# Akkadian Texts on stone blocks from the ‘staircase’ of Puzur- Sušinak

Laurent Colonna d’Istria, François Desset

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

## To cite this version:

Laurent Colonna d'Istria, François Desset. Akkadian Texts on stone blocks from the ‘staircase’ of Puzur- Sušinak. Magur, 2026. hal-05523836

HAL Id: hal-05523836

https://hal.science/hal-05523836v1

Submitted on 23 Feb 2026

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 - Attribution - International License
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

MAGUR

Au fil de l'eau

Documents, notes et études sur la Mésopotamie antique en édition libre en ligne

Pole assyriologique du Campus Condorcet, équipe de recherche Anhima

Sommaire de 2026/février

n°1 : Išme-Dagan, Nippur et le dieu de l'Orage : un hymne sumérien inédit enrichi de gloses (M. Guichard et L. Hebenstreit)

n° 2 : Une inscription de Kudur-mabuk célébrant la construction du temple d'Innana de Zabala (M. Guichard)

n°3 : Un poème sumérien en l'honneur de Sin-iddinam ? (M. Guichard)

n°4 : Akkadian Texts on stone blocks from the ‘staircase’ of Puzur-Sušinak (L. Colonna d'Istria et F. Desset)

n°5 : Réflexions sur le prisme « Ninive B » d'Assarhaddon et l'exemplaire HE 323 (A. Caron)

n°6 : Hali-hadun, les Sim'alites et la conquête de Šubat-Enlil : le fil des événements (M. Guichard)

n°7 : Une guerre méconnue de Sulgi (M. Guichard)
**Note éditoriale** : MAGUR est un périodique consacré à l'assyriologie sans régularité de publication, diffusé gratuitement sous format papier ou via les réseaux sociaux. Il n'est pas confidentiel, mais ses auteurs sont principalement les membres de l'équipe Anhima (Anthropologie et Histoire des Mondes Antiques), UMR 8210, Paris et Campus Condorcet, à Aubervilliers, titulaires, étudiantes et étudiants, ainsi que leurs collègues associés.

Rédaction : Michaël Guichard

Contact : michael.guichard@ephe.psl.eu

Pole assyriologique du Campus Condorcet (Anhima)

Bâtiment de recherche Nord, 14 Cr des Humanités, 93300 Aubervilliers

ISSN : 3100-0975. Reproduction à la demande.
MAGUR 2026/février n°4 : Akkadian Texts on stone blocks from the ‘staircase’ of Puzur-Sušinak (L. Colonna d'Istria et F. Desset, Université de Liège)

Among the remains of inscribed monuments discovered in Susa by the French mission (before
1908¹) and kept at the Louvre Museum, 17 stone blocks were presumably found in a single monument
dating from the time of Puzur-Sušinak (see Table 1 and for the new reading of this PN see Desset et
al. 2022, 29). Although the archaeological context was not clearly documented at the time of discovery,
the material and size similarities between the blocks, along with their matching inventory numbers,
suggest that they may have come from the same construction<fnref n="2" />. According to Akkadian inscriptions on
it, this construction may be a 'staircase' (André & Salvini 1989, 63). There is no evidence that these
blocks were perfectly joined together as described in André & Salvini (1989, 68 Fig. 9). Like the texts
on the 'table au lion' (Sb 17), the Elamite texts in Linear Elamite (LE) script and the Akkadian
cuneiform texts engraved on the blocks making up this monument are not the bilingual versions of
the same text: their topics are different.

Four blocks bear an engraved text in LE script: these are inscriptions LEI 6/F, LEI 7/G, LEI
8/H, and LEI 21/U (according to the proposed new nomenclature of texts in LE, see Desset et al. 2022
and forthcoming). The inscriptions on these blocks have some gaps due to the erosion of the stone,
but a complete text could be reconstructed thanks to the comparison between LEI 6/F, LEI 7/G and
LEI 8/H (see Desset et al. 2022, 55-57 and forthcoming). The texts were engraved after the erection of
the monument, as suggested by block Sb 139 (= inscription LEI 7/G), on which only the left part of
the text appears. The right part must have been on an adjacent block, which is now lost. Inscriptions
LEI 6/F, LEI 7/G and LEI 8/H commemorate the military victory of Puzur-Sušinak (the king of Awan
and the one begotten by Šin-pishūk) over the city/polity of Hūp(o)šan. This victory was already known
from the Akkadian text on Sb 55 (col. i l. 15-16: ḫu-ḫp-sa-naki, SAG.GIŠ.RA) where Puzur-Sušinak is
described as “šakkanakku of the land of Elam” (KIŠ.NI[TA₂], ma-ti, NIMki) probably preceded by the
title of “ensi of Susa” (ENSI₂, MUŠ₃.ŠEŠ₄ki). Although the inscription 21/U on block Sb 18338 is very
fragmentary, it seems to be different from 6/F, 7/G, and 8/H group.

