Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T14:07:02.100Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Sumerian Law Code compared with the Code of Hammurabi

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 March 2011

S. Langdon
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The great Semitic digest of laws made by Hammurabi and inscribed at his orders on the magnificent diorite stele of Susa was probably promulgated soon after the 34th year of the reign of that famous king, or about 2088. His reign extended to 2081. The period of its composition and promulgation is therefore limited to the brief space of eight years at the end of his reign. This date is at any rate certain for the great stele deciphered by Père Scheil (1902). Fragments of the same code written on clay tablets of the period of Hammurabi were found at Susa, at Ellasar or Warka, and at Nippur. From Nippur two large tablets have been recovered, one of which has the colophon, “Fourth tablet of ‘ When the far-famed Anu ’.” Since the Code as written on the Paris Stele begins “ When the far-famed Anu ”, it is evident that the editions written on tablets are based upon the monumental copy and that they are later than it. For it is highly improbable that the original tablet edition began with a long historical prologue. The Nippur tablet has a colophon which says that it is the al-gub-ba of the king Hammurabi.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society , Volume 52 , Issue 4 , October 1920 , pp. 489 - 515
Copyright
Copyright © The Royal Asiatic Society 1920

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 489 note 1 This statement is based upon references in the prologue of the code which can be connected with facts of his reign mentioned in date formulæ. The date formula of the 35th year which mentions Mari and Malgû is the highest date which can be verified by the prologue, col. iv, 12 and 30. In this date Hammurabi claims to have destroyed the walls of Mari and Malgû cities on the middle Euphrates. For the formula see Poebel, BE. vi, 65, where it is erroneously assigned to the 37th year ; for this formula as the date of the 35th year see Boissier, RA. xi, 162, and Clay, Miscellaneous Inscriptions, No. 33, 6.

page 489 note 2 Scheil, Delegation en Perse, x, pl. 9 = Ungnad, Keilschrifttexte der Gesetze Hammurabis, 36–7.

page 489 note 3 Clay, Miscellaneous Inscriptions, No. 34.

page 489 note 4 Langdon, Historical and Religious Texts, No. 22. I wrote on p. 49 of my volume in the conviction that the Constantinople tablet represents an edition anterior to that of the Paris Stele, but I am now convinced that this copy is later than the monument.

page 490 note 1 The colophon is obscure and badly preserved. It is not necessary to assume, from what we can now read on the tablet, that it was actually written in the reign of Hammurabi.

page 490 note 2 Published by Dr. Arno Poebel, Historical and Grammatical Texts, No. 93. Translated by Scheil, RA. 13, 49–53, and Poebel, OLZ. 1915, 162–9, 194–200, 225–30, 257–65.

page 490 note 3 Poebel, OLZ. 1915, 263–4, saw the importance of this Sumerian superscription, and suggests that there may have been a group of laws called di-dib-ba nig é-zi-ga. By restoring V R. 24a, 27f, Poebel showed that di-dib-ba = dînu šuḫuzu, “ judgment taught,” i.e. decision which the judges caused the litigants to know, and simittu, law. A Berlin vocabulary (unpublished) has di-dib-ba = didibbû, dînu dânu, dînu parsu, dînu šuḫuzu. The ordinary Sumerian word for “ judgment rendered” is di-til-la = dînu gamru, VR. 24, 29. For the sign KU-ba in this Sumerian superscription as a variant of LU (dib) note, beside the citations in OLZ. 1915, 264, and RA. xv, 37, the title of a priest zabar-KU-ba, Thureau-Dangin, SAK. 194, x, 8, for zabar-dib-ba, CT. 24, 3, 18, etc.

page 491 note 1 The first attempt to interpret Sumerian lawsuits was the article by F. Pélagaud in Babyloniaca, iii, 81–132, based upon tablets previously published by Thureau-Dangin and some new ones copied by Virolleaud in Constantinople, which are published at the end of Pélagaud's article. All these tablets came from Lagash. Later H. de Genouillac published a number of similar texts in Inventaire des Tablettes de Tello in the Musée Imperial Ottoman, vol. ii, pt. i. On the basis of these and the tablets previously published Genouillac made a study of Sumerian legal decisions in RA. viii, 1–32. In the second part of vol. ii Genouillac published a large number of these texts, also from Lagash and now in Constantinople.

