Home To Favorites Contacts Add material Found an error Down
The Code of Hammurabi Economy and Social Relations Trade The Conquest of Babylon by the Kassites
Chapter III.
Ancient Babylon Sunrise of the sun god Shamash.
An impression of the Babylonian seal
Babylon, located in the heart of Mesopotamia, where the channels of the Tigris and Euphrates converge, was at the intersection of important trade routes that went from Asia Minor and Transcaucasia to the Persian Gulf and from the Syrian coast to the plateau of Iran.
Babylon became the capital of a powerful state and turned into the largest commercial, political and cultural center of the Near East, retaining its importance for almost two millennia, which was facilitated by its favorable geographical location.
The first information about Babylon dates back to the III millennium BC, when this city was part of the great Sumerian Akkadian kingdom and bore the ancient Sumerian name Kadingir (Gate of the Gods).
At the end of the third millennium BC, numerous Semitic nomadic tribes of the Amorites penetrated into Mesopotamia, seized vast areas in the country of Akkad and created a strong state centered in Babylon.
At about the same time, the mountain tribes of the Elamites, taking advantage of the weakening of the Sumero Akkadian kingdom, invaded Mesopotamia from the east, firmly settled in Sumer, turning Larsa into one of their main strongholds.
Foreign conquerors could not peacefully divide the captured country among themselves.
A rivalry began between them and the inevitable struggle for dominance and domination in all of Mesopotamia broke out.
The winner of this struggle was the Babylonian kingdom, in which the Amorite dynasty was strengthened (1894-1595 BC).
The Babylonian Amorite kingdom reached its highest heyday under Hammurabi (1792-1750 BC), who united all the Two Rivers under his rule and formed a large and strong state.
The history of this time is well known to us thanks to a large number of preserved documents, among which a special place is occupied by an extensive code of laws, the administrative correspondence of the tsar with local officials and, finally, the most valuable diplomatic documents recently found.
Map # 1.
Mesopotamia
According to these documents, the foreign policy of Hammurabi, the Elamite rulers who were entrenched in Lars, the kings of the large state of Mari, located to the west of the Euphrates and the cities of central and northern Mesopotamia, was woven into one complex and intricate knot.
The most active foreign policy was led by Hammurabi, who set himself the goal of uniting all of Mesopotamia under his rule.
In an effort to achieve this goal, Hammurabi widely used not only his military force, but also various means of diplomacy.
Having concluded a military alliance with Zimrilim, the king of the Mari state, Hammurabi defeats his opponents separately.
At the beginning of his reign, he conquered the Sumerian cities of Isin, Uruk and Ur.
Then he strengthens his power in central Mesopotamia, having received the consent of his ally Zimrilim, who in one of his diplomatic messages gives him freedom of action in Akkad in the following words: "If the princes of Eshnunna recognize you, then rule as king over the country of Eshnunna.
And if they do not recognize you, then plant... who is with you, so that he will reign over them."
Statue of Ibih idi from Mari.
Paris.
The Louvre
Hammurabi is engaged in a persistent and prolonged struggle with his long time rival, the Elamite ruler Rimsin, who has established himself in Lars.
In the 31st year of his reign," with the help of the gods Anu and Enlil, he crushed the country of Emutbal and King Rimsin, " forcing Rimsin to flee and annexing Sumer to his kingdom.
Relying on the military assistance of King Mari, Hammurabi subordinates the regions of northern Mesopotamia to his power.
Then, having fortified himself in Mesopotamia, he turns his weapons against his recent ally, the state of Mari, and after two devastating raids, in the 33rd and 35th years of his reign, he destroys and captures the capital of this once powerful and rich kingdom.
Some documents of this time indicate the existence of diplomatic relations between Babylon and the northern Syrian state of Ugarit, whose capital was recently thoroughly excavated.
So, in one document of this time it says: "Tell Zimrilim (King Mari) this: So says Hammurabi, your brother: "A man of Ugarit has just written to me the following:?
Show me the residence of Zimrilim.
Do I want to see her?“.
Now, with this very courier, I'll give you a pic It was the code of laws of King Hamurabi.
inscribed in archaic cuneiform script on a basalt pillar.
This remarkable monument of ancient Babylonian writing was found by the French scientist de Morgan in Susa in 1901.
The upper part of the pillar depicts King Hammurabi standing in a solemn pose before the sun god Shamash, sitting on a throne.
The rest of the column is covered with a cuneiform text containing 247 articles of the judicial code.
Five columns containing 35 articles were scraped, apparently, by the Elamite conqueror, who took this monument as a trophy to Susa.