The other thirteen inscribed blocks bear cuneiform inscriptions written in Akkadian (Table 1).
None of the inscriptions on these blocks are complete; they are mostly fragmentary. The Akkadian
texts, when well preserved, commemorate the construction of a ‘stone staircase’ ges̈KUN5 (NA4). This
is a different subject from the LE texts. According to André & Salvini (1989, 63-64), the texts on these
blocks attest to two major variants, corresponding respectively to Elam 8 and Elam 7 in FAOS 7 (Gelb
& Kienast 1990, 332-333), and to some inscriptions which cannot be classified.

Thanks to the new photographs available on the 'Collection Louvre' website and the collations
of the originals, we have been able to make some improvements in reading the texts. These thirteen
blocks bear at least three different texts. However, only Text 1 is complete

Text 1: Sb 137, Sb 149, Sb 150 (Fig. 1 & Fig. 3), Sb 153 (Fig. 2), Sb 156 (Fig. 1 & Fig. 3), Sb 18451, Sb 18453, Sb 18454 and Sb 18458 (=André & Salvini 1989 variant 1 and Elam 7)

According to André & Salvini (1989, 67), seven blocks (Sb 156, Sb 137, Sb 149, Sb 153, Sb 18451, Sb 18453 and Sb 18454) document the same text (Text 1). The fragmentary block Sb 18458, not mentioned by André & Salvini, is undoubtedly another copy of the Text 1 (see Tables 1 and 2). A ninth block, Sb 150 can be added to the list documenting the Text 1 according to the following demonstration. A collation of the text on block Sb 156 has revealed that the first line inscribed on this

<footnote n="1">¹ These discoveries are not mentioned in the excavation reports. We estimate the date to be 'before 1908', as the first and most complete pieces were published by Scheil in MDP 10 in that year.</footnote>

<footnote n="2">² The pieces in the Sb 18000 series are more fragmentary, consisting of just a few lines. They were first published in André and Salvini's (1989) paper, which mentions the discovery of these pieces in the Louvre Museum's reserves. However, the article does not explain how the pieces were assigned their inventory numbers. It seems that they were given an inventory number when they were chosen for publication. This situation is similar to that of the inscribed bricks of Gudea, which were discovered in Girsu.</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>

block, preceding the name of Puzur-Sušinak, is not *a-na ba'(BAD)<sup>3</sup>-ļï₂<sup>1</sup> (André & Salvini 1989, 65) but *a-na-k*[ü₈] /anāku/ (see Fig. 1 & Fig. 3). The hypothetical reading *a-na ba'(BAD)-ļï₂<sup>1</sup>* was proposed to be read on a single line while, in all the inscriptions, the preposition *a-na* occupies a whole line, followed by <sup>d</sup>MUŠ₃.ŠEŠ₄, *ba'(BAD)-lï₂-su* on the two subsequent lines. If the first line on Sb 156 is indeed the first line of the text, it would begin with *a-na-k*[ü₈] /anāku/ ‘I’. However, on the block Sb 150, which was previously thought to bear a different inscription than the other eight blocks, the beginning of the inscription mentions [*a-na]-kü₈ followed by the name of Puzur-Sušinak and his titles, as on Sb 156. Furthermore, the blocks bearing the beginning of Akkadian Text 2 and Text 3 (see below) do not attest the use of the pronoun *anāku*. Therefore, Sb 150 could be another copy of Text 1 and not a different text from Sb 156 (see Table 2). In this case, *a-na-k*[ü₈] /anāku/ on Sb 156 would not be the first line of the inscription, although the block is complete in length. The first three lines of the text, which would be *a-na*, <sup>d</sup>MUŠ₃.ŠEŠ₄, *ba'(BAD)-lï₂-su* according to Sb 150, would have been engraved on another block adjacent to Sb 156 (for comparison, see block Sb 139 bearing inscription LEI 7/G).

Other improvements of the reading of the text are worth noting.

