[Footnote 14: The bronze-casting may well have been learnt from Elam; and we have striking evidence of increased relations with the west in the fact that under Ammi-zaduga a district of Sippar was known as Amurrî, from its Amorite quarter or settlement; cf. Meissner, "Altbabylonisches Privatrecht," p. 41 f., No. 42, and Meyer, "Geschichte," I., ii., p. 467 f.] [Footnote 15: His other building activities included the founding of a royal suburb at Babylon, named Shag-dugga, on the bank of the Arakhtu Canal, where he built himself a palace; while at Sippar he once more rebuilt the Gagûm, or spacious Cloister attached to the temple of the Sun-god.] [Footnote 16: Cf. Poebel, "Legal and Business Documents," p. 121, and Schorr, "Urkunden," p. 602.] [Footnote 17: For references, see Schorr, _op. cit.,_ p. 604.] [Footnote 18: According to a verbal communication made by Prof. Hilprecht to Dr. Poebel.] [Footnote 19: Cf. "Letters and Inscriptions of Hammurabi," III., p. 207 f.; in the same inscription he also lays claim to the rule of Amurru.] [Footnote 20: It is most improbable that he should be identified with Damiḳ-ilishu, the last king of the earlier Dynasty of Nîsin, who perished one hundred and thirty-seven years before this time. It is true that Nabonidus, to judge from his building-inscriptions, evinces an interest in the past, but in many ways he was a unique monarch and he lived in a later age. These early date-formulæ, on the other hand, always refer to contemporaneous events, not to matters of archæological interest. We know definitely that Iluma-ilum (the first Sea-Country king) was the contemporary of Samsu-iluna and Abi-eshu', and it is not unreasonable to find a reference to Damiḳ-ilishu (the third Sea-Country king) in the last year of Ammi-ditana, Abi-eshu's son. Granting this assumption, there follows the important inference that the exceptionally long period of one hundred and fifteen years, assigned by the Kings' List to the reigns of the first two kings of the Sea-Country, is a little exaggerated. The accuracy of some of the longer figures assigned in the List to kings of this dynasty has long been called in question (cf. "Chronicles," I., pp. 111 ff., and see above, p. 106), and the synchronism justifies this doubt. While the historical character of the Second Dynasty has been amply confirmed, we must not regard the total duration assigned to it in the Kings' List as more than approximately correct. Under these circumstances detailed dates have not been assigned to members of that dynasty in the Dynastic List of Kings; see Appendix II., p. 320.]