It has already been noted that the Larsa List is a contemporaneous document, since the scribe has added the title of "king" to the last name only, that of Samsu-iluna, implying that he was the reigning king at the time the document was drawn up. It is unlikely, therefore, that any mistake should have been made in the number of years assigned to separate rulers, the date-formulæ and records of whose reigns would have been easily accessible for consultation by the compiler. The long reign of sixty-one years, with which Rîm-Sin is credited, must be accepted as correct, for it does not come to us as a tradition incorporated in a Neo-Babylonian document, but is attested by a scribe writing within two years of the time when, as we have seen, Rîm-Sin was not only living but fighting against the armies of Babylon. In fact, the survival of Rîm-Sin throughout the period of Hammurabi's rule at Larsa, and during the first ten years of Samsu-iluna's reign, perhaps furnishes us with the solution of our problem. If Rîm-Sin had not been deposed by Hammurabi on his conquest of Larsa, but had been retained there with curtailed powers as the vassal of Babylon, may not his sixty-one years of rule have included this period of dependence? In that case he may have ruled as independent King of Larsa for thirty-nine years, followed by twenty-two years during which he owed allegiance successively to Hammurabi and Samsu-iluna, until in the latter's tenth year he revolted and once more took the field against Babylon. It is true that, with the missing figures in the Kings' List restored as suggested by Professor Clay, the figure for the total duration of the dynasty may be cited against this explanation; for the two hundred and eighty-nine years is obtained by regarding the whole of Rîm-Sin's reign as anterior to Hammurabi's conquest. There are two possibilities with regard to the figure. In the first place it is perhaps just possible that Sin-idinnam and Sin-iḳîsham may have reigned between them thirty-five years, in place of the thirteen years provisionally assigned to them. If that were so, the scribe's total would be twenty-two years less than the addition of his figures, and the discrepancy could only be explained by some such overlapping as suggested. But it is far more likely that the figures are correctly restored, and that the scribe's total corresponds to that of the figures in the list. On such an assumption it is not improbable that he mechanically added up the figures placed opposite the royal names, without deducting from his total the years of Rîm-Sin's dependent rule.