Elam Map

Elam Map


We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.


Tamil Eelam

Tamil Eelam (Tamil: தமிழீழம் tamiḻ īḻam, generally rendered outside Tamil-speaking areas as தமிழ் ஈழம்) is a proposed independent state that many Tamils in Sri Lanka and the Sri Lankan Tamil diaspora aspire to create in the north and east of Sri Lanka. [5] [6] [7] [8] The name is derived from the ancient Tamil name for Sri Lanka, Eelam. Tamil Eelam, although encompassing the traditional homelands of Sri Lankan Tamils, does not have official status or recognition by world states. Large sections of the North-East were under de facto control of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) for most of the 1990s–2000s.

In 1956, the Illankai Tamil Arasu Kachchi (ITAK), the most dominant Tamil political party in Sri Lanka (then known as Ceylon), lobbied for a united state that would give the minority Tamils and majority Sinhalese equal rights, including recognition of two official languages—Tamil and Sinhala—and considerable autonomy for the Tamil regions of the country. However, the Official Language Act No. 33 of 1956, more simply known as the Sinhala Only Act, was passed in the Sri Lankan Parliament in 1956. The act replaced English as the official language of Sri Lanka with Sinhala due to the lack of official recognition to the Tamil language, the act was widely viewed by the Tamils as a sign of the Sri Lanka state's ambition of establishing a Sinhala–Buddhist nation state. Though both the Bandaranaike–Chelvanayakam Pact and the Senanayake-Chelvanayakam Pact were signed, they were not approved by the Sinhalese dominated Sri Lankan Parliament in 1957 and 1965, respectively. The failure of the Sri Lankan Parliament to implement these agreements caused further disillusionment and isolation among Tamils.

At the 1970 Sri Lankan parliamentary election, the United Front led by Sirimavo Bandaranaike came into power. The new Sri Lankan Government adopted two new policies that were considered discriminatory by the Tamil people government introduced a policy of standardisation to regulate university admissions, which was enacted to reduce the intake of Tamil and other minorities students into the Sri Lankan educational system. A similar policy was later adopted for employment in the public sector that caused less than 10 percent of civil service jobs available to Tamil speakers. According to historian K. M. de Silva, the system of standardisation of marks required the Tamil students to achieve higher marks than the Sinhalese students to get into university.

Under the United Front's constitution during the early 1970s, Tamil students sought ways to form a Tamil independent state where the rights and freedom of the Tamils could be protected and nurtured. By 1975, all Tamil political parties merged and became known as the Tamil United Liberation Front (TULF), which was led by prominent Tamil politician S. J. V. Chelvanayakam. In 1976, the first national convention of the TULF was held at Vaddukoddai, where the party adopted a unanimous resolution called the Vaddukodai Resolution. This resolution charged that the Sri Lankan Government had used its power to "deprive the Tamil nation of its territory, language, citizenship, economic life, opportunities of employment and education thereby destroying all the attributes of nationhood of the Tamil people." The resolution further called for the "Free, Sovereign, Secular Socialist State of Tamil Eelam".


Elam Map - History

Jeremiah 49:38 And I will set my throne in Elam , and will destroy from thence the king and the princes, saith the LORD.

Teaching
Elam is an ancient geographical location mentioned in the Bible. Today its location would be mainly in Iran with a small section in Iraq. It bordered with the ancient Babylonian Empire. The actual location of Elam would be the very northern end of the Persian Gulf and down along with the west coast of Iran. Today one of main sections of ancient Elam would include Bushehr Province with the capital city of Bushehr. On a map of the Persian Gulf, Bushehr would be directly across from Kuwait.

The context of Jeremiah 49 is judgment on nations that will be fulfilled during the Day of the LORD. The judgment against Elam was not fulfilled but will be in the future. The prophecy speaks of the people being driven off the land and scattered into all the world. This has never happened in recorded history. It also speaks of the God of Israel setting His throne in Elam. This has never happened. This is all future because this prophecy was never fulfilled. It appears that with Elam now the focus of world attention, God is about to fulfill it.
According to Obadiah 1:15, God judges nations in relation to what that nation does to Israel. The judgment as recorded in Jeremiah 49 indicates that Elam was a fierce enemy of Israel. It participated in two attacks on Jerusalem. Elam was with the Assyrians and assisted the Babylons in their attacks on Jerusalem. Now, Israel is once again a nation and ancient Elam/Iran is again trying to destroy Israel and capture Jerusalem. Iran wants to destroy Israel and drive the Jews into the entire world therefore, Elam is going to be destroyed and the people scattered into the nations.
Right now Elam/Iran is a fierce enemy of Israel and wants to wipe Israel off the map. Literally, a nuclear reactor sits in Elam for the purpose of destroying Israel. Elam is Israel’s most dangerous enemy.
Elam/Iran is also the center of Shiite Islam which wants to conquer the world for Allah. It is the center of belief in the Mahdi who the Shiite Muslims believe will lead Islam to conquer the world. Elam can be viewed as the number one enemy of the God of Israel. Shiite Islam led by Elam/Iran is about to violently collide with God's End-Time prophetic plan as stated in the Bible.


Life in the Old Iran

Old Iran is almost completely isolated and protected by mountains. In the south and southwest Iran is surrounded south Iranian mountain rim, in the northwest of Iran from Mesopotamia separate mountain Zagros, and in the east of the mountain Baktiyari and Soleyman. Mountains divide Iran from the western part of the Indus Basin. In the old times, Iran was named Elam.

The oldest tribes of Iran are: Persae (Persians) and Madai ( Medes), which appeared in the IX century BC in the Assyrian inscriptions. They inhabited area of western and southern Iran. They lived nomadic herding life. In the sacred books “the Zend –Avesta” of ancient Persians are preserved sections of this old livestock. Dog and cat were sacred animals.

Medes Empire

Median empire around 600BC

The Medes Empire was created in Asia in VIII century BC in the vast Iranian plateau. Medes Empire was the first Iranian empire. The founder of the Medes Empire is considered Deioces, who was a tribal leader, which Medes nobles chose to resolve disputes, and later he became the Medes king. Today, there is no historical documents which are written in Medes language, and it is not known which letter they were written. From the time of the Medes Empire, only one bronze plaque was found, which is dating from the early Achaemenid period. It is a record, which written in the cuneiform, in Akkadian language, which dates back to the VIII century BC, but it does not mention Medes names.

  • Deioces (728-675 BC)
  • Phraortes (675-653 BC)
  • Cyaxares (653-585 BC)
  • Astyages (585-550 BC).

During the reign of King Cyaxares, Medes country reached a peak of its powers and territorial space. On the ruins of Assyrian state Cyaxares has created a new powerful Medes Empire, which united tribal areas of Persia, Cappadocia and Armenia. He fought five years with Libya, but he failed to conquer it. In middle of VI century BC, Medes Empire ceased to exist with the last Emperor Astyages. Cyrus conquered Medes and turned it into province of Persian Empire.


Iran 1500 BCE

The powerful kingdom of Elam has emerged in southwest Iran.

Subscribe for more great content – and remove ads

Lost your way? See a list of all maps

Subscribe for more great content – and remove ads

What is happening in Iran in 1500BCE

The past 1000 years have seen great changes come to the people of this region. In the south-west a powerful kingdom has emerged, that of Elam. This has adopted the art, architecture and writing systems of Mesopotamia, and plays a prominent role in the wars between Mesopotamian kingdoms. At times the kingdom has come under the rule of Mesopotamian states, such as the Akkadian empire, and the city of Ur at other times it has itself exercised power within Mesopotamia. Susa, its capitals, is one of the great cities of the Middle East.

The inhabitants of the central plateau of Iran have been hardly affected by these developments, and continue to live in small-scale village communities. To the north, Indo-European peoples from the steppes have settled. One branch of them is moving through mountain passes into India, where they will form the Aryan peoples.


ELAM i. The history of Elam

For a long time scholars confused Elam with Susiana, equivalent to the plain and lower Zagros foothills in the present Persian province of Ḵūzestān. Two important factors have recently modified this understanding, however. First, Tal-e Malyan (Mālīān) in Fārs has been identified as the ancient center of the component kingdom of Anshan (q.v. Hansman Lambert Reiner, 1973b), and, second, it has been established that Susa and Elam were distinct entities (Vallat, 1980). In fact, during the several millennia of its history the limits of Elam varied, not only from period to period, but also with the point of view of the person describing it. For example, Mesopotamian sources permit establishment of a relatively detailed map of Elam in the late 3rd millennium B.C.E., owing in particular to the &ldquoGeography of Sargon of Akkad&rdquo (ca. 2300 B.C.E. Grayson Vallat, 1991), a Neo-Assyrian representation of the extent of Sargon&rsquos conquests. It seems that Mesopotamians in the late 3rd millennium B.C.E. considered Elam to encompass the entire Persian plateau, which extends from Mesopotamia to the Kavīr-e Namak and Da&scaront-e Lūt (see DESERT) and from the Caspian (q.v.) to the Persian Gulf (Figure 1). Elamite cultural, if not political, influence in that period extended far beyond those limits, however, reaching Central Asia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and the southern shores of the Persian Gulf (Amiet, 1986). It should be emphasized that during the last centuries of the 3rd millennium Susiana was sometimes a political dependency of the Mesopotamian empires centered first on Akkad and later on Ur and was included only for a brief period in the Elamite confederation, which embraced the kingdoms of Awan (probably in the Zagros), Sima&scaronki (in Assyrian &Scaronima&scaronki see Steve, 1989, p. 13 n. 1 probably extending from Kermān to the Caspian), and Anshan (the present province of Fārs with its natural outlet to the Persian Gulf in the vicinity of Bū&scaronehr, q.v.). Furthermore, this entire definition was Mesopotamian. For the people of the Persian plateau, Awanites and Sima&scaronkians, Elam meant the country of Anshan (Vallat, 1980 idem, 1991 idem, 1993).