This omission in the text can be restored thanks to the found copies of the codex, which the ancient Babylonian scribes and judges used for training purposes, as well as in judicial practice.
Hammurabi before the god Shamash.
Relief on a pillar with a code of laws.
Paris.
The Louvre
The Code of Hammurabi is a further development and codification of ancient Sumerian laws that had a strong influence on Babylonian legislation.
The judicial code of Hammurabi is not much more systematic than the collections of Sumerian judicial decisions, and there is already a clear sense of the legislator's attempt to group related articles of the law into groups, but it still cannot be recognized as a code in the full sense of the word and is rather a set of individual legal decisions (casual law).
The judicial code consists of three parts: 1. Introduction, 2.
The actual sudebnik, 3.
Conclusion.
The introduction indicates that the publication of the Code of Laws is aimed at establishing justice in the country.
Then the king lists his titles, glorifies his greatness, notes the benefits he has rendered to the country.
The middle, main part of the judicial book contains a list of articles concerning criminal law, legal proceedings, property rights (theft and robbery), the rights of soldiers.
Separate articles speak about the rights of ownership of real estate, about trade, mortgage law, family law, self mutilation, the work of architects and shipbuilders, the hiring of labor and slavery.
In the final part, the king lists his services to the people, calls for a blessing on the heads of those kings who will fulfill his laws, and sends terrible curses on those who will not comply with them or decide to cancel them.
The documents of the time of Hammurabi and mainly his code of laws allow us to restore a general picture of the economic life of the country.
In a large and centralized state, the state power, relying on a huge land fund concentrated in its hands, invades the economic life of the country, trying to direct its development.
Constantly feeling the need for building material, the tsar takes a number of measures to protect the forests, which were divided into separate "forest areas" and were under the jurisdiction of special "foresters" who were subordinate to the chief forester.
A document has been preserved in which the king orders to investigate the case of felling trees in forest areas entrusted to the main foresters Ablianum and Sinmagir, as well as to find out who cut down the trees: foresters or "someone else's hand" (i.e. an attacker).
Foresters were responsible for the preservation of forests.
For official crimes, they were punishable by death.
Cattle breeding was still of great importance in the economy of the Babylonian kingdom.
Vast meadows, steppes and mountain slopes were beautiful pastures, where huge herds grazed.
By regulating the rights of ownership of livestock, the legislator is especially careful to protect the interests of rich owners of herds.
According to the Code of Hammurabi, the tenant of cattle was fully responsible to the owner for the cattle he hired and was obliged to compensate the owner for losses if any damage was caused to the cattle (death, damage to the eye, horns, tail or nostrils).
This confirms the fact that a large number of herds were concentrated in the hands of individual rich people who rented cattle, obviously, to the poor.
Other articles of the law establish the responsibility of the shepherd for the cattle entrusted to him and impose heavy punishment on him in case of changing the brand and selling the stolen cattle.
There is no doubt that the legislator in these articles reflects the interests of slave owners who owned large herds of cattle.
The alluvial soil of Mesopotamia, well fertilized and irrigated by the floods of the Tigris and Euphrates, especially contributed to the development of agriculture, which retained its primary importance even in the Babylonian era.
This is figuratively indicated by the following words from a document of this time: "Donot you know —" writes the author of one letter, " that the fields are the life of the country?"
In those days, plowing was usually carried out with the help of a heavy rough plow, to which two oxen were harnessed.
Sometimes people were harnessed to the plow, which indicates the widespread use of slave labor.
The development of agriculture due to natural conditions was largely determined by artificial irrigation.
Therefore, Hammurabi pays great attention to the development of irrigation.
He is proud of the fact that he "made the country convenient for cultivation, like a granary filled with grain... gathered the scattered population into the land of Sumer and Akkad, watered and fed them, settled them in abundance and contentment."
By order of Hammurabi, the Nar Hammurabi canal was dug — " the wealth of the people, which brings abundance of water to Sumer and Akkad, turns its shores into a cultural area, piles up piles of grain and supplies constant water to the population of Sumer and Akkad."
The state power in the person of the tsar not only cares about the expansion of the irrigation network, but also about its maintenance in order.
The tsar constantly gives orders to local officials regarding the clearing of canals and the production of various works related to irrigation.
If it was the function of the state to maintain the entire irrigation network in order, then the maintenance of each individual section of it was primarily the business of the community.
This is indicated by articles 53-56 of the Hammurabi Code.