1- In Sb 156, the sequence preceding *i-dï₃-nu* (line 13) is read according to André & Salvini 1989: 65 ļ-a-nš šaʾ-paʾļ-rīm (line 12). The collation of the text allows us to see [*a-nš]*a qa2-ļti-su1, which makes more sense with the verb *i-dï₃-nyu* in the following line. In addition, an Old Babylonian copy of an inscription of Narām-Suen attests a similar expression qa2-iti-is-su i-dï₃-nu-ma (RIME 2.1.4.26, IM 85461, col. 3 lines 5 and 6).

2- The four lines that follow the curse formula and form the end of the text are documented by four blocks (Sb 149, Sb 18451, Sb 18453 and Sb 18458). A parallel drawn with the last four lines of Sb 6+177 and the cuneiform inscription on the statue Sb 54+6617 allows us to propose a comprehensible restitution of these lines: *ba’lī ay imṣī-anni, in uznī-su lubsi* “May my lord not neglect me, may I have his attention” (reading suggested by G. Marchesi in Desset et al. 2025).

Once the nine sources have been assembled, Text 1 is complete (Table 2). It contains 31 lines. Furthermore, we can also confirm that this text was engraved at least six times on the monument from which the blocks are coming from.

<table><thead><tr><th>Text 1 - Composite Transliteration:</th><th>Translation:</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1. [a]-na</td><td>1-3: To Sušinak (Akkadian version of Elamite Insušinak), his lord,</td></tr><tr><td>2. [dMUŠ<sub>3</sub>.ŠEŠ<sub>4</sub></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>3. [ba'(BAD)-li<sub>2</sub>]-su</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>4. a-na-ku<sub>8</sub></td><td>4-10: I,</td></tr><tr><td>5. PU<sub>3</sub>.ŠA-dMUŠ<sub>3</sub>.ŠEŠ<sub>4</sub></td><td>Puzur-Sušinak, the mighty, the king of Awan, the son of</td></tr><tr><td>6. da-num<sub>2</sub></td><td>Šimpisḫuk (=Šin-pishūk in LEI).</td></tr><tr><td>7. LUGAL</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>8. a-na-an<sup>ki</sup></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>9. DUMU šim-pi<sub>2</sub>/is<sub>2</sub>-tu-uk</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>10. in 1 MU</td><td>10-16: During the year (when) Sušinak looked on him kindly, (and) gave (him) the four regions to his authority,</td></tr><tr><td>11. dMUŠ<sub>3</sub>.ŠEŠ<sub>4</sub></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>12. ip-pa<sub>2</sub>-al-su-sum<sub>6</sub></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>13. ki-ib-ra-tim</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>14. ar-ha-im</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>15. [a-n]a qa2-ļti-su<sup>1</sup></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>16. i-di<sub>3</sub>-nu</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>17. ġesKUN<sub>5</sub> NA<sub>4</sub></td><td>17-18: he (Puzur-Sušinak) built a ‘stone staircase’.</td></tr><tr><td>18. i-pu-us<sub>2</sub></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>19. šu DUB šu-a</td><td>19-27: He who removes this inscription,</td></tr></tbody></table>

<footnote n="3">³ About the meaning and reading of the BAD sign in this context, see Sommerfeld 2024.</footnote>
<table><tr><td>20. <u>u</u>3-sa-sa3-ku<u>u</u>8</td><td>let Sušinak, Šamaš and Nergal uproot his roots/foundations and pick up his seed.</td></tr><tr><td>21. <sup>d</sup>MUŠ<sub>3</sub>.ŠEŠ<sub>4</sub></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>22. <sup>d</sup>UTU</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>23. <sup>r</sup><u>u</u><sub>3</sub> <sup>d</sup>KIŠ.UNUG.GAL<sup>r</sup></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>24. <sup>r</sup>SU<i>HU</i>Š<sup>1</sup>-su</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>25. [<i>li</i>] -su<u>2</u>-h<u>u</u></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>26. [<u>u</u><sub>3</sub> ŠE].NUMUN-su</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>27. [<i>li</i>] -<sup>r</sup>il-<i>qu</i><sub>3</sub><sup>1</sup>-tu<u>3</u></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>28. [<i>ba</i>'(BAD)]-li<sub>2</sub></td><td>28-31:</td></tr><tr><td>29. <sup>r</sup>'a<sub>3</sub> im<sub>x</sub><sup>1</sup>-si-an-ni</td><td>'May my lord not neglect me; may I have his attention'.</td></tr><tr><td>30. [<i>in u</i>] <sup>z̥</sup>-/ni-su</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>31. [<i>lu-u</i>]b-si</td><td></td></tr></table>

