PUZUR-INSUˇ SINAKˇ AT SUSA: A PIVOTAL EPISODE OF EARLY ELAMITE HISTORY RECONSIDERED*
Piotr Steinkeller**
In memory of Edith Porada, whose eye was matched only by her sense of class
. Introduction
is paper has a long history, since it goes back to a presentation I gave in the fall of at the “Columbia University Seminar for the Archaeology of the Eastern Mediterranean, Europe, and the Near East,”1 which was run by Edith Porada for nearly thirty years. As in that Columbia presentation, which was entitled “e Date of Gudea and Others,” and which never saw the printer’s press, the task I face today is to make some sense of the events that took place at the very beginning of the Ur III period, that is, the time of Utu-hegal, Gudea, and Ur-Namma. ere is yet another individual who played an exceedingly important role in that chapter of ancient Near Eastern history, and that person was Puzur-Inˇsuˇsinak of Susa.2
. Puzur-Insuÿ sinak’sÿ Beginnings
According to the Old Babylonian historical tradition, as it is reßected in the king-list of the rulers of Awan and Simaˇ ˇski,3 Puzur-Inˇsuˇsinak4 was the last, i.e., th, king of the Awan dynasty. All of the inscriptions that Puzur-Inˇsuˇsinak has le to us come from Susa. In those sources, his standard (and apparently earlier) titles are those of the “governor of Susa (and) the general of the land of Elam, son of Simpi-iˇ ˇshuk.”5 e origins of Puzur-Inˇsuˇsinak are still obscure. Given the fact that his father’s name is Elamite (Simpi-iˇ ˇshuk), he must have been of Elamite origin. However, it is unlikely that Puzur- Inˇsuˇsinak was a descendent of the Awan dynasty, and that, therefore, he stemmed from Awan. I will talk more about his relationship to Awan later on.
* I wish to oer my warm thanks to Jason Ur, who was kind enough to design the two maps accompanying this paper (Þgs. and ). ** Harvard University. 1 “e Date of Gudea and Others,” November , . 2 Among the earlier discussions of Puzur-Inˇsuˇsinak, see especially André/Salvini , Potts : – and André-Salvini –: –. It is interesting to note that, at the very discovery of Puzur-Inˇsuˇsinak’s existence, V. Scheil (MDP : ), described him as “une sort de Goudéa susien.” 3 For the most recent discussion, see Steinkeller and in press. 4 Since the so-called “linear Elamite” writing remains undeciphered, the practice of reading Puzur-Inˇsuˇsinak’s name as “Kutik-Inˇsuˇsinak,”which has been adopted by some scholars following W.Hinz’ssuggestion, is unwarranted. Here note that, in the Old Babylonian Susa, the name was understood as Puzur-Inˇsuˇsinak. is is demonstrated by the writing Puzur(MAN)-dInˇsuˇsinak in the list of the kings of Awan (RA [] line ). For MAN = puzru, see pu-zur MAN = pu-zu-ru (var.: pu-uz-[ru] (EA II = MSL , ); pu-zur MAN = pu-uz-rum (A II/= line = MSL , ); and the uses of MAN for puzru in extispicy sources from Susa (CAD P, b). 5 ÉNSI Suˇsinˇ ki SAGINAˇ ma-ti Elamki DUMU Sim-bi-iˇs-hu-ukˇ (Gelb/Kienast : –, Elam , , , , , , [only énsi of Susa], [only énsi of Susa]). piotr steinkeller
e fact that Statue B of Gudea and the prologue to the “Code of Ur-Namma,” which allude to the conßict with Puzur-Inˇsuˇsinak,6 both mention Anˇsan in this connection, raises a distinct possibility that he actually came from Anˇsan. If Puzur-inˇsuˇsinak indeed was an Anˇsanite,7 we would have to assume that he adopted his personal name only aer he had come to Susa, in recognition of the local cult of Inˇsuˇsinak. e only certain fact we know about Puzur-Inˇsuˇsinak’s early career is that he had somehow been able to establish himself as a ruler of Susa.8 Some time aer that event, he launched a massive campaign in the Zagros, from as far as Huhnuri in the east9 to as far as the Hamadan plain in the northwest. e high point of this campaign, which is described in his victory