These articles establish the responsibility of each community member for maintaining this irrigation section in order, and if someone caused a break in the dam and a neighboring section was flooded, the culprit must compensate for the bread destroyed by him.
If he is unable to compensate for the bread, then according to Article 54, he and his property should be sold, turning the proceeds to compensate for the losses incurred.
A number of other documents of this time indicate the increased control carried out by the central government over the maintenance of the irrigation network.
If the royal palace received information that there was a shortage of water for irrigation in a particular area, then an appropriate order was immediately sent from the palace to the local official about taking the necessary measures to provide these fields with water.
Tenants who rented plots of royal land had to be provided with water for irrigation of the land.
In the event that there was a shortage of water for irrigation of these leased fields, local officials had to either take measures to irrigate these fields, or replace the unpowered field with an irrigated one.
This is indicated by numerous royal letters that assign financial responsibility to local officials for the normal irrigation of all leased lands.
In case of crop failure due to poor irrigation, the local official had to pay for the tenant the arrears of his rent.
Along with grain farming and cattle breeding, gardening is also widely used.
No wonder ancient Mesopotamia seemed to be a blooming garden, and it was here that the legend of the Garden of Paradise arose, in which beautiful fruit trees grow.
The state, which has protected the interests of land owners, takes it upon itself to protect the interests of the owners of garden plots as well.
According to one article of the Hammurabi Code, a fairly high fine was imposed for illegal cutting of a tree in someone else's garden: half a min in silver (about 240 grams).
The favorable geographical position of Babylon contributed to a fairly significant development of trade.
Unfortunately, there are few references in the Hammurabi code to those items that were the main objects of trade.
However, one can think that agricultural products were especially widely exported from the Babylonian kingdom, as from an agrarian country.
Thus, in article 104, bread, wool and butter are listed as goods, and in article 237, dates are also added to these agricultural products.
Trade in Babylonia took various forms.
Along with the large wholesale trade, there was also a small, retail trade.
Small traders, receiving loans or goods from the big rich or from the temple, conducted trading operations at their own risk.
The legislator, who protects the interests of the owners of the rich, and in this case took a number of measures to ensure that a large wholesale trader has a high profit established by law.
According to article 101, the person who took a loan from a large merchant was obliged to return the money taken in double the amount, even if he did not make a profit.
The only reason that exempted the borrower from returning the loan was military actions (Article 103).
Trade transactions for agricultural products were made in special markets where prices for goods were set, as can be seen from the documents providing for the return of the value of the borrowed grain "at the exchange rate of the day".
Indeed, it can be seen from the documents that the cost of various products often fluctuated depending on the general economic conditions, as well as on the time of year.
Thus, in the reign of Singashid of Uruk, " 3 gur of grain, or 12 min of wool, or 10 min of copper, or 30 ka of vegetable oil were sold at the price of the country for 1 shekel of silver."
Thus, silver was valued 600 times more expensive than copper, 720 times more expensive than wool, and the cost of 2 liters of oil and it was equal to the cost of 1 kg of wool.
This relatively low cost of agricultural products in the Singashid era is obviously explained by the fact that Uruk in the era of the second Babylonian dynasty, due to some decline of Babylon, experienced a time of significant economic prosperity.
In the reign of Hammurabi, agricultural products were much more expensive than under Singashid.
For example, wool was twice as expensive, vegetable oil was three times more expensive, and grain was twice as expensive.
This high cost of living under Hammurabi may be explained by the continuous wars that Babylon was waging at that time and which were supposed to affect the economic life of the country, causing a significant increase in the prices of agricultural products.
In connection with the growth and strengthening of the Babylonian state, the foreign trade conducted by the Babylonian merchants also expanded.
So, we know that they went to foreign markets to buy and sell slaves.
In some documents, the cost of a particular product is set at the exchange rate that was at that time on a particular foreign market, for example, in Tupliash.
Babylon under the I Babylonian dynasty gradually turned into the largest trading center of the entire Near Asia.
But the economic system of Babylonia basically remains natural.
Grain plays the same role in calculations as silver.
Grain is used to pay remuneration to agricultural workers, ox drivers, shepherds, for hiring carts, oxen and donkeys, as well as salaries to royal officials and judges.
The state, which owned a huge amount of land and accumulated a lot of various products in its warehouses, was quite naturally interested in making all calculations in kind.
On the other hand, the dominance of subsistence farming is largely due to the strong preservation of the remnants of the communal system.
Small and isolated rural communities for a long time lived in conditions of primitive subsistence farming.
