mirrored file at http://SaturnianCosmology.Org/ 
For complete access to all the files of this collection
	see http://SaturnianCosmology.org/search.php 
==========================================================

Dan King

Prof Emberling

12/5/02

Race/Ethnicity of Ancient Mesopotamia

In middle school I was taught that the Code of Hammurabi was the first
body of law made by human civilization, so this paper is dedicated to
Mrs. Manzone for her skills in oversimplification.  It is interesting
to imagine that the land of today's Iraq, southeastern Turkey and
eastern Syria comprise what a region which once held the world's
earliest civilization.  Mesopotamia, or land "between rivers" was
truly ancient; the history of the region dates back to the first
discovered archeological findings in the region, 12,000 years ago,
becoming increasingly complex when systems of writing develop and
people merge into cities about 5,000 years ago.  These two
developments - urbanization and writing - were precursors for the
advent of law, the development of which will be covered from its
precursors of Urukagina at the end of the Early Dynastic III period,
to Hammurabi in the middle of the First Dynasty of Babylon.  The
development of law is shown by the increasing complexity of law
documents, each influenced by or embellishments of its predecessors,
reflecting a dynamic and evolving Mesopotamian society.

In any society, some system of law, is necessary to settle disputes
within the community over matters of definition or interpretation, or
to enforce obligation and responsibility.  As societies become more
advanced they require more extensive codes of laws to legislate an
increasing range of disputes.  The city is a feature of a socially and
politically advanced community, in which there exists a large matrix
of interaction between competing groups.  Therefore, there is a
correlation between the appearance of cities and the need for a more
advanced law system.  Evolving over centuries, Mesopotamian law
started from mere "reforms" to what many scholars consider to be a
codified law system.   The evolution of law was slow and complemented
the development of an increasingly urban demographic structure.

The cities of Mesopotamia developed from smaller settlements.  The
earliest known society was a community established around 7000BC at
Jericho.  This settlement was quite primitive; it lacked city walls
and predated the use of pottery.  It is not until the 4^th millennium
BC that cities begin to emerge.  A city in the context of ancient
Mesopotamia is defined as "a settlement that serves as a center for
smaller settlements, one that possesses one or more shrines of one or
more major deities, has extensive granaries, and finally, displays an
advanced stage of specialization in the crafts" (Britannica, 865).
Using this definition, the earliest cities of the land were Eridu,
Uruk, Nippur and Kish.  As centuries past, settlements grew more
numerous and populated so that "by 2900BC, there may have been as many
as 50 substantial urban complexes in southern Mesopotamia, of which a
dozen could be considered city states" (Saggs, 128).  This period is
considered to be the first Early Dynastic period.  The settlement of
Uruk at 3500BC is perhaps the best example of advanced settlement
during the EDI period, as its Anu and Eanna sanctuaries, use of
technology (metals and the wheel), use of cylinder seals and invention
of writing demonstrate the development of the city (Saggs, 129).  The
trend toward urbanization continued and accelerated as EDI continued.
Eventually, these "urban settlements" increased in size and density
from the late Uruk period into EDIII, so that by 2500BC, 80% of the
population of Mesopotamia resided in cities larger than 40ha (Kuhrt,
31).  The next major accomplishment of Mesopotamian society involved
centralization and unification of these competing cities and later,
city-states.

During the late Uruk period, as urbanization occurred, early writing
also made its appearance into Mesopotamian cities.  The Sumerians are
given credit for inventing cuneiform - a writing system of "wedges"
and "heads" - which represent words or syllables.  The earliest
tablets are inventories of goods and simple records of transactions.
In fact, "90% of cuneiform documents recovered are receipts or
transactions of property" (Saggs, 176).  This shows that writing was
invented not as a method to record laws, nor as a way for a ruler to
record his achievements, but as an effective aid for an administration
that was expanding its scope of operations.

As Mesopotamia grew in complexity, however, writing became a more
integral part of the community, and made its way into the sector of
private law.  For instance, during the EDIII period, there are many
records of property exchange, the division of inherence and land-sale
contracts which appear in sizeable numbers during the type of
Lipid-Ishtar (Bottero 80).  Writing eventually pervaded many aspects
of life and gave rise to a sophisticated bureaucracy, one that could
maintain effective rule by backing its edicts in written precedent.

