? Or were they the Elamites who, when driven from Ur
and Larsam, retreated southwards and maintained their independence on
the shores of the Persian Gulf? Or did they represent some fresh wave of
Semitic immigration'? That they were not Kassites is proved by the new
chronicle which relates how the Country of the Sea was conquered by the
Kassites, and how the dynasty founded by Iluma-ilu thus came to an end.
There is nothing to show that they were Elamites, and if the Country of
the Sea had been colonized by fresh Semitic tribes, so far from opposing
their kindred in Babylon, most probably they would have proved to them
a source of additional strength and support. In fact, there are
indications that the people of the Country of the Sea are to be referred
to an older stock than the Elamites, the Semites, or the Kassites. In
the dynasty of the Country of the Sea there is no doubt that we may
trace the last successful struggle of the ancient Sumerians to retain
possession of the land which they had held for so many centuries before
the invading Semites had disputed its possession with them.

Evidence of the Sumerian origin of the kings of the Country of the
Sea may be traced in the names which several of them bear. Ishkibal,
Grulkishar, Peshgal-daramash, A-dara-kalama, Akur-ul-ana, and
Melam-kur-kura, the names of some of them, are all good Sumerian names,
and Shushshi, the brother of Ishkibal, may also be taken as a Sumerian
name. It is true that the first three kings of the dynasty, Iluma-ilu,
Itti-ili-nibi, and Damki-ilishu, and the last king of the dynasty,
Ea-gamil, bear Semitic Babylonian names, but there is evidence that
at least one of these is merely a Semitic rendering of a Sumerian
equivalent. Iluma-ilu, the founder of the dynasty, has left inscriptions
in which his name is written in its correct Sumerian form as
Dingir-a-an, and the fact that he and some of his successors either bore
Semitic names or appear in the late list of kings with their Sumerian
names translated into Babylonian form may be easily explained by
supposing that the population of the Country of the Sea was mixed and
that the Sumerian and Semitic tongues were to a great extent employed
indiscriminately. This supposition is not inconsistent with the
suggestion that the dynasty of the Country of the Sea was Sumerian, and
that under it the Sumerians once more became the predominant race in
Babylonia.

The new chronicle also relates how the dynast