When and where was the Code Hammurabi promulgated?— By DAVID GORDON LYON, Professor in Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass.

I.

IF the first question were, When was the famous monument containing the code, now in the Louvre, set up? the answer would be: Not until the lapse of time enough to accomplish the numerous restorations, victories, etc., referred to in the prologue, which must have required a considerable number of years. More specifically we should have to say: Not earlier than the latest event referred to in the prologue and the epilogue to the code. Many of these events cannot yet be dated. But the unification and pacification of Babylonia described in 40 seem to have been subsequent to the victory over Elam and Emutbal, which, as we know from the important chronological tablets,' fell in the 30th and 31st years of Hammurabi's reign. But must we assume that the promulgation of the code and the setting up of this copy are contemporaneous events?

9.58

2

Two circumstances suggest a negative answer. The first is the passage in the prologue, introducing the code proper (52), a portion of which has been discussed in this Journal in a note on Pi Matim. The passage reads:

14

22

am

18

15 ilu

16

17

i-nu-ma Marduk a-na šu-te-šu-ur ni-ši matim usi-im šu-hu-zi-imu-wa-e-ra-an-ni 20 ki-it-tam " á mi-ša-rai-na pi ma-tim 23 aš-ku-un 24 ši-ir ni-ši u-ți-ib, "At the time when Marduk sent me to govern the people, to confer on the land prosperity, I established law and justice in the language of the land, I wrought the welfare of the people." This language seems natural if the promulgation of the law came

'Cuneiform Texts, vi. 9, 10; King, Letters and Inscriptions of Hammurabi, ii. 223 ff., iii. 229 ff.; Lindl, Datenliste der ersten Dynastie von Babylon in Beiträge zur Assyriologie, iv. 338 ff.

? The discoverers found part of a second copy at Susa, and there were probably copies in various cities of Hammurabi's realm.

3 xxv. 269 ff., 1904.

shortly after the king's accession, but unnatural if thirty-one years intervened.' The only escape from this conclusion is to understand the expression, at the time when Marduk sent me,' etc., as referring not to the king's accession, but to some subsequent commission by the god, e. g. to some ceremony or celebration connected with assumption of rule over a united Babylonia, an idea to which I shall return later (pp. 126-128).

The other circumstance suggesting that the code was promulgated early in the reign is the description of Hammurabi's second year (in the chronological tablets referred to above) as the "year in which he established justice in the land," i. e., it seems likely, the year in which he promulgated the code.

King translates the passage: "The year in which righteousness. . . was established]." A complete form of this date appended to a contract tablet King renders: "The year in which Hammurabi established righteousness"; and a still fuller form: "The year in which Hammurabi (established) the heart of the land in righteousness." In these varying expressions of the title of this year King sees "a reference to the reforms undertaken by Hammurabi at the beginning of his reign.”

Lindl, with a complete text of the line giving the title of Hammurabi's second year, thanks to the fragment in the Constantinople museum, renders: "Jahr da er das Wohl des Landes gefördert."

It was impossible for King and Lindl to see here a reference to the promulgation of the code, for the code had not been found when they wrote. Johns, however, with the code in his hands, understands the words, "The year in which Hammurabi established the heart of the land in righteousness," as referring not necessarily to legal, but possibly to religious reforms, and

1 We know indeed that the interval would have to be greater than 31 years, since enough of the titles of Hammurabi's 32d, 33d, and 34th years is preserved to show that the promulgation is mentioned in none of these. The 35th year, likewise, seems to be named from some building operation. Therefore if the code does not precede the 31st year, it falls not less than four years later still. Nor does it fall in the 38th year. The fragmentary state of the tablet leaves us in uncertainty regarding the remaining years, 36, 37, 39-43. I am assuming that the promulgation of the code was an event of such importance that one of the years of Hammurabi's reign must have taken its name therefrom.

99 1

decides that "the code was probably not promulgated this year. His statement that the same formula is used of Sumula-ilu seems to me far from established, a subject to which I return further on.