Until relatively recently, the oldest collection of laws of ancient
Mesopotamia was that of the diorite stele discovered at Susa in 1901.
However, additional excavations which have revealed several more law
documents have supported the notion that law evolved slowly during the
500 year period from Urukagina's reforms, to Hammurabi's codes.

Mesopotamian societies had a respect for the rule of law, but formal
law codes did not manifest until the first dynasty of Hammurabi, or
perhaps later.  This is not to say that law did not exist earlier than
the second millennium; in fact, land-sale transactions existed as a
function of law at the end of the Uruk period when "it was generally
recognized that a property transaction without written record was not
valid and to alter such a document was a heinous offense" (Saggs
176).  It is very apparent, nevertheless, that the reforms presented
at the end of EDIII are infantile ancestors to even the Ur 3 period,
in which every city-state had a written collection of laws.  By
convention, the terms "law code", "codes", and "laws" are used
interchangeably in discussion, and do not imply a formal system of law
or that these laws were applied directly as legislation.  Several
examples of law documents will be examined, each within its societal
context, with evidence of legal influence and development duly noted.

Urukagina's reform codes written ca. 2400BC are hardly any
type of constitution, but they can be considered a precursor to later
codes.  Understanding the political context of Urukagina's reign will
clarify the function of his reforms.  Urukagina, king of Lagash,
assumed the throne during a period of lucrative prosperity - a
prosperity supported by heavy taxation and tribute demand from Sumer
and most of Akkad.  The ruling officials and priests of the state
(ugula and lugulabi appear to be two ruling classes) were quite
corrupt and kept a large portion of the tribute income for their own
affairs, thereby taking advantage of the commoner (sublugal and
iginudu - laborers) (Sayce, 182).

Of great importance in terms of legal evolution, these reforms reflect
the first example of what was to become the standard role for a king -
the righter of social wrongs and defender of the weak.  His social
reforms promised to protect the weak from the strong, "Uruinimgina
(Urukagina) solemnly promised Ningirsu that he would never subject the
waif and the widow to the powerful" (Kuhrt, 39).  Also, he prevented
forced sale of house lots or of farm animals. Uruk also initiated
social reforms.  For instance, he outlawed dyandry, a practice thought
to antedate polyandry - a practice perhaps part of ancient Sumerian
culture.  Urukagina's reforms were mostly economic.  For instance, he
abolished taxes on marriage, and extra taxes that benefited both him
and the priests.  The texts also chided misappropriation of temple
lands for the uses of the palace.  Mesopotamian rulers attributed the
origin of law to Gods and Urukagina was no exception, professing an
oath to Ningirsu to reform his society, though this text.  The reforms
of Urukagina do not resemble an enforced set of laws by any means, but
they are precursors to a long series of legal development.

The next law documents succeeding Urukagina's reforms on
record were written during the Third Dynasty of Ur, a period 300 years
after EDIII.  It is logical to assume that this large time gap
doubtless had other texts that were either destroyed or not yet found
since the texts from Ur 3 are markedly more advanced than those from
Urukagina.  The hiatus includes the Agade dynasty, a period which
witnessed unification and centralization of Mesopotamia.

Something deserves to be said about this "series" of laws that cover
the period from Ur-Nammu's to Hammurabi's documents.  Unlike the
reforms of Urukagina 300 years prior, the code of Ur-Nammu, and the
following codes of Lipit-Ishtar, Eshnunna, and Hammurabi have many
things in common.  In terms of format of the documents, nearly all
have a main body of laws surrounded by a prologue and epilogue.  Most
that do not contain a prologue or epilogue contained such sections,
but are now damaged to render them illegible or effaced.  Also, the
laws are in protasis, apodosis clauses, in "If A (assumption) than B
(consequence)" format.  In terms of audience, the following series of
codes dedicates an increasing number of laws settling disputes among
members of different social classes, signifying that later "codes" are
closer to the nature of law familiar to us today.  This does not imply
that Ur-Nammu's codes, or any of the codes discussed were adhered to
as a strict form of a law; simply it is impossible to determine
definitively whether or not this was the case.  Nevertheless, in terms
of three central themes presented in the codes - justice,
responsibility, and repercussions - it is evident than these themes
signify the intent to manage a very complex society in an efficient
and harmonious manner.  The establishment of justice and
responsibility of the king is a focus of the prologues, while
responsibilities of the people and repercussions for negligence or
restitution for physical harm are major themes in the laws.

