than that adopted in the text.] [Footnote 21: Some of his earlier date-formulæ have been recovered; see below, p. 155.] [Footnote 22: For many years past the latest date recovered of the Nîsin era was one of the thirtieth year; see Scheil, "Recueil de travaux," XXI. (1899), p. 125, and cf. "Letters of Hammurabi," III., p. 229. Prof. Clay informs me that among the tablets of the Yale Babylonian Collection is one dated in the thirty-first year of the fall of Nîsin.] [Footnote 23: The fact that they had always dated by formulæ, and not by numbered years of the king's reign, is quite sufficient to explain the uncertainty as to whether the accession-year should be included in their reckoning. Thus the apparent discrepancy in the double-dates, so far from weakening the explanation put forward in the text, really affords it additional support and confirmation.] [Footnote 24: See below, p. 190.] [Footnote 25: See "Chronicles concerning early Babylonian Kings," II.. p. 18.] [Footnote 26: Cf. Winckler, "Orient. Lit.-Zeit.," 1907, Col. 585 f., and Hrozný, "Wiener Zeitschrift," Bd. 21 (1908), p. 382.] [Footnote 27: Cf. "Sumer and Akkad," p. 317, n. 2. The broken line in the chronicle reads: (.........) _zu-na-a_ (m)Rîm-(ilu)Sin ana (.........) illik(ik), "(.........) ... Rîm-Sin to (.........) marched." The rendering suggested by Winckler and Hrozný was: "[.........]zuna, the son of Rîm-Sin, to (.........) marched;" but their translation ignored the fact that, in these late chronicles, "son" is always expressed by the sign TUR (_mâru,_) never by A (_aplu_).] [Footnote 28: _Cf._ Ungnad, "Zeits. für Assyr.," XXIII., pp. 73 ff., and Thureau-Dangin, "Journal Asiatique," xiv., 1909, pp. 335 ff.] [Footnote 29: The difference in price may perhaps be traced to the political revolution, which may have enabled one of the parties to exact better terms from the other.] [Footnote 30: See above, p. 90 f.] [Footnote 31: Cf. "Chronicles concerning Early Babylonian Kings," I., p. 184 f.] [Footnote 32: See above, p. 93 f.] [Footnote 33: See above, p. 94, n. 2.] [Footnote 34: If Ibḳushu was appointed priest in Damiḳ-ilishu's last year, the interval would be exactly forty-four years; but as Damiḳ-ilishu reigned for twenty-three years, Ibḳushu may well have been appointed several years earlier.] [Footnote 35: See Poebel, "Babylonian Legal and Business Documents," pl. 3, No. 6, 11. 25, 30 ff., and pl. 11, No. 23, 11. 33, 36 ff.; and cf. Chiera, "Legal and Administrative Documents from Nippur," p. 21, No. 24.] [Footnote 36: Cf. Chiera, _op. cit.,_ p. 22. Chiera's own deduction from the proper names (pp. 29 ff.) must of course be modified in view of the Larsa Kings' List; but his data hold good.] [Footnote 37: On the suggested hypothesis with regard to the Larsa List, Rîm-Sin's capture of Nîsin would have taken place two years after Hammurabi's attack on that city. But, if we reject the hypothesis, the Nîsin era would have begun in Sin-muballit's seventh year.]