Hammurabi

The meaning of the name Hammurabi is a matter of debate. The most common translation is, in Amorite or Akkadian, “the ancestor is great,” Ḫammu-rabi, divided in two parts: ḫammu(m) or ‘ammu, meaning “ancestor,” and rabi, meaning “great” or “to be great.” An alternative reading, in Amorite, translates the name as “the ancestor heals,” ‘Ammu-rāpi. M. Streck, for his part, translates ‘ammu as “paternal uncle,” which he interprets as a reference to a protective deity.

This name was borne by kings contemporary with Hammurabi, the most important being Hammurabi I of Yamhad (Aleppo), as well as by other Amorite kings of Syria who reigned subsequently. It was common among the Amorites for a man holding the rank of chieftain to bear a name referring to his ancestors, as connection to a lineage and dynastic continuity were essential to his legitimacy.

Several factors combine to make reconstructing the chronology of Hammurabi’s reign an approximate endeavor. The dates given in the rest of this article are established by convention but are clearly inaccurate; the question is to what extent they are so.

Babylonian sources indicate that Hammurabi reigned for 43 years. The dating system used at the time was based on year names: each year was named after a significant event that had taken place during the previous year, typically a religious act (work on a temple, the offering of a divine throne, etc.), a military victory, or the digging of a canal. The new name for the year was chosen at the end of each year.

Year names of Hammurabi’s reign are all known, which makes it possible to reconstruct the major events of his reign and place them in chronological order relative to one another.

Ancient texts also make it possible to synchronize Hammurabi’s reign with those of other contemporary rulers well-documented by sources: his accession occurred while Rim-Sin of Larsa and Samsi-Addu of Ekallatum and Upper Mesopotamia were in power, and the reign of Zimri-Lim of Mari took place during Hammurabi’s reign. This makes it possible to establish a relative chronology of his reign, although such synchronizations are often approximate.

Establishing an absolute chronology—that is, assigning dates to Hammurabi's reign within the conventional system of year-based dating (BC)—is an even more complex matter. Several dating systems have been proposed, "chronologies" that place Hammurabi's reign at different points in time within a span of nearly two centuries, ranging from the mid-19th to the mid-17th century BC. The most commonly used system, favored both out of habit and because it is generally considered the most accurate, is the "Middle" chronology; this places the reign in the middle of that range, from 1792 to 1750 BC (or, according to a proposed revision, from 1784 to 1742 BC). Under the "high" or "long" chronology, which has few remaining proponents, the reign is placed about half a century earlier, whereas under the "ultra-low" chronology, the most widely advocated alternative since the late 1990s, Hammurabi's reign would have occurred approximately a century after the conventionally accepted date.

Hammurabi’s reign occurred at a pivotal moment in Mesopotamian history. Since the fall of the powerful empire of the Third Dynasty of Ur (or Ur III) in 2004 BC, Mesopotamia had been divided among several kingdoms ruled by Amorite dynasties. In the south, the most powerful were first Isin, then Larsa, which attempted to carry on the tradition of the kings of Ur, but without imposing their hegemony.

Babylon was then merely a secondary city, situated away from the major centers and lacking a notable history, where an Amorite dynasty took root around 1880 with the accession of Sumu-la-El (1880–1845). He succeeded in carving out a kingdom that dominated several important neighboring cities (Borsippa, Kish, Kutha, Dilbat, Marad, Sippar). His successors consolidated the kingdom and thus emerged as increasingly serious rivals to Larsa.

Hammurabi succeeded his father, Sin-muballit, to the throne in 1792 BC. Larsa was in a position of strength during the early part of the long reign of Rim-Sin (1822-1763 BC), who succeeded in annexing the kingdoms of Isin and Uruk. Babylon was his most threatening direct rival for hegemony over southern Mesopotamia. In addition to this southern rival, Babylon had to contend on its northeastern border with the expansionist ambitions of the kingdom of Eshnunna, whose center was located in the Diyala River Valley. On the other hand, it enjoyed good relations with the strongman of northern Mesopotamia and rival of Eshnunna, Samsi-Addu (or Shamshi-Adad; 1815-1775 BC), a member of the same Amorite clan as the kings of Babylon. After spending some time as a refugee in Babylon following a period of unrest, he settled in the city of Ekallatum, on the Tigris, and within a few years established a powerful kingdom that historians refer to as the “Kingdom of Upper Mesopotamia.” As its name suggests, it dominated the entire northern part of Mesopotamia, notably incorporating the city of Assur and overshadowing the kings of the Khabur region; then, in 1792 BC, the powerful kingdom of Mari.

