The Sukkalmah (c. 1900 – c. 1500 BC) or Epartid dynasty (named after the title sukkalmah used by many of the dynasty's rulers; as well as, the eponymous founder Ebarat II/Eparti II), was an early dynasty of West Asia in the ancient region of Elam, to the southeast of Babylonia. It corresponds to the third Paleo-Elamite period (dated to c. 1880 – c. 1450 BC). The Sukkalmah dynasty followed the Shimashki dynasty (c. 2200 – c. 1900 BC). The title of Sukkalmah means "Grand Regent" and was used by some (but not all) Elamite rulers. Numerous cuneiform documents and inscriptions remain from this period, particularly from the area of Susa, making the Sukkalmah period one of the best documented in Elamite history.

The title of sukkal-mah, “great sukkal,” first appeared in Girsu within an inscription by Urukagina, roughly meaning “prime minister” or “grand vizier.” It continued to be in use in the Ur III period in Lagash. The Ur III sukkalmahs in Lagash reported directly to the king, and was the form adopted by the Elamite rulers. Siwe-palar-huppak also called himself “likawe rishakki” and “merrik Hatamtik” (governor of Elam), and the first phrase may be the Elamite rendering of the title of sukkalmah. It is likely that likawe by itself means sukkal, with risha being Elamite for “great”.

The creation of the Sukkalmah governmental structure is generally attributed to Ebarat II. However, an inscription from the reign of Idattu I referred to Kiten-rakittapi as the sukkalmah of Elam, likely implying that the sukkalmah of Elam was subordinate to the king of Anshan. De Graef suggests that this structure was implemented earlier, perhaps already in the reign of Ebarat I. Steinkeller further suggests that the later sukkalmahs in the Old Babylonian Period were also working under the king of Anshan and De Graef agrees that it was the case at least for the early period. Glassner connects this situation to the one between Ebarat II and Shilhaha, with Shilhaha as the sukkalmah under Ebarat. De Graef further adds Atta-husu, who was the sukkal in Susa during the reign of Idattu I and continued to hold the position under Ebarat.

Some rulers were attested with multiple titles outside of sukkalmah, and it is generally suggested that they ascended to become the sukkalmah later in life.

The political structure of the Sukkalmah dynasty is commonly argued to be a triumvirate, between the sukkal of Elam, the sukkal of Susa and the sukkalmah, the latter being the highest authority. However, recently De Graef suggests a more complicated structure, with at least two sukkalmahs and multiple sukkals and other governors ruling smaller regions which could also solve the seemingly chronological issue between the numerous different rulers of the early Sukkalmah period. Mofidi-Nasrabadi also considers the possibility that a single person could have occupied multiple positions. The title “ensi (governor) of Susa” was also used in the sukkalmah period. Potts also cautions against the assumption of a simple triumvirate, as it doesn't accommodate the numerous other positions attested during the Sukkalmah period.

There were two titles involving the position of sukkalmah and king, “Anshan and Susa” and the “Elam and Shimashki.” Mofidi-Nasrabadi argues that they were just two different variations of the same title and position, likely explaining the other variant used by some Sukkalmah period rulers, “Susa and Shimashki.” Unlike Mofidi-Nasrabadi however, De Graef believes that the titles “sukkalmah of Anshan and Susa” and “sukkalmah of Elam and Shimashki” referred to two separate positions, being the two main sukkalmahs. she also suggests that the sukkalmah of Anshan and Susa was a more prestigious position than the sukkalmah of Elam and Shimashki. De Graef's hypothesis is accepted by Wicks.

Atta-husu is the first to refer to himself as the son of the sister (ruhu-sak) of Shilhaha, which likely points to his prominence in the establishment of the new governmental system. That fact that he is also the first ruler not mentioned in the Shimashkian King List (ShKL) to become king with other rulers being sidelined could also suggest a dynastic break. In total, at least eleven Sukkalmah period rulers have identified themselves as the son of the sister of another ruler, including Shilhaha. The Babylonian Chronicles had also detailed that the successor of Ummanigash (Huban-nikash I), Ishtarhundi (Shutruk-Nahhunte II), was the son of his sister.

This term has had many different interpretations, with Koschaker first proposing possibilities in 1933 such as incestuous marriage, marriage between different social classes, an indication of lineage through a particular female line, or legitimate descendant of a distant ancestor. Some scholars such as Hinz and Vallat believe in royal incest within the Elamite ruling families. Potts points out that prior to the Achaemenid era there were no undisputed references to incest in Elam. While Waters had claimed that the deaths of successive Neo-Elamite kings point to incestuous conditions, Gorris reveals that some of them were murdered, while the two successive kings, Huban-menanu and Huban-haltash I that did both suffer from a stroke is not indicative of incest, and the relationship between them is still disputed. Another cited example comes from the Neo-Elamite local ruler Hanni of Ayapir, in which one line is sometimes translated to “Ḫuḫin, beloved sister-wife,” but has more recently been translated as “beloved lawful and true wife” instead by Quintana. Instead Potts suggests that the title “son of the sister” reflects an avuncular succession, drawing on cases across history and different cultures where an uncle to nephew succession is favoured. De Graef agrees that this reflects the existence of an avuncular line of succession alongside a patrilineal line of succession. She also refers to the incest theory as outdated.