TUDKHITLA, ERI-EAKU, AND LAKH (?) GUMAL.
Having been requested to write briefly about the above names, which so closely resemble the Tidal, Arioch, and Chedorlaomer of Gen. xiv (notwithstanding a certain amount of doubt in the reading of one character of the last of the three), I give here a short account of the tablets upon which they were found.
(1) The First Fragment which came to my notice (Sp. iii, 2) is very badly mutilated, and it is with great difficulty that the text, as far as it is preserved, can be read. Eri-Eaku is mentioned first, but simply as father of Dur-makh-ilani, and there is then a reference to the spoiling of some place, and to waters having come over Babylon (or Babylonia) and the great temple Saggil (a E-saggil). Afterwards we read that "the old man and the child (were slain) with the sword," and executions seem to have taken place. Then comes the mention of "Tudkhula, son of Gazza" (pos sible completion : Gaceaui), and two lines farther on we read that "his (qy., whose?) son fell upon him with the weapon of his hand," in conse quence whereof, perhaps "his (qy., the son's?) dominion( ?) [was proclaimed ?] before the tem ple (of the goddess) Annunit." This is followed by a reference to [the king of ?] Elam, who seems to have spoiled the city Akhkhelal (?) and the land of Rabbat, making them "like heaps of ruins," and taking, seemingly, "the fortress of Akkad and the whole of Borsippa( ?)." We then have a phrase which seems to say that Kudur lakhmal, his son (possibly the son of the ruler of Elam), pierced( ?) his heart with the steel sword of his girdle, and it may be conjectured that he thereupon (as many another had done before, and would do afterwards) mounted the throne, and "captured his enemy." There is after wards a reference to "those kings, lords of si[n]," i. e., "sinful men," but the text is too mutilated to make a good connected sense.
(2) The Second Tablet found referring to this period was Sp. ii, 987. It reads that the gods (ap parently) "in their faithful counsel had favor for Kudur-lalchgumal,* king of Elam," who de scended, and did, in Babylon, that which was good unto them i. e., in their eyes) so the text seems to say. Dur-makh-llani, here called "son of
Eri-Eku," is referred to, lower down, in connec tion with some correspondence which seems to have passed concerning their respective rights to the throne.
(3) The Third Tablet. The third tablet is a large fragment numbered Sp. 158 and Sp. ii, 926, and contains about eighty lines of writing, in many places in a rather defective condition. It begins by a reference to the spoiling of the temple of Du-makh ("the supreme seat")—appar ently by the personage who forms the subject of the inscription—and the miraculous divine mani festations which took place on that occasion, when the gods were clothed with light, and flashed like lightning before him. After a gap, there is a series of paragraphs referring to the wickedness of the Elamite, who plundered the temples, and whose depredations were attributed to the anger and displeasure of the gods. In the fifth para graph, and only then, do we learn who this wicked Elamite was—it was Kudur-lakh-gu[mal],* "the doer of the evils." The next paragraph refers to Ide-Tutu, apparently a prince of Tiamtu (the shores of the Persian Gulf), where either he or the Elamite invader founded a pseudo-capital. After this the Elamite is said to have directed his yoke to go down to Borsippa, and then tra versed "the road of darkness," which is further explained as Kkarran Ineskis, probably "the road to Messch," destroying the land, subduing the princes, spoiling the temples, and plundering the people, whose goods he carried off to Elam. At this point the text becomes more defective, and then breaks off altogether.
(4) The Three Names. The Greek forms show us that Tidal is for Tidghal, and Chedor laomer for Chedor-laghomer. The likeness be tween Tidal, Arioch, and Chedorlaomer and Tud khula, Eri-Eaku, and Kudur-lakhgumal (notwith standing the slight doubt in the value lakh) will probably be admitted as incontestable. Is it merely a coincidence that these names all occur together on the same tablet, or are they really, name for name, the same as the Biblical names which re semble them so closely ? The doctrine of chances will probably indicate the correct answer.
T. G. P.