Ur III period, it was Puzur-Inshushinak whose conquests within the Iranian highlands
consolidated an Elamite confederation and allowed for his conquest of northern
Babylonia and the city of Akkade, capital of the Akkadian Empire. Following Puzur-
Inshushinak’s capture of Akkade he bestowed upon himself the title “powerful one”
and “ruler over the four quarters of the world.” The Akkadian king Naram Suen was
the first Near Eastern monarch to adopt this title. Puzur-Inshushinak’s assumption of
this title clearly suggest the transfer of power to the hands of the Elamites. To those
titles he added the ancient and prestigious title “King of Awan,” the highest distinction
an Elamite could aspire to. Awan’s location remains unknown.
Of the numerous constituencies that formed the Elamite confederation we conclude
with a discussion of two: Marhasi and Simashki. The location of these two polities is
subject to contending views while both regions are targets of recent archaeological
campaigns.MARHASI/PARAHSHUM
The name Marhasi in Sumerian, Parahshum in Akkadian, appears in the
Mesopotamian texts from Akkadian to Old Babylonian times, c. 2300 – 1700 BC. They
inform us that the Akkadian kings Sargon and Rimush conquered Marhasi, that
messengers from Marhasi were dispatched to Ur, and that Sarkalisharri, when crown
prince, traveled to Marhasi. Significantly, Shulgi, pre-eminent King of the Ur III
empire, gave his daughter in marriage to the Marhasian ruler, thus, cementing an
important and enduring political alliance. Marhasi was the source of plants and
animals (dog, sheep, bear, monkeys, elephant, and zebu) and certain stones sent to
Mesopotamia (Steinkeller 1982 ; D. Potts 2002 ). Although many Marhasian names are
Elamite, the texts indicate that it lay beyond the lands of Elam. Its location is contested.
Given the identity and distribution of the animals, Françoise Vallat ( 1985 ) places
Marhasi in Baluchistan, while Steinkeller ( 1982 , 2006 ) positions it in southeastern Iran,
and Francfort and Tremblay ( 2010 ) place it in Central Asia. Both southeastern Iran and
Central Asia are theaters of recent, and highly significant, excavations. In southeastern
Iran, two excavation programs are of importance. Massimo Vidale (personal com-
munication) has been excavating Mathoutabad, a site with long fourth and third
millennium occupational sequences with numerous bevil-rim bowls that indicate a
Proto-Elamite presence. Yosef Majidzadeh has been excavating the nearby site of Konar
Sandal. Both sites are situated in the Jiroft Valley in the proximity of the Halil Rud
River where preliminary surveys indicate the presence of at least 300 prehistoric
settlements. Beginning in 2000 , the Jiroft was the scene of illicit digging involved in
the looting of a large cemetery. Hundreds of beautifully carved and inlaid chlorite
bowls were recovered (Madjidzadeh 2001 ). Identical decorated bowls, many in the
process of manufacture, were recovered in the excavations of nearby Tepe Yahya
(Lamberg-Karlovsky 1988 ). These chlorite bowls are referred to as having an
‘Intercultural Style” for they have been recovered on numerous sites in Mesopotamia,
islands of the Persian Gulf, and in the Indus Valley. Certain it is that they are an
indigenous product of southeastern Iran. Recently, Steinkeller ( 2007 , n.d.) suggests
that the word duh-shi-amentioned in the texts as a stone coming from Marhasi, refers
to chlorite. As the carved bowls of the “intercultural style” were manufactured of
chlorite, the identity of duh-shi-aas chlorite takes on added significance. Excavations
–– Iran and its neighbors ––