During the time of Ur-Nammu and Shulgi (2112-2047BC), the
first kings of Third Dynasty of Ur, a highly centralized political
foundation centered at the city of Ur was established.  Defeating
Lagash, Ur-Nammu for the second time in history united the city-states
of Sumer and Akkad, the city-states of southern and northern
Mesopotamia.  Ur-Nammu's son, Shulgi, took the throne following
Ur-Nammu, during which he maintained internal stability and initiated
governmental reorganization and standardization of written records
(Bottero, 64).  Writing was much more prevalent during this period as
shown by a wealth of Sumerian literature in the forms of hymns,
prayers, and epics.  Besides the literature, tens of thousands of
documents written during this period have been excavated.  The large
majority of these documents are administrative records, reflecting a
strong system of bureaucracy.

There is some discrepancy as to who deserves credit for writing and
initiating this code.  According to one scholar, these codes were
promulgated during Shulgi's reign. Not all of the historical events
recounted in the prologue can be placed within the reign of Ur-Nammu
(Roth, 14).  Still, however, many scholars and indeed most texts
attribute the codes to Ur-Nammu, as it will be attributed to Ur-Nammu
here as well by convention.  Regardless of who deserves credit for
initiating these codes, it should be noted that they exemplify the
first of a series of increasingly more complex system of regulations
and standardizations.

The code of Ur-Nammu is a collection of verdicts mostly
ascribing to the pattern of protasis and apodosis.  Only the prologue
and about 40 laws were recovered, followed by an illegible break,
which probably held an epilogue.

In nearly all early law texts, the prologue justifies the appointment
of the ruler as either hereditary or by divine intervention, and from
his protection of the kingdom or power over other cities.  Then the
king in effect swears an oath to carrying out his responsibilities -
namely to establish justice and protect his people.  Ur-Nammu's
prologue is a good example of this type of prologue.  His appointment
is attributed to the gods An and Enlil, who make it his responsibility
to establish justice and truth (A i 75-86).  Slightly later in the
text, Ur-Nannu swears "by the true command of the god Utu, I
established justice in the land" (A iii 104-113).  The concept of
justice, or the literal transliteration, "the straight thing", was an
accepted responsibility of the king.  While the "justice" established
may have been primarily economic, such as a remission of debts (Saggs
177), or standardization of weights and measures (A iii 135 - iv 149)
some codes present justice as a respect for life, such as "I did not
deliver the orphan to the rich. I did not deliver the widow to the
mighty" (A iv 162).  The theme of protecting the weak is embellished
throughout the next three lines, perhaps influenced if not borrowed
from Urukagina's protection of the weak from the powerful.

The  classes of people, or audience, in Ur-Nammu's codes are the free
person (lu), which includes the wife (dam), first-ranking wife
(nitadam), native-born woman (dumu-gi), widow (nu-ma-su), young man
(gurus) and slaves (arad and geme) (Roth,14).  The audience of the
codes is directed to many more groups than were the reforms of
Urukagina, dealing specifically with varying stipulations depending on
interacting groups.  For instance, repercussions vary on whether a
male slave marries a female slave or a native woman.  Even so, later
texts delineate social classes in a more detailed manner.

As mentioned, two themes discussed in the laws of these texts are
responsibilities of the citizens and repercussions.  One societal
institution seemingly supported by law is marriage.  The
responsibility to hold on to a wife is enforced by assigning monetary
punishment for divorce.  Other responsibilities noted are those of the
slave, to stay within the confines of the city, and of the slave
master to reward a capturer for slave retrieval.  In addition workers
required to keep watch of their river dykes so that "if a man floods
another man's field, he shall measure and deliver 720 silas of grain
per 100 sars of field" (B v 2-7).  Other repercussions are for
physical injury from cutting off the foot, cutting off the nose,
shattering the bone, to direct murder.  The responsibilities and
repercussions listed are attempts to keep the citizens in check, and
set the ground rules to maintain a stable community.  They are in no
way exhaustive; in fact they are primitive - however in covering major
areas of dispute, they set the foundation for future, more extensive
and encompassing laws.