Hammurabi's date of birth is unknown, as is the age at which he ascended the throne. Given the length of his reign (43 years), he may have been very young at the time, although it is also possible that he was already in his twenties or even thirties.

The first two decades of his reign are poorly documented. Hammurabi's date of birth is unknown, as is the age at which he ascended the throne. The names given to the early years of his reign primarily refer to public works and offerings to deities. His seventh year commemorates a military victory, the capture of Isin and Uruk, territories held by Larsa, but this was clearly a short-lived raid, as both cities remained under Larsean control. His tenth year commemorates a victory over Malgium, located east of Babylon, with the support of Samsi-Addu and the king of Eshnunna; but that city remained independent.

The death of Samsi-Addu in 1775 BC was followed by the rapid disintegration of his kingdom and a struggle for dominance in Northern Mesopotamia. This competition primarily involved Eshnunna and the new king of Mari, Zimri-Lim, with whom Hammurabi ultimately formed an alliance.

It is from this point on that the letters unearthed at Mari provide a relatively detailed account of international relations, including those of Babylon. The kingdom of Elam, whose heartland lies in the southwest of present-day Iran (notably at Susa), and which controlled major trade routes crossing the Iranian Plateau and the Zagros Mountains, decided to expand into the Mesopotamian plain. It sought to attack the first kingdom in its path, Eshnunna, and easily secured the support of various kingdoms hostile to Eshnunna, foremost among them Babylon and Mari. Elam attacked and subjugated the kingdom of Eshnunna. It established its rule over a significant portion of the Mesopotamian plain for the first time. But Elam did not wish to stop there, which ultimately led to war against Babylon, Mari, and several other kingdoms in southern and northern Mesopotamia, as well as Syria, which formed a coalition to stop it. The Elamites then played a double game, in order to sow discord between Rim-Sin of Larsa and Hammurabi of Babylon, just as these two eternal rivals were trying to reconcile. But the two kings uncovered the ruse, and ultimately formed an alliance, though the latter contributed little to nothing to the coalition. The Elamites, who were threatening the northern part of the Babylonian kingdom, were eventually repelled with great difficulty, thanks to the support of troops from Mari and other kingdoms of northern Mesopotamia.

Bolstered by this triumph and his alliance with Mari, Hammurabi adopted a more ambitious stance. In the wake of the withdrawal of the Elamite troops from Eshnunna, he sought to bring that kingdom under his control. A letter from Mari indicates that he then had the option of either simply annexing the kingdom outright or installing a member of the local royal family as a puppet ruler (with the approval of the king of Mari). But the elites of Eshnunna made the unexpected choice to enthrone a section chief—that is, a mere commoner—named Silli-Sin. This led to a year of difficult negotiations between Babylon and Eshnunna to conclude a peace agreement.

At the same time, Hammurabi launched a lightning war against him with the help of Zimri-Lim of Mari, citing Rim-Sin’s meager support provided against Elam and his alleged attacks by his troops on his territory, and also taking advantage of the weakening of his kingdom. He annexed his kingdom in 1763 BC. He thus gained control of the entire lower Mesopotamian plain. This was a major turning point in the history of the period, as Hammurabi succeeded where many kings had failed before him for more than two centuries. The fall of the Kingdom of Larsa is recounted in several letters from Mari soldiers addressed to their king, including this one, written as the final assault was imminent and then carried out:

Regarding the besieged city of Larsa, I have already written to my lord: “All the refugees who now fall into our hands say, ‘There is no more grain in the city,’” when in fact there is grain, but without their knowledge. Instead of grain, they are receiving straw, bran, and chaff… […] After the arrival of reinforcements, the Babylonian troops entered [Larsa] and seized the walls. This morning, all the men entered. As for Rim-Sin, they brought him out alive.

