Relationships

2,079 typed, source-backed relationships between entities. Each row records a directed relationship (subject → type → object) with a justifying source and rationale note. See relationship_types for the full controlled vocabulary of 70 relationship types. Key types: reception_of / received_as (transmission across traditions), equated_with (interpretatio graeca / analogues), parent_of (genealogy), member_of (collective membership), emanates_from (Gnostic/Neoplatonic structure).

Data license: MIT · Data source: jebboone/deitydb

subject_entity_id
{'description': 'The entity initiating or holding the relationship'}
relationship_type
{'description': 'Typed relationship from the controlled vocabulary (see relationship_types table)'}
object_entity_id
{'description': 'The entity receiving or targeted by the relationship'}
confidence
{'description': 'high / medium / low / speculative'}
rationale
{'description': 'Scholarly justification for the relationship, with source citations'}
source_id
{'description': 'Primary source justifying this relationship'}
period_id
{'description': 'Historical period in which this relationship is attested (null = all periods)'}

9 rows where period_id = "PER_ELAM_CLASSICAL"

✎ View and edit SQL

This data as json, CSV (advanced)

Suggested facets: subject_entity_id, relationship_type, confidence, source_id

relationship_id ▼ subject_entity_id relationship_type object_entity_id confidence rationale source_id review_status period_id
2387 Inshushinak ENT_ELAM_INSHUSHINAK patron_of Dead ENT_DEAD high Inshushinak is explicitly "lord of the dead" in Elamite sources — his judicial function encompasses the fate of souls after death, a role consistent with his position as the supreme city deity of Susa (a major funerary cult center) and with the underworld associations of ancient Near Eastern city gods who control the boundary between living and dead. The "Sit-shamshi" bronze ritual scene from Susa (depicting funerary rites) is associated with his cult. Potts (1999) p. 273. Daniel T. Potts, The Archaeology of Elam: Formation and Transformation of an Ancient Iranian State (Cambridge World Archaeology; Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1999) SRC_POTTS_ELAM reviewed Kingdom of Elam PER_ELAM_CLASSICAL
2388 Inshushinak ENT_ELAM_INSHUSHINAK aligned_with Utu/Shamash ENT_MES_UTU_SHAMASH medium Inshushinak and Utu/Shamash are structurally parallel as judicial deities who oversee divine justice and adjudicate the fates of the dead. Both operate at the threshold between life and death as the divine judge of last resort; both are associated with light and truth as the foundations of judgment. The parallel was recognized in antiquity through the close cultural contact between Susa and Mesopotamia: Elamite scribes used Akkadian cuneiform and were well aware of Shamash's judicial role. Confidence medium: no ancient source explicitly equates them, but the structural and functional alignment is strong and frequently noted in modern scholarship. Potts (1999) p. 276. Daniel T. Potts, The Archaeology of Elam: Formation and Transformation of an Ancient Iranian State (Cambridge World Archaeology; Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1999) SRC_POTTS_ELAM reviewed Kingdom of Elam PER_ELAM_CLASSICAL
2389 Kiririsha ENT_ELAM_KIRIRISHA patron_of Fertility ENT_FERTILITY high Kiririsha is the Elamite great mother goddess whose primary domain encompasses cosmic fertility, divine motherhood, and the renewal of life. Her name ("the Great Goddess") and her Liyan cult center — associated with the Persian Gulf coast's agricultural and maritime abundance — place her in the great mother goddess tradition. The Middle Elamite royal inscriptions invoke her alongside Inshushinak and Napirisha for the protection and fertility of the Elamite state. Potts (1999) pp. 282-286. Daniel T. Potts, The Archaeology of Elam: Formation and Transformation of an Ancient Iranian State (Cambridge World Archaeology; Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1999) SRC_POTTS_ELAM reviewed Kingdom of Elam PER_ELAM_CLASSICAL
2390 Kiririsha ENT_ELAM_KIRIRISHA aligned_with Inanna/Ishtar ENT_MES_INANNA_ISHTAR medium Kiririsha and Inanna/Ishtar are parallel as the dominant great goddesses of neighboring ancient Near Eastern civilizations — both are "the great goddess" of their respective traditions, both combine fertility, sovereignty, and protection functions, and both absorbed the titles and iconographic features of earlier mother goddess traditions. During periods of strong Mesopotamian cultural influence on Elam (especially the Old Elamite period of Ur III contact), Kiririsha assimilated some Inanna/Ninhursag characteristics. Confidence medium: they are parallel rather than equated, and their theological programs differ significantly in detail. Potts (1999) p. 288; Carter & Stolper (1984) p. 42. Daniel T. Potts, The Archaeology of Elam: Formation and Transformation of an Ancient Iranian State (Cambridge World Archaeology; Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1999) SRC_POTTS_ELAM reviewed Kingdom of Elam PER_ELAM_CLASSICAL