The use of the independent personal pronoun, *anāku* (1st pers. sing. “I”), does not fit with the beginning of the text (dedication) *ana Sušinak baʿlīsu* “To Sušinak, his lord” and the main verb *īpus* “he (Puzur-Sušinak) built”, which are both in the 3rd masc. sing. pers. The pronoun *anāku*, in the same context, is absent in Text 2 and Text 3 (see below). This is probably an *imbroglio* in the composition of Text 1, as one would expect the use of the 3rd person in this kind of text, whose wording partly follows that of Akkadian and post-Akkadian inscriptions. It is possible that the scribe had intended to write in the 1st person. When he realised that he had written *anāku* after the dedication in the 3rd person, he perhaps continued the text in the 3rd person, as is customary in Old Akkadian dedicatory inscriptions. And, written on a model, this inscription was engraved several times on the blocks. Or was this *imbroglio* made because of the exhortation formulated in the 1st sing. pers.? *baʿlī ay imsi-anni, in uznī- su luhsi* “May my lord not neglect me; may I have his attention”, is only found in Text 1.

The curse formula begins with šu DUB šu-a (for example Sb 153, Fig. 2) and does not follow the expected pattern ša DUB su₄-a. The use of the nominative pronoun šu instead of the accusative pronoun ša would illustrate a grammatical reinterpretation of the beginning of the curse formula, perhaps due to a misunderstanding of the use of the accusative in Akkadian stylistic devices (about this construction see Kogan 2008). This example is not unique. The inscription of Atal-Šen of Urkeš, written in Hurrian territory, attests to an Akkadian-style curse formula beginning with su₄ DUB | šu- 'al-ti. (Frayne 1997, RIME E3/2.7.2.1; AO 5678, see Fig. 5).

**Text 2: Sb 151 (Fig. 4) and Sb 18455** (=André & Salvini 1989 variant 2 and FAOS 7, Elam 7 =Gelb & Kienast 1990, 332-333)

Block Sb 151, which is complete, contains 18 lines of a text to be distinguished from Text 1. The text occupies the whole of block Sb 151 and begins with the first line of the inscription. As the curse formula was not complete, the inscription must have continued on another adjacent block (André & Salvini 1989, 66-67). The beginning of the curse formula is on two different lines as on the ‘table au lion’ (Sb 17). This layout is different from Tex 1. The text on block Sb 18455 is a duplicate of Sb 151.

<table><thead><tr><th colspan="2">Sb 151: transliteration and translation</th><th>Sb 18455: transliteration</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1. a-na</td><td>To</td><td>1. [a]-rna<sup>1</sup></td></tr><tr><td>2. <sup>d</sup>MUŠ<sub>3</sub>.ŠEŠ<sub>4</sub></td><td>Sušinak,</td><td>2. [<sup>d</sup>MUŠ<sub>3</sub>].ŠEŠ<sub>4</sub></td></tr><tr><td>3. ba'(BAD)-li<sub>2</sub>-su</td><td>his lord,</td><td>3. [ba'(BAD)-li<sub>2</sub>]-su</td></tr><tr><td>4. PU<sub>3</sub>.Š[A]-/<sup>d</sup>MUŠ<sub>3</sub>.ŠE[Š<sub>4</sub>]</td><td>Puzur-Sušinak,</td><td>4. [PU<sub>3</sub>.ŠA<sup>d</sup>MU]Š<sub>3</sub>.ŠEŠ<sub>4</sub></td></tr><tr><td>5. da-num<sub>2</sub></td><td>the mighty,</td><td>5. [da]-num<sub>2</sub></td></tr><tr><td>6. LUGAL a'(ZA)-wa-an<sup>ki</sup></td><td>king of Awan</td><td>6. [LUGAL a-wa-a]<sup>ki</sup></td></tr><tr><td>7. DUMU šim-pi<sub>2</sub>/iš<sub>2</sub>-h<u>u</u>-uk</td><td>the son of Šimpis<u>h</u>uk</td><td>7. [DUMU šim]-pi<sub>2</sub>-/[iš<sub>2</sub>-h<u>u</u>-u]<sup>k</sup></td></tr><tr><td>8. <sup>r</sup>gēs<sup>1</sup>KUN<sub>5</sub></td><td>the stairs</td><td>8. <sup>r</sup>gēs'TUR]<sup>r</sup>ŠE<sub>3</sub><sup>1</sup></td></tr><tr><td>9. i-pu-us<sub>2</sub></td><td>he made.</td><td>9. [i-pu-us<sub>2</sub>]</td></tr><tr><td>10. <sup>r</sup>šu<sup>1</sup> DUB</td><td>The one who</td><td>10. [<sup>šu</sup>] <sup>r</sup>DUB<sup>1</sup></td></tr><tr><td>11. <sup>r</sup>šu<sup>1</sup>-a</td><td>will remove</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>
<figure><img src="image_5.png" /></figure>