Continuing his expansion, Hammurabi turned his attention northward. He had resolved to form an alliance with Eshnunna immediately after his victory over Larsa, and one of his daughters had married its king Silli-Sin. However, shortly thereafter, he won a victory over Eshnunna, commemorated by the name given to his 32nd regnal year, which indicates that other neighboring entities (Shubartum and Gutium) were also defeated. The exact circumstances that triggered this conflict remain unknown, as does the fate of the defeated kingdom.

He then went to war against the region’s other major power, his former ally Zimri-Lim of Mari. The rift between the two appears to have occurred rapidly, due to Hammurabi’s ambitions in the Jebel Sinjar region, which was under Mari’s influence. As a result, Zimri-Lim does not appear to have supported him in his conflict against Eshnunna; on the contrary, he seemed to favor his adversary. The course of the conflict is not documented, but the outcome is clear: Mari was captured and then destroyed between 1761 BC and 1759 BC. Malgium suffered a similar fate during those same years.

This led to the end of the Mari archives, and the military history for the remainder of Hammurabi's reign is poorly documented. The king's year names provide insight into the events deemed most significant by the Babylonian chancery during the final decade of Hammurabi's reign. Part of the name for the 33rd year (which primarily refers to the digging of a long canal in the southern part of the kingdom) recounts Hammurabi's new military successes:

The year: Hammu-rabi, the king, […] restored Sumer and Akkad which had been scattered; overthrew in battle the army of Mari and Malgium; subjugated Mari and its villages and the many cities (of the mountain land) of Subartu, (Ekallatum, (all of) Burunda and the land of Zalmaqum on the bank of the Tigris up to the Euphrates); and caused <them> to dwell at his command in friendship.

Hammurabi subsequently consolidated his hold on the north, where he defeated a coalition of kings, including those of Shubartum, Turukkum, and Gutium (Year Name 37), and then deported people from the conquered lands. In the process, he established his rule over the city of Assur. The name of Year 39 commemorates another victory in Shubartum.

According to D. Charpin, the last major potential rival in his neighborhood that had remained independent, Eshnunna, already greatly weakened, appears to have suffered destruction due to floods (mentioned in the name of the year 38) and a shift in the course of the Diyala River, which led to its abandonment. During those years, Hammurabi primarily commemorated several major construction projects, some of which may have been intended to prevent flooding.

Within a few years, Hammurabi had thus succeeded in uniting Mesopotamia under his rule. One can therefore speak of an “empire”.

The prologue to the Code of Hammurabi, dated to the end of Hammurabi’s reign, includes a list of major cities under Babylonian control at that time, which is often used to illustrate the extent of the kingdom after this ruler’s forty-year reign. Its logic is largely religious, as it first lists city-deity pairs arranged according to a politico-theological objective: first, the deities who bestowed kingship—Enlil of Nippur, Ea of Eridu, and Marduk of Babylon; then the celestial deities Sîn of Ur, Shamash of Sippar and Larsa, An and Ishtar of Uruk. The rest follow a more geographical order: cities of central Babylonia (Isin, Kish, Kutha, Borsippa, Dilbat, Kesh), then cities along the Tigris (Lagash-Girsu, Zabalam, Karkar, Adab, Mashkan-shapir, Malgium), and finally the major cities of northern Mesopotamia that Hammurabi conquered toward the end of his reign, namely Mari, Tuttul, Eshnunna, Akkad, Assur, and Nineveh.

Hammurabi died around 1750 BC, in the forty-third year of his reign. His son Samsu-iluna succeeded him. One text allows us to date the change of reign fairly precisely within the Babylonian calendar, on the tenth day of the fifth month of the year.