inscription,10 was the capture of the lands of Kimaˇs and Hurti.11 As Puzur-Inˇsuˇsinak emphasizes in that source, Kimaˇs and Hurti were his main opponents—and apparently also his main target—during these military operations. As we shall see in the following, it was undoubtedly the possession of these two localities that enabled him subsequently to move into and conquer the Diyala Region and northern Babylonia. But, before I discuss that next phase of Puzur-Inˇsuˇsinak’s conquests, I need to digress on the location of Kimaˇs and Hurti, since this problem is of crucial importance for the proper understanding of the historical geography of the central Zagros at the end of the third millennium. As I demonstrate in detail in the Appendix to this paper, these two places can quite conÞdently be located along the Great Khurasan Road, in the general vicinity of the modern towns of Islamabad-e Gharb and Khermanshah. e question of Kimaˇs and Hurti must be considered within the broader issue of the Ur III foreign policy,12 which had largely been formulated during the reign of Sulgi.ˇ As is well known, Sulgiˇ campaigned in the northeastern periphery of Babylonia for more than thirty years. It is clear that the primary objective of this incessant military activity was to obtain for Babylonia an access to and the control of the Great Khurasan Road. e main obstacle in meeting this objective were the lands of Simurrumˇ and Lullubum, which were situated in the upper valley of the Sirwan River and the region of modern Sulaymaniyah respectively. ese two lands blocked Babylonia’s access to the Great Khurasan Road, thus frustrating Sulgi’sˇ plans. More than ten
6 See below pp. –. 7 Such a possibility may Þnd support in the use of the “linear Elamite” writing in some of Puzur-Inˇsuˇsinak’s inscriptions. is writing is otherwise attested only on the pieces from the Iranian plateau, and thus can assuredly be considered a native Elamite phenomenon. See most recently Potts : – and Dahl : –. Unfortunately, too little is known about this writing to make any historical inferences from its use by Puzur- Inˇsuˇsinak. ere is certainly no evidence at this time to think that this writing was “invented” by Puzur-Inˇsuˇsinak (as it has been speculated by some authors). 8 Frayne : , attempted to restore the name of Puzur-Inˇsuˇsinak in an inscription of Puzur-Mama, a late Sargonic ruler of Lagaˇs: [PÙ.S]A-[ˇ dMÙS.ER]ENˇ / [MÙS].ERENˇ ki (i0 0–0). While it is certain that i0 0 names Susa, a restoration of Puzur-Inˇsuˇsinak’s name in the preceding line is impossible. First, the sign read by Frayne as SAˇ deÞnitely is not SA;ˇ cf. SAˇ ibid. iii0 0. Second, the last sign in i0 0 cannot be EREN, since it is dierent from EREN in the following line. 9 anks to a recently published inscription of Su-Suenˇ from Iran, which describes the conquest of Huhnuri in year Amar-Suen , Huhnuri can now conÞdently identiÞed as the site of Tappeh Bormi near Ramhormoz. See MoÞdi-Nasrabadi : –. 10 MDP , – = Gelb/Kienast : –, Elam . e lower section of a seated statue of Puzur-Inˇsuˇsinak. e total height of the surviving fragment is cm; the height of the socle is cm. e same inscription is also recorded on two fragments of a stele, which were stolen during the transportation from Susa to the Persian Gulf. See MDP , – and MDP , –. 11 ì-nu-me Ki-maˇski ù ma-at Hu-úr-timki i-ge-ru-uˇs (MDP , – = Gelb/Kienast : –, Elam :–). Huhnuri (written Hu-hu-un-rí ki) is mentioned in line . 12 See, in detail, Steinkeller, e Grand Strategy of the Ur III Empire: Babylonia’s Foreign Policy and Territorial Expansion at the End of the ird Millennium bc (a monograph; in preparation). is monograph builds on my paper “e Grand Strategy of the Ur III Empire: Exquisite Design, Perfect Failure,” which was presented at the th RAI, Würzburg, July , .