One other point requires to be settled, and that is the relation of the Nîsin era to the actual conquest of the city. Was the era inaugurated in the same year as the conquest, or did its first year begin with the following first of Nisan? In the course of the fifth chapter the early Babylonian method of time-reckoning is referred to, and it will be seen that precisely the same question arises with regard to certain other events commemorated in date-formulæ of the period.[24] Though some features of the system are still rather uncertain, we have proof that the greater historical events did in certain cases affect the current date-formula, especially when this was of a provisional character, with the result that the event was commemorated in the final formula for the year of its actual occurrence. Arguing from analogy, we may therefore regard the inauguration of the Nîsin era as coinciding with the year of the city's capture. In the case of this particular event the arguments in favour of such a view apply with redoubled force, for no other victory by a king of Larsa was comparable to it in importance. We may thus regard the last year of Damik-ilishu, King of Nîsin, as corresponding to the seventeenth year of Rîm-Sin, King of Larsa. And since the relationship of Rîm-Sin with Hammurabi has been established by the new list of Larsa kings, we are at length furnished with the missing synchronism for connecting the dynasties of the Nippur Kings' List with those of Babylon. [Illustration: VIII. Hammurabi, King of Babylon, from a relief in the British Museum, dedicated on his behalf to the West Semitic goddess [Ash]ratum by Itur-ashdum, a provincial governor]