It appears that Hammurabi died of illness, or perhaps of old age, following a period during which he was physically weakened, beginning in his fortieth year of reign. R. Pientka-Hinz has suggested interpreting the commemorative works associated with his 40th year, carried out at the sanctuary of Nergal, god of the Underworld, as an indication that he was already ill at that time and that, sensing his end was near, he wished to curry favor with the lord of the afterlife, who would soon welcome him.

A letter from his son Samsu-iluna addressed to the governor of Sippar and dated to the final moments of his reign seems to indicate that Hammurabi was seriously ill at that time and that his death was imminent, but a break in the tablet prevents the sentence from being fully reconstructed. In any case, his son appears to have been ruling the kingdom at that time (perhaps as regent) and preparing for his own accession to the throne by remitting debts owed to servants of the crown, soldiers, and private citizens (muškēnum), measures typically taken upon the ascension of a new monarch. He also summoned the governor and the Elders, local political authorities, from his province to the capital.

Hammurabi's family is very poorly known.

None of his wives are documented, but based on the customs of his time, he must have had at least one (or even two) principal wife(s), secondary wives, and numerous concubines, with a harem, which was enlarged, notably following his military conquests.

One of Hammurabi's sisters is known: Iltani, who became a nun (nadītum) devoted to the god Shamash at Sippar, a common practice among royal families of the time, serving to strengthen the bonds between kings and the gods. None of his brothers are known, but a text from Larsa seems to mention an unnamed "daughter of the king's brother," therefore a niece of a brother, perhaps who became a priestess of the god Shamash in that city. From known examples in other kingdoms of his time, the sovereign's brothers were often involved at the highest level in the affairs of the kingdom.

Two of his sons are attested in the archives of Mari: Sumu-ditana (the eldest son?) and Mutu-Numaha, whose names referred to ancestors of his dynasty. They were both sent to Mari for a time as part of educational journeys, which appear to have been a custom at the time. They may also have served as hostages when the king of Mari was lending troops to Babylon. The son destined to succeed Hammurabi, Samsu-iluna, is not attested during his reign. It is not known whether he is the eldest of the siblings, as he was to proclaim in one of his own royal inscriptions.

Among his daughters, at least one in turn becomes a nun devoted to Shamash, perhaps called Lamassani, and another is married to the king Silli-Sin of Eshnunna.

Toward the end of his reign, the prologue to the Code of Hammurabi extols the greatness of the ruler, who had reached the height of his glory following his great conquests. It notably encompasses the two aspects of Mesopotamian royal legitimacy: divine election, particularly through references to the deities who bestow sovereignty (Enlil, Marduk, Ishtar); and descent from a royal dynasty, through reference to the founder of Hammurabi’s dynasty, Sumu-la-El (1880–1845), and to his father and immediate predecessor, Sin-muballit (1812–1793 BC)..

I am Hammurabi, the shepherd, selected by the god Enlil, he who heaps abundance and plenty, who perfects every possible thing for the city Nippur, (the city known as) bond-of-heaven-and-earth, the pious provider of the Ekur temple; [...]

the onslaught of the four regions of the world, who magnifies the reputation of the city Babylon, who gladdens the heart of his divine lord Marduk, whose days are devoted to the Esagil temple; [...]

the pious one, who prays ceaselessly for the great gods, scion of Sumu-la-El, mighty heir of Sin-muballit, eternal seed of royalty, mighty king, solar disk of the city of Babylon, who spreads light over the lands of Sumer and Akkad, king who makes the four regions obedient, favored of the goddess Ishtar, am I.

The official inscriptions celebrating Hammurabi emphasize his personal qualities—that he was a “strong king,” an “accomplished king,” and a “hero.” Hammurabi’s titles refer more simply to his status, which grew increasingly imposing as his conquests progressed: he was initially defined simply as “king of Babylon,” and after the conquest of Larsa and his assumption of control over all of southern Mesopotamia, he adopted the prestigious title of “king of the lands of Sumer and Akkad,” which had been borne by the kings of the Third Dynasty of Ur. After the conquest of Mari, he added “king of the entire Amorite land” to his titles, and by the end of his reign he was “king of the four regions/quarters” of the world—that is, he claimed universal dominion.

