e that of Agade and
Nippur, extended its jurisdiction over a section bordering on the south
and _vice versa_. It remained for a great conqueror, Hammurabi, the
sixth king of a dynasty having its seat in the city of Babylon itself,
who about the year 2300 B.C. succeeded in uniting North and South
Babylonia under one rule. With him, therefore, a new epoch in the
history of the Euphrates Valley begins. Henceforth the supremacy of the
city of Babylon remains undisputed, and the other ancient centers,
losing their political importance, retain their significance only by
virtue of the sanctuaries existing there, to which pilgrimages continued
to be made, and through the commercial activity that, upon the union of
the various Babylonian districts, set in with increased vigor.

Attention was directed a few years ago by Pognon and Sayce to the fact
that the name of Hammurabi, as well as the names of four kings that
preceded him, and of a number that followed, are not Babylonian. Sayce
expressed the opinion that they were Arabic, and Professor Hommel has
recently reenforced the position of Sayce by showing the close
resemblance existing between these names and those found on the
monuments of Southern Arabia.[21] While no evidence has as yet been
found to warrant us in carrying back the existence of the Minean empire
in Southern Arabia beyond 1500 B.C., still since at this period, this
empire appears in a high state of culture, with commercial intercourse
established between it and Egypt, as well as Palestine, the conclusion
drawn by Hommel that Babylonia was invaded about 2500 B.C. by an
Arabic-speaking people is to be seriously considered. Elam, as we have
seen, was constantly threatening Babylonia from the East, and shortly
before Hammurabi's appearance, succeeded in putting an end to the
dynasty of Larsa. It now appears that the inhabitants of the Euphrates
Valley were also threatened by an enemy lodged somewhere in the
southwest. Though Hommel's hypothesis still needs confirmation, and may
perhaps be somewhat modified by future researches, still so much seems
certain: that the great union of the Babylonian states and the supremacy
of the city of Babylon itself was achieved not by Babylonians but by
foreigners who entered Babylonia from its western (or southwestern)
side. The dynasty of which Hammurabi is the chief representative comes
to an end _c._ 2100, and is followed by another known as Shish-Kha,[22]
whose rulers likewise