There only remain to be discussed the original grounds for the suggestion that Damik-ilishu was Sin-muballit's contemporary, and that the fall of the Dynasty of Isin is to be set in the seventeenth year of the latter's reign. According to this view the conqueror of Isin would have been Rîm-Sin, assisted by his vassal, Sin-muballit. But a recent discovery has shown that Rîm-Sin can hardly have been a contemporary of Sin-muballit, or, at any rate, old enough in the seventeenth year of the latter's reign to have captured the city of Isin. From the chronicle concerning early Babylonian kings we already knew that he was not finally defeated in Hammurabi's thirty-first year, but lived on into the reign of Samsu-iluna, by whom he was apparently defeated or slain.[37] It is true that the passage is broken, and it has been suggested that the record concerns the son of Rîm-Sin, and not Rîm-Sin himself.[38] But it has now been pointed out that two of the contract-tablets found at Tell Sifr, which appear to record the same act of sale, and are inscribed with the names of the same witnesses, are dated, the one by Rîm-Sin, the other in Samsu-iluna's tenth year.[39] However we may explain the existence of these two nearly identical copies of the same document, their dates certainly imply that Rîm-Sin was in possession of a portion of Babylonia at least as late as the ninth year of Samsu-iluna's reign.[40] If, therefore, he captured Isin in the seventeenth year of Sin-muballit, Samsu-iluna's grandfather, we must suppose that his military activity in Babylonia extended over a period of at least fifty-six years, and probably longer. Such an achievement is within the bounds of possibility, but it cannot be regarded as probable.