When the Elamites, in alliance with the people of Susiana, brought an end to the empire of Ur in 2004 B.C.E., they annexed Susiana, where the Epartid, or sukkalmah, dynasty was founded by the ninth king of Sima&scaronki the dynasty thus had its origins on the plateau. It is difficult to determine the eastern limits of the Epartid kingdom, but the decline of its power in the 18th century B.C.E. (see below) probably led to a reduction of influence in the east. As for the &ldquokings of Anshan and Susa&rdquo of the Middle Elamite period (1500-1100 B.C.E.), according to the available documents, they controlled at least the territory of the present-day provinces of Ḵūzestān and Fārs with Bū&scaronehr.

In the 1st millennium B.C.E. the spread of populations speaking Indo-Iranian languages and dialects onto the Persian plateau forced the Elamites to relinquish one area of their empire after another and to take refuge in Susiana, which only then became coterminous with Elam. It is this reduced territory that is referred to in the annals of A&scaron&scaronurbanipal (q.v. see, e.g., Aynard, pp. 38-61), the Achaemenid inscriptions (Weissbach), and the Bible and Apocrypha (Daniel 8:2 Esdras 4:9).

Despite recent progress, Elamite history remains largely fragmentary. Because there are few indigenous sources, attempts at reconstruction must be based primarily on Mesopotamian documentation. By far the largest proportion of the known Elamite texts have been excavated at Susa, a city that, from its foundation ca. 4000 B.C.E., alternated between subjection to Mesopotamian and Elamite power (Amiet, 1979). The earliest levels excavated at the site furnished remarkable pottery that has no equivalent in Mesopotamia, whereas in the succeeding period (levels 22-17 in the excavations conducted by Le Brun, 1978, pp. 177-92) the archeological material is identical with that of Mesopotamia in the Uruk period. From about 3200 B.C.E. the influence of the Persian plateau can be observed in the presence of numerical and then proto-Elamite tablets identical with those found in smaller numbers at different sites on the plateau, as far away as &Scaronahr-e Sūḵta in Sīstān (Vallat, 1986). The proto-Elamite script (see iii, below), which has defied all efforts to decipher it, remained in use until about 2700 B.C.E., but it was in the little-known period that followed, between the end of the Proto-Elamite period and the establishment of the dynasty of Awan, that Elam began to emerge from anonymity. The first attestation of the name of the kingdom is in a text of the king Enmebaragesi of Kish, who ruled in about 2650 B.C.E. But it is only from the beginning of the Akkadian period that Elam really enters into history. In the following survey the variable orthography of proper names has been standardized, in the interests of simplification.

The Old Elamite period (ca. 2400-1600 B.C.E.).

In the Old Elamite period three dynasties ruled in succession (Table 1). The kings of the first two, those of Awan and Sima&scaronki, are mentioned in the king list from Susa of the Old Babylonian period (Scheil, 1931). In this document twelve names are mentioned, followed by the phrase &ldquotwelve kings of Awan,&rdquo then by twelve more names and the phrase &ldquotwelve Sima&scaronkian kings.&rdquo In contrast to similar texts from Mesopotamia, neither a regnal year nor any mention of parentage appears in this simple document nor is there any indication that the two lists are exhaustive. But, despite the somewhat artificial character of this document, some of the individuals mentioned are also known from other sources, Susian or Mesopotamian. The third dynasty, that of the Epartids, often called &ldquoof the sukkalmahs&rdquo because of the title borne by its members, was contemporary with the Old Babylonian period in Mesopotamia.

The Awan dynasty (ca. 2400-2100 B.C.E.). The Awan dynasty was partially contemporary with that of Sargon of Akkad (2334-2279 B.C.E.), and its last king, Puzur-In&scaronu&scaroninak, is thought to have reigned in the time of Ur-Nammu (2112-2095 B.C.E.), founder of the Third Dynasty of Ur (Wilcke, p. 110). At that point the information in the sources becomes more explicit, for the Mesopotamians were attracted by the natural riches of the Persian plateau that they themselves lacked (wood, stone, metals). The records of their military campaigns provide important indications for the reconstruction of the history and geography of Elam.

Although nothing is known of the first seven kings enumerated in the Old Babylonian king list, the eighth and ninth are mentioned (in inverse order) in reports of the campaigns of Sargon and his son Rimu&scaron (Hirsch, pp. 47-48, 51-52 Gelb and Kienast, pp. 180-81, 188, 206-07). The primary purpose of these Akkadian expeditions was the economic exploitation of Elamite territory, including Maraha&scaroni (Baluchistan, q.v. i-ii). It seems, however, that they were raids, rather than real conquests of this vast territory. The Akkadian king Mani&scarontusu (2269-55 B.C.E.) continued to fight in the south, where he achieved a victory at &Scaronehirum on the Persian Gulf, which he then crossed in order to subdue an alliance of thirty-two cities on the Arabian coast (Gelb and Kienast, pp. 220-21). In the reign of the Akkadian Naram-Sin a treaty (König, 1965, no. 2) was concluded between Naram-Sin&rsquos vassal ruling at Susa and a king of Awan, perhaps Hita (Cameron, p. 34) it is the first known Elamite text to have been written in cuneiform characters, but interpretation remains difficult.

The last king in the king list, Puzur-In&scaronu&scaroninak (Gelb and Kienast, pp. 321-37), conquered Susa, then Anshan, and he seems to have managed to impose an initial unity on the Elamite federation by subduing also the king of Sima&scaronki. His successors, however, were unable to hold Susa within the Elamite sphere. Puzur-In&scaronu&scaroninak left several documents in his name at Susa. Some are inscribed in Akkadian and others in linear Elamite, a script of which only a few signs have been deciphered with certainty (Vallat, 1986 see v, below) these signs may have been derived from proto-Elamite. But the establishment of the Elamite kings at Susa was of short duration. Several years later &Scaronulgi of Ur (2094-47) retook the city with the surrounding region, which once again became an integral part of the Mesopotamian empire and remained so until that empire collapsed.

The Sima&scaronki dynasty (ca. 2100-1970 B.C.E.). Of the twelve Sima&scaronkian kings mentioned in the king list from Susa, nine have been documented elsewhere (Stolper, 1982, pp. 42-67). The first part of this period was characterized by incessant Meso-potamian attacks on the Persian plateau the principal objective, though rarely attained, seems to have been Sima&scaronki, the homeland of the Elamite kings, in the area of modern Kermān. These campaigns alternated with periods of peace, marked by dynastic marriages. For example, &Scaronu-Sin of Ur, after having given one of his daughters in marriage to a prince of Anshan, led at least two expeditions to the southeastern coast of the Caspian (Kutscher, pp. 71-101). It seems that the Mesopotamians alternated between peaceful and more forcible approaches, in order to obtain the raw materials they needed. But Mesopotamian power was weakening. The last king of the dynasty of Ur, Ibbi-Sin (2028-04), was unable to penetrate very deeply into Elamite territory, and his agent Ir-Nanna no longer controlled more of the eastern empire than the countries along a northwest-southeast line from Arbela to Ba&scaronime on the north bank of the Persian Gulf (Thureau-Dangin, pp. 148-51). In 2004 the Elamites, allied with the &ldquoSusianans&rdquo under the leadership of Kindattu, sixth king of Sima&scaronki, conquered Ur and led Ibbi-Sin away to Elam as a prisoner.

The Epartid or sukkalmah dynasty (ca. 1970-1600 B.C.E.). This long period of nearly three centuries still seems one of the most confused in Elamite history, despite the greater abundance and variety of the available documentation. Modern historians (König, 1931 Cameron, p. 229 Hinz, p. 183) have been misled by three factors that have completely distorted historical reconstruction.

First, the order of succession and the genealogy of the rulers of this period were distorted by a misinterpretation of the expression &ldquoson of the sister of &Scaronilhaha&rdquo (Ak. mār ahāti(-&scaronu) &scarona &Scaronilhaha). It was believed that the correct translation of mār ahāti was &ldquonephew,&rdquo as in Mesopotamia, and that the term referred to a real biological relationship. The result was a theory about the division of power between the direct and collateral lines specific to Elam. The reality was quite different: The words &ldquoson of the sister of &Scaronilhaha&rdquo do not mean &ldquonephew&rdquo but rather &ldquoson that &Scaronilhaha sired with his own sister&rdquo and are evidence of royal incest, which ensured the legitimacy of the heir. Furthermore, the expression was only a title, as is confirmed by its use for centuries after the death of &Scaronilhaha, for example, by Unta&scaron-Napiri&scarona and Hutelutu&scaron-In&scaronu&scaroninak. It may be added that this Akkadian expression was rendered in Elamite as ruhu-&scaronak, ruhu meaning &ldquoson&rdquo when referring to the mother and &scaronak &ldquoson&rdquo when referring to the father. There is thus no question of the word &ldquosister&rdquo (Vallat, 1990, p. 122 idem, 1994).