Hammurabi even attained a form of divinization following the conquest of the Kingdom of Larsa and the incorporation of the ancient land of Sumer, where the tradition of divine kingship was more deeply rooted than in the region of Babylon. The king's name is sometimes written in cuneiform preceded by the sign indicating divine nature, and an inscription defines him as the "god of his land," while also noting his obedience and devotion to the great gods.

Several hymns in Sumerian, or in both Sumerian and Akkadian, focus on Hammurabi, singing the king's praises. They often take the form of hymns addressed to a deity (Enki, Asarluhi, Inanna) that conclude with a prayer for the king's well-being.

The subjects of the kingdom were expected to offer prayers and gifts to the gods and goddess so as to secure their protection and favor for the king, or, according to the established formula, “for his life.” This was, therefore, a way of demonstrating allegiance to the king. Votive objects were also offered to the gods by the subjects of Babylon on behalf of their king: the Worshipper of Larsa, a statue bearing an inscription requesting the intercession of the god Amurrum on behalf of Hammurabi, as well as in a fragment of a sculpture likely from Sippar, which invokes the goddess Ashratum (Amurrum’s wife).

In principle, the king resides in a "palace" (ekallum), a term denoting not only the building itself but also the royal institution and its estates. While Hammurabi certainly had a palace in Babylon (which was not uncovered during excavations of the city), he also resided in other cities within his kingdom where he maintained provincial palaces, notably in the vicinity of Babylon (Sippar, Borsippa, Kish), and, following the conquest of Larsa, in the former royal palaces of the Amorite dynasties of Sumer (Larsa, Uruk, Isin). A palace of Hammurabi has been identified by an inscription at the site of Tell Muhammad (near Baghdad), within the territories seized from Eshnunna.

Hammurabi governed while surrounded by figures akin to "ministers." While each held a specific portfolio, they could also, depending on the king's will, carry out distinct, ad hoc assignments as needed. The Mari letters reveal two of Hammurabi's key ministers who held the title of šukkallum (often translated as "vizier"): Erra-nada and Sin-bel-aplim, the latter being specifically responsible for receiving foreign embassies. He also had private secretaries, responsible for his correspondence, who were privy to the highest levels of state secrets; letters from Mari identify Sin-iddinam (who later became governor of Larsa; see below) and Marduk-nasir as holders of this position. Other high-ranking figures with less clearly defined roles are attested in texts as belonging to Hammurabi's inner circle.

Seals also provide a valuable source for understanding the Babylonian administration: a cylinder seal and several cylinder seal impressions found on tablets bear inscriptions identifying individuals who describe themselves as "servant of Hammurabi," a designation generally interpreted as indicating that they were palace officials.

In any case, it appears that personal ties to the king were the primary factor in the selection of the ruling elite. The king made decisions with the support of a council, literally the "secret" (pirištum). He admitted whomever he chose to this body and could therefore alter its composition at will. A letter from Mari reveals that, during the war against Elam, Hammurabi brought three high-ranking officials who had served Ishme-Dagan of Ekallatum (son of Samsi-Addu) into his council; these men sidelined officials originally from Babylon and held the privilege of learning the results of oracular consultations.

Another essential characteristic of the Mesopotamian royal office that Hammurabi undertook was large-scale public works projects, which involved both the countryside and the cities.

The digging of canals for irrigation and transportation frequently appears in the regnal years of the kings of the Amorite period, and Hammurabi was no exception. Thus, the 33rd year of his reign commemorates the completion of a canal named in his honor, “Hammurabi (brings) abundance to the people” (in Akkadian Ḫammu-rabi nuḫuš nishī):

The year: Hammu-rabi, the king, dug the canal “Hammu-rabi (brings) abundance to the people, the beloved of (An) and Enlil”; provided perennial water of abundance for Nippur, Eridu, Ur, Larsa, Uruk and Isin; […]

This construction should be viewed in the context of the various projects undertaken in the territories of the former kingdom of Larsa following its conquest. As the canal’s name suggests, in royal ideology this reflects the ability of a good ruler to ensure the prosperity of his people. Two other year names, several commemorative inscriptions, and the prologue to the Code of Hammurabi mention similar undertakings.