page 491 note 2 The reading DI (di) = dînu is no longer in dispute. My former reading sá-til-la was erroneous. Syl. B. 185, di-i = dînu, is now confirmed by the Chicago Syllabary, 88.

page 491 note 3 But compare ṭi-ma-šu-nu-ti ig-mu-ru, Schorr, Altbabylonische Rechtsurkunden, 261, 35.

page 491 note 4 Poebel, BE. vi, No. 10 ; see ibid., p. 47 ; Schorr, ibid., No. 292.

page 492 note 1 Miscellaneous Inscriptions in the Yale Babylonian Collection, No. 28. The author gave an interpretation of this tablet on pp. 18–27.

page 492 note 2 For the grain goddess as patroness of writing and her consort Hani, also a patron of writing at Umma, see, in addition to Clay's discussion, p. 19, the writer's Tammuz and Ishtar, p. 153.

page 492 note 3 Sumerian Grammatical Texts, No. 30, republished by Lutz, Selected Sumerian and Babylonian Texts, No. 98.

page 492 note 4 Note that the tablets of laws in the Nippur Collection are all double-column tablets.

page 492 note 5 See the writer's Babylonian Liturgies, p. xlix

page 493 note 1 e-rum = ardu in BM. 38744. The pronunciation e-ri is certain and in early texts the ideograph is followed by ra. i.e. er-ra. See Clay, Miscellaneous Inscriptions, 4, iii, 1 ; Nikolski, No. 19, Obv. v, 6.

page 494 note 1 Prices of slaves vary greatly in Semitic contracts. Note the high price, 50 shekels, for a slave girl, in Schorr, Altbabylonische Rechtsurkunden, No. 84, and 12 shekels for a male slave, No. 85.

page 494 note 2 So I interpret the law, but it is obscure and uncertain.

page 495 note 1 See also CT. 19, 22, 9–11, miḳtum as synonym of bennu. Sudhoff has come to the conclusion that this means epilepsy, Schorr, ibid., p. 129.

page 495 note 2 Note that a woman adopts a girl and makes a hierodule of her. Poebel, BE. vi, 4.

page 495 note 3 Shurpu, v, 144.

page 496 note 1 The sacred women of the land Emutbal are brought to Babylon by the orders of Hammurabi, see King, Letters and Inscriptions of Hammurabi, No. 34 = Ungnad, Babylonische Briefe, No. 2. Here the two orders of priestesses, ištarāti and kizrêti, are mentioned. Both King and Ungnad erroneously rendered ištarīti by “ goddesses “. The word is the plural of ištarîtu, harlot. See Tammuz and Ishtar, p. 80.

page 497 note 1 For the sign U with value ur see Sumerian Grammar, 254, ur 15, and for the construction, Poebel, BE. vi, No. 11, 21, ud kur-šú galu galu-ur, “ In future days man against man (shall not complain).” ur is for the ordinary ra. For postfixed ur = ra, see Sum. Gr., § 81 end and ùr = ana, ina, Poebel, PBS. v, 105. iii, 6 Radau, Ninib No. 1, i, 28, Gimil-Sin-mu-ùr, “ To my (king) Gimil-Sin.”

page 497 note 2 Cf. Code of Hammurabi, § 60, ana kirîm zugāpim and my restoration of II Raw. 15, 22, in RA. 14, 18, giš-šar giš-šub-ba-ta = kirâ ana zaḳāpi. The difficult passage in the Tammuz hymn SBP. 330, 10, is now intelligible, ba-ši-in-ū [giš-šar] giš-mi-ni-in-gub, “ Mount thou up and plant the gardens.” For giš-gub in the poetical sense “ to instal a ruler ”, see Sumerian Liturgies and Psalms, 256, 23.

page 497 note 3 kislaǵ = terîtu, vacant, i.e. land without buildings, see Schorr, VAB. v, 418, 24, and Poebel, BE. vi, 12, note 2 ; Thureau-Dangin, RA. 11, 96.