A second factor, which played just as negative a role in historical reconstruction as the first, is a text of &Scaronilhak-In&scaronu&scaroninak, who enumerated those of his royal predecessors who had restored a temple of In&scaronu&scaroninak (König, 1965, no. 48) the majority of historians have considered that this enumeration provides a chronological scheme that has only to be completed by insertion of the names of kings who are not mentioned in it. Although generally early sovereigns are mentioned first in the text and the most recent ones last, within each group there are obvious contradictions with other documents. These distortions result from enumeration according to lineages sometimes the direct line is given, then the collateral lines, but sometimes the collateral lines precede the direct line, without relation to actual chronology. For the sukkalmah period the order is Eparti (Ebarat), &Scaronilhaha, Siruk-tuh, Siwe-palar-huppak, Kuk-Kirma&scaron, Atta-hu&scaronu, Temti-halki, and Kuk-Na&scaronur. Although the sequence Eparti, &Scaronilhaha, Siruk-tuh, Siwe-palar-huppak in the direct line is correct, the two kings mentioned next, Kuk-Kirma&scaron and Atta-hu&scaronu, are not in the correct place, for they ruled between the reigns of &Scaronilhaha and Siruk-tuh. Kuk-Kirma&scaron was thus a collateral, as is confirmed by the fact that in this list he is designated &ldquoson of Lankuku,&rdquo an individual unknown elsewhere, who probably never ruled it is probable that he was the brother of a sukkalmah who died without a direct heir or whose heir was too young to reign. Further confirmation comes from the inscriptions of certain high functionaries who served him after having been in the service of Idaddu II, tenth king of Sima&scaronki. He could thus not have reigned in the 15th century B.C.E., as had been incorrectly supposed. Temti-halki and Kuk-Na&scaronur, the last two sukkalmahs known, were probably in the direct line.

Finally, an inscription of Atta-hu&scaronu (Sollberger, 1968-69, p. 31 Vallat, 1989, no. 101) has been considered as evidence that Eparti, &Scaronilhaha, and Atta-hu&scaronu were contemporaries, constituting the first &ldquotriumvirate&rdquo of the dynasty. In fact, from different documents, particularly cylinder seals (q.v.) of servants of these sovereigns, it is possible to demonstrate (Vallat, 1989, no. 34) that between &Scaronilhaha and Atta-hu&scaronu six sukkalmahs or sukkals exercised power: Pala-i&scaron&scaronan, Kuk-Kirma&scaron, Kuk-sanit, Tem-sanit, Kuk-Nahhunte, and Kuk-Na&scaronur I, a group that reigned in the 20th century B.C.E. and not in the 16th century, as most commentators have believed (e.g., Hinz and Koch, p. 555).

Taking into account the corrected interpretations on these three points, it is possible today to write a coherent, though incomplete, history of the Epartid dynasty. The Sima&scaronkian kings who succeeded Kindattu were installed at Susa after the fall of the empire of Ur. The Sima&scaronkians Idaddu I and Tan-Ruhurater II (who married Mekubi, daughter of Bilalama of E&scaronnunna in Mesopotamia) built or restored temples at Susa. But Eparti II, though named as the ninth Sima&scaronkian king in the king list, was the founder of a new dynasty, called the Epartids by modern historians. It is surprising that the first Epartid sovereigns reigned at the same time as the last &ldquoSima&scaronkian kings,&rdquo Idaddu II, Idaddu-napir, and probably Idaddu-temti. Eparti, the first of his dynasty, was at least partially contemporary with the sukkalmah-sukkal group (see below) the second, &Scaronilhaha, is mentioned in two documents from the time of Atta-hu&scaronu, contemporary with Sumu-abum (1894-81 B.C.E.), the first king of the first dynasty of Babylon. The last Epartid, Idaddu-temti, is known only from the king list. It is not known how power was divided, for, although Idaddu II and Idaddu-napir are attested at Susa, Kuk-Kirma&scaron bore the title, among others, &ldquosukkal of Elam, of Sima&scaronki, and of Susa&rdquo (Thureau-Dangin, pp. 182-83), which implies that he ruled the entire Elamite confederation. Despite these titles, it is probable that the last Sima&scaronkians governed the eastern part of the empire while the first Epartids governed the western part.

At any rate Eparti, &Scaronilhaha, and their immediate successors lived in troubled times. Rulers of several Mesopotamian states attempted to retake Susa from the Elamites. Several raids are known, particularly those of Gungunum of Larsa, and it was perhaps because of such a raid that Atta-hu&scaronu seized power. In fact, there are several indications that he was a usurper: Unlike all his predecessors and successors Atta-hu&scaronu was not associated with any other sovereign in the economic and juridical documents. His titles, too, are unusual. Although he called himself &ldquoson of the sister of &Scaronilhaha,&rdquo it was probably in order to legitimate himself a posteriori he also bore the title &ldquoshepherd of the people of Susa,&rdquo which no other dynast during that period assumed, with the exception of a certain Tetep-mada, who may have been his successor.

The name of Siruk-tuh, which appears on a tablet from &Scaronem&scaronarra, permits linkage of Elamite history with Mesopotamian chronology, for he was contemporary with the Assyrian &Scaronam&scaroni-Adad I (1813-1781 B.C.E.). But the best-known sukkalmah of the dynasty is Siwe-palar-huppak, who for at least two years was the most powerful person in the Near East. According to the royal archives of Mari, kings as important as Zimri-Lim of Mari and Hammurabi of Babylon addressed him as &ldquofather,&rdquo while calling each other &ldquobrother&rdquo and using the word &ldquoson&rdquo for a king of lesser rank (Charpin and Durand). But the interventions of Siwe-palar-huppak and his brother and successor, Kudu-zulu&scaron, in Mesopotamian affairs (as far away as Aleppo) did not last long (Durand, 1986 idem, 1990 Charpin, 1986 idem, 1990). Siwe-palar-huppak&rsquos suzerainty was broken by an alliance led by Hammurabi, which put an end to Elamite ambitions in Mesopotamia.

The reigns of Kutir-Nahhunte I and his thirteen successors as sukkalmah or sukkal down to Kuk-Na&scaronur III, the last known sukkalmah, are documented only in the juridical and economic records from Susa (Scheil, 1930 idem, 1932 idem, 1933 idem, 1939) and in some rare royal inscriptions (Thureau-Dangin, pp. 184-85 Sollberger and Kupper, pp. 262-64). These documents suggest that daily life in Susa and Elam was quite insular. Although no military activity is noted in the documents, it is astonishing that so many royal or princely names are attested at the same time. For example, Kutir-Nahhunte is associated with five potential heirs: Atta-mera-halki, Tata, Lila-irta&scaron, Temti-Agun, and Kutir-&Scaronilhaha only the last two, however, attained supreme power, the status of sukkalmah. Following them Kuk-Na&scaronur II, a contemporary of Ammiṣaduqa, king of Babylon (1646-26 B.C.E.) Temti-rapta&scaron Simut-warta&scaron II Kuduzulu&scaron II and Sirtuh exercised power in an order that cannot yet be established with certainty, despite association with royal names in the texts. The three last known sukkalmahs, Tan-Uli and his two sons Temti-halki and Kuk-Na&scaronur III, all three of whom were styled &ldquoson of the sister of &Scaronilhaha,&rdquo constituted a group that is linked by no document to its predecessors. These different factors raise the question whether, during the second half of this period, palace intrigues had not replaced international conflicts.

This dynasty, which was remarkable for its duration, was also characterized by a progressive &ldquosemitization&rdquo of the royal line owing to the annexation of Susiana to the Elamite empire, the sukkalmahs ensured that Susa would remain a major center. This process is reflected in different spheres. For example, the Elamites did not impose their language on the Susians the vast majority of the documents from this period excavated at Susa, most of them juridical or economic texts related to daily life in the name of the sukkalmah or a sukkal, were written in Akkadian. Similarly, the Susians preserved their Suso-Mesopotamian pantheon, at the head of which was In&scaronu&scaroninak, the tutelary divinity of the city (see vi, below). Gods of Elamite origin were rare. Finally, this semitization, or westernization, is illustrated by the titulary. The title &ldquoking of Anshan and Susa&rdquo borne by Eparti, the founder of the dynasty, was soon abandoned in favor of titles that had belonged to Mesopotamian functionaries posted in Susiana or Elam during the Ur III period. The supreme power was held by the sukkalmah. It happened that the ruler delegated certain powers to his children, who were then given the title &ldquosukkal of Elam and of Sima&scaronki&rdquo while in charge of the eastern provinces of the empire and &ldquosukkal of Susa&rdquo when governing Susiana. This last title could be replaced by &ldquoking of Susa.&rdquo

It is thus necessary to set aside the theory of the division of Elamite power (Cameron, pp. 71-72). The succession to the throne was based on male primogeniture, with, however, an important additional element: the different degrees of legitimacy exemplified by the primacy of endogamy over exogamy. The child born to a union of the king with an Elamite princess, that is, a foreigner, was legitimate. The child born to a union of the king with his own sister had a higher degree of legitimacy. An elder son born to the marriage of a sovereign with a princess outside the family (exogamy) thus had to cede the throne to a younger brother born to a later union of the king and his sister (endogamy). The supreme degree of legitimacy was accorded to the son born to a union of the king with his own daughter. That was the case some centuries later with Hutelutu&scaron-In&scaronu&scaroninak, who seems to have been the son of &Scaronutruk-Nahhunte by his daughter Nahhunte-utu (Vallat, 1985). In the eventuality that a sovereign had no male heir or an heir was too young to exercise power then, as often elsewhere, power was secured by a collateral branch (Vallat, 1994).

The association of a &ldquosukkal of Elam and of Sima&scaronki&rdquo and a &ldquosukkal of Susa&rdquo with the supreme authority of the sukkalmah was not the rule. It sometimes happened, however, that the king associated his children in power for practical reasons: It is probable that, as in the Achaemenid period, the court left the extreme heat of Susa in summer and took refuge on the more temperate plateau. It was thus prudent to leave a trusted man in charge of the low countries.

The Middle Elamite period (ca. 1500-1100 B.C.E.).

The Middle Elamite period was marked by a sharp reversal from the preceding period. It was, in fact, characterized by an &ldquoelamization&rdquo of Susiana. The kings (Table 2) abandoned the title sukkalmah or sukkal in favor of the old title &ldquoking of Anshan and of Susa&rdquo (or &ldquoking of Susa and of Anshan&rdquo in the Akkadian inscriptions). The Akkadian language, still in use under the first family of rulers, the Kidinuids, became rare in the inscriptions of the later Igihalkids and &Scaronutrukids. Furthermore, in this period the Elamite pantheon was imposed in Susiana and reached the height of its power with the construction of the politicoreligious complex at Čoḡa Zanbīl (q.v.).