The development of trade and usury, especially noticeable during the heyday of the Babylonian kingdom, contributed to further social stratification within the ancient rural communities.
However, there were still remnants of the ancient tribal system, as indicated by some articles in the Hammurabi judicial book.
Thus, for incest, a special punishment was imposed — expulsion from the native area or native home (articles 154-158).
There is no doubt that in those days people were very strongly connected with their rural and family communities.
A person was connected with the collective of the community "...as closely as an individual bee with a beehive".[14]
Therefore, the forcible separation of people from the environment in which they lived and on which they were economically dependent was considered a cruel punishment at that time.
Another relic of the ancestral system was the custom of adding 1/2 shekel of silver when paying rent, and this surcharge bears the strange name "sheep of the field".
It is possible that this additional payment was made in favor of the patrons of the family - the spirits of the ancestors in the case when the property was given outside the family.
The very name "sheep of the field" indicates the antiquity of this custom, dating back to the time when cattle were used as money.
The patriarchal family still retained great importance, in which the oldest forms of hidden slavery were formed, and in this connection the oldest forms of oppression and domination arose.
The father and the husband were always considered the master in the patriarchal family, and all members of the family were obliged to obey him unconditionally.
The father and the husband had the rights of a born slave owner over all members of his family.
The custom of polygamy put the wife in a humiliated position.
According to the code of Hammurabi, for violation of marital fidelity, the wife and husband carried various punishments.
In case of infidelity of the husband, the wife could take her dowry and return to her father, but in case of infidelity of the wife, she should be thrown into the water.
The marriage contracts state that if the wife refuses her husband, the husband has the right to impose the stigma of slavery on her and sell her.
The woman had a limited right of ownership.
The widow could not fully dispose of her property freely.
The legislator tried in every possible way to keep the property in the hands of one family as much as possible.
A number of articles of the Hammurabi Code indicate that a widow had no right to alienate her property after the death of her husband, because this property was considered the inheritance of children, among whom the eldest son had the right to receive a preferential share of the inheritance.
Numerous documents of the Babylonian era indicate a number of cases of the sale of children into slavery.
Judging by some documents, there was a certain cost of such a domestic slave.
A number of documents eloquently indicate that the father and husband had unlimited rights over their family and could sell all family members into slavery.
So, in one document it is said that a certain Shamash Dayan sold all the members of his family and the slaves and female slaves belonging to him to pay his debt to the creditor.
Only at this price did he preserve his personal freedom.
The child was considered the property of the father.
According to article 14 of the Hammurabi Code, the theft of the young son of a free person was punishable by death.
These are the distinctive features of the domestic slavery that existed in the ancient East, was reflected in the documents of Babylonian history and as a primitive undeveloped slavery differed from later forms of slavery.
Contrasting this domestic Eastern slavery with the developed slavery that existed in the ancient world, Engels wrote: "Domestic slavery is a different matter in the East; here it does not directly form the basis of production, but is indirectly an integral part of the family, passing into it in an imperceptible way."[15]
Another source of slavery in this era was debt bondage.
Farmers needed land, seeds and livestock, artisans needed raw materials, and small traders needed goods.
By taking out a loan, these people assumed the obligation to pay quite significant interest, usually from 20 to 33 %.
For grain loans, 30% per annum was usually paid, and for money loans — 20 %.
The creditors were both private individuals and temples, which concentrated large wealth in their hands.
Debtors often had to guarantee the timely payment of both loans and interest with a special pledge (sometimes in the form of real estate, for example, a house) or a guarantee from a third party.
If the loan issued under the guarantee was not returned on time, then the responsibility fell on the guarantor, who had the right to enslave the insolvent debtor and even seize his family and his property, as some documents indicate.
All this contributed to the rapid ruin and enslavement of insolvent debtors.
The class contradictions between the poor, who lost their last property and were on the verge of slavery, and the rich, who formed a strong and cohesive class of slaveholders, intensified.
Obviously, in order to somewhat mitigate the acute forms of the brewing class struggle, Hammurabi, in his code, tries to protect to some extent the personality and property of the bonded debtor from excessive harassment and harassment of the creditor.
Thus, according to article 117, if the debtor gave his wife, his son or his daughter into debt bondage, the creditor had the right to keep them in his house and use their labor for no more than 3 years: in the 4th year he was obliged to release them.
Thus, the creditor could not keep the debtor's relatives as bonded for a long time and, obviously, even in the case when the debt was not repaid, he could not turn them into actual slavery.
At the same time, the legislator protected the debtor's son, taken as a pledge by the creditor, from arbitrariness and cruel treatment.