page 497 note 4 See the commentary of ana itti-šu, RA. 14, 18, 26, and Code § 61.

page 498 note 1 Var. omits the subjunctive inflection. Cf. Code § 62, 40, ša innadû.

page 498 note 2 Note gub = zaḳāpu in the same sense as giš-gub. Cf. CT. 19, 47, 21.

page 498 note 3 Note the neuter suffix ba and the personal suffix na, and for this principle see Sum. Gr., § 160.

page 498 note 4 The reading gìn = šiḳlu is confirmed by Meek, AJSL. 36, 158, 25, ṬU (gi-e) = šiḳlu.

page 499 note 1 For GI + GI = gib, v. Ebeling, KTA. 8, 3, ab-gib-bi = ušapraku and CT. 17, 31, 3, sag-ba-an-gib-ba = ipriḳ. Scheil reads ni-šár-ne, “ ma, maison on va agrandir.”

page 499 note 2 Literally “ turn away man ”.

page 499 note 3 Or enim-gi (?), “ to revoke a promise ” ; see Gudea, Statue B, I 14 ; Thureau-Dangin, SAK. 52, xi, 13 ; Langdon, Poème du Paradis, 226, 37. The rendering adopted here agrees with that of Scheil, and for enim ka-kešda, to make an agreement, see Sumerian Grammar, p. 224.

page 499 note 4 For su = rábu, repay, cf. su = apālu ša ḫubullu, AO. 3930, rev. 17. See also Ungnad's restoration of the Code §73, mimma [ša ḫalḳu] i-ri-[a-ab].

page 500 note 1 In this period the Sumerian word for slave eri, erra, is replaced by the Semitic arad; see, for example, VS. i, No. 27, 14 ; Gudea, Cyl. B. 18, 21. Not until the Semitic period of Sargon the Ancient does the sign for female servant SAL + KUR appear, Thureau-Dangin, RTC. 80, obv. 2, developed out of an older sign REC., p. 6, second form of NITAH + KUR. In fact, the early inscriptions write male and female slave with KVR inserted into variant forms of the same sign. For the masculine sign see Nikolski, No. 19, v, 6, and the feminine sign at line 11, rev. i, 1, et passim. When the new sign for geme, female slave, was invented the old sign for female slave is then written for male slave and the original form for male slave is abandoned. Consequently on this tablet arad, slave, is written with a sign which in pre-Sargonic times indicated a female slave.

page 500 note 2 For gin as a technical term in deciding suits at law, see Thureau-Dangin, RTC. 290, R. 4; Genouillac, Inventaire, 172, 6; 830, rev. 7 and 923. See below Col. iii, 11.

page 501 note 1 Cf. Thureau-Dangin, RTC. 290, 9, murgu ba-gur-ra-ta, “after she had turned,” i.e. brought complaint. Scheil discovered the connexion between this law and § 282 of the Code.

page 501 note 2 The sign is the early Babylonian form of SAI. 7487 (ki-ši) = muttatu, forehead. For the Sumerian value see Rm. 2, 588, obv. 30, in AJSL. 36, 158, and CT. 18, 32b, 10 (ki-ši) = variant, RA. 10, 82, v. 32, which has by confusion SAG. Note Syl. B.1 iv, 35, where kiši is followed by SAG. In line 13 bur clearly means “ brand ”, “ cut ”, for which the Semitic texts have muttata-šu ugallabu, Code § 127, and for the branding of a slave who denies his master, see Daiches, LSS. i2, No. 26, 9 ; búr = galābu is not documented, but búr does mean to cut, tear, šalātu, Arabic salata, and this is probably the sense here.

page 502 note 1 Copy by Lutz has DI, perhaps sá šag-ga-na (?). One expects ki-šaggana to mean a house of quarantine, pest-house, but no word for such an idea is suggested by šaggan. The phrase occurs in my Historical and Religious Texts, No. 54, 4. Scheil adopts the reading DI, and renders “ au tribunal de son choix ”.

