[Footnote 11: It should be noted that the name of the Babylonian city now usually rendered as Isin should be more correctly read as Nîsin. This is suggested by two forms of the name, which Prof. Clay tells me occur on two tablets in the Yale Babylonian Collection, Nos. 5415 and 5417; in the date-formulæ upon these tablets the city's name is written as _Ni-i-si-in_ (KI) and _Ni-i-si-in-na_ (KI). Eventually the initial was dropped; cf. p. 254, n. 2.]
[Footnote 12: Cf. "Chronicles," I., p. 168, n. 1.]
[Footnote 13: Cf. Hilprecht, "Mathematical, Metrological and Chronological Tablets" (in "Bab. Exped.," Ser. A., Vol. X., i.), p. 55, n. 1.]
[Footnote 14: Cf. "Sumer and Akkad," pp. 63, 313 f.]
[Footnote 15: The identification of Rîm-Sin's capture of Nîsin with that referred to in Sin-muballit's seventeenth year was first suggested in "Letters of Hammurabi," III., p. 228, n. 39, and it was adopted for purposes of chronology,'by Hilprecht, "Math., Met., and Chron. Tabl.," p. 50, note; Meyer, "Geschichte," I., ii., pp. 345, 556; Ungnad, "Orient. Lit.-Zeit.," 1908, Col. 66, and "Z.D.M.G.," LVI., p. 714, and others. Langdon has recently sought to identify Rîm-Sin's capture with that referred to in the formula for Hammurabi's seventh year; see "The Expositor," 1910, p. 131, and "Babyloniaca," 1914, p. 41, and cf. Chiera, "Legal and Administrative Documents," p. 24 f. For Chiera's own researches on the point, see below, p. 93 f.]
[Footnote 16: Cf. Edward Chiera, "Legal and Administrative Documents from Nippur chiefly from the Dynasties of Isin and Larsa" (in "University of Pennsylvania Museum Publications, Babylonian Section," Vol. VIII., No. 1), pp. 19 ff.]
[Footnote 18: Cf. Chiera, _op. cit.,_ pl. ix., No. 15, 11. 27 ff.; pl. xxiii., No. 35, 11. 20 ff.; and p. 21, No. 26.]
[Footnote 19: _Op. cit.,_ pl. vii., No. 12, 11. 29, 35 f.; pl. xxxv., No. 81, 11. 2, 23 ff.; and p. 20, No. 6.]
[Footnote 20: Professor Clay has written to inform me that on the two tablets Y.B.C., Nos. 4229 and 4270, the usual formula for the second year of the Nîsin era is followed by the words _shag mu ki XVIII-kam,_ which may be rendered "within the eighteenth year," _i.e._ corresponding to the eighteenth year. On one tablet the addition to the usual date takes the form _shag mu ki XVIII-kam in-ag (?),_ but Prof. Clay is not quite certain of the reading of the sign _ag,_ which, he writes, "because the tablet was cased, is badly twisted." If the reading is correct it is important, for the addition may then be rendered "within (_i.e._ corresponding to) the eighteenth year that he reigned," the word _in-ag_ being the verb usually employed in Sumerian dynastic lists in sentences stating the number of years a king reigned. Two other long date-formulæ for the same year (on tablets Y.B.C., Nos. 4307 and 4481) begin as follows: _mu ki II dim(?) mu ki XIX giš-ku-makh Ana (dingir) En-lil (dingir) En-ki,_ etc. Here the reading of the sign _dim_ is not absolutely certain, but, assuming its correctness, the formula may be rendered: "The second year (corresponding to the nineteenth year) in which with the exalted weapon of Anu, Enlil and Ea, Rîm-Sin the king took the city of Nîsin," etc. It will be seen that the readings, which are suggested by Prof. Clay for the two uncertain signs in the formulæ, give excellent sense, and, if correct, they definitely prove that the second figures in the equations were derived from Rîm-Sin's regnal years. Hut, even if we regard the two signs as quite uncertain, the general interpretation of the double-dates is not affected; it would be difficult to explain them on any other hypothesis than that adopted in the text.]