Mesopotamian rulers also frequently undertook the construction or repair of city walls, thereby ensuring the protection of the people. Several of Hammurabi’s inscriptions refer to the reconstruction of the city walls of Sippar, which is also the subject of the name of the year Hammurabi 23. Once again, the structure bears a name in honor of the king, "By the decree of the god Shamash, may Hammurabi have no rival," invoking the protection granted to him by the local god.

Hammurabi's administrative actions are primarily documented by a corpus of over 200 letters found at Larsa that he addressed to subordinates stationed in the city. Their exact provenance is unknown, as they come from illicit excavations carried out in the early 20th century.

Following the conquest of the kingdom in 1764/63 BC, its royal domain was incorporated into Hammurabi's, and its resources were subsequently redirected to Babylon at the sovereign's behest.. However, there appear to have been no significant land confiscations at that time; landholders generally remained the same as before. The province of the city of Larsa was entrusted to a certain Sin-iddinam, who oversaw the transition from Larsa's control to Babylonian rule, specifically by enforcing Babylonian law in place of the traditional law of the region. The approximately one hundred letters addressed to him by Hammurabi cover a variety of subjects: the management of the irrigation system and military troops, tax collection, the organization of corvée labor and the workforce, the shipment of goods and animals to Babylon, various legal matters, and even police activities. For instance, in the following letter, Hammurabi asks him to handle a case of corruption:

Shumman-la-ilum told me this: “A case of bribery occurred in Bad-tibira. There are men who took bribes and witnesses who know about it.” That is what he told me. I am sending you Shumman-la-ilum with a mounted messenger and a soldier. As soon as you read this tablet, investigate the matter. If there was indeed bribery, put a seal on the silver and all that was taken as bribes, and send it to me. Also send me the men who took the bribes and the witnesses who know about it, whom Shumman-la-ilum will identify.

The other primary recipient of the letters from Hammurabi discovered at Larsa was Shamash-hazir, the "head of the land registry" and administrator of palace estates in the Larsa region. The letters addressed to him deal primarily with the allocation of service lands (ilkum), which were granted to individuals in exchange for services rendered to the crown (military, crafts, etc.). These allocations frequently gave rise to disputes, as the lands were often appropriated by unauthorized parties, necessitating field investigations conducted by Shamash-hazir himself.

Correspondence sent by Hammurabi to his administrators reveals that the king often involved himself personally and directly in provincial affairs. He was frequently petitioned by his subjects regarding legal disputes and issues concerning land allocation, and he would order his subordinates to investigate and report back to him in detail. It mattered little to him whether the matter was significant or not.

The annexation of Larsa also appears to have had a significant cultural impact on the Kingdom of Babylon, resulting from the integration of members of the former kingdom's educated elite, particularly those versed in Sumerian texts. This is notably evident in royal inscriptions, which were composed in Sumerian following the conquest of Larsa, whereas they had previously been in Akkadian. This influx appears to have profoundly influenced the political and religious ideology, literature, religious practice, and statecraft of the Babylonian kingdom, which had previously held a somewhat secondary cultural position.

As the chosen one of the gods, Hammurabi must also ensure that the worship of the gods proceeds smoothly; in turn, they guaranteed the prosperity of his kingdom. Consequently, the construction or restoration of sanctuaries features prominently in commemorative texts.

The ideal Mesopotamian king's role is to administer justice and protect the weak against the powerful. In the case of Hammurabi, this is eloquently illustrated in his famous Code of Hammurabi. The top of the stele depicts the king facing the sun god Shamash, the deity of justice, who inspires the judgments he passes and which are recorded on the stele. The monarch is presented in the stele's epilogue as a recourse against injustices, including those arising from the routine administration of justice. Several laws of the Code of Hammurabi deal with the probity of judges, which again refers to the role of the king as guarantor of justice and protector of those subject to the law. The king is also invoked in the oaths taken during trials, alongside deities.