<table><tr><td>12. <sup>1</sup>u<sub>3</sub><sup>1</sup> [sa<sub>2</sub><sup>1</sup>-sa<sub>3</sub>-k<sub>1</sub> [u<sub>8</sub>]</td><td>this inscription, and if</td><td>11. [šu-ā]</td></tr><tr><td>13. <sup>1</sup>H<sub>3</sub> sum<sub>6</sub><sup>1</sup>-ma</td><td>he shows (it)</td><td>12. [u<sub>3</sub>-sa<sub>2</sub>-sa<sub>3</sub>]<sup>1</sup> [kH<sub>8</sub><sup>1</sup>]</td></tr><tr><td>14. <sup>1</sup>LU<sub>2</sub><sup>1</sup>uam</td><td>to another man</td><td>[...]</td></tr><tr><td>15. [šā]<sup>1</sup> ni<sup>1</sup>-am</td><td>and</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>16. <sup>1</sup>H<sub>3</sub>-kal<sub>2</sub>-la-mu<sup>1</sup>-ma</td><td>he erases</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>17. [si-ṭi<sub>3</sub>]<sup>1</sup> <sup>1</sup>ir-tam<sub>2</sub><sup>1</sup></td><td>the inscribed text,</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>18. <sup>1</sup>H<sub>3</sub>-pa<sub>2</sub><sup>1</sup>-sa<sub>3</sub>-su<sub>2</sub></td><td>...</td><td></td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">text continued on another block</td></tr></table>

One reading improvement that can be made to FAOS 7 Elam 7 (Gelb & Kienast 1990, 332-333) concerns the last two lines (lines 17 and 18) of the text on Sb 151. The *editio princeps* suggests: ... *u]-pa(?)-ẓa-ẓu* “... effacerait” (Scheil 1908, 11). The edition of this inscription in FAOS 7 does not follow Scheil's suggestion: after lines 14 to 16, which recall a passage in an Old Babylonian copy of an inscription of Narām-Suen (Gelb & Kienast 1990, 333), three illegible lines are mentioned, the last of which is [...]-su₂. New photographs and a collation of Sb 151 suggest a sign *kal₂* (GAL) instead of *ka₃* (GA) in line 16 and confirm the proposal made by Scheil for line 18: <sup>1</sup>u₃-pa₂¹-sa₃-su₂. The space between <sup>1</sup>u₃-ka1₂-la-mu¹-ma and <sup>1</sup>u₃-pa₂¹-sa₃-su₂ corresponds to a single line whose last sign is DAM preceded by a sign from the NI/IR family. The partially damaged term within line 17 could be *šitirtam* spelled *si-ir-ti3-tam₂*. Lines 17 and 18, <sup>1</sup>u₃-pa₂¹-sa₃-su₂ [si-ṭi₃]<sup>1</sup> <sup>1</sup>ir-tam₂¹, may be compared to a passage from a curse formula in an inscription of Iddin-Sîn of Simurrum on a stone block (IM 81364, RIME 4.19.1.1): 26. *ša i-pi5-iš-ti* 27. *u₂-ša-sa₃-ku* 28. *u₃ ši₂-ṭi₃-ir-ti* 29. *u₃-pa₂-sa₃-su₂* “He who removes my achievement and erases my inscription”.

### Text 3: Sb 157 (Fig. 4)

A third text has been identified on block Sb 157. The block is not complete, and the engraved inscription on it consists of the first 14 lines of the text, the last 6 of which being particularly damaged. No duplicate has yet been found. This inscription differs from Text 1 and Text 2 because of the titles of Puzur-Sušinak. The name Puzur-Sušinak is followed by the title “ensi of Susa”. After this title, KIŠ.NITA₂, *ma-ti*, NIMki “šakkanakku of the land of Elam” would be expected on a double line (FAOS 7 Elam 2 to Elam 6 and Elam 9 = Gelb & Kienast 1990, 321-332 and 334-335). However, the traces of the signs on the Sb 157’s double line do not allow this reconstruction. After this double line, the mention “son of Šimpishuk” is more than likely. Therefore, an epithet is expected on this double line. Since the first sign on the lower line is AN, an epithet as “beloved of ND” or “chosen by ND” is possible. According to G. Marchesi, the first sign on the upper line may be the sign GU. A restitution <sup>1</sup>qu₃¹-[ra-ad], <sup>1</sup>[MUŠ₃,ŠEŠ₄] “warrior of Sušinak” is conceivable but otherwise unattested (reading suggested by G. Marchesi in Desset et al. forthcoming).