The &ldquodynasty&rdquo of the Kidinuids (ca. 1500-1400 B.C.E.). The term &ldquodynasty&rdquo for the Kidinuids is perhaps improper, for there is no indication of any filial relationship among the five rulers who succeeded one another in an order that is not yet certain: Kidinu, In&scaronu&scaroninak-sunkir-nappipir, Tan-Ruhurater II, &Scaronalla, and Tepti-Ahar (Steve, Gasche, and De Meyer, pp. 92-100). Susa and Haft Tepe (ancient Kabnak) have furnished evidence (Reiner, 1973b Herrero) of a break between the period of the sukkalmahs and the Middle Elamite period. The first element was the titulary: Kidinu and Tepti-ahar styled themselves &ldquoking of Susa and of Anzan,&rdquo thus linking themselves with an old tradition. Both also called themselves &ldquoservant of Kirwa&scaronir,&rdquo an Elamite divinity, thus introducing the pantheon from the plateau into Susiana. As in the preceding period, however, they continued to use Akkadian in all their inscriptions.

The Igihalkid dynasty (ca. 1400-1210 B.C.E.). Until quite recently the Igihalkid dynasty seemed one of the best known in Elamite history. It was believed (e.g., Stolper, 1984, pp. 35-38) that, following a raid by the Mesopotamian Kassite ruler Kurigalzu II (1332-08 B.C.E.) against a certain Hurpatila, king of Elam, Igi-halki seized power, in about 1320, power that he than passed on to his six successors, the most celebrated of whom was Unta&scaron-Napiri&scarona, who built the famous ziggurat at Čoḡa Zanbīl (ca. 1250). This period ended with Kidin-Hutran, who put an end to the grandeur of the Kassites by winning two victories over Enlil-nadin-&scaronumi (1224) and Adad-&scaronuma-iddina (1222-17).

Combined information from a letter now in the Vorderasiatisches Museum, Berlin (Van Dijk, 1986) and two fragments of a statue rediscovered in the Louvre (Steve and Vallat, pp. 223-38) has, however, led to a complete revision of this scheme. The letter in Berlin is a Neo-Babylonian document written in Akkadian, whereas the statue fragments contain an inscription in Elamite. The letter was addressed by an Elamite king whose name is lost but who may well have been &Scaronutruk-Nahhunte (see below) to assert his claim to rule Babylonia the name of the person to whom it was addressed is also not preserved in the letter. In support of his claim the king mentioned the names of all the Elamite kings who had married Kassite princesses, followed by the names of the children born of these unions. For example, the immediate successor of Igi-halki, Pahir-i&scaron&scaronan, married the sister or daughter of Kurigalzu I, whose reign ended in 1374 B.C.E., which implies that the Igihalkid dynasty was older by about a century than had previously been thought. Furthermore, two previously unknown kings, Kidin-Hutran, son of Unta&scaron-Napiri&scarona (who could not have been the Kidin-Hutran who fought the Kassites), and his son Napiri&scarona-unta&scaron, are mentioned in this text. As the fragments of the Louvre statue are attributed to another Kidin-Hutran, son of Pahir-i&scaron&scaronan, there must have been three kings of the same name in this dynasty: Kidin-Hutran I, son of Pahir-i&scaron&scaronan Kidin-Hutran II, son of Unta&scaron-Napiri&scarona and Kidin-Hutran III, whose paternity is unknown. The number of kings known to have succeeded to the Elamite throne has thus been raised from seven to ten, without any certainty that the list is complete. In fact, the first surviving description of this dynasty occurs in a text of the &Scaronutrukid &Scaronilhak-In&scaronu&scaroninak (König, 1965, no. 48), in which he enumerated those of his predecessors who had restored a temple of In&scaronu&scaroninak. As for the Berlin letter, only the dynasts who married Kassite princesses or their children are mentioned in it. A king who belonged in neither of these two categories would remain unknown. Finally, it can now be confirmed that Hurpatila was not an Elamite king but king of a country known as Elammat (Gassan).

The main characteristic of this dynasty is to have &ldquoelamized&rdquo Susiana the religious complex at Čoḡā Zanbīl, ancient Dur-Unta&scaron (or Āl Unta&scaron-Napiri&scarona), is evidence of this policy, which had been initiated under the &ldquoKidinuids.&rdquo Whereas the Epartids had adopted their titulary, gods, and language from the Susians, the Igihalkids emphasized the Elamite aspect of Susiana. Documents written in Akkadian are thus especially rare from their rule, and most are only curses against those who might tamper with dedicated works, as if such outrages could come only from Mesopotamia. Second, the old royal title &ldquoking of Anshan and of Susa&rdquo was revived. Finally and most important, the gods of the plateau appeared in force in Susiana. For example, the attitude of Unta&scaron-Napiri&scarona at Čoḡa Zanbīl is revealing. The king began by constructing a small ziggurat in the middle of a courtyard 105 m2 surrounded by temples. This first ziggurat bore the obligatory dedication to the tutelary god of Susa and Susiana, In&scaronu&scaroninak. But very quickly the king changed his mind and undertook construction of a large ziggurat. The small one was destroyed, and the buildings that surrounded the square courtyard were incorporated in the first story of the new monument, which consisted of five stories, each smaller in area than the one below (Ghirshman Amiet, 1966, pp. 344-49). It must be emphasized that the new building was dedicated jointly to Napiri&scarona, the principal god of Anshan, and to In&scaronu&scaroninak, who was always mentioned second, or even third when Kiriri&scarona, the associate of Napiri&scarona, was also named. The primacy of the Elamite component over that of Susa was thus reflected on the divine plane. But the situation was even more complex. Within three concentric walls at Čoḡa Zanbīl temples were constructed for different gods of the new Suso-Elamite pantheon, and it seems that all the constituent elements in the Elamite confederation were represented (Steve, 1967). For example, Pinikir, Humban, Kirma&scaronir, and Nahhunte probably belonged to the Awanite pantheon, whereas Ruhurater and Hi&scaronmitik were of Sima&scaronkian origin. Among the Anshanite gods the pair Napiri&scarona and Kiriri&scarona, as well as Kilah-&scaronupir and Manzat, can be mentioned. Other divinities of Suso-Mesopotamian origin, like In&scaronu&scaroninak, I&scaronmekarab, Nabu, &Scaronama&scaron, and Adad, helped to establish a balance between Elamite and Susian power. The creation of this city from nothing had more a political than a religious character, for it implied the cultural and political subjugation of Susiana by the old Elamite confederation. Curiously, this huge complex was quickly abandoned. No king other than Unta&scaron-Napiri&scarona left his name there, and &Scaronutruk-Nahhunte reported having carried some inscriptions from Dur-Unta&scaron to Susa. Nothing is known of the two immediate successors of Unta&scaron-Napiri&scarona, Kidin-Hutran II and Napiri&scarona-Unta&scaron. The campaigns led by the last sovereign of the dynasty, Kidin-Hutran III, against the Kassite kings Enlil-nadin-&scaronumi and Adad-&scaronuma-iddina of Babylonia are evidence that the good relations that had existed between the two royal families had quickly deteriorated.

The &Scaronutrukid dynasty (ca. 1210-1100 B.C.E.). Under the &Scaronutrukids Susa regained its greatness, which had been somewhat eclipsed by Čoḡa Zanbīl, and Elamite civilization shone in all its glory. The riches of &Scaronutruk-Nahhunte and his three sons and successors, Kutir-Nahhunte II, &Scaronilhak-In&scaronu&scaroninak, and Hutelutu&scaron-In&scaronu&scaroninak permitted these new &ldquokings of Anshan and of Susa&rdquo to undertake frequent military expeditions against Kassite Mesopotamia and to embellish the Elamite empire and particularly Susiana with luxuriously restored temples.

&Scaronutruk-Nahhunte, son of Hallutu&scaron-In&scaronu&scaroninak, perhaps following the Babylonian rejection of the Elamite claims to sovereignty in the Berlin letter discussed above, undertook several campaigns against Mesopotamia, whence he carried off a number of trophies, which he had inscribed with his name. It is thus known that he raided Akkad, Babylon, and E&scaronnunna, from the last of which he carried off the statues of Mani&scarontusu. It was he who brought to Susa such renowned documents as the code of Hammurabi and the stele of Naram-Sin. In 1158 B.C.E. he killed the Kassite king, Zababa-&scaronuma-iddina, and placed his own eldest son, Kutir-Nahhunte, on the throne of Babylon. When &Scaronutruk-Nahhunte died Kutir-Nahhunte succeeded him and continued his policy in Mesopotamia, putting an end to the long Kassite dynasty by deposing Enlil-nadin-ahi (1157-55 B.C.E.). He reigned only a short time before he was succeeded by his brother &Scaronilhak-In&scaronu&scaroninak, who left a large number of inscriptions in Elamite, recording his numerous campaigns against Mesopotamia, on one hand, and, on the other, dedicating to the gods temples that he built or restored for example, on one stele twenty temples &ldquoof the grove&rdquo in Susiana and Elam are mentioned (König, 1965, no. 48). The last king of the dynasty, Hutelutu&scaron-In&scaronu&scaroninak, who called himself sometimes &ldquoson of Kutir-Nahhunte and of &Scaronilhak-In&scaronu&scaroninak&rdquo and sometimes &ldquoson of &Scaronutruk-Nahhunte, of Kutir-Nahhunte, and of &Scaronilhak-In&scaronu&scaroninak,&rdquo was probably a son of &Scaronutruk-Nahhunte by his own daughter, Nahhunte-utu (Vallat, 1985, pp. 43-50 idem, 1994), apparently another example of incest in the royal Elamite family. Less brilliant than his predecessors, Hutelutu&scaron-In&scaronu&scaroninak had to abandon Susa briefly to Nebuchadnezzar (1125-04 B.C.E.). He took refuge at Anshan, where he built or restored a temple (Lambert Reiner, 1973b), then returned to Susa, where his brother &Scaronilhina-amru-Lagamar may have succeeded him. With this king Elamite power faded from the political scene for a long time.