But even without knowledge of the code one criticism might fairly be passed on all these translations, namely their vagueness. Old Babylonian contracts were not dated from the establishment of righteousness,' nor from the Fördern des Wohls des Landes,' but from some definite event, as the king's accession, a great victory, a catastrophe, an important building operation, the cutting of a canal, etc. Though we may be obliged, therefore, to translate: 'established righteousness,' we must understand this of some one important act or achievement.

To me it seems more likely than not that the event referred to is the promulgation of the code. The two important words 'righteousness' and 'established' are expressed by those ideograms which often stand for míšaru and šakánu, and are to be read here in Babylonian by míšaram iškun, just the phrase used in the code, 5 20 23, ki-it-tam ú mi-ša-ra-am i-napi ma-tim aš-kuun, "I established law and justice in the language of the land” (=vernacular). If, as I argued in the paper on Pi Matim, this passage refers in the words kittam ú míšaram . . . aškun to the promulgation of the code, it seems not unnatural to understand míšaram . . . iškun in the title of year two as an abbreviated expression for the same idea.

2

993

"The same

We must now examine the statement of Johns : formula is used of Sumulailu,' and this writer's inference that the reform of Hammurabi's second year may have been religious rather than legal. His proof passage is the record of a suit,' brought by one Aliku (and others) to recover some real estate which he had previously sold to Takumatum, a votary

1 Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible, v. 587, No. 6.

? Journal xxv. 269 ff.

3 Hastings, v. 587, No. 6.

Bu. 91-5-9, 2177 A = Cuneiform Texts vi. 42.

Bu. 91-5-9, 318 Cuneiform Texts iv. 50. There are interesting differences in the spelling of the names in the two tablets. In the record of sale the seller is Haliku and the buyer Takunmatum and in the suit the king's name is written Sa-mu-la-ilu. This tablet is the one which settles the question of the date of Immeru, making him the contemporary of Sumula-ilu.

of Shamash, and her mother, Rabatum.

14

13

16

After stating the fact of the claim, the record says da-ya-nu i-na Bit-ilu Šamaš ar-nam i-mu-du-šu-nu-ti 15 ru-gu-me-šu-nu i-su-hu-ma waar-ki Sa-mu-la-ilu " mi-ša-ra-am iš-ku-nu 18 šum ilu Šamaš ilu Marduk "ú Sa-mu-la-ilu " IN-PA-NE-MEŠ (=itmú), i. e. "The judges in the temple of Shamash decided against them,' made their claim void, and established the right according to Samula-ilu. They [the parties to the suit] swore by the name of Shamash, Marduk, and Samula-ilu" (i. e. to accept in good faith the legal decision).

Another possible way of rendering wa-ar-ki Sa-mu-la-ilu mi-ša-ra-am iš-ku-nu is 'after Samula-ilu had established righteousness,' and so Johns apparently understands the passage. But it seems much more likely that we have here three co-ordinate sentences, each ending with a verb, i-mu-du, i-su-hu, iš-ku-nu, the second and third connected by ma, and,' all with the same subject da-ya-nu, the judges.' The expression mi-ša-ra-am iš-ku-nu would accordingly mean that the judges gave a just verdict, and wa-ar-ki" Sa-mu-la-ilu' after Samula-ilu,' would most naturally mean that this decision was rendered in accordance with a code Samula-ilu. We should have thus in the code of Samula-ilu one of the forerunners of the code of Hammurabi. We may feel quite sure that Hammurabi did not make the first attempt at codifying Babylonian law. If this interpretation be correct, the passage hardly seems to help us in deciding what míšaram iškun means in the title of Hammurabi's second year.

