The origin of the city of Babylon is veiled in impenetrable obscurity. The first city built upon the site must have been founded fully four thousand years before Christ, and it may have been much earlier. The city is named in the Omen tablet of Sargon, and, though this is no proof that the city was actually in existence about 3800 B. C., it does prove that a later tradition assigned to it this great antiquity. At this early date, however, it seems not to have been a city of importance. During the long period of the rise of the kingdom of Sumer and Accad no king in the south finds Babylon worthy of mention, though Babylon must have been developing into a city of influence during the later centuries of the dominion of Isin and Larsa. From about 2300 B. C. the influence of this city extends almost without a break to the period of the Seleucides. No capital in the world has ever been the center of so much power, wealth, and culture for a period so vast. It is indeed a brilliant cycle of centuries upon which we enter.

The name of the first king of Babylon is given in the Babylonian King Lists as Sumu-abi (about 2454-2440 B. C.), of whom we know nothing. We have likewise no historical inscriptions of his immediate successors, and our only knowledge of their reigns is to be obtained from the fragmentary notes of contract tablets, which sometimes give indications of the life of the people. From the inscriptions of later kings we also get word of some building operations of two of them. These kings are Sumu-la-ilu (about 2439-2405 B. C.), who built six strong fortresses in Babylon, and Zabu (about 2404-2391 B. C.), who erected in Sippar of Anunit the temple of Edubar to the city's deity. After Zabu there was apparently an attempted revolution, for we get hints that a certain Immeru attempted to ascend the throne. His name does not appear on the King List, and it is probable that he was not able to gain a secure position in the kingdom.

The next rulers are Apil-Sin (about 2390-2373 B. C.) and Sin-muballit (about 2372-2343 B. C.), whose reigns are likewise unknown to us.

It is a noteworthy fact that in the large numbers of business documents which have come down to us out of the period of this first dynasty of Babylon, none of these rulers down to Apil-Sin is called king and Sin-muballit only in the form of a passing allusion in one single tablet. It is difficult to explain this fact unless we accept the view that the real kingdom of Babylon did not begin until Hammurabi had driven out the Elamites and so won for himself the title borne by the old kings of Ur, Isin, and Larsa.

The son and successor of Sin-muballit was Hammurabi (about 2342-2288 B. C.), with whom begins a new era. It is the chief glory of his name that he made a united Babylonia, and that the union which he cemented remained until the scepter passed from Semitic hands to another race. In this he far exceeded the success of Sargon and Lugalzaggisi, whose empires were of but short duration. Yet he had even greater difficulties to meet than they. The Elamites were firmly fastened in the country, and would hardly give it up without a struggle. The activity displayed by these Elamite princes in building was an indication of how much they valued their new possessions. We are not yet in possession of facts enough to enable us to follow the movements of Hammurabi in his conquest of the country. The struggle was probably brief and without distinction.

The people of the kingdom of Sumer and Accad had no genuine national life, no divine patriotism. When one king passed they cared not, and as willingly paid taxes to another, if only he made them no heavier. The Elamites were soon driven out of Babylonia, and Hammurabi assumed the titles of king of Sumer and Accad, king of the Four Quarters of the World, as well as the old title, king of Babylon. The ready acquiescence of the people in the new rule of Hammurabi and the new leadership of the city of Babylon is shown conclusively by the entire absence of any uprising or of any attempt to throw off the yoke. The time was ripe for the overturning of the old Sumerian state, and in Hammurabi was found the man for the new era. The manner of the conquest is unknown to us, and in the knowledge of the fact we must rest content.

We know very little about the government of the country which Hammurabi had thus organized into a consolidated kingdom or empire. That he had petty princes or viceroys under him is made clear by sundry letters and dispatches to such officials which have come down to us. But it is still impossible so to order these little fragments as to gain complete or satisfying pictures of his relation to them. If Hammurabi be the same person as Amraphel, who is mentioned in the Hebrew traditions ( Gen. xiv), and many suppose, with considerable reason, that he is, we have there evidence that he was deemed in a later period to have had a considerable body of allies with whom he was associated in campaigns in the west. Of these who are thus mentioned Chedorlaomer has not yet been identified on any Babylonian inscription of an early date, though the name may well correspond with a form Kudur-lagamar, for both parts of which there is ample support. On an inscription of late date (about 300 B. C.) a name has been found which, whether it be read Kudur-nuchgamar, or Kudur-lugkgamar, or what not, almost certainly represents Chedorlaomer. The name of Tidal, king of Goiim, has not yet been certainly identified; but in this same inscription a certain "Tudchula, son of Gazza," appears to be mentioned, who possibly represents Tidal. Arioch, king of Ellasar, is certainly to be identified with Eri-Aku, son of Kudur-Mabuk, the well-known king of Larsa. The narrative of their campaigns in the west accords well with what we know of the general situation, but forms only an episode in Babylonian history, and cannot now be satisfactorily related to the general movements of the time.

