Thanks to important chronological lists of colophon-dates and to a number of trade-documents from Tel-Sifr, Sippara, and elsewhere, which are inscribed with the same dates in a fuller form, the outline of the history of the reign of Ḫammurabi is fairly well known, though it can hardly be said that we have what would be at the present time regarded as an important event for each year, notwithstanding that they may have been to the ancient Babylonians of all-absorbing interest. The following is a list of the principal dates of his reign, as far as they can at present be made out—

In the gaps indicated by the words “lost,” and “practically lost,” the following entries ought, perhaps, to be inserted, though it is to be noted that some of them may be merely additions to, or other forms of, dates preserved by the list—

Whether the following be another form of this date, or a different one altogether is uncertain:

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.

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.

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.

With regard to the names Eri-Aku and Rîm-Sin, one Sumero-Akkadian, and the other Semitic, the former means, as was thought from the first, “Servant of the Moon-god,” whilst the sense of the latter, as is made clear by the variant spelling in the new Babylonian chronicle, is “Sin's (the Moon-god's) wild bull.” A similar name is that of Rîm-Anu, another king of Larsa—“Anu's (the Heaven-god's) wild bull.” These are paralleled by such names as Bûr-Sin, “Sin's young steer,” in which the bearer is compared with a strong and willing animal of service. Possibly the substitution of the word for “wild bull” in Rîm-Sin and Rîm-Anu is symbolical of reckless courage.

Very little is known of the state of which Larsa (in Sumero-Akkadian Ararma) was the capital. It is interesting to note, however, that this city was a centre of the worship of the Sun-god Šamaš, as was also Sippar (now Abu-habbah). The temple in both cities bore the same name, Ê-bara (-para) or Ê-babbara (-barbara), “the house of brilliant light.” With the exception of Eri-Aku or Arioch, whose name is Sumero-Akkadian, all the rulers have Semitic names—Rîm-Anu, Nûr-Rammāni or Nûr-Addi, “light of Rimmon” or “of Hadad,” Sin-idinnam, “Sin has given,” and Rîm-Sin. If Eri-Aku was called, in the Semitic tongue, Arad-Sin, “Servant of Sin,” as is possible, this name must be added too, but in that case his identification with Arioch would be less probable. As he was of Elamite origin, his bearing a Sumero-Akkadian or a Semitic name was probably due to motives of policy, and one which, when written, could be read either way would give pleasure to both sections of the people, Sumero-Akkadian and Semitic.

The following inscriptions record architectural works of Kudur-mabuk, and his sons Eri-Aku and Rîm-Sin:—

There now remain to be treated of Chedorlaomer and Tidal, the remaining two of the four allies who fought in that memorable conflict by the Dead Sea to bring into subjection their revolted vassals.

From the time of their first discovery it has been felt that the occurrence of names containing the element Kudur—Kudur-mabuk, Kudur-Nanḫundi, Kudur-Naḫḫunte, etc.—was, in itself, excellent testimony to the correctness of the narrative in the 14th chapter of Genesis, where an Elamite king having Chedor as the first element of his name, attacks and conquers, in alliance with certain kings of Babylonia, five petty rulers of a district on the shores of the Dead Sea. It was, however, naturally a matter of disappointment that the name of Chedorlaomer himself did not occur, for it was soon recognized that the identification, made by Sir Henry Rawlinson, of Kudur-mabuk (read Kudur-mapula) with Chedorlaomer could not be sustained. What was wanted, was some such name as Kudur-Lagamar or Kudur-Lagamal, the second element having been recognized in other texts as the name of the Elamite deity Lagamaru. It was to all appearance thought to be probable that the name of Tidal would be found.

None of these documents are in a state of completeness, though one of them, a kind of poem, contains no less than 76 lines, more or less well preserved. The other two are of the nature, apparently, of historical legends, though they may be true historical documents, and, though imperfect, are of great importance. Concerning the names which are contained in these texts there is but little or no doubt, though there may be doubt as to the way in which they ought to be read in consequence of the fanciful way in which they are written.

The reverse begins with a reference to Elam, and some one (perhaps the king of that country) who “spoiled from the city Aḫḫê (?) to the land of Rabbātum.” Something was made, apparently by the same personage, into heaps of ruins, and the fortress of the land of Akkad, and “the whole of Borsippa(?)” are referred to. At this point comes the line mentioning Kudur-laḫmal, supposed to be Chedorlaomer. It reads as follows—

“Kudur-laḫmal, his son, pierced his heart with the steel sword of his girdle.”

The second tablet, though in a more satisfactory state of preservation, is still sufficiently incomplete, none of the lines being altogether perfect.

After referring to Babylon, and to the property of that city, “small and great,” it is said that the gods (apparently)