The next example of law document is that of Lipit-Ishtar, fifth ruler
of the First Dynasty of Isin in 1930BC, chronologically halfway
between Ur-Nannu and Hammurabi.  During his rule, the city of Isin was
politically and militarily dominant and a major cultural center as
well (Roth, 23).

The codes themselves consist of a prologue and epilogue, and
approximately 40 laws.  The format is the same as Ur-Nammu's codes,
protasis followed by apodosis.  As in Ur-Nammu's text, the prologue is
used by the ruler as justification for rule and promise for
protection.  He announces his appointment by An and Enlil, who
appointed him to establish "justice in the land...[and to] eradicate
enmity" (i 20-37).  He fulfils this responsibility by freeing those
"who were subjugated by the yoke" (ii 1-15).  He claims rule over a
few cities including Ur, Eridu, Isin, and Nippur, a political tactic
used more extensively by later texts.  Lastly, Lipit-Ishtar promises
protection by working "to eradicate enmity and armed violence, to
bring well-being to the lands of Sumer and Akkad" (i.20-37).

The epilogue of the codes is similar to the prologue, once again
reasserting the importance of justice in the land, of ridding the land
of violence, and of protecting the citizens.  A major difference
between the epilogue and prologue in this codes (as well as later
codes) is that considerable time is spent in the epilogue praising
future rulers who continue the display of the stele, and curse of any
ruler who defaces or takes credit for his laws.  As he states, "he who
will not do anything evil to it...may he be granted life and breath of
long days; may he raise his neck to heaven..." (xxi 36-48), promising
a long life and afterlife, while "he who does anything evil to
it...may he be completely obliterated" (xxi 49-60).  In this way and
in no small words Lipit-Ishtar tried to sustain his codes probably as
a political tool to further his future reputation, so that he could
always be remembered as the king who established justice.

The audience of Lipit-Ishtar's laws is more encompassing than in
Ur-Nammu's laws.  Those discussed are the free person (lu), including
the child (dumu) or native son (dumugi), three categories of priestess
(naditu, qadistu, ugbabtu), the wife (dam), and first ranking wife
(nitadam), as well as male/female slave (arad/geme) and palace
dependent (miqtu).  The increased number of classifications would
signify that the laws could be applied to a greater portion of
society, and thus seem more like a law code than like a ruler's
edicts.

The laws section of Lipit-Ishtar's codes use primarily the
examples of property loan, marriage and inheritance as matters of
responsibility, and animal damage and negligence as reasons for
repercussions.   Many of the clauses are similar to those in
Ur-Nammu's codes, but use more complex examples, or resolve more
complicated problems.  For example, while three clauses are dedicated
to divorce in Ur-Nammu's text, 12 Lipit-Ishtar's codes discuss
marriage, divorce, dowry, or inheritance of children.  In Ur-Nammu's
codes, property responsibility is discussed (to protect the river
dykes), but Lipit-Ishtar's codes deal with more complex estate
disputes - such as leasing orchards, or boats, or crop land - and the
repercussions for being negligent in farming the land, or growing
apples.  For example, one clause states, "If a man gives another man
fallow land for the purpose of planting an orchard but he does not
complete the planting of the orchard, they shall give the fallow land
which he neglected to one who is willing to plant the orchard as his
share" (C xv 3-7...).  This clause establishes the importance of
responsibility by threatening consequences to those who are
irresponsible.  Repercussions are also given if leased animals are
returned with damaged body parts.    Punishments are prorated
depending on damage to the animal, ranging from tail destruction to
blindness.  Like in Ur-Nammu's codes, the responsibilities and
repercussions given here are aimed at creating a harmonious society.