As soon as the conquest of Sumer and Accad was completed Hammurabi showed himself the statesman even more than the soldier. He displayed extraordinary care in the development of the resources of the land, and in thus increasing the wealth and comfort of the inhabitants. The chiefest of his great works is best described in his own ringing words--the words of a conqueror, a statesman, and a patriot: "Hammurabi, the powerful king, king of Babylon, . . . when Anu and Bel gave unto me to rule the land of Sumer and Accad, and with their scepter filled my hands, I dug the canal Hammurabi, the Blessing-of-Men, which bringeth the water of the overflow unto the land of Sumer and Accad. Its banks upon both sides I made arable land; much seed I scattered upon it. Lasting water I provided for the land of Sumer and Accad. The land of Sumer and Accad, its separated peoples I united, with blessings and abundance I endowed them, in peaceful dwellings I made them to live." This was no idle promise made to the people before the union of Sumer and Accad under the hegemony of Babylon, but the actual accomplishment of a man who knew how to knit to himself and his royal house the hearts of the people of a conquered land. There is a world of wisdom in the deeds of this old king. No work could possibly have been performed by him which would bring greater blessing than the building of a canal by which a nearly rainless land could be supplied with abundant water. After making the canal, Hammurabi followed the example of his predecessors in Babylonia and carried out extensive building operations in various parts of the land. On all sides we find evidences of his efforts in this work. In Babylon itself he erected a great granary for the storing of wheat against times of famine--a work of mercy as well as of necessity, which would find prompt recognition among oriental peoples then as now. The temples to the sun god in Larsa and in Sippar were rebuilt by him; the walls of the latter city were reconstructed "like a great mountain"--to use his own phrase--and the city was enriched by the construction of a new canal. The great temples of E-sagila in Babylon and E-zida in the neighboring Borsippa showed in increased size and in beauty the influence of his labors. There is evidence, also, that he built for himself a palace at the site now marked by the ruin of Kalwadha, near Baghdad.

But these buildings are only external evidences of the great work wrought in this long reign for civilization. The best of the culture of the ancient Sumerians was brought into Babylon, and there carefully conserved. What this meant to the centuries that came after is shown clearly in the later inscriptions. To Babylon the later kings of Assyria look constantly as to the real center of culture and civilization. No Assyrian king is content with Nineveh and its glories, great though these were in later days; his greatest glory came when he could call himself king of Babylon, and perform the symbolic act of taking hold of the hands of Bel-Marduk. Nineveh was the center of a kingdom of warriors, Babylon the abode of scholars; and the wellspring of all this is to be found in the work of Hammurabi.

But if the kings of Assyria looked to Babylon with longing eyes, yet more did later kings in the city of Babylon itself look back to the days of Hammurabi as the golden age of their history. Nabopolassar and Nebuchadrezzar acknowledged his position in the most flattering way, for they imitated in their inscriptions the very words and phrases in which he had described his building, and, not satisfied with this, even copied the exact form of his tablets and the style of their writing. In building his plans were followed, and in rule and administration his methods were imitated. His works and his words entitle him to rank as the real founder of Babylon. Hammurabi reigned fifty-five years according to the King Lists, but forty-three years according to a native document which comes to us from his own dynasty.

When the long reign was ended the son of Hammurabi entered into his father's labors. Samsu-iluna (about 2287-2253) seems to have followed closely in the footsteps of Hammurabi. He tells us of building in Nippur and in other cities--some of them still unknown to us--of increasing the size of Babylon itself, and of continuing the works upon canals. The profound peace which Hammurabi achieved by arms continues through his reign and into the reigns of his successors. We have no historical inscriptions, for the records which have come down from their reigns are the socalled contract or business tablets, from which no connected story has yet been made out. From them we learn of the high civilization of the country and of its continued prosperity. The names of these kings, with their approximate dates, can only be set down until some future discovery reveals records with a historical meaning.

The names of the kings of this dynasty are very peculiar when one thinks that they are set down as native rulers over the city of Babylon. The origin of Zabu and its meaning are very doubtful, Apil-Sin and Sin-muballit are good Babylonian names, but the other eight are most certainly not Babylonian at all. This at once raises the question as to the nationality or race of these kings. The names would seem to suggest that the men who bore them were not Babylonian, but had come from some other branch of the great Semitic family. This seems now to be quite probable. Their names are for the most part to be connected with the Canaanite branch of the Semitic family, and it seems probable that they owe their origin to an invasion of Babylonia by the same race that peopled the highlands of Canaan. How and when they settled in Babylon remains obscure.