5. The date to be assigned to the First Dynasty of Babylon has been much disputed. The King- Lists, if taken in their integrity, would put the beginning of the Dynasty at B.c. 2454, and Ham- murabi’s accession at B.C. 2342. But many doubts attach to these figures. Nabonidus puts Hammu- rabi seven hundred years before Burnaburiash, who cannot be much before B.C. 1400. Rost reduces the length of the Kassite Dynasty by a hundred and eighty years, and so places the beginning of the Dynasty in B.C. 2232, which agrees with Berosus as explained by Peiser, and with Simplicius on one reading. The whole question is well discussed by Rogers in his History of Babylonia and Assyria, ch. xii.; but no definite result can be expected Even the lengths of the reigns are in doubt now.
CODE OF HAMMURABI
The Babylonians at this period gave each year a name. HD epee aoe recorded some prominent event—the building of a shrine, or an expedition, for example. Now the Chronicles published by King give the year-names for the reigns of the kings, and assign forty-three years to Hammu- rabi, while the King-Lists give him fifty-five. The difference may be accounted for by the proved fact that the same year had sometimes two separate names. The King-Lists may have counted all ear-names, and so have made the reigns too long. ut this is not always the case: thus, in the King- List, Samsu-iluna has only thirty-five years, while the Chronicle gives him thirty-eight. Here, again, we must await further evidence. _ But we can place the monument approximately in the reign. For, when we recall what we know from various sources, we find that Rim-Sin was reigning in Larsa till the 30th year of Hammu- rabis reign. Then Hammurabi defeated Elam and overthrew Rim-Sin. The following year he conquered Iamutbal, a province of Elam. Now, Hammurabi boasts in the prologue (col. ii. ll. 32-36) that he had ‘avenged Larsa and renovated Ebab- bar,’ the temple of Shamash there. This he could hardly have done while Rim-Sin was still ruling. We may therefore date the stele after the thirtieth year of his reign.
Of some interest is the usually received identi- fication of Hammurabi with the Amraphel of Gn 14. With this is bound up the question whether Arioch of Ellasar is Rim-Sin of Larsa. For this view, which has the support of most Assyriologists, see especially Pinches (Old Testa- ment, etc., ch. vi.); on the other side, see King (i. pp. xxvf., xlixf.), An ingenious method of dis- posing of the superfluous final 7 in Amraphel has been suggested by Hiising, who would join it to the next word, and read, ‘And it came to pass in the days of Amraph, as Arioch king of Ellasar was over Shinar, that Chedorlaomer,’ etc. But Arioch is nearly as difficult, and the whole inci- dent is quite inconsistent, unless the configuration of the country has entirely changed since. The same uncertainties remain as to date on both chronologies.
6. The Chronicle gives us the following skeleton outline of the events of this reign, being the list of year-names. (1) The year im which Hammurabr became king. (2) The year in which Hammurabi established the heart of the land in righteousness. This has been taken to refer to the initiation of legal reforms; but the same formula is used of Sumu-lailu (B? 2177 A), and may only mean religious reform. The Code was probably not promulgated this year. (3) The year in which the throne of Nannar was made. Nannar was god of Erech, but this throne was made in Babylon. We cannot, therefore, con- clude that Hammurabi was already ruler in Erech. (4) The year in which the wall of Malgd was de- stroyed. Yammurabi also destroyed the fortress of Maer in this year. Malga is probably not the same place as the frequently named Malgia, which was close to Sippara. Maer was an important shipping town. eissbach thinks both were on the Euphrates, near its junction with the Habur (Babylonische Miscellen, p. 13). These fortresses were later repaired. The date of the fifth year is not preserved, but some god’s temple was probably restored, The sixth year is noted for the restora- tion of some fortress. Some event at Isin marked the seventh year. (8) The year im which... om the bank of the canal Nuhus-nisi. The meaning of the name is ‘the abundance of the people.’ An inscription in the Louvre is devoted to the record of the completion of this canal. Hammurabi built on the banks of it a lofty fortress, which he called after his father, Diir-Sin-muballit-abim - walidia,
CODE OF HAMMURABI
587