According to article 116 of the Hammurabi judicial Code, if the son of a free person, taken as a pledge by a creditor and, obviously, obliged to fulfill his father's debt, dies in the lender's house from beatings or ill treatment, then the creditor's son should be put to death.
Thus, the creditor had to suffer the same damage as he caused to his debtor by violating this law.
Finally, the code of laws prohibited the creditor from arbitrarily taking bread from the granary or pantry of his debtor in order to repay the loan.
Obviously, the legislator, trying to get rid of the ancient forms of lynching and customary law, tried to limit the arbitrariness of the rich, who often oppressed the disenfranchised poor.
It is not for nothing that the articles of this code require the preparation of legal documents fixing certain transactions, judicial review of various incidents and even establish the forms of judicial procedure.
This is reflected in the progressive nature of Hammurabi's legislation.
In an attempt to protect the arbitrariness of rich and powerful creditors, the Hammurabi Code nevertheless introduces a clause in article 115, which in some respects unties the hands of a lender who uses the forced labor of a bonded debtor.
This article says that "if the person taken as a pledge dies in the house of the person who took the pledge of natural death, then this case cannot lead to a lawsuit."
After all, we should not forget that the code of Hammurabi reflected the interests of slave owners.
The ruin of the poor, debt bondage and wars increased the number of slaves in the country.
Judging by the laws and business documents of this time, the labor of slaves in Babylonia was widely used.
It is known that the cost of a slave was low.
It was equal to the wage for an ox, i.e. 160 grams of silver.
Slaves were looked at as objects, they were sold, exchanged, given, inherited.
In slu in the case of causing physical damage to the slave and killing him, the guilty person had to compensate the owner of the slave.
A number of articles of the Hammurabi Code pursued only one goal — to protect the interests of the slave owner.
The law and the authorities punished with death the person who "took out a slave who did not belong to him" or "hid a runaway slave in the house".
The slave owner, from whom the slave escaped, could always appeal to the state authorities with a request to catch and return the fugitive slave to him.
When hiring a slave from his master, the employer had to assume financial responsibility in the event of the slave's flight.
The same thing happened when transferring a slave as a pledge.
Cruel forms of exploitation of slave labor often led to the fact that slaves ran away from their masters.
This is indicated by a number of articles of Babylonian legislation and some customs of that time.
In the case of the sale of a slave, a three day period was established to determine whether the slave being sold was a fugitive.
Especially characteristic is article 282, which establishes a punishment for a slave who did not obey his master.
According to this article, the obstinate slave should have cut off his ear.
As can be seen from the code of Hammuriyah, in Babylon there was a custom of branding slaves, and changing the brand was strictly punishable by law.
However, in Babylon, the slave owning mode of production did not reach full development.
For a long time, the surviving forms of the community continued to exist, as well as the remnants of the tribal system, which largely caused the relatively stagnant nature and slow development of social relations and the state in ancient Mesopotamia.
Some articles of the Code of Hammurabi indicate the preservation of these ancient remnants in Babylon.
So, according to article 23, if the robber was not captured, the "area" in which the robber lived had to compensate for all losses.
Consequently ,the "locality" or, rather, the community bound all its members by mutual responsibility.
Business documents of this time indicate that some lands were in family ownership, and before that they were allocated from the community land fund.
Along with this, gradually disintegrating communal land ownership in Babylonia, there was also a large royal land ownership.
The tsar looked at all the lands in the country as lands belonging to him, and considered himself entitled to alienate land plots from communities and transfer them as a royal grant to one or another dignitary.
Wars increased the land fund centralized in the hands of the state.
So, after the victory over Larsa, Hammurabi annexed the entire region of Larsa to the Babylonian kingdom, and attached the lands of the ruler of Larsa to the royal land fund, appointing a special official to manage them.
The right of the tsar to the extortionate lands also contributed to the increase of the royal land fund.
This is clearly stated in one document of that time: "This man died.
Give his field to Shamashkhasir (the ruler of the royal lands in Lars)."
Large royal land plots were exploited not only by the administration of the royal palace with the help of mainly slave labor, but also by tenants who took part of these lands for rent.
The widespread use of leases is indicated by the presence of special terms that served to denote the concepts of tenant, lease document,leased field, rent.
Areida was fixed in a special lease agreement, which was drawn up in a certain form.
This contract indicated the object of the lease, the amount of the rent or the share of the crop, the date and time of payment, the names of witnesses and the date.
The lease of land was accompanied by the performance of special rites, which indicated that this rental plot
