ELAM AND ESHNUNNA: HISTORICAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL INTERRELATIONS DURING THE OLD BABYLONIAN PERIOD
Luca Peyronel*
Analyzing archaeological evidences connected with trade relations and interregional policies at the time of Eshnunna’s reign, focusing on exchange, in particular with the eastern regions of the Iranian plateau and of Susiana, it is useful to follow the main “steps” of the reign’s historical events, highlighting speciÞc “junctions” in which the markedly diplomatic or military element was found to have inßuenced the economy connected to trade exchanges, not always strictly linked to the logics of politic control. e political, cultural and commercial interactions manifest from the point of view purely of events in episodes of alliances, confrontations and wars, with an alternation of abrupt front changes, characteristic of the so-called age of Mari.1 e unbalance derived from the Middle-Euphrates city’s archives, from which come the widest and most detailed historical information of the time, imposes a privileged but at the same time partial point of view, not always allowing a deep evaluation of the relations between the other players of the near eastern board during the Early Old Babylonian period.2 is is the case regarding the relations between Eshnunna and Elam that, with the exception of the Mari sources, we are able to investigate only through limited and incomplete data.3 e tentative integration of historical aspects with archaeological evidence thus results even more complicated, but certainly unrenounceable. In this contribution attention is drawing on some aspects that reveal historical data coinciding with archaeological record, focusing the interest mainly on Eshnunna-Elam but also stressing the interaction dynamics between Syria, Central- Eastern Mesopotamia and Western Iran through some signiÞcant archaeological indicators of contact.4 Generally speaking the interaction processes between Eshnunna and the other political entities can be better detected along the main directories of territorial expansion, towards North and West, and along the main commercial routes that penetrated in the Iranian plateau through the Zagros mountains. In the latter case, the prerogative of strategic control in the access of goods and raw materials of dierent nature (tin and lapis lazuli, timber and semi-precious stones) into the Mesopotamian alluvium, strongly inßuenced the historical events, peaceful or not, between Eshnunna and Elam. At the same time, the direct overlapping of areas of inßuence in the Northern regions between Tigris and the Zagros chains instead made Shubartu/Assyria the natural antagonist of Eshnunna, especially at the time of Shamshi-Addu I, when also Mari and the Middle Euphrates were under the political domain of the Northern Mesopo- tamian kingdom.
* Università IULM di Milano (Italy). 1 See Liverani : –, Wu Yuhong , Charpin : –. 2 Lafont , Charpin/Ziegler . 3 See e.g. Saporetti : –, Charpin : –, in which diverging sequence of Eshnunna’s rulers are present; the Elamite history between the Dynasty of Shimashki and the Sukkalmah period (Paléo-élamite II–III) is outlined in Carter/Stolper : –, tabs. –; Vallat a (with a speciÞc attention to the Mesopotamian relations) and recently by Steve et al. , with some dierences and open questions; see also Potts : tabs. ., ., MoÞdi-Nasrabadi : –. 4 For a more detailed analysis of the pattern of archaeological interrelations between Elam, Eshnunna and Subartu/Assyria during the Þrst two centuries of the nd millennium bc see Peyronel . luca peyronel
e Eshnunna-Elam relations can be followed during the reign’s chronological lifespan, al- though it is possible to detect two phases in which the political features are more emphasized with the consequent cultural and socio-economic relapses. It is striking that these phases roughly correspond with the beginning and the Þnal years of the kingdom: the Þrst can be traced at the beginning of the territorial reorganization with the consequent independence of the Diyala region, aer the disruption of the Neosumerian power,5 and the second occurred aer Eshnunna’s peak of power under Ipiq-Adad II, Dadusha and the Þrst part of the reign of Ibal-pi- El II, when Eshnunna was conquered by Elam, corresponding to the general Elamite expansion in Mesopotamia aer the death of Shamshi-Addu, immediately before the Hammurabi’s seizure of power (bc).6
At the time of Ibbi-Sîn of Ur, the Eshnunna governor, Shu-iliya, son of Ituriya, does not refer to himself as ensi of Ur but “beloved of Tishpak” or “son of Tishpak”. We know his seal from two impressions from the so-called Ilushu-iliya-Nurakhum palace at Tell Asmar.7 e seal (Fig. ) shows a representation of the governor in front of the god Tishpak: the god holds in one hand the rod-and-ring and in the other a fenestrated axe laying on his shoulder, standing upon two crouching Þgures of enemies held with a rope fastened to their nose; Shu-iliya too holds a battle-axe and the meaning of the scene is clearly at the same time the commemoration of royal power through the victory over the enemies and the transmission of this power from the god to the ruler. is is a very interesting iconography, unusual for a seal, but rooted in the previous periods and modiÞed according to a new propaganda that can be observed in some victory stela and monumental rock-reliefs. A meaningful link can be traced looking at the Annubanini relief at Sar-i-Pol, where the king represented his victory adopting an iconographic model replicated through the centuries on the same rock wall, but that had been introduced for the Þrst time by Naram-Sin of Akkad to celebrate his victory over the Lullubites.8 Nurakhum, Shu-iliya’s successor, is again “beloved of Tishpak” and “ensi of Eshnunna” and probably reigned during the years in which Ur was conquered and destroyed by Elam and Ishbi- Erra of Isin tried to obtain the role of direct heir of Ur through his policy of military campaigns against Elam to the East and against Martu to the West.9 Nurakhum was succeeded by Kirikiri, probably his brother. He has a non-Semitic name, related to the Elamites and he called himself “ensi of Eshnunna” on behalf of Tishpak.10 Kirikiri was then followed by his own son, Bilalama, on the throne of Eshnunna, as indicated by the legend of the seal of Bilalama.11 is seal (Fig. ) recovered from a dealer in Baghdad during the Oriental Institute excavations at Tell Asmar
5 From bc until the end of the XX cent. bc, following the traditional Middle Chronology, used by Potts and Charpin , or from bc until the half of the XIX cent. bc, according to the low chronology proposed by Gasche et al. , Gasche , and accepted e.g. by M.-J. Steve and F. Vallat (Steve et al. , Vallat ); e problem of the absolute chronology during the nd millennium bc and the syncronization between Anatolia, Syria- Mesopotamia and Egypt has been recently discussed by several scholars without reaching a consensus, revealing the di culties to choose between middle, low and ultra-low chronologies: see now Pruzsinszky , with updated bibliography. 6 See Charpin , , Charpin/Durand , Durand . 7 Frankfort et al. : Þg. , Frankfort : –, pl. n. , Frayne : . 8 See now Braun-Holzinger : –, –, AB – for Sar-i Pol and AB for the relief of Iddin-Sin of Simurrum. 9 Van Dijk , Vanstiphout –. 10 According to Saporetti, Nurakhum and Kirikiri could be considered related and sons of Shu-iliya and a Shimashkian princess: Saporetti : –. However, beside the possible Elamite origin of their names, this hypothesis is based only on the controverse interpretation of a Nurakhum dating formula (Saporetti : , C). 11 Frankfort et al. : , –, Þg. , : Þg. e, Frankfort : n. , Frayne : –.