The Neo-Elamite Period (1100-539 B.C.E.).

The essential element that distinguished the Neo-Elamite period was the massive arrival of Iranians on the Iranian plateau, which had the result of reducing still further what remained of the former Elamite empire. Although these invaders appeared only late in the Elamite texts, they were documented in Assyrian sources, where two groups of Medes were distinguished: the Medes or &ldquopowerful Medes&rdquo and the &ldquodistant Medes&rdquo or &ldquoMedes who live beside Mount Bikni, the mountain of lapis lazuli.&rdquo The first group, which occupied the region around Ecbatana (q.v. modern Hamadān), was well-known because of its frequent and often warlike contacts with the Assyrians, but the second group, which encompassed all the tribes that held territories between the region around modern Tehran and eastern Afghanistan was not the Achaemenids (and following them Herodotus) designated the latter group by their proper names: Parthians, Sagartians, Arians, Margians, Bactrians, Sogdians, and probably neighboring peoples. In the Assyrian annals, however, all these Iranian tribes were confused under the general appellation &ldquodistant Medes.&rdquo An identification of Mount Bikni with Damāvand (q.v. Cameron, p. 149) or Alvand (Levine, 1974, pp. 118-19) must thus be rejected. An identification with the sources of lapis lazuli in Badaḵ&scaronan was not only credited by some classical authors but also lends a certain coherence to history, whether recorded by Assyrians, Elamites, or Iranians (Vallat, 1993).

The slow progression of the Medes and the Persians across the plateau pushed the Elamites in the region of Anshan toward Susiana, which had been the second center of their empire for almost a millennium and a half. The country of Anshan gradually became Persia proper while Susiana then&mdashand only then&mdashbecame known as Elam. In most sources of the period, particularly those from Mesopotamia, Susiana is designated as Elam. Nevertheless, the Neo-Elamite kings (Table 3) still called themselves &ldquoking of Anshan and of Susa,&rdquo except for the last three, Ummanunu, &Scaronilhak-In&scaronu&scaroninak II, and Tepti-Humban-In&scaronu&scaroninak.

Neo-Elamite I (ca. 1100-770 B.C.E.). No Elamite document from this first phase of two and a half centuries provides any historical information. The tablets from Malyan (Stolper, 1984), which M.-J. Steve (1992, p. 21) attributes to the beginning of the period, reveal that Anshan was still at least partially Elamite, for almost all the individuals mentioned in them had names of Elamite origin. Mesopotamian tablets from the same period offer very little additional information it is known only that the Babylonian king Mar-biti-apla-uṣur (984-79 B.C.E.) was of Elamite origin and that Elamite troops fought on the side of the Babylonian king Marduk-balassu-iqbi against the Assyrian forces under &Scaronam&scaroni-Adad V (823-11 B.C.E.).

Neo-Elamite II (ca. 770-646 B.C.E.). Only after the middle of the 8th century B.C.E. does the Babylonian Chronicle (Grayson, 1975) provide the elements of a historical framework, particularly the role of Elam in the conflicts between Babylonians and Assyrians. The king Humban-nika&scaron (743-17 B.C.E.), son of Humban-tahra and brother of Humban-umena II, came to the aid of Merodach-baladan against the Assyrian Sargon II, which seems to have had little permanent result, as his successor, &Scaronutruk-Nahhunte II (716-699), son of Humban-umena II, had to flee from Sargon&rsquos troops during an attempt on the region of Dēr in 710. The Elamite was again defeated by Sargon&rsquos troops two years later finally he was beaten by Sargon&rsquos son Sennacherib, who dethroned Merodach-baladan and installed his own son A&scaron&scaronur-nadin-&scaronumi on the throne of Babylon. &Scaronutruk-Nahhunte was then murdered by his brother Hallu&scaronu, mentioned in the Babylonian Chronicle (698-93). After several skirmishes with the troops of Sennacherib, Hallu&scaronu was assassinated and replaced by Kudur, who quickly abdicated the throne in favor of Humban-umena III (692-89). Humban-umena recruited a new army, including troops from Ellipi, Parsuma&scaron, and Anshan, in order to assist the Babylonians in the battle against the Assyrians at Halule on the Tigris in 691. Each side proclaimed itself the victor, but Babylon was taken by the Assyrians two years later. Elamite relations with Babylonia began to deteriorate during the reign of Humban-halta&scaron II (680-75), son of Humban-halta&scaron I (688-81), which may explain why his brother and successor, Urtak (674-64), at first maintained good relations with the Assyrian king A&scaron&scaronurbanipal (668-27), who helped him by sending wheat during a famine. But peaceable relations with Assyria also deteriorated, and it was after a new Elamite attack on Mesopotamia that the king died. He was replaced on the throne by Te-Umman (664-53 B.C.E.). The new king was the object of a new attack by Assurbanipal, who, after the battle of the Ulaï in 653, put an end to the king&rsquos life. After this victory A&scaron&scaronurbanipal installed in power the son of Urtak, who had taken refuge in Assyria. Humban-nika&scaron II (Akkadian Ummaniga&scaron) was installed at Madaktu, an advance post toward Mesopotamia, and Tammaritu at Hidalu, a retreat in the eastern mountains on the road to Anshan. These two towns thus functioned as capitals from the beginning of the 7th century, to the detriment of Susa. The war that broke out between A&scaron&scaronurbanipal and his brother &Scaronama&scaron-&scaronum-ukin, whom he had installed on the throne of Babylon, provided some respite for the Elamites, who profited from it to fight among themselves. Tammaritu captured the throne of Humban-nika&scaron II and was in turn driven out to Assyria by Indabiga&scaron, who was himself killed by Humban-halta&scaron III in 648. The collapse of the Elamite kingdom seems even clearer when it is realized that a certain Umba-habua reigned at Bupila and that Pa&rsquoe was called &ldquoking of Elam&rdquo at Bīt-Imbi. The coup de grace, however, was delivered by A&scaron&scaronurbanipal in 646, when he sacked Susa after having devastated the whole of Susiana (Streck Aynard Grayson, 1975).

The defeat of the Elamites was, however, less devastating than A&scaron&scaronurbanipal made it appear in his annals, for after his victory the Elamite kingdom rose from the ashes with &Scaronutur-Nahhunte, son of Humban-umena III.

Neo-Elamite III (646-539?B.C.E.). So far nothing has been known about the century between the sack of Susa by A&scaron&scaronurbanipal in 646 and the conquest of Susiana, thus of Elam, by the Achaemenids, perhaps by Cyrus in 539. This apparent gap in the history was owing in fact to two errors of interpretation by modern scholars, who, first, considered that the Neo-Elamite kings &Scaronutruk-Nahhunte, son of Humban-umena &Scaronutur-Nahhunte, son of Humban-umena and sometimes even &Scaronutur-Nahhunte, son of Indada, were the names of a single sovereign (Hinz, 1964, pp. 115-20). Now, it is possible to show that they belonged to three different individuals. The first, who reigned from 717 to 699, is known from the Mesopotamian sources. He was the son of Humban-umena II (ca. 743), whereas &Scaronutur-Nahhunte was the son of Humban-umena III (692-89) and reigned after the fall of Susa. As for &Scaronutur-Nahhunte, son of Indada, he was a petty king in the region of Īza/Malāmīr in the first half of the 6th century (Vallat, 1995).

The second error of interpretation was to have considered the names of the Elamite kings mentioned in the Mesopotamian documents as simple distortions of the names of kings known from their inscriptions at Susa. For example, it was believed that the name &Scaronutruk-Nahhunte was rendered &Scaronutur-Nahhunte in Assyria and I&scarontar-hundu in Babylonia. Again, it can be demonstrated from internal analysis of the Elamite documents that these identifications are erroneous and that, with the exception of &Scaronutruk-Nahhunte II, all the Neo-Elamite kings known from Susian inscriptions reigned after A&scaron&scaronurbanipal&rsquos sack of Susa (Vallat, 1996).

For this period no text furnishes a synchronism with Mesopotamia. Nevertheless, one group of more than 300 tablets (Scheil, 1909) can be dated by the iconography of their seal impressions to the first quarter of the 6th century. Analysis of the language of these documents, which was no longer classical but not yet Achaemenid, reveals details that permit a chronology in relation to other inscriptions. In addition, on one of these tablets a king (Ummanunu) and on another the name of Humban-kitin, who was probably the son of &Scaronutur-Nahhunte, are mentioned (Vallat, 1995). It is thus possible to locate the reigns of &Scaronutur-Nahhunte, son of Humban-umena III Halluta&scaron-In&scaronu&scaroninak, son of Humban-tahra II and Atta-hamiti-In&scaronu&scaroninak, son of Hutran-tepti in the second half of the 7th century. Ummanunu, who is mentioned in the tablets from the Acropolis, appears to have been the father of &Scaronilhak-In&scaronu&scaroninak II, himself the father of Tepti-Humban-In&scaronu&scaroninak. These three individuals ruled in succession between 585 and about 539, at a time when Elamite royalty seems to have been fragmented among different small kingdoms, though it is not possible to determine that there was any sort of vassal relationship with the king of Susa. It is thus known that &Scaronutur-Nahhunte, son of Indada ruled in the region of Malāmīr Humban-&scaronuturuk, son of &Scaronati-hupiti, probably in the region of Kesat in what was later Elymais and the first Achaemenids over the city of Anshan. It is interesting to note that the three kings at the end of the 7th century (&Scaronutur-Nahhunte, Halluta&scaron-In&scaronu&scaroninak, and Atta-hamiti-In&scaronu&scaroninak) still called themselves &ldquoking of Anzan and of Susa&rdquo or &ldquoenlarger of the kingdom of Anzan and of Susa,&rdquo whereas Ummanunu and &Scaronilhak-In&scaronu&scaroninak II bore the simple title &ldquoking,&rdquo without any further specification, and Tepti-Humban-In&scaronu&scaroninak did not even allude to his royal position! This last known king of Elam did boast, however, of having led a campaign in the Zagros.