page 502 note 2 lal, bind, accuse, is rendered by ubburu in the Code, see § 1.

page 502 note 3 gi-en corresponds to uktîn in the Code.

page 503 note 1 This passage yields at last the Sumerian word for ilku, state tax, tribute, and shows that ilku is a synonym of biltu. Cf. Haupt, ASKT. 215, 24, gùn-gar-zi-da = tax collector, i.e. the one who fixes the tribute.

page 503 note 2 This phrase, although ungrammatical, is clearly equivalent to iddima uddabbir, “ he abandoned (the field, etc.) and fled.” Code § 30. tum, therefore, means dapāru, to remove, drive away, and we have here an example in Sumerian of two verbal roots of different meanings placed together and conjugated with a single verbal prefix.

page 504 note 1 This passage supplies the Sumerian word for širiḳtu.

page 504 note 2 nitadam, nitalam = ḫairu, ḫairtu, always refers to the first husband or wife in a marriage.

page 504 note 3 mitḫariš, Code § 167 end, mitḫariš izuzzu.

page 504 note 4 Note that this passage confirms the reading namkur bit abim in § 167 of the Code.

page 506 note 1 The meaning is obscure and the verb dug has never been found in a similar passage.

page 506 note 2 da is probably the noun augment here, unless a line in-da-ná-a has been omitted. See Poème Sumérien du Paradis, 160, n. 3.

page 506 note 3 For AN-AS-AN (tilla) = zûḳu, šulû, street, rîbu, ribâtum, carrefour, see Keilschrifttexte aus Boghazk i, i, No. 40, 14–17. As a commentary on this passage compare the omen, Babyloniaca, iii, 217, 47.

page 506 note 4 Here, again, a line has been omitted . Supply ni-da-an-dug = iḳtabi, cf. Code § 170, line 45. We expect abil-mu, “thou art my son.” This law proves that the hierodule was a free-born woman, and consequently owing to her caste and her sacred profession her children by rape are legitimate.

page 507 note 1 Cf . § 130 of the Code.

page 507 note 2 Scheil reads this sign LIL .

page 507 note 3 Semitic ittanašši-ši, Code § 148, 81 ; § 178, col . xv, 8.

page 508 note 1 So Scheil .

page 508 note 2 For the meaning of zag-uš see OLZ . 1914, 417, which is probably to be distinguished from zag-šuš. Tḥureau-Dangin, Mission Française de Chaldée, i, 15, note 1, translates zag-šuš by “ to mark ”. The term zag-šuš is always employed with animals ; see citations in my article in OLZ. and Thureau-Dangin's note, also VS. xiv, 145, rev. 2.

page 508 note 3 a-šub, a strengthened form of šub = nadû . For the augment ù cf. ù-nad, to lie down, Poème Sumérien du Paradis, 160, 7.

page 509 note 1 NAR appears to be Semitic here, ina ebir nāri (?) ri-bal = bal-ri, cf . Ranke, BE. vi, 61, 1 + 5.

page 509 note 2 Cf . Code of Hammurabi, § 236, 34, uḫtalliḳ.

page 509 note 3 e-de = wâṣu, usually written ed, è . Cf. the Code § 238, 59, uš-te-li-a-aš-ši. The Sumerian should be rendered ušêṣi-ašši.

page 509 note 4 Text ma, photograph and Clay's copy, ba-ba > bi-bi = nušurrû, RA . 13, 189, 31 = Brünnow, 116; -ta is the conjunction “ and ” here, see Sumerian Grammar, § 232.

page 510 note 1 On this passage cf . Schorr, Altbabylonische Rechtsurkunden, No. 146, 10–12.

page 510 note 2 nam-šú usually has the meaning “ for, because of ” or “ in place of ” . See SBP. 170, 14 ; 262, 20. Thureau-Dangin, SAK. 216a, 27 ; 220e, ii, 5 ; SBP. 60, 5–14. Note, for the original sense “ in place of ”, Ebeling, Religiöse Texte, 14, iii, 38 = iv, R. 13b, 36, nam guškin-šú = kima ḫuraṣi. For nam-šú = unto, see line 67.