<table><thead><tr><th>Sb 157: transliteration</th><th>Translation:</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1. a<sup>1</sup>na<sup>1</sup></td><td>To</td></tr><tr><td>2. <sup>1</sup>MUŠ₃,<sup>1</sup>ŠEŠ₄<sup>1</sup></td><td>Sušinak,</td></tr><tr><td>3. ba'(BAD)-li<sub>2</sub><sup>1</sup>su<sup>1</sup></td><td>his lord,</td></tr><tr><td>4. PU₃,ŠA-/<sup>1</sup>MUŠ₃,[ŠEŠ₄]</td><td>Puzur-Sušinak</td></tr><tr><td>5. PA,<sup>1</sup>TE,SI<sup>1</sup></td><td>ensi of Susa</td></tr><tr><td>6. MUŠ₃,[ŠEŠ₄<sup>ki</sup>]</td><td>...</td></tr><tr><td>7. <sup>1</sup>GU?<sup>1</sup> [...]/AN [...]</td><td>the son of Šimpishuk</td></tr><tr><td>8. DUMU [šim-pi<sub>2</sub>]/-is<sub>2</sub><sup>1</sup>l<u>u</u><sup>1</sup>-[u<sub>k</sub>]</td><td>...</td></tr><tr><td>9. x [...]/[...]</td><td>...</td></tr><tr><td>10. x [...]</td><td>...</td></tr><tr><td>11. M[A? ...]</td><td>...</td></tr><tr><td>12. x ...</td><td>...</td></tr><tr><td>13. NI [...]<br>(may be i<sub>3</sub>-nu-me)</td><td>... when</td></tr><tr><td>14. PU₃,[ŠA]-/<sup>1</sup>M[UŠ₃,ŠEŠ₄]</td><td>Puzur-Sušinak</td></tr><tr><td>[...]</td><td>[... text broken]</td></tr></tbody></table>

Text on Sb 18452: the end of a curse formula (Fig. 6)
On the fragmentary block Sb 18452, two lines of a text $u_3$ ŠE NUMUN-$r$SU', $ij$-i'-/$r$QU3'-TU2 "and that they pick up his seed" are engraved. After these two lines, the rest of the block is uninscribed. These two lines correspond to the end of a classic curse formula borrowed from Old Akkadian tradition and used several times in the inscriptions of Puzur-Sušinak (FAOS 7 Elam 3, Elam 4, Elam 5, Elam, 13 = Gelb & Kienast 1990, 325-331 and 337-338; and Text 1 on staircase blocks). The inscription on Sb 18452 cannot be a duplicate of Text 1 because Text 1 ends with an exhortation formula. Due to the state of preservation of the inscriptions bearing Text 2 and Text 3, it cannot be excluded that this passage is to be associated with one of them.

## Conclusion

The thirteen inscribed blocks show at least three different inscriptions. Only Text 1, which appears on nine blocks, could be reconstructed completely. This inscription consists of 31 lines and was engraved at least six times on the monument. Because of its length, the inscription could not be restricted to the surface of a single block. At least two adjacent blocks were needed to accommodate the entire inscription.

Text 2 is documented by two blocks, one of which is quite fragmentary (Sb 18455). As with Text 1, two adjacent blocks were necessary to display the entire text. Unfortunately, it is impossible to reconstruct Text 2 completely. Only the first 18 lines are known (Sb 151).

Text 3 is only attested on block Sb 157, which contains the first 14 lines of the text, of which only the first 8 are comprehensible.

Finally, fragment Sb 18452 contains the last two lines of a curse formula. The text of this fragment could just as easily be associated with Text 2 or Text 3, as we do not have the end of these two texts.