The Achaemenid period (539-331 B.C.E.).

With the Achaemenids in general and Darius I (q.v.) in particular Susa regained its previous greatness, but Elam lost its independence, becoming the third &ldquoprovince&rdquo of the empire, after Persis and Media. Curiously, in that period, though the country was called Elam (Elamite Hatamtu, Akkadian NIM) in the sources, in Old Persian it was called Susiana (Uja). Susa eclipsed the other capitals, like Anshan and Pasargadae, in Cyrus&rsquo time and even Persepolis, founded by Darius himself, and Ecbatana. It is striking, for example, that officials traveling to such distant destinations as Egypt, India, or Arachosia departed from Susa and returned to Susa, as confirmed in numerous archival tablets found at Persepolis (Hallock, nos. 1285-1579). Furthermore, these documents were written in Elamite, as if Darius had wished to make use of a class of scribes belonging to an already existing administration. The majority of royal inscriptions were written in Old Persian, Akkadian, and Elamite versions, but Elamite had by then absorbed Iranian influences in both structure and vocabulary. The Elamite gods, after having benefited from a final revival of the cult under Darius and Xerxes, disappeared forever from the documents. Elam was absorbed into the new empire, which changed the face of the civilized world at that time.

Bibliography: (For abbreviations found in this bibliography, see &ldquoShort References.&rdquo)

P. Amiet, Élam, Auvers-sur-Oise, France, 1966.

Idem, &ldquoArchaeological Discontinuity and Ethnic Duality in Elam,&rdquo Antiquity 53, 1979, pp. 195-204.

Idem, L&rsquoâge des échanges inter-iraniens, 3500-1700 avant J.-C., Notes et Documents des Musées de France 11, Paris, 1986.

J.-M. Aynard, Le prisme du Louvre AO 19.939, Paris, 1957.

J. A. Brinkman, Prelude to Empire. Babylonian Society and Politics, 747-626 B.C., Occasional Publications of the Babylonian Fund 7, Philadelphia, 1984.

G. G. Cameron, History of Early Iran, Chicago, 1936.

D. Charpin, &ldquoLes Élamites à &Scaronubat-Enlil,&rdquo in Fragmenta Historiae Elamicae, Mélanges offerts à M.-J. Steve, Paris, 1986, pp. 129-37.

Idem, &ldquoUne alliance contre l&rsquoÉlam et le rituel du lipit napi&scarontim,&rdquo in Contribution à l&rsquohistoire de l&rsquoIran. Mélanges offerts à Jean Perrot, Paris, 1990, pp. 109-18.

Idem and J.-M. Durand, &ldquoLa suzeraineté de l&rsquoempereur (sukkalmah) d&rsquoÉlam sur la Mésopotamie et le &lsquonationalisme&rsquo amorrite,&rdquo in L. De Meyer and H. Gasche, eds., Mésopotamie et Elam. Actes de la XXXVIème Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Mesopotamian History and Environment, Occasional Publications 1, Ghent, 1991, pp. 59-66.

J.-M. Durand, &ldquoFragments rejoints pour une histoire élamite,&rdquo in Fragmenta Historiae Elamicae. Mélanges offerts à M.-J. Steve, Paris, 1986, pp. 111-28.

Idem, &ldquoFourmis blanches et fourmis noires,&rdquo in Contribution à l&rsquohistoire de l&rsquoIran. Mélanges offerts à Jean Perrot, Paris, 1990, pp. 101-08.

M. Gassan, &ldquoHurpatila, roi d&rsquoElammat,&rdquo AIUON 49/3, 1989, pp. 223-29.

I. J. Gelb and B. Kienast, Die altakkadischen Königsinschriften des dritten Jahrtausends v. Chr., Freiburger altorientalische Studien 7, Stuttgart, 1990.

R. Ghirshman, Tchoga Zanbil (Dur Untash) I. La ziggurat, Mémoires de la Mission archéologique en Iran 39, Paris, 1966.

A. K. Grayson, &ldquoThe Empire of Sargon of Akkad,&rdquo Archiv für Orientforschung 25, 1974-77, pp. 56-64.

Idem, Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles. Texts from Cuneiform Sources V, Locust Valley, N.Y., 1975.

R. T. Hallock, Persepolis Fortification Tablets, Oriental Institute Publications 92, Chicago, 1969.

J. Hansman, &ldquoElamites, Achaemenians and Anshan,&rdquo Iran 10, 1972, pp. 101-25.

P. Herrero, &ldquoTablettes administratives de Haft-Tépé,&rdquo CDAFI 6, 1976, pp. 93-116.

W. Hinz, The Lost World of Elam, London, 1972.

Idem und H. Koch, Elamisches Wörterbuch, AMI, Ergänzungsbd. 17, Berlin, 1987.

H. Hirsch, &ldquoDie Inschriften der Könige von Agade,&rdquo Archiv für Orientforschung 20, 1963, pp. 1-82.

F. W. König, &ldquoGeschichte Elams,&rdquo Der Alte Orient 29, 1931, pp. 1-38.

Idem, Die elamischen Königsinschriften, Archiv für Orientforschung, Beiheft 16, Graz, 1965.

R. Kutscher, The Brockmon Tablets at the University of Haïfa. Royal Inscriptions, Haifa, 1989.

M. Lambert, &ldquoHutelutush-Insushnak et le pays d&rsquoAnzan,&rdquo RA 66, 1972, pp. 61-76.

A. Le Brun, &ldquoChantier de l&rsquoAcropole I,&rdquo Paléorient 4, 1978, pp. 177-92.

L. Levine, &ldquoGeographical Studies in the Neo-Assyrian Zagros II,&rdquo Iran 12, 1974, pp. 99-124.

P. de Miroschedji, &ldquoNote sur la glyptique de la fin de l&rsquoÉlam,&rdquo RA 76, 1982, pp. 51-63.

E. Reiner, &ldquoInscription from a Royal Elamite Tomb,&rdquo Archiv für Orientforschung 24, 1973a, pp. 87-104.

Idem, &ldquoThe Location of Anshan,&rdquo RA 67, 1973b, pp. 57-62.

V. Scheil, Textes élamites-anzanites, 3e sér., Mémoires de la Délégation en Perse 9, Paris, 1907.

Idem, Actes juridiques susiens, Mémoires de la Mission archéologique en Perse 22, Paris, 1930.

Idem, &ldquoDynasties élamites d&rsquoAwan et de Sima&scaron,&rdquo RA 28, 1931, pp. 1-8.

Idem, Actes juridiques susiens (suite: n° 166 à n° 327), Mémoires de la Mission archéologique en Perse 23, Paris, 1932.

Idem, Actes juridiques susiens (suite: n° 328 à n° 395), Mémoires de la Mission archéologique en Perse 24, Paris, 1933.

Idem, Mélanges épigraphiques, Mémoires de la Mission archéologique en Perse 28, Paris, 1939.

E. Sollberger, &ldquoA Tankard of Atta-hu&scaronu,&rdquo Journal of Cuneiform Studies 22, 1968-69, pp. 30-33.

Idem and J.-R. Kupper, Les inscriptions royales sumériennes et akkadiennes, Paris, 1971.

M.-J. Steve, Tchoga Zanbil (Dur-Untash) III. Textes élamites et accadiens de Tchoga Zanbil, Mémoires de la Délégation archéologique en Iran 41, Paris, 1967.

Idem, &ldquoLa fin de l&rsquoÉlam. À propos d&rsquoune empreinte de sceau-cylindre,&rdquo Stud. Ir. 15, 1986, pp. 7-21.

Idem, Nouveaux mélanges épigraphiques. Inscriptions royales de Suse et de la Susiane, Mémoires de la Délégation archéologique en Iran 53, Nice, 1987.

Idem, &ldquoDes sceaux-cylindres de Sima&scaronki?&rdquo RA 83, 1989, pp. 13-26.

Idem, &ldquoÉlam. Histoire continue ou discontinue?&rdquo in L. De Meyer and H. Gasche, eds., Mésopotamie et Elam, Actes de la XXXVIème Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Meso-potamian History and Environment, Occasional Publications I, Ghent, 1991, pp. 1-9.

Idem, Syllabaire élamite. Histoire et paléographie, Neuchâtel-Paris, 1992.

Idem, H. Gasche, and L. De Meyer, &ldquoLa Susiane au deuxième millénaire. À propos d&rsquoune interprétation des fouilles de Suse,&rdquo Iranica Antiqua 15, 1980, pp. 49-154.

M.-J. Steve and F. Vallat, &ldquoLa dynastie des Igihalkides. Nouvelles interprétations,&rdquo in Archaeologia Iranica et Orientalis. Miscellanea in Honorem Louis Vanden Berghe, Ghent, 1989, pp. 223-38.

M. W. Stolper, &ldquoOn the Dynasty of &Scaronima&scaronki and the Early Sukkalmahs,&rdquo ZA 72, 1982, pp. 42-67.

Idem, Texts from Tall-i Malyan I. Elamite Administrative Texts (1972-1974), Occasional Publications of the Babylonian Fund 6, Philadelphia, 1984.

Idem, &ldquoPolitical History,&rdquo in E. Carter and M. W. Stolper, Elam. Surveys of Political History and Archaeology, Near Eastern Studies 25, Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1984.

