A History of Sumer and Akkad / An account of the early races of Babylonia from prehistoric times to the foundation of the Babylonian monarchy

by L. W. King

[36] So Meissner, loc. cit.

[37] Cf. "Chronicles," II., p. 18 f.

[38] Cf. Winckler, "Orient. Lit.-Zeit.," 1907, col. 585 f., and Hrozný, "Wiener Zeitschrift," Bd. 21 (1908), p. 382. But Winckler and Hrozný in their rendering ignore the fact that in these late chronicles "son" is always expressed by TUR (mâru), never by A (aplu).

[39] See Ungnad, "Zeits. für Assyr.," XXIII., pp. 73 ff.

[40] Confirmation of this view has now been obtained. I learn from M. Thureau-Dangin that he has found a variant date for the tenth year of Samsu-iluna, which mentions not only the cities of Erech and Isin but also the land of Iamutbal (cf. "Journal asiatique," 1909, pp. 335 ff.)

[41] See Delitzsch, "Beitr. zur Assyr.," IV., p. 406 f., and Thureau-Dangin, "Orient. Lit.-Zeit.," 1907, col. 256 f.

[42] See Thureau-Dangin, op. cit., col. 256, and King, "Hammurabi," III., p. 229, n. 41. The only other possible year in Sin-muballit's reign would be the twentieth, the formula for which is broken on the principal date-list A; I have made a fresh examination of the tablet, and the slight traces preserved at the beginning of the line do not suggest this restoration, though it is possible.

[43] See King, "Hammurabi," III., p. 230 f., and "Chronicles," I., p. 166. The traces on the date-list D suggest that the formula for this year records the destruction and not the building of the wall of Isin. This is now put beyond a doubt by the formula upon a contract of Hammurabi's reign dated in the year of his capture of Erech and Isin (see Thureau-Dangin, "Orient. Lit.-Zeit.," 1907, col. 257, n. 2).

[44] It should be added that the local system of dating tablets at Tell Sifr was not necessarily continuous. If the city ever changed hands, the conqueror would re-introduce his own date-formulæ, as we have seen was done by Samsu-iluna.

[45] While the later kings of Isin were suzerains of Babylon, there is little doubt that the earlier kings of Babylon controlled, not only their own city, but a considerable part of Akkad. Thus from the date-formulæ of Sumu-abu, the founder of the First Dynasty, we gather that his authority was recognized at Dilbat and at Kish, and that he was strong enough to undertake the conquest of Kazallu in his thirteenth year; moreover a contract, probably from Sippar, is dated in his reign (cf. King, "Hammurabi," III., p. 212 f., and Thureau-Dangin, "Journal des savants," 1908, p. 200).