3

There remains a passage in the epilogue which has been referred to and must now receive attention. Here Hammurabi tells of his victories whereby he drove out the enemy, and established the land in peace and prosperity. He then proceeds :

1 On arnam emêdu, 'to decide against, lay a penalty on,' see Hammurabi Code 43 47.51.

For warki in the sense according to' see also Cuneiform Texts viii. 23, 8: wa-ar-ki şi-im-da-at šar-ri-im ‘according to the royal standard,' and cf. viii. 32, 18: ki-ma și-im-da-at šarrim; Hammurabi Code 1464 : a-na pî şi-im-da-at šar-ri-im. The three expressions warki, kima and ana pî have the same meaning.

Warki, after,' in the sense after the death of' occurs several times in the Hammurabi Code. Likewise in Cuneiform Texts viii. 7, 7 (No. 349); viii. 7, 10 (No. 2183).

3 40 9.58.

"The great gods proclaimed me [iláni rabúti ib-bu-u-nin-ni], and I am the protecting shepherd whose scepter is righteous and whose favorable shadow is cast over my city. In my bosom I bore the people of the land Shumer and Akkad. By the aid of my protecting deity I (as) her brother' took them

1 Lines 53-56 in this passage have troubled all interpreters. The reading is 53 i-na la-ma-zi-ia ↳ aḥ-hi-ša 55 i-na šu-ul-mi-im 56 at-tab-ba-al-šina-ti. The following renderings have been given: Scheil, “Par mon génie protecteur, ses frères dans la paix j'ai guidé"; Winckler, In meinem Schutz habe ich sie ihre Thätigkeit in Frieden ausüben lassen;" Harper, "Under my protection I brought their brethren into security;" Pinches, "By my protective spirit fraternally (?) have I guided them in peace."

The difficult word here is aḥ-hi-ša. Scheil ('ses frères') makes it object of attabbal. But aḥ-hi if it be the plural of aḥu, brother,' is masculine, whereas the suffix ši-na-ti being feminine, must have a feminine antecedent, viz. ni-ši in l. 50; cf. ni-ši sa-ap-ha-tim, 250. I do not understand Winckler's 'ihre Thätigkeit.' In the glossary he puts ah-hi-ša under aḥu, 'brother.' To Harper's 'Their brethren,' the same objection applies as to Scheil's 'ses frères.' Moreover, ša in aḥ-hiša is singular, and cannot mean their.' Pinches understands the word as an adverb=aḥhiš, 'like a brother, fraternally.' This seems to me at least as probable as any of the other renderings proposed. The prologue and epilogue have several adverbs in iš, as ezziš, ́ angrily ;' 'eliš, ‘above ;' arḥiš 'quickly;' dâriš, 'eternally;' kamiš, 'in a bound condition;' šalmâniš, peacefully;' šapliš, 'below;' ûmišam, 'daily.' If the word under examination belongs to the list, we should expect ah-hi-iš rather than ah-hi-ša. The only case in the list with a is ûmišam, which with ûmišamma is the regular form of the adverb from ûmu, 'day.' The form ûmiš means 'by day.'

noun.

6

In offering the rendering her brother' for âḥ-hi-ša I make the ša a suffix referring to la-ma-zi, which according to 456 4396 is a feminine The expression i-na la-ma-zi-ia aḥ-hi-ša then means by (the aid of) my protecting deity, her brother,' i. e., 'by (the aid of) the protecting deity of me, her brother.' The genitive aḥ-hi is accordingly in apposition with the genitive of the personal pronoun implied in the suffix ia. The construction thus understood is the same as in 40 76, 77 i-na ma-ḥar șalmi-ia šarri mi-ša-ri-im, ‘in front of my statue king of righteousness,' i. e., ‘in front of the statue of me, king of righteousness.' Cf. also 41 ", ".

Hammurabi thus makes himself the brother of the goddess whom he calls his lamassu, perhaps Ishtar as in 43 92-97. If this is unexpected, it is paralleled by 2 56, 57, where he styles himself ta-li-imi Za-ma-ma 'brother of the god Zamama.'

The serious objection to my interpretation is that elsewhere in this inscription the writing aḥ-hi with double h expresses the plural of aḥu,