Kudur-Laghghamar, and that among his vassal allies was Tudkhula or
Tidal, who seems to have been king of the Manda, or "nations" of
Kurdistan. Khammurabi, whose name is also written Ammurapi, has left us
autograph letters, in one of which he refers to his defeat of
Kudur-Laghghamar in the decisive battle which at last delivered
Babylonia from the Elamite yoke.

The story of Chedor-laomer's campaign preserved in Genesis has thus
found complete verification. The political situation presupposed in
it--however unlikely it seemed to the historian but a few years ago--has
turned out to be in strict harmony with fact; the names of the chief
actors in it have come down to us with scarcely any alteration, and a
fragment of old-world history, which could not be fitted into the scheme
of the modern historian, has proved to be part of a larger story which
the clay books of Babylonia are gradually unfolding before our eyes. It
is no longer safe to reject a narrative as "unhistorical" simply on the
ground of the imperfection of our own knowledge.

Or let us take another instance from the later days of Assyrian history,
the period which immediately precedes the first intercourse between
Greece and the East. We are told in the Books of the Chronicles that
Manasseh of Judah rebelled against his Assyrian master and was in
consequence carried in chains to Babylon, where he was pardoned and
restored to his ancestral throne. The story seemed at first sight of
doubtful authenticity. It is not even alluded to in the Books of the
Kings; Nineveh and not Babylon was the capital of the Assyrian empire,
and the Assyrian monarchs were not in the habit of forgiving their
revolted vassals, much less of sending them back to their own kingdoms.
And yet the cuneiform inscriptions have smoothed away all these
objections. Esar-haddon mentions Manasseh among the subject princes of