586 CODE OF HAMMURABI
CODE OF HAMMURABI
were copied by T. G. Pinches. Professor Scheil, in various numbers of the Recweil de Travaux, and more fully in Une Saison de Fouilles a Sippar (Cairo, 1902), has added many more contemporary documents (quoted as S). Dr. Pinches published a few in his Babylonian Tablets in the possession of Sir H. Peck, Bart. (London, 1888). Strassmaier had published a large collection of tablets, found by W. K. Loftus at Tell Sifr, in the Verhandlungen des V internationalen Orientalisten Congresses (Berlin, 1882) (quoted as B). Dr. Meissner in his ‘Das altbabylonische Privatrecht’ published the text of many more, chiefly from the collection brought home by E. A. W. Budge, and registered in the British Museum as Bu. 88-5-12 (quoted here as B!), and the collection of J. Simon in the Berlin Museum (quoted as V.A.Th. The collection made by Dr. Budge, registered in the British Museum as Bu. 91-5-9, is quoted as B?). Dr. E. Lind] in his article ‘Die Datenliste der ersten Dynastie von Babylon’ (Beitriige zur Assyriologie, iv. pp. 338-402), Dr. G. Nagel in ‘ Die Briefe Ham- murabi’s an Sinidinnam’ (Bettrdge zur Assyrio- logie, iv. pp. 434-483), with remarks by Professor Delitzsch (pp. 483-500), Dr. Mary W. Montgomery’s Briefe aus der Zeit des babylonischen Kénigs Ham- murabi (A. Pries, Leipzig), Dr. S. Daiches, Al¢- babylonische Rechtsurkunden aus der Zeit der Hammurabi-Dynastie (Hinrichs, Leipzig), all deal with the same period.
Important studies of the proper names of this period have been made by Hommel in Ancient Hebrew Tradition, and Ranke in Die Personen- namen in den Urkunden der Hammurabidynastie (Franz, Munich, 1902). Other literature is quoted in these works. T. G. Pinches’ Old Testament in the light of the Historical Records of Assyria and Babylonia (S.P.C.K., London) is a mine of in- formation for the period. The second edition has a fresh translation of the Code.
Tt will be seen from the above that we are ex- ceptionally well informed about the times of the First Dynasty of Babylon. These very numerous documents illustrate by actual practical examples the working of Hammurabi’s laws. They furnish innumerable parallels for the rare words and ex- pressions,
2. According to the Babylonian King-Lists A and B (see Rogers, Hist. Bab. Assyrs Pp. el2t.); Hammurabi was the sixth king of the First Dynasty of Babylon, being son of Sin-muballit, grandson of Apil-Sin, great-grandson of Zabum, who was son of Suma-lailu and grandson (?) of Sumu-abi, founder of the Dynasty. In the Susa inscription (col. iv. ll. 68-70) the king names himself ‘ Hammurabi, son of Sin-muballit, descend- ant of Sumu-lailu.? There can therefore be no possible doubt as to his identity. His son Samsu- una calls Sumu-lailu the ‘fifth father of my father’ (King, iii. p. 205). A later king (King, i. p. 208), Ammiditana, calls himself ‘descendant of Sumu-lailu,’ so that it seems as if the family traced back descent only as far as Sumu-lailu. The King-Lists also do not say that Sumu-lailu was son of the founder Sumu-abi.
3. The nationality of the First Dynasty has been much discussed, and is of considerable im- portance in determining the origin of the Code itself ; as, if the Dynasty was foreign, the Code may reflect non-Babylonian influence. There is no doubt that the names of the kings, except Apil-Sin and Sin-muballit, are not of the usual Babylonian type; though Jensen (Zeitschrift fiir Assyriologie, x. p. 342) maintains that they are. They, and other names of this period, exhibit many peculiarities: such as Samsu instead of the usual Babylonian Samas; the enigmatic Same perhaps for Swmu ; imperfects like iamlik in place
‘from present materials.
of the Babylonian imlik; strange words like zaduga, ditana, ammi (if not a Divine name), zimrt, besides strange gods like Elali, Wadd, ‘Anat. But scholars are greatly divided as to the nation- ality indicated by such names. Hommel, Sayce, A. Jeremias, and Ranke favour Arabian, especially in its old forms as preserved in Minzan and Sabeean inscriptions. Winckler and Delitzsch call these names West Semitic or North Semitic, as belonging to the group of Canaanite dialects— Pheenician, Moabite, Hebrew, Aramean. —S. A. Cook, after reviewing opinions, wisely says that we know too little of the earlier history of the languages of Arabia and Canaan. We may con- . tent ourselves with saying that these people were a freshly arrived Semitic race who retained, in Babylonia, names and words which they brought from a former home. In the 7th cent. B.c. the Harran census (Assyriologische Bibliothek, xvii.) shows many of these peculiarities in names borne by the serfs under Assyrian rule. They may, then, belong to a race recently transplanted by Assyrian conquests, or, if indigenous, may point to a nationality descended from those who raised the First Dynasty to empire. So far as cuneiform sources go, we find most affinity with the names of Canaanites in the time of the Tel el-Amarna tablets. But this distinctly foreign influence appears not only in names. ‘The Code shows it in such words as szttin for ‘ two-thirds.’
4. The name Hammurabi has long been well known. In vol. i. of Rawlinson’s Cuneiform In- scriptions of Western Asia, 1861 (p. 4, Nos. 1, 2, 3), three inscriptions of his were published. Inscrip- tions in the Louvre were given by Oppert in 1863 in his Expédition scientifique en Mesopotamie. The Babylonian scribes of a later period regarded the name as foreign, for they drew up a list of the names of the kings who reigned ‘after the Flood,’ with their explanations of those names. Some of the names are Sumerian, or Kassite; but among them is Hammurabi, whose name is translated Kimtarapastum. Another is Ammizaduga, whose name is translated Kimtwm-kittum. Hence they regarded hammu as the same word as ammi, and equivalent to kimtw, ‘family.’ The variants of Hammurabi’s name, such as Ammi-rabi, Ammu- rapi (late Assyrian), Hammum-rabi, ete., show that they were partly right (King, iii. p. Ixv, note 4). But it is doubtful if they were right in rendering it kimtum. Ammu or Hammu may well be the name of a god. In compounds like Sumu-hammu, Jasdi-hammu, Zimri-hammu, it can hardly mean ‘family,’ unless this was deified. The element radi is so very common in Baby- lonian that we can hardly be wrong in rendering it ‘is great.’ The name is like Sin-rabi, Samas- rabi, and may well mean ‘Ammu is great.’ The adjective rapastu, applied to the feminine kim#u, is ‘wide’ or ‘great’ also; and in that the old grammarians were right.