M. Streck, Assurbanipal und die letzten assyrischen Könige bis zum Untergange Niniveh&rsquos, Vorderasiatische Bibliothek 7, Leipzig, 1916.

F. Thureau-Dangin, Die sumerischen und akkadischen Königsinschriften, Vorderasiatische Bibliothek 1/1, Leipzig, 1907.

F. Vallat, Suse et l&rsquoÉlam, Recherche sur les grandes civilisations, Mémoire 1, Paris, 1980.

Idem, &ldquoHutelutu&scaron-In&scaronu&scaroninak et la famille royale élamite,&rdquo RA 79, 1985, pp. 43-50.

Idem, &ldquoThe Most Ancient Scripts of Iran. The Current Situation,&rdquo World Archaeology 17/3, 1986, pp. 335-47.

Idem, &ldquoL&rsquoexpression ADDA LUGAL an-&scaronan ù MÙ&Scaron.EREN dans un texte d&rsquoAtta-hu&scaronu,&rdquo Nouvelles assyriologiques brèves et utilitaires, 1989a, pp. 75-76 no. 101.

Idem, &ldquoLe scribe Ibni-Adad et les premiers sukkalmah,&rdquo Nouvelles assyriologiques brèves et utilitaires, 1989b, pp. 23-24 no. 34.

Idem, &ldquoRéflexions sur l&rsquoépoque des sukkalmah,&rdquo in Contribution à l&rsquohistoire de l&rsquoIran. Mélanges offerts à Jean Perrot, Paris, 1990, pp. 119-27.

Idem, &ldquoLa géographie de l&rsquoÉlam d&rsquoaprès quelques textes mésopotamiens&rdquo in L. De Meyer and H. Gasche, eds., Mésopotamie et Elam. Actes de la XXXVIème Rencontre Assyrio-logique Internationale, Mesopotamian History and Environment Occasional Publications 1, Ghent, 1991, pp. 11-21.

Idem, &ldquoSuccession royale en Élam au IIème millénaire,&rdquo in Cinquante-deux réflexions sur le Proche-Orient ancien offertes à Léon De Meyer, Mesopotamian History and Environment, Occasional Publications 2, 1994, pp. 1-14.

Idem, &ldquo&Scaronutruk-Nahunte, &Scaronutur-Nahunte et l&rsquoimbroglio néo-élamite,&rdquo Nouvelles assyriologiques brèves et utilitaires, 1995, pp. 37-38.

Idem, &ldquoNouvelle analyse des inscriptions néo-élamites,&rdquo forthcoming.

Idem et al., Les noms géographiques des sources suso-élamites, TAVO, Beihefte, Répertoire géographique des textes cunéiformes 11, Wiesbaden, 1993.

J. Van Dijk, &ldquoI&scaronbi-Erra, Kindattu, l&rsquohomme d&rsquoÉlam et la chute de la ville d&rsquoUr,&rdquo Journal of Cuneiform Studies 30, 1978, pp. 189-208.

Idem, &ldquoDie dynastischen Heiraten zwischen Kassiten und Elamern. Eine verhäng-nisvolle Politik&rdquo Orientalia 55, 1986, pp. 159-70.

F. H. Weissbach, Die Keilinschriften der Achämeniden, Vorderasiatische Bibliothek 3, Leipzig, 1911.

C. Wilcke, &ldquoDie Inschriftenfunde der 7. und 8. Kampagnen (1983 und 1984),&rdquo in B. Hrouda, Isin. I&scaronān-Bahrīyāt III. Die Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen 1983-1984, Abh. Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Phil.-hist. Kl., N.F. 94, Munich, 1987, pp. 83-120.

T. C. Young, &ldquoThe Early History of the Medes and the Persians and the Achaemenid Empire to the Death of Cambyses,&rdquo Cambridge Ancient History IV, 1988, pp. 1-52.


Today, many Black men still favor the short hair and beard of Cyrus.

Zoroastrianism

The religion of the Persians was Zoroastrianism, and their name for their god was "Ahura Mazda". The symbol for their religion - Not their God - was the "Faravahar". The Persians were devoutly religious and had many strict rules and prohibitions. Of particular distaste to the Persians, was the lie. The Achaemenian kings, did not discriminate against other religions, and did not seek to force others to their faith. Many aspects of Zoroastrianism were later incorporated into the Hebrew religion.

In his mind, Cyrus saw the world as being full of evil and disorder, and felt it was incumbent upon him, to bring order to the world. And in his thinking, the only way to do that, was to conquer it!

Cyrus then went about conquering every land that he could find, and then finally, he turned on Babylon. As you will recall from the Sumer section: the Marduk Priesthood in Babylon had already set the stage. The fall of Babylon came about almost as an anticlimax. The fall of the greatest city in the Middle East was swift Cyrus marched in - this was late in the summer of 539 B.C, and seized the hands of the statue of the god Marduk, this as a signal of his willingness to rule as a Babylonian, and not as a foreign conqueror. With this, he was thus hailed as the legitimate successor to the throne. In this one stride, Cyrus carried Persian power to the borders of Egypt, for with Babylon, came all that it had previously seized from the Assyrians, and also, that which it had later gained on it's own.

Liberation of the Hebrews

By the order of Cyrus, all the captive nationalities that had been held for generations in Babylon were freed, and their return to their homelands was financed by him. Among the liberated captives were 50,000 Hebrews held in Babylon for three generations. Their instruction was to return to their homeland and rebuild their temple. This is a policy that was also followed by Cyrus's successors. Some of the liberated Hebrews were invited to, and did settle in Persia.

Because of such a generous act, Cyrus has been anointed in the Bible. He is the only gentile in the Bible who has been titled Messiah. And he is mentioned explicitly as the Lord's shepherd and his anointed (Messiah). Other references to Cyrus are attested to in Isaiah 45:4, where Cyrus is called by name and given a title of honor he is also called to rebuild God's city and free His people in (Is. 45:13), and he is chosen, called, and brought through successful by God in (Is. 48:14-15).

Upon the death of Cyrus the Great, the Empire passed to his son Cambyses II (reigned 529&ndash522 B.C). At this time, there may have been some degree of unrest throughout the empire, for with Cyrus's death, Cambyses apparently felt it necessary to secretly kill his brother, Bardiya (Smerdis). The campaign against Egypt began in 525 B.C.

Conquest of Egypt

The Egyptian pharaoh, Ahmose II of the 26th dynasty, sought to shore up his defenses against the Persians by hiring Greek mercenaries, but he was betrayed by the Greeks. Cambyses successfully managed to cross the hostile Sinai Desert, traditionally Egypt's first and strongest line of defense, and engaged the Egyptians forces under the command of Psamtik III in a battle at Pelusium. The Egyptians lost and were forced to retire to Memphis, which subsequently fell to the Persians, as did all of Egypt later.

Within little more than a Century after the Assyrian Ashurbanipal's salt sowing, the great Elamite city of Susa was rebuilt by Darius I, the successor to Cambyses II, at around 518 B.C. Darius took care to record that he had adorned the city with gold from Sardis and Bactria, ivory from Egypt and Ethiopia, and cedar wood from Lebanon. This was afforded by the tribute that came to him from controlling two million square miles of territory, stretching from Egypt and the Aegean sea, well into India, and from the Persian Gulf to the Caspian and Black Seas.

Susa once more became the glowing city - as described in the Bible - with monumental buildings furnished with "Marble pillars, couches of gold and silver, on a mosaic pavement of porphyry, marble, mother of pearl and precious stones". Thus restored, Susa lasted for another 1,700 years, and than sadly, was destroyed by the Mongol invaders in about 1200 A.D. It was never again rebuilt.

The Persian Wars - as chronicled by Herodotus (after the fact, circa 440 B.C.).

The Greco-Persian Wars were a series of conflicts between the Achaemenid Empire of Persia and city-states of the Hellenic world that started in 499 B.C, and lasted until 449 B.C. The collision between the fractious political world of the Greeks and the enormous empire of the Persians began when Cyrus the Great conquered Ionia in 547 B.C, Struggling to rule the independent-minded cities of Ionia, the Persians appointed tyrants to rule each of them. This would prove to be the source of much trouble for the Greeks and Persians alike.

In 499 B.C, the then tyrant of Miletus, Aristagoras, embarked on an expedition to conquer the island of Naxos, with Persian support however, the expedition was a debacle and, pre-empting his dismissal, Aristagoras incited all of Hellenic Asia Minor into rebellion against the Persians. This was the beginning of the Ionian Revolt, which would last until 493 B.C, progressively drawing more regions of Asia Minor into the conflict. Aristagoras secured military support from Athens and Eretria, and in 498 B.C, these forces helped to capture and burn the Persian regional capital of Sardis. The Persian king Darius the Great vowed to have revenge on Athens and Eretria for this act. The revolt continued, with the two sides effectively stalemated throughout 497&ndash495 BC. In 494 B.C, the Persians regrouped, and attacked the epicentre of the revolt in Miletus. At the Battle of Lade, the Ionians suffered a decisive defeat, and the rebellion collapsed, with the final members being stamped out the following year.

Seeking to secure his empire from further revolts and from the interference of the mainland Greeks, Darius embarked on a scheme to conquer Greece and to punish Athens and Eretria for burning Sardis. The first Persian invasion of Greece began in 492 B.C, with the Persian general Mardonius conquering Thrace and Macedon before several mishaps forced an early end to the campaign. In 490 B.C, a second force was sent to Greece, this time across the Aegean Sea, under the command of Datis and Artaphernes. This expedition subjugated the Cyclades, before besieging, capturing and razing Eretria. However, while on route to attack Athens, the Persian force was decisively defeated by the Athenians at the Battle of Marathon, ending Persian efforts for the time being. Darius then began to plan to complete the conquest of Greece, but died in 486 BC and responsibility for the conquest passed to his son Xerxes I. In 480 B.C, Xerxes personally led the second Persian invasion of Greece with one of the largest ancient armies ever assembled. Victory over the 'Allied' Greek states (led by Sparta and Athens) at the Battle of Thermopylae allowed the Persians to overrun most of Greece. However, while seeking to destroy the combined Greek fleet, the Persians suffered a severe defeat at the Battle of Salamis. The following year, the confederated Greeks went on the offensive, defeating the Persian army at the Battle of Plataea, and ending the invasion of Greece.

