“Year Ḫammurabi the king renewed E-tur-kalama for Anu, Ištar, and Nanaa.”
Year 38, which, in the chronological list, is called the year of the great ... is possibly to be completed, in accordance with the indications from the colophon-dates: “Year of Ḫammurabi the king (when) a great flood destroyed Ešnunna.”
With regard to the other undecided dates, it is practically certain that the three long ones—those which record the destruction of the wall of Mair and Malgia, the restoration of the temple Ê-me-temena-ursag and the temple tower dedicated to Zagaga, and the construction of the great dam of the Tigris—come into the gaps after the entry for the thirty-first year. The reason for this assumption is, that the thirty-first year of Ḫammurabi was the date of his conquest of Rîm-Sin, in whose dominions the town represented by the ruins of Tel-Sifr (the place whence the tablets came which bear these dates) lay. All the tablets from this place, bearing dates of the reign of Ḫammurabi, therefore belong to the thirty-first year of his reign and later.
In all probability there is one thing that will be considered as noteworthy, and that is, that as far as our records go, there is no reference whatever to any expedition to the West-land, and if that be due simply to the imperfection of the records which have come down to us, all that can be said is, that it is a noteworthy coincidence.[46] It must not be supposed, however, that it in any wise invalidates the trustworthiness [pg 215] of the narrative in the 14th chapter of Genesis—there is plenty of room in the mutilated list (of which I have given such a translation as is possible) for a date referring to this to have been recorded, though we must keep in mind the possibility, that if the Babylonian king considered that disaster had in any way overtaken his arms, he may not have recorded it at all. Then there is the fact, that the expedition was undertaken in conjunction with allies—Chedorlaomer, Tidal, and Arioch—for none of whom, in all probability, Ḫammurabi had any sympathy. The Elamite was a conqueror from a land over which the Babylonians of earlier ages had held sway, and Arioch had dominion over a neighbouring tract, to which Ḫammurabi himself laid claim, and over which, as the texts above translated show, he afterwards ruled. Ḫammurabi, moreover, claimed also the West-land—mât Amurrī, the land of Amurrū—as his hereditary possession, and he found himself obliged to aid Chedorlaomer, Tidal, and Arioch to subjugate it—indeed, it was Chedorlaomer whom the five kings had acknowledged for twelve years as their overlord, and against whom, in the thirteenth, they rebelled. It is, therefore, likely that Ḫammurabi regarded himself as having been forced by circumstances to aid Chedorlaomer to reconquer what really belonged to Babylonia, and the probability that he would cause it to be used as one of the events to date by, is on that account still less, even if the news of any success which he might have considered himself entitled to reached his own domain in time to be utilized for such a purpose.
It has been shown on p. [155] that Ammi-ṭitana, the third in succession from Ḫammurabi, claimed the sovereignty of the land of Amurrū, and from an inscription accompanying a portrait of Ḫammurabi discovered by Mr. Rassam, we learn that he, too, claimed sovereignty over it. Sargon of Agadé held [pg 216] sway over the tract centuries before, so that he probably reckoned that, by right of inheritance, it was his. It would therefore be natural that he should omit to mention as an event to be remembered, an expedition to a country which ought never to have thrown off his dominion.
Of course, one of the principal things confirming the identification of Ḫammurabi with Amraphel would naturally be the occurrence of one or more of the names recorded in Gen. xiv., in conjunction with his, or in such a way that a connection could be established. This, naturally, is difficult, principally on account of our having no continuous history of the period to which these rulers belong. Nevertheless, a close examination of the inscriptions suggests in what way confirmation of the events narrated with reference to Amraphel and his allies might be sought.
Reference has already been made to Rîm-Sin, king of Yamutbālu (or Emutbālu), who appears to have been defeated by Ḫammurabi in the thirty-first regnal year. From this time the dominions of Rîm-Sin evidently formed part of the Babylonian Empire, and were never again separated from it as long as it existed.
Notwithstanding the early identification of Rîm-Sin with Eri-Sin or Eri-Aku by the late George Smith, considerable doubt has been thrown on the identity of these two names by the fact, that in inscriptions containing the name of Kudur-mabuk, the father, the name of his son is written with Eri as the first element—not Rîm. This, it must be admitted, is a considerable difficulty. Winckler, however, in the Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek, Band III., 1 Hälfte, pp. 88-89, publishes a text given by Lenormant, Textes Inédits, No. 70, in which the name of the son of Kudur-mabuk is written Ri-im-Sin, and if this be correctly copied, it would seem to settle the matter of their identity. It is to be noted that they are both called [pg 217] king of Uriwa, king of Larsa, and king of Šumer and Akkad. In the inscriptions Eri-Aku or Eri-Sin also calls himself adda Emutbala, “father of Yamutbālu,” and, as the colophon-date of the 31st year of Ḫammurabi shows, Rîm-Sin or Rîm-Aku was also king of that region.
In these circumstances, there is hardly any doubt that they were at least closely connected, if not (as has been supposed since the time of the Assyriologist George Smith) actually identical. It is therefore worthy of mention, that M. F. Thureau-Dangin, the well-known French Assyriologist, suggests that Eri-Aku and Rîm-Sin were brothers, sons of Kudur-mabuk, and successively kings of Larsa (Les Inscriptions de Šumer et d'Akkad, p. 300, n. 3). This would not only account for their having the same parentage, but also for their claiming the same titles. It can therefore not be said, that Ḫammurabi became the enemy of his old ally—it was against his brother that he fought.
The date quoted on p. [214] (year 31) seems to include Rîm-Sin in the capture of the land of Yamutbālum, but this is not confirmed by the new Chronicle, which states that Ḫammurabi, king of Babylon, gathered his soldiers and went against Rîm-Sin, king of Larsa. His hand captured Ur and Larsa, he carried off their goods to Babylon, and overthrew and carried away other things—what they were the mutilation of the record does not allow us even to guess. It is noteworthy also that the mention of Ur as one of the cities of Rîm-Sin shuts out that state from the tract which, from the 14th chapter of Genesis, would otherwise be included in Shinar, and seems also to explain why Ur is designated as being “of the Chaldees.”