page 510 note 3 We expect nu-bar = liḳû, adopted son, but the text has apparently the sign TUG . Another sign, BULUG, DIM, Thureau-Dangin, REC. 155 = liḳû, CT. 12, 20, rev. 7, but the text obviously does not carry this character. Some sign for liḳû or tarbîtu should stand here. It is clearly not EN. Note also that the sign BULUG = liḳû is read (?-) ug, possibly tu-ug in CT. 12, 20, rev. Consequently we may assume that tug = liḳû, orphan. The sign is clearly written in line 27, where the photograph shows a slanted stroke at the right, omitted in Clay's copy.

page 511 note 1 For nig-ga-ra, early form of nig-ga = makkuru, v . BE. 31, 19, 9.

page 511 note 2 This sign is read UB by Clay . We expect here a word for unātu, utensils. Cf. Schorr, ibid., No. 8, 26, ina bîti uniāti itelû (the parents who deny their adopted son) shall be deprived of house and utensils. The most probable reading seems to be GA. Naturally ga may be an error for nig-ga, property, cf. Poebel, ibid., No. 24, 26.

page 511 note 3 VS . viii, 127 (formerly published by Meissner) = Schorr, Altbabylonische Rechtsurkunden, No. 8. It is dated in the 14th year of Hammurabi.

page 511 note 4 Schorr, No . 9. Ungnad-Kohler, Hammurabi's Gesetz, 19, 20, 22, 23.

page 512 note 1 II Raw . 9b, 60, has a false translation ana marûti-šu iṭ-ru-šu (for ilḳi-šu). On the other hand, the phrases for ejecting a son from his heritage is given in this same text, Col. ii, 14 = RA. 14, 14, nam-dumu-a-ni-ta ib-ta-an-sar = ana (error for ina) marúti-šu iṭrusu, “ he expelled him from sonship.” Ibid., 16, nam-apil-a-ni-ta ib-ta-an-zi = ana (error for ina) aplûti-šu issuḫ-šu, “ he ejected him from heirship.”

page 512 note 2 Poebel, No . 24, 5 f. Cf. 28, 4 ; 23, 22, abbreviated to nam-ibila-ni šû ba-an-da-ri-a.

page 512 note 3 sa is for saģ a variant of suģ = nasāḫu .

page 512 note 4 Genouillac, Inventaire, 5276, rev . 5.

page 512 note 5 Poebel, No . 24, 18–20.

page 513 note 1 There are traces of a small sign on the tablet before ad, as we are bound to expect . This section represents a variant of lines 30–3, and proves that this code is a compilation of laws which are not altogether consistent with each other.

page 513 note 2 This paragraph was edited by the writer in the Journal of the Society of Oriental Research, vol . iii, 82–3.

page 513 note 3 é-gi, “to confine in a house,” is connected with the word é-gí-a=kallatu, bride, and refers to the custom of confining a newly married couple to the house for a short period after marriage . This custom is referred to in the Code of Hammurabi, § 176 ištuinnemdu, “after they had dwelled together.” See, for a full discussion of this custom, p. 82 of JSOR., vol. iii.

page 513 note 4 The phrase is pregnant here and clearly refers to an illegitimate honeymoon or bridal confinement . Literally, “ he confined her to a house.”

page 513 note 5 Text zu .

page 513 note 6 Or DU (?) .

page 513 note 7 Sign ṢAB ! It is possible that ka-ar-ab is a precative verbal prefix in the 1st person for ga-ra-ab (verily I will …) .

page 514 note 1 Literally, “ one who confines oxen .” The Semitic law § 262 probably had nāḳidu.

page 514 note 2 Or en, e nphatic ending ? gab-ri ri-ri = maḫāru miḫra, to present a substitute Cf . gab-ri [ ]. = miḫra muḫur, CT. 19, 42, 23, and for ri = maḫāru see AO. 3930, Obv. 12, and RA. 10, 77, 8.

page 514 note 3 iriab ; see the Code of Hammurabi § 219 and above, Sumerian law, § 4, line 13 .