Before passing to Eshnunna's codes, it would be worthwhile
to mention that three codes are introduced between 2000-1700BC, the
Laws of X, Laws about Rented Oxen, and the Sumerian Law Handbook of
Forms.  The Laws of X deal primarily with economic justice, the
standardization of fees.  The Laws about Rented Oxen deal with
punishments for damaged oxen, a more comprehensive view than is
covered in Lipit-Ishtar's laws.  Lastly, the Sumerian Law Handbook of
Forms is a collection of contracts and responsibilities, such as
maintaining the "common wall".  Many of the laws in these documents
are not complete but are useful for understanding the literary context
that later laws (Eshnunna, Hammurabi) are framed around.  It is
valuable to see these three laws as a continuation of written
responsibility and attempt at standardizing fees to create a working
society.

The next example of law document is that written by
Eshnunna and is the oldest laws yet known which were written in
Akkadian (the previous were written in Sumerian).  The date of
composition of these laws is under some discrepancy.  Using linguistic
analysis, the laws are determined to be between one and two centuries
before Hammurabi (Saggs, 181), however a fragmentary date formula
written with the codes seems to reveal that the laws were written only
a few decades before Hammurabi's reign (Roth, 57).

The laws of Eshnunna contain 60 full laws but lack both
prologue and epilogue.  The format of the laws are not just
apodosis/protasis, but also the relative formulation (such as "A man
who...") and the apodictic statement, such as ("A merchant...will not
accept") (Roth, 58).

The audience of the laws is even more extensive than in
the case of Lipit-Ishtar's, including free person (awilu), including
men and women (mar awilim and marat awilim), wife (assatu), child
(maru), male/female slave (wardu and amtu, and ekallu), including
merchant (tamkaru), female innkeeper (sabitu), and addition social
classes not yet determined (ubaru, naptaru, mudu).  The large number
of social classifications discussed in the laws signifies greater
widespread applicability across Mesopotamian society.

The laws of Eshnunna are more extensive than any of the
laws to precede them, covering economic measures, and many other
aspects of society in greater detail than were covered in previous
texts.  For example, while previous codes deal with marriage and
divorce, these codes also spend a good deal of time on fosterage of
children after divorce, and on the dependent classes.  In terms of
economic clauses, the Laws of Eshnunna appear to borrow from Laws of X
in terms of fees to be paid.  For instance, Laws of X, states "if a
man purchases on sar of a ...house its price is <damaged>" (rev 3'
3'-4') while Laws of Eshnunna states "600 silas of barley can be
purchased for 1 shekel of silver, 3 silas of fine oil-for 1 shekel of
silver..." (A i 8-17).

In terms of citizen responsibility and repercussions, the
laws of Eshnunna include embellished versions of some edicts of former
law collections and other clauses as well.  For instance, the
importance of maintaining one's river dyke is affirmed so that "if a
wall is buckling and the ward authorities so notify the owner of the
wall but he does not reinforce his wall and the wall collapses and
thus causes the death of a member of the awilu class, it is a capital
case" (A iv 25-28).  Although river dykes were mentioned in the laws
of Ur-Nammu and Lipit-Ishtar, the codes of Eshnunna makes it clear
that maintenance is a serious responsibility.  Another example of
responsibility in these laws are that of the guard.  For "if a guard
is negligent in guarding a house and a burglar breaks into the house,
they shall kill that guard of the house" (A iv 33-37).  This clause
supports the responsibility of the guard, and repercussions for
negligence - a recurring theme in these codes.

Lastly, repercussions are assigned and highly delineated for a number
of physical attacks.  In detail not yet witnessed in a law code,
specific monetary punishments are listed for biting the nose,
destroying an eye, an ear, foot, hand, finger, collarbone, or slapping
the face, cutting the finger, or knocking down another man.  If this
weren't enough, "if a man should inflict any other injuries on another
man in the course of a fray, he shall weight and deliver 10 shekels of
silver" demonstrates that physical attack was an issue in Mesopotamian
society and repercussions such as these were designed (or adopted) by
the rulers to discourage fighting, thereby settling disputes among
citizens.