2391 Kiririsha ENT_ELAM_KIRIRISHA aligned_with Anahita ENT_ZOR_ANAHITA low Kiririsha and Anahita are parallel as the principal goddess figures of the Iranian cultural sphere in successive historical periods — Kiririsha as the Elamite great goddess (c. 2200–539 BCE), Anahita as the Zoroastrian/Iranian water-and-fertility goddess (attested from the Achaemenid period). Both are associated with water, fertility, and divine protection of the Iranian world. Confidence low: the parallel is typological across a large chronological gap (the Achaemenid synthesis of Iranian and Elamite religious traditions is attested but the specific Kiririsha → Anahita transmission is scholarly inference rather than inscriptional fact. Potts (1999) p. 290. Daniel T. Potts, The Archaeology of Elam: Formation and Transformation of an Ancient Iranian State (Cambridge World Archaeology; Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1999) SRC_POTTS_ELAM reviewed Kingdom of Elam PER_ELAM_CLASSICAL
2392 Kiririsha ENT_ELAM_KIRIRISHA spouse_of Napirisha ENT_ELAM_NAPIRISHA high The Middle Elamite divine triad of Inshushinak, Napirisha, and Kiririsha consistently presents Kiririsha as Napirisha's divine consort. The Chogha Zanbil (Dur-Untash) complex, dedicated c. 1250 BCE, includes a temple to Kiririsha alongside the principal Inshushinak-Napirisha sanctuary — the paired placement reflects the divine spousal relationship. Royal inscriptions of the Untash-Napirisha dynasty invoke Napirisha and Kiririsha together as a divine pair. Carter & Stolper (1984) p. 47; Potts (1999) p. 252. Elizabeth Carter and Matthew W. Stolper, Elam: Surveys of Political History and Archaeology (University of California Publications, Near Eastern Studies 25; University of California Press, Berkeley / Los Angeles / London, 1984) SRC_CARTER_STOLPER_ELAM reviewed Kingdom of Elam PER_ELAM_CLASSICAL
2393 Napirisha ENT_ELAM_NAPIRISHA patron_of Healing ENT_HEALING medium Napirisha's association with life-giving water and the Anshan highland springs situates him in the healing and renewal domain. His temples were associated with sacred water sources; his iconography includes the life-water motif; and his name ("the Great God") encompasses the generative divine power from which healing flows. Confidence medium: the healing attribution is inferential from the water-and-life domain rather than directly inscribed in the surviving texts, though the functional parallel with water-healing deities (cf. Enki/Ea) is strong. Potts (1999) p. 244. Daniel T. Potts, The Archaeology of Elam: Formation and Transformation of an Ancient Iranian State (Cambridge World Archaeology; Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1999) SRC_POTTS_ELAM reviewed Kingdom of Elam PER_ELAM_CLASSICAL
2394 Napirisha ENT_ELAM_NAPIRISHA aligned_with Enki/Ea ENT_MES_ENKI_EA medium Napirisha and Enki/Ea share the domain of life-giving water as a divine principle — both are associated with the fresh water that sustains life (the Mesopotamian apsû / Napirisha's highland springs), both embody divine wisdom manifest through the water medium, and both serve as the principal "great god" of their respective traditions alongside the supreme sky deity. The geographical proximity of Elam and Mesopotamia and the documented Elamite borrowing of Akkadian scribal culture means these deities' parallel functions would have been apparent to ancient practitioners. Confidence medium: the alignment is structural and domain-based; no ancient source explicitly equates them. Carter & Stolper (1984) p. 50. Elizabeth Carter and Matthew W. Stolper, Elam: Surveys of Political History and Archaeology (University of California Publications, Near Eastern Studies 25; University of California Press, Berkeley / Los Angeles / London, 1984) SRC_CARTER_STOLPER_ELAM reviewed Kingdom of Elam PER_ELAM_CLASSICAL
2395 Humban ENT_ELAM_HUMBAN aligned_with Enlil ENT_MES_ENLIL medium Humban and Enlil are structurally parallel as the chief divine authorities of their respective civilizations in the ancient Near East — both serve as the supreme male deity whose approval legitimates royal power and whose invocation in royal inscriptions signals the highest divine sanction. As neighboring civilizations (Elam and Mesopotamia were in continuous political and cultural contact for two millennia), their chief deities occupied structurally identical positions in their respective pantheons. The Assyrian texts about Elamite kings routinely mention Humban alongside Ashur in diplomatic contexts, reflecting awareness of Humban as the Elamite equivalent of the Assyrian divine patron. Confidence medium: the parallelism is structural; the two deities were not explicitly equated by ancient commentators. Potts (1999) p. 263. Daniel T. Potts, The Archaeology of Elam: Formation and Transformation of an Ancient Iranian State (Cambridge World Archaeology; Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1999) SRC_POTTS_ELAM reviewed Kingdom of Elam PER_ELAM_CLASSICAL

Advanced export

JSON shape: default, array, newline-delimited, object

CSV options: 

CREATE TABLE "entity_relationships" (
   [relationship_id] INTEGER PRIMARY KEY,
   [subject_entity_id] TEXT REFERENCES [entities]([entity_id]),
   [relationship_type] TEXT REFERENCES [relationship_types]([relationship_type]),
   [object_entity_id] TEXT REFERENCES [entities]([entity_id]),
   [confidence] TEXT,
   [rationale] TEXT,
   [source_id] TEXT REFERENCES [sources]([source_id]),
   [review_status] TEXT,
   [period_id] TEXT REFERENCES [periods]([period_id])
);
CREATE INDEX [idx_entity_relationships_period_id]
    ON [entity_relationships] ([period_id]);
CREATE INDEX [idx_entity_relationships_source_id]
    ON [entity_relationships] ([source_id]);
CREATE INDEX [idx_entity_relationships_object_entity_id]
    ON [entity_relationships] ([object_entity_id]);
CREATE INDEX [idx_entity_relationships_relationship_type]
    ON [entity_relationships] ([relationship_type]);
CREATE INDEX [idx_entity_relationships_subject_entity_id]
    ON [entity_relationships] ([subject_entity_id]);