingly identified as the early 14th century Babylonian king Kurigalzu I and his apparent second successor Burnaburias II. However this under- standing conflicts with: (1) HT 38’s apparent synchronism of Tepti-Ahar with Kadasman-Enlil I, (2) Chronicle P’s synchronism of an apparent Elamite king Hurpatila with Kurigalzu II, and (3) an attractive conflation between the Berlin letter’s Kidin-Hutran and the like-named late 13th cen- tury foe of Babylonia. This understanding of the Berlin letter also gener- ates suspiciously long gaps in the Berlin letter’s series of intermarriages and the sequence of Elamite kings actually attested on the ground in Elam. A Kurigalzu II identification in line 10 of the Berlin letter would avoid all of these difficulties. This redating also seems to allow the genealogical data going back to Kurigalzu in lines 9-16 to trace the author’s claimed descent from this very ruler. Since such a view of this genealogy appears to be even more compelling than the usual identification of line 13’s Burnaburias (who could be a prince, as appears to be the case for line 15’s …-dunias), this advantage of the Kurigalzu II identification seems to tip the balance of evidence strongly in favor of this redating.

the Berlin letter and related correspondence (VAT 17020 lines 23, 29, 32, cf. 39; Sp. II 987 line 18). 26 Cf. J. VAN DIJK, 1986, 165 concerning a close genealogical connection between Napirisa-Untas and the author of the Berlin letter. THE BERLIN LETTER 41 fluorit c.1310 Kurigalzu II Igi-halki c.1290 x Pahir-issan Attar-kittah (eldest daughter) c.1270 Burnaburias x Humban-numena (prince) c.1250 …-dunias x Untas-napirisa (prince) c.1230 x Kidin-Hutran c.1210 Napirisa-Untas x c.1190 Melisihu x Hutelutus-Insusinak c.1170 x Sutruk-Nahhunte I (eldest daughter)

fig.1 Proposed genealogy of Sutruk-Nahhunte I

Bibliography

BOESE, J., 1982: “Burnaburias II., Melisipak und die Mittelbabylonische Chronolo- gie”, UF 14, 15-26 BRINKMAN, J.A., 1976: A Catalogue of Sources Pertaining to Specific Monarchs of the Kassite Dynasty (= Materials and Studies for Kassite History, I), Chicago CARTER, E., STOLPER, M., 1984: Elam: Surveys of Political History and Archae- ology, Berkeley COLE, S.W., DE MEYER, L., 1999: “Tepti-Ahar, King of Susa, and Kadasman- dKUR.GAL”, Akkadica 112, 44-45 DURAND, J.-M., 2000: “MDP 10:85”, N.A.B.U. 2000/39 GASSAN, M., 1989: “Hurpatila, roi d’Elammat”, AION 49, 223-229 GLASSNER, J.-J. (with GRILLOT, F.), 1991: “Les textes de Haft Tépé, la Susiane et l’Elam au 2ème millénaire” in Mésopotamie et Elam CRRAI 36 (= MHE OP 1), Gent, 109-126 42 J. GOLDBERG

GLASSNER, J.-J., 2000: “dKUR.GAL à Suse et Haft-Tépé”, N.A.B.U 2000/36 HERRERO, P., 1976: “Tablettes administratives de Haft-Tépé”, Cah. DAFI 6, 93-116 POTTS, D., 1999: The Archaeology of Elam: Formation and Transformation of an Ancient Iranian State, Cambridge STEINKELLER, P., 1982: “The Question of MarÌasi: A Contribution to the Histor- ical Geography of Iran in the Third Millenium B.C.”, ZA 72, 237-265 STEVE, M.-J., GASCHE, H., DE MEYER, L., 1980: “La Susiane au deuxième millé- naire: à propos d’une interprétation des fouilles de Suse”, Ir Ant 15, 49-154 STEVE, M.-J., VALLAT, F., 1989: “La dynastie des Igihalkides: nouvelles inter- pretations” in DE MEYER, L., HAERINCK, E. (eds.) Archaeologia Iranica et Orientalis. Miscellanea in honorem Louis Vanden Berghe, Gent, I, 223-238 VALLAT, F., 1997: “Nouveaux problèmes de succession en Elam”, Ir Ant 32, 53-70 VALLAT, F., 1999: “L’hommage de l’Elamite Untash-Napirisha au Cassite Burnaburiash”, Akkadica 114-115, 109-117 VALLAT, F., 2000: “L’Elam du IIe millénaire et la chronologie courte”, Akkadica 119-120, 7-17 VAN DIJK, J., 1986: “Die dynastischen Heiraten zwischen Kassiten und Elamern: eine verhängnisvolle Politik”, Or 55 NS, 159-170