The last and by far most comprehensive law code is that of
Hammurabi in the 18^th century BC, the sixth ruler of the first
dynasty of Babylon.  These laws are the best organized and the most
important for our understanding of Mesopotamian law.  The history of
this dynasty is somewhat nebulous since almost no materials have been
excavated during this period due to the high water-table.  As a
consequence, nearly all that can be learned during this period is
gathered indirectly from texts written in other cities, or from later
periods.  Two valuable pieces of information from Babylon can be
gathered from these sources - that the Amorite-ruled Babylon tried to
establish political hegemony and eliminate competition from
neighboring cities, and a general history of the region given by
year-names.  Consequently, Hammurabi's second year is entitled "year
in which Hammurabi established justice in the land."  Hammurabi's
codes are an extension of previous codes in many respects.

The format of Hammurabi's code is a lengthy prologue, an
epilogue and an extensive law section comprising about 300 clauses.
The prologue of the codes reads exactly as it would be expected if one
considers these codes as an extension of previous codes.  Again the
leader professes his role as guardian of the people, protector of the
weak, attributes his reign to the Gods, and announces the cities over
which he rules.  The listing of the cities is a perfect example of how
Hammurabi's codes can be viewed as an embellishment of previous codes,
such as Ur-Nammu's.  Hammurabi lists the cities- Nippur, Eabzu,
Marduk, Egishnugal, Sippar, Larsa, Uruk, Isin, Kish, Kutu, Borsippa,
Dilbat, Kesh, Lagash, Girsu, Zabala, Karkara, Adab, Mashkanshapir,
Malgium, Dagan, Ishtar, Assur, Nineveh - as a symbolic political
tactic to show how powerful and united his empire is.  Hammurabi's
promises to protect his cities and "abolish the wicked and the evil"
(i 27-49) echo loudly from earlier manifestations of this same
philosophy, such as Lipit-Ishtar's promise to eliminate enmity. The
epilogue too stresses how he has fulfilled his responsibility as a
ruler not to be "careless or negligent toward mankind" (xlvii 9-58).
He then goes on to praise future rulers who uphold his laws and then
spends an unimaginable amount of stele space, much more than had been
used in Ur-Nammu's or in Lipit-Ishtar's codes, cursing any ruler who
disobeys his edicts.

The audience of Hammurabi's codes involves even more
classes than did the codes of Eshnunna, but the power of Hammurabi's
codes is the ability to organize the main classes of citizens into
awilum, muskenum and wardum.   This organization is made possible due
to the numerous clauses of interclass interaction present in the
codes.  Avilum were citizens who owned land and were independent from
both the palace and temple for their survival, while muskenum were
people who worked on property given to them by the king, and wardum
were slaves (Brittanica, 875).

While it is clear that Hammurabi did not try to resolve
every possible legal problem, Hammurabi's codes are the most extensive
written up to this period in Mesopotamian history.  The laws cover so
many topics, topics that can loosely be organized into the following
categories - administration of justice, offenses against property,
land and houses, merchants and agents, women, marriage, family
property, inheritance, assault, personal injury, professional fees and
responsibilities, agriculture, rates of hire and ownership of slaves
(Saggs 186).  The Laws of Hammurabi include all of the previous
categories of all rulers from Ur-Nammu to Eshnunna.  In this way, it
is an amalgamation of resolutions generated through the centuries,
combined into a great law code.

The laws of Hammurabi can be compared to previous codes
using the same guidelines - responsibility of the citizen and
repercussions.  Although there are myriad laws that do not fall
directly into either category, the categories are sufficient in
showing how these codes are an extension of previous ones.  For
example, in terms of responsibility and negligence, the loaning of a
field or orchard is covered in both Lipit-Ishtar's code and in
Hammurabi's.  In the former, the case is quite clear; if one loans
someone your field, it must be harvested or the leaser must relinquish
his claims to the land.  In Hammurabi's code, seven clauses cover
cases all dealing with negligence to the land, for instance one clause
deals with one year lease of land, another deals with a three-year
term lease, two deal with destruction of leased land by storm (xiii
6-80).  Another area of responsibility and negligence deals with
maintenance of the river dykes, a problem discussed in Ur-Nammu,
Lipit-Ishtar and Eshnunna.  Hammurabi's codes deals with the offense
of a damaged river dyke in four clauses dealing not only with
negligence in maintaining the wall, but also with intentional misuse
for personal benefit.  The responsibility of maintaining an effective
dyke is covered in each clause by a different punishment assigned
depending on the degree of damage.