Text 1 and Text 2 are dedications commemorating the construction of a 'stone staircase', following the model borrowed from previous rulers in southern Mesopotamia. In the Text 3, only the beginning of the dedication (beneficiary and dedicator) is preserved without any mention of the dedicated object itself. In Text 1, the presence of the pronoun *anāku* (1st pers. sing.) seems to be an error that occurred during its composition. The beginning of the curse formula in Text 2 follows a different pattern than Text 1. In addition to "He who takes away this inscribed document", Text 2 adds "if he shows (the inscribed document) to another man and (if) he erases the inscription". The first sentence is reminiscent of an extract from an Old Babylonian copy of an inscription of Narām-Suen, and the second sentence has parallels with an inscription of Iddin-Sīn of Simurrum, composed at the beginning of the 2nd millennium BCE.

We would therefore have a stone monument with at least three different texts in Akkadian cuneiform and at least two texts in Linear Elamite script in Elamite language.

<table><thead><tr><td>Text</td><td>Titles</td><td>Topic of the text</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Cuneiform - Text 1</td><td>the mighty, the king of Awan</td><td>construction of a stone staircase</td></tr><tr><td>Cuneiform - Text 2</td><td>the mighty, the king of Awan</td><td>construction of stairs</td></tr><tr><td>Cuneiform - Text 3</td><td>ensi of Susa and ...</td><td>...</td></tr><tr><td>LEI 6/F // 7/G // 8/H</td><td>king of Awan</td><td>campaign against Hūp(o)šan</td></tr><tr><td>LEI 21/U</td><td>[...]? ...</td><td>[...]? ...</td></tr></tbody></table>
<figure><img src="image_6.png" /></figure>

While Texts 1 and Text 2 refer to Puzur-Sušinak as “the mighty, the king of Awan”, Text 3 only mentions the title “ensi of Susa”. In the LE inscriptions from the same monument, Puzur-Sušinak bears only the title “king of Awan”. According to the proposed chronology of his titles (Desset et al. forthcoming), Text 3 could be earlier than the Text 1 and Text 2.

If all the blocks bearing cuneiform and LE inscriptions come from the same monument, then it would have been commemorating Puzur-Sušinak’s entire career, from the time he was “ensi of Susa” to the time he became “king of Awan”. This recalls the ‘dashboard effect’ display strategy used by Puzur-Sušinak on the ‘Table au lion’ (Desset et al. 2025, forthcoming), with two inscriptions (one in Elamite language recorded with the LE script and the other in Akkadian cuneiform) probably made at different times and on different topics.

**Bibliography:**

André, B. & Salvini, M., 1989, “Réflexions sur Puzur-Inšušinak”, *Iranica Antiqua*, vol. XXIV, p. 53-72.

Desset, F., Tabibzadeh, K., Kervran, M., Basello, G. P & Marchesi, G., 2022, “The decipherment of Linear Elamite writing”, *Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archäologie* 112/1, p. 11-60.

Desset, F., Tabibzadeh, K., Kervran, M., Basello, G. P & Marchesi, G., forthcoming, *Linear Elamite Inscriptions and Related Cuneiform Texts*, vol. 1.

Frayne, D. R., 1997, *The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia. Early periods*, Vol. 3/2. Ur III Period (2112-2004 BC) [=RIME 3/2].

Gelb, I. & Kienast, B., 1990, *Die altakkadischen Königsinschriften des dritten Jahrtausends v. Chr.*, FAOS 7.

Kogan, L., 2008, “Accusative as *casus pendens*? A hitherto unrecognized emphatic construction in early Akkadian royal inscriptions”, *Revue d'assyriologie et d'archéologie orientale* 102, p. 17-26.

Scheil, V., 1908, *Textes élamites-sémitiques (quatrième série)*, Mémoires de la délégation en Perse [= MDP] 10.

