country, so he included in his imprecations those deities whose names he conceived would be most reverenced by such a reader.  In addition to Karibu-sha-Shushinak the names of a number of other patesis, or viceroys, have recently been recovered, such as Khutran-tepti, and Idadu I and his son Kal-Rukhu-ratir, and his grandson Idadu II.  All these probably ruled after Karibu-sha-Shushinak, and may be set in the early period of Babylonian supremacy in Elam.

It has been stated above that the allegiance which these early Elamite princes owed to their overlords in Babylonia was probably reflected in the titles which they bear upon their inscriptions recently found at Susa.  These titles are “patesi of Susa, shakkannak of Elam,” which may be rendered as “viceroy of Susa, governor of Elam.”  But inscriptions have been found on the same site belonging to another series of rulers, to whom a different title is applied.  Instead of referring to themselves as viceroys of Susa and governors of Elam, they bear the title of sukkal of Elam, of Siparki, and of Susa.  Siparki, or Sipar, was probably the name of an important section of Elamite territory, and the title sukkalu, “ruler,” probably carries with it an idea of independence of foreign control which is absent from the title of patesi.  It is therefore legitimate to trace this change of title to a corresponding change in the political condition of Elam; and there is much to be said for the view that the rulers of Elam who bore the title of sukkalu reigned at a period when Elam herself was independent, and may possibly have exercised a suzerainty over the neighbouring districts of Babylonia.

The worker of this change in the political condition of Elam and the author of her independence was a king named Kutir-Nakhkhunte or Kutir-Na’khunde, whose name and deeds have been preserved in later Assyrian records, where he is termed Kudur-Nankhundi and Kudur-Nakhundu.* This ruler, according to the Assyrian king Ashur-bani-pal, was not content with throwing off the yoke under which his land had laboured for so long, but carried war into the country of his suzerain and marched through Babylonia devastating and despoiling the principal cities.  This successful Elamite campaign took place, according to the computation of the later Assyrian scribes, about the year 2280 B. c, and it is probable that for many years afterwards the authority of the King of Elam extended over the plains of Babylonia.  It has been suggested that Kutir-Nakh-khunte, after including Babylonia within his empire, did not remain permanently in Elam, but may have resided for a part of each year, at least, in Lower Mesopotamia.  His object, no doubt, would have been to superintend in person the administration of his empire and to check any growing spirit of independence among his local governors.  He may thus have appointed in Susa itself a local governor who would carry on the business of the country during his absence, and, under the king himself, would wield supreme authority.  Such governors may have been the sukkali, who, unlike the patesi, were independent of foreign control, but yet did not enjoy the full title of “king.”