Regarding punishment, some of the repercussions offered in previous
texts are reiterated nearly verbatim in the Laws of Hammurabi.  For
example the clause, "If a man rents an ox and blinds its eye, he shall
give silver equal to half of its value to the owner of the ox" (xliv
22-27).  Following the same theme of complexity, the codes go on to
mention several different scenarios regarding the injury of different
parts of the ox, with different punishments given to the owner.

Repercussions in Hammurabi's codes differ from previous codes in one
major respect - the use of lex talionis, the principle of "eye for an
eye".  The clause that has made this phrase known occurs in the middle
of the codes, "if an awilu should blind the eye of another awilu, they
shall blind his eye" (xi 45-9).  The next many clauses all deal with
this talion notion. This standard provides for severe penalties.  In
addition, other punishments mentioned are death by drowning, burning,
impaling and execution with weapons.  Why would a law code supposedly
more advanced use a practice of law seemingly more barbaric to handle
disputes?  One possible explanation offered is that "this severity,
which so contrasts with Sumerian judicial tradition, can be traced
back to the Amorite influence" (Britannica, 875).  This argument is
founded on the assumption that Sumerians and Akkadians were culturally
very distinct, and that lex talonis was well founded in Akkadian
rule.

A major area of debate focuses on the function of the Laws
of Hammurabi.  Any type of detailed analysis of this topic is well
beyond the scope of this essay, but as an oversimplification, it
suffices to say that evidence for and against the use of codes as a
practical guide to solving societal conflict is inconclusive.  In the
epilogue, Hammurabi called his laws dinat misarim which translates to
"verdicts of the just order".  He purports their purpose to be a legal
aid for people in search of just advice, and tells "any oppressed man
who has a case go before the statue of myself, the King of Justice,
read my inscribed stele and heed my precious words; let my stele
clarify his case to him, so that he may see his rights"(Kuhrt, 219).
Most certainly there was political motivation to creating such laws,
to demonstrate superiority and control, but to what extent the laws
served a practical purpose is too speculative to derive an
incontrovertible theory.

Although the Laws of Hammurabi were once thought to be the oldest code
of laws in existence, it is now clear that legal theory was developing
in the region hundreds of years prior.  The history of legal
development of ancient Mesopotamia is described by increasingly more
complex legal codes developed through direct, or indirect influence of
other legal predecessors.  Certainly impressive is the extent that
legal theory was sophisticated nearly four thousand years ago, and
flourished so early in the time scale of human civilization.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bottero, Jean.  The Near East:  The Early Civilizations.  New York:
Delacarte Press,

1967.

Brinkman, J. A. Mesopotamian Chronology Of The Historical Period.
Chicago:  The

University Of Chicago Press, 1964.

Kuhrt, Amélie.  The Ancient Near East c. 3000-300BC.  London:
Routledge Publishing,

1995

Lansing, Elizabeth.  The Sumerians.  New York:  McGraw-Hill Book
Company, 1971.

Oppenheim, A. Lee.  Ancient Mesopotamia.  Chicago:  The University Of
Chicago Press,

1964.

Richardson, M. E. J.  Hammurabi's Laws.  England:  Sheffield Academic
Press, 2000.

Roth, Martha.  Law Collections From Mesopotamia And Asia Minor.
Atlanta: Scholars

Press.

Saggs, H.  The Greatness That Was Babylon.  London:  Sidgwick &
Jackson, 1988.

Sayce, Archibald.  Babylonians And Assyrians.  New York:  Charles
Schribner's Sons,

1899.

"The History Of Ancient Mesopotamia."  Encyclopedia Britannica, 2001.

Yoffee, Norman.  "Context And Authoirty In Early Mesopotamian Law."
In State 

Formation And Political Legitimacy, ed. J. Toland and R. Cohen, pp.
95-113