Sommerfeld, W., 2024, “Zur altakkadischen Orthographie von *baṣlum/bēlum* “Herr; Besitzer (von)”, in Cianfanelli E. & Gori F. (eds), *níg-ba dub-sar maḫ, Studies on Ebla and the Ancient Near East presented to Amalia Catagnoti*, p. 441-450.
<table><caption>Table 1: inventory of inscribed blocks from the Puzur-Sušinak ‘staircase’</caption><thead><tr><th>n°<br>inv.<br>Sb</th><th>Dimensions: H. = height and L. = length<br>(the thickness is not mentioned here as the blocks<br>were cut for transport to Europe)</th><th>Text and lines preserved on the block</th><th>Inscription and Text<br>number</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="4"><strong>Elamite texts written in LE</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Sb 139</td><td>H. 13,7 cm (almost<br>complete)</td><td>L. 57 cm (almost complete)</td><td>Text complete – 3 lines – only left part of the<br>inscription</td><td>LEI 7/G</td></tr><tr><td>Sb 140A</td><td>H. 15 cm (almost complete)</td><td>L. 49 cm (whole block)</td><td>Text complete – 4 lines and lost signs</td><td>LEI 8/H</td></tr><tr><td>Sb 155</td><td>H. 21 cm (whole block)</td><td>L. 63,5 cm (whole block)</td><td>Text complete – 3 lines and lost signs</td><td>LEI 9/F</td></tr><tr><td>Sb 18338</td><td>H. 14 cm (whole block)</td><td>L. 30 cm (incomplete)</td><td>Text incomplete – 2 lines and lost signs</td><td>LEI 21/U</td></tr><tr><td colspan="4"><strong>Akkadian texts written in cuneiform writing</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Sb 137</td><td>H. 15 cm (almost complete)</td><td>L. 58 cm (almost complete)</td><td>Text incomplete – 16 lines</td><td>Text 1</td></tr><tr><td>Sb 149</td><td>H. 14 cm (almost complete)</td><td>L. 75,5 cm (almost<br>complete)</td><td>Text complete – 16 lines and lost signs</td><td>Text 1</td></tr><tr><td>Sb 150</td><td>H. 15,5 cm (whole block)</td><td>L. 38 cm (incomplete)</td><td>Text incomplete – 9 lines and lost signs</td><td>Text 1</td></tr><tr><td>Sb 151</td><td>H. 23,5 cm (whole block)</td><td>L. 75,5 cm (complete)</td><td>Text complete – 18 lines and lost signs</td><td>Text 2</td></tr><tr><td>Sb 153</td><td>H. 15 cm (whole block)</td><td>L. 36 cm (incomplete)</td><td>Text incomplete – 6 lines</td><td>Text 1</td></tr><tr><td>Sb 156</td><td>H. 13 cm (almost complete)</td><td>L. 56 cm (whole block)</td><td>Text complete – 19 lines</td><td>Text 1</td></tr><tr><td>Sb 157</td><td>H. 16,5 cm (almost<br>complete)</td><td>L. 66 cm (almost complete)</td><td>Text incomplete – 14 lines and lost sign</td><td>Text 3</td></tr><tr><td>Sb 18451</td><td>H. 13,5 cm (almost<br>complete)</td><td>L. 26 cm (incomplete)</td><td>Text incomplete – 7 lines and signs lost</td><td>Text 1</td></tr><tr><td>Sb 18452</td><td>H. 17,5 cm (whole block)</td><td>L. 22 cm (incomplete)</td><td>Text incomplete – 2 lines</td><td>Text 2 or Text 3?</td></tr><tr><td>Sb 18453</td><td>H. 13 cm (almost complete)</td><td>L. 32 cm (incomplete)</td><td>Text incomplete – 7 lines and lost signs</td><td>Text 1</td></tr><tr><td>Sb 18454</td><td>H. 14,5 cm (whole block)</td><td>L. 44 cm (incomplete)</td><td>Text incomplete – at least 7 lines and lost signs</td><td>Text 1</td></tr><tr><td>Sb 18455</td><td>H. 16,5 cm (whole block)</td><td>L. 50 cm (incomplete)</td><td>Text incomplete – at least 7 lines and lost sign</td><td>Text 2</td></tr><tr><td>Sb 18458</td><td>H. 14,5 cm (almost<br>complete)</td><td>L. 16 cm (fragment)</td><td>Text incomplete – 2 lines and lost signs</td><td>Text 1</td></tr></tbody></table>
<figure><img src="image_7.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 2: Sb 153 (Text 1)</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_8.png" /></figure>

L.C.I.
<figure><img src="image_9.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 3: Handcopies of Sb 156 and Sb 150 (Text 1)</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_10.png" /></figure>

L.C.I
<figure><img src="image_11.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 4: Handcopies of Sb 151 (Text 2) and Sb 157 (Text 3)</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_12.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 5: Handcopy of AO 5678 (Inscription of Atal-šen ; Frayne 1997, RIME E3/2.7.2.1)</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_13.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 6: Text on Sb 18452 (the end of a curse formula)</figcaption></figure>

[...]
1'. $u_3$ ŠE NUMUN-$r_{SH1}$
2'. $li-si^1$/-$r_{QU3}$-$tu_2$

End of the text, no more signs inscribed.

<figure><img src="image_14.png" /></figure>

Courtesy of the Louvre Museum