In practice, the king could intervene directly in the judicial life of his kingdom. The letters from Larsa thus indicate that he was involved in matters concerning the royal domain, and more generally its administration. Governor Sin-iddinam was often called upon to find witnesses and evidence so that the king could make a decision. Hammurabi intervened at the request of those involved in the case, and the matter could then be decided in different ways: either the king himself rendered the verdict; either the king issues a ruling on a point of law, which the local judges then enforce; or he refers the case back to the local judges, requesting to be kept informed of its progress. Letters from Larsa indicate that the king is not necessarily the one who passes judgments in Babylon, since in several cases this task falls to a certain Awil-Ninurta, perhaps a "minister".

The king also has a role in social justice, that is, a responsibility to ensure fairness. He is expected to put an end to situations of glaring inequality—particularly during economic crises—by issuing edicts of debt remission known as andurarum and mišarum (which appear to have primarily targeted loans for necessities, not commercial loans). Hammurabi issued one during his first year of reign (1792/1791 BCE) and commemorated this in the name of his second year of reign, “Year in which King Hammurabi established law and justice in his land.” He then promulgated another one in the land of Larsa after its conquest (1763 BC). This goal of "economic justice" is also reflected in various articles of the Code of Hammurabi, which specify prices for various types of services; these appear to correspond to the idea of a “fair price”—a threshold below which the situation was considered unjust for the person being paid.

The Code of Hammurabi derives directly from this function of the king as guardian of justice and equity. It is divided into three parts: a prologue, a set of law provisions, and an epilogue. Written towards the end of Hammurabi's reign and known primarily from a large stela on which it was inscribed (tablets also document parts of the text), its status is debated. This is certainly not the only known Mesopotamian legislative collection, nor the oldest, but it is the longest known. In many respects, especially as expressed in the prologue and epilogue, it presents itself as a commemorative inscription celebrating Hammurabi's sense of justice and intended to preserve his memory for posterity.

These are the just decisions which Hammurabi, the able king, has established and therevy has directed the land along the course of truth and the correct way of life. [...] In order that the mighty not wrong the weak, to provide just ways for the waif and the widow, I have inscribed my precious prononcements upon my stela and set it up before the statue of me, the king of justice, in the city of Babylon [...] Let any wronged man whi has a lawsuit come before the statue of me, the king of justice, and let him have my inscribed stela read aloud to him, thus may he hear my precious prononcements and let my stela reveal the lawsuit for him; may he examine his case, may he calm his (troubled) heart [...]

The "laws" are thus a manifestation of the qualities of the just king. Divided by modern historians into 282 "law provisions" (or rules), they are arranged thematically, addressing various subjects: judicial practices, infringements on property rights, agrarian structures, financial matters, family law, assault and battery, provisions concerning various professions, and the ownership of slaves.

The nature and function of these laws are debated. Many see them as a scholarly and technical exercise, carried out by scribes, certainly based on the legal practices of the time, and therefore more a description of the law and a reflection on just decisions than prescriptions on the norms to be applied. It is possible that a number of these laws were written based on cases actually judged by Hammurabi. Some specialists believe that they may have served, at the very least, as examples, as models, for those who had to administer justice. However, without conclusive proof of their application in the judgments known from other cuneiform texts of the same period, they do not go further. But others do, analyzing them as a kind of rescript, general solutions derived from particular cases, which could (should?) indeed be applied by judges.

Hammurabi's legislative action may have aimed to modify and unify the various customs existing in the territories he brought under his control, at least in certain areas of greatest concern to the monarch, since the Laws does not cover all aspects of legal life, far from it. Moreover, these objectives remain largely theoretical. In general, the purpose of the laws seems to be at least to define the practices of a written law, with sealed tablets authenticable by witnesses; to establish obligations of social responsibility on the part of the kingdom's subjects; and to define the role of local institutions in relation to individuals by more strictly regulating their actions, particularly in the administration of justice, perhaps to weaken them.