The allied Greeks followed up their success by destroying the rest of the Persian fleet at the Battle of Mycale, before expelling Persian garrisons from Sestos (479 B.C.) and Byzantium (478 B.C.) The actions of the general Pausanias at the siege of Byzantium alienated many of the Greek states from the Spartans (see below), and the anti-Persian alliance was therefore reconstituted around Athenian leadership, as the so-called Delian League. The Delian League continued to campaign against Persia for the next three decades, beginning with the expulsion of the remaining Persian garrisons from Europe. At the Battle of the Eurymedon in 466 B.C, the League won a double victory that finally secured freedom for the cities of Ionia. However, the League's involvement in an Egyptian revolt (from 460&ndash454 B.C.) resulted in a disastrous defeat, and further campaigning was suspended. A fleet was sent to Cyprus in 451 B.C, but achieved little, and when it withdrew the Greco-Persian Wars drew to a quiet end. Some historical sources suggest the end of hostilities was marked by a peace treaty between Athens and Persia, the so-called Peace of Callias.

Pausanias

Pausanias was a Spartan general of the 5th century B.C. He was the son of Cleombrotus and nephew of Leonidas I, serving as regent after the latter's death, since Leonidas' son Pleistarchus was still under-age. Pausanias was also the father of Pleistoanax, who later became king, and Cleomenes. Pausanias was responsible for the Greek victory over Mardonius and the Persians at the Battle of Plataea in 479 BC, and was the leader of the Hellenic League created to resist Persian aggression during the Greco-Persian Wars.

After the Greek victories at Plataea and the Battle of Mycale, the Spartans lost interest in liberating the Greek cities of Asia Minor. However, when it became clear that Athens would dominate the Hellenic League in Sparta's absence, Sparta sent Pausanias back to command the League's military.

In 478 B.C. Pausanias was suspected of conspiring with the Persians and was recalled to Sparta, however he was acquitted and then left Sparta of his own accord, taking a trireme from the town of Hermione. After capturing Byzantium Pausanias was alleged to have released some of the prisoners of war who were friends and relations of the king of Persia. However, Pausanias argued that the prisoners had escaped. He sent a letter to King Xerxes (son of Darius), saying that he wished to help him and bring Sparta and the rest of Greece under Persian control. In return, he wished to marry the king&rsquos daughter. After receiving a letter back from Xerxes in which Xerxes agreed to his plans, Pausanias started to dress like a Persian aristocrat and he started to adopt Persian customs.

Many Spartan allies joined the Athenian side because of Pausanias&rsquo arrogance and high-handedness. The Spartans recalled him once again, and Pausanias fled to Kolonai in the Troad before returning to Sparta because he didn&rsquot wish to be suspected of Persian sympathies. On his arrival in Sparta, the ephors had him imprisoned but he was later released. Nobody had enough evidence to convict him of disloyalty even though some helots gave evidence that he had offered certain helots their freedom if they joined him in revolt. One of the messengers that Xerxes and Pausanias had been using to communicate provided written evidence to the Spartan ephors that they needed to formally prosecute Pausanius.

The ephors planned to arrest Pausanias in the street but he was warned of their plans and escaped to the temple of Athena of the Brazen House. The ephors walled up the doors, put sentries outside and proceeded to starve him out. When Pausanias was on the brink of death they carried him out, and he died shortly thereafter. This chain of events prevented Pausanias's death from taking place within the sanctuary of the temple, which would have been an act of ritual pollution.

The Persians had acquired the greatest Empire yet known to man. But fatigue is starting to settle in, the drain of constant war, and the consequent palace intrigues, have left Persia very fragile. By now the Empire extends north to southern Europe, and here many battles are fought to secure and expand their territory. And it is here, that they encounter the Macedonian king, Alexander.


BIBLE HISTORY AFTERMATH of the Battle of Siddim

The Southern Kings were pleased with Abraham’s incredible turning of the tide of war. King Melchizedek of Salem, a priest of God, blessed Abraham who offered him a tenth of the plunder. King Bera of Sodom, came to Abraham and, in gratitude, persuaded him to instead take home the plunder to which Abraham declined.

After the War of the Nine Kings, God mad a covenant with Abraham at Beersheba and appointed him as the father of a great nation (Genesis 22).

Abraham’s nephew, Lot, escaped from Sodom with his family and God used a hailstorm to destroy it, along with Gomorrah, due to the unrepentant sin existing there. One theory on the destruction is an air burst this is when a comet disintegrates before hitting the Earth. A superheated shockwave, which would have had the same effect as a nuclear explosion, then hits the city. This way there was destruction with no trace of the cause. There would have been a colossal mushroom cloud which is described as the dense smoke Abraham saw. The destruction of these cities of the Jordan Plain, the cities of the Jordan Plain may have resulted in the transformation of the area of Siddim into the salt sea known today as the Dead Sea.

In antiquity, there have been other settlements that have seemed to disappear or be destroyed overnight. Teotihuacan, in the valley of Mexico, for instance, grew rapidly but then was destroyed. It is unknown if this was due to invasion or droughts or anything else but the result is the same: an evil society was wiped out.

Scientific explanations for the destruction do not affect the premise that God had a hand in it. God uses nature (and science) that He created for His purpose.

Lot’s committed incest with his daughters and out of that was born Moab and Ammon. These were the patriarchs of Israel’s future long life enemies the Moabites and Ammonites. Along with the Edomites, these nations laid where the country of Jordan is today.

Moab: Jordan region east of the Dead Sea.

Ammon: Jordan region around the capital Amman.

Edom: Jordan southern region south of the Dead Sea.


Tidal: King of The Gentiles

Scripture often contains names of people, places, and things that sound completely foreign to our modern English ears. One of these references comes in the early chapters of Genesis in which the kings of nine nations go to war. One of these kings is referred to as “Tidal king of nations”.

“And it came to pass in the days of Amraphel king of Shinar, Arioch king of Ellasar, Chedorlaomer king of Elam, and Tidal king of nations..” – Genesis 14:1

During the course of my research into the Gentiles, I decided to take a peek at the word used for “nations” in Genesis 14:1 and Genesis 14:9. The word used was “ gowyim “. For a full study on the meaning of gowyim please see the following study:

Tidal Identified As A European Leader

Upon noticing that the term goyim was used, I made a note to come back and check it out later. After doing a bit of digging, I was led to the following source:

“(in the LXX. called “Thorgal”), styled the “king of nations” (Gen.14:1-9). Mentioned as Tudkhula on Arioch’s brick (see facing page 139). Goyyim , translated “nations,” is the country called Gutium, east of Tigris and north of Elam.” – Source

If we look at the map, Elam is located just outside of the Arabian Peninsula. To the North of Elam we see the map marked as “Indo European Peoples”. From there I looked into Gutium, which returned some very interesting results, especially when it came to the description of the Gutium people.

“According to the historian Henry Hoyle Howorth (1901), Assyriologist Theophilus Pinches (1908), renowned archaeologist Leonard Woolley (1929) and Assyriologist Ignace Gelb (1944) the Gutians were pale in complexion and blonde. This was asserted on the basis of assumed links to peoples mentioned in the Old Testament. This identification of the Gutians as fair haired first came to light when Julius Oppert (1877) published a set of tablets he had discovered which described Gutian (and Subarian) slaves as namrum or namrûtum, one of its many meanings being “light colored”. This racial character of the Gutians as blondes or being light skinned was also claimed up by Georges Vacher de Lapouge in 1899 and later by historian Sidney Smith in his Early history of Assyria (1928).

These archaeologists prove that many of the claims on Eurocentric websites linking Tidal to the Hittites are false. The mention of the gowyim in the verse presents a problem for those that cling to the claim that Gentiles were all non Hebrew people.

The Gentiles Are A Specific Group of People

If the claim that Gentiles were all non Hebrew people, there would be a conflict in the story. Tidal was king of the gowyim, but he served Chedorlaomer. Neither of these kings were Hebrews, so in order for the claim that all non Hebrews are Gentiles to stand, Chedorlaomer would have to have been serving Tidal. The Bible is clear that Tidal is king of a group of people identified as gowyim .

  • Amraphel is not a Hebrew, but not listed as gowyim.
  • Arioch is not a Hebrew, but is not listed as gowyim.

This leaves no doubt that Tidal was king of a specific group of people of non Shemite lineage, but were not lumped in with all other Shemites.

The Breakdown

A single mention of a name has become a key factor in further proving that the Gentiles referred to in scripture are indeed the descendants of Japheth (Europeans). Over and over again, all of the evidence for who the Gentiles are ends up pointing back to the descendants of Japheth. While many conservative Christians may not like the what the Bible has to say about the Gentiles, the truth is the truth. Those that desire the truth should teach and preach the truth boldly and without fear. It’s not racist to identify the people of the book as who they are, regardless if it shatters their entire worldview on how they believe things should be vs how they actually are.

“And that, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep: for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed.” – Romans 13:11

Suggested Reading

Please Take A Moment To Share

If you enjoyed this study, please take a moment to click the button below and share it. Thanks.


Watch the video: The Sri Lankan Civil War: Every Month


Comments:

  1. Filmer

    I am well versed in this. I can help in resolving the issue.

  2. Niece

    Delete anything that is not relevant.

  3. Mikasho

    All the photos are just awful

  4. Goramar

    Bravo, your idea it is very good



Write a message