The Law Codes of Ur-Nammu and Lipit-Ishtar:
The Evolution of Laws
Dhruv Rajput
Cultural Context of
the Old Testament/Independent Study
Dr. Green
Introduction
When discussing the ancient systems of laws, scholars are always trying to understand the evolution of ideas and their spread amongst the populations. The evolution of laws is a unique process in which the traditions of the past and/or of foreign nature begin to intertwine with the established laws culminating with a change in established laws to suit the new influences. The oldest codes of law date back to the time of Sumerian culture, the codes of Ur-Nammu and Lipit-Ishtar are amazing pieces of literature to analyze. The code of Lipit-Ishtar can be seen as an outgrowth of Ur-Nammu’s code, but the context of each code needs to be understood if there is chance to see the evolution of laws. In my study of the codes, I will discuss the notion of kingship in the ancient world, the backgrounds of the two kings, information dealing with the two codes, the notions of law, and finally the analysis of the laws. In analyzing the evolution of the laws from the time of Ur-Nammu to that of Lipit-Ishtar I would like to concentrate on the evolution of three specific groups of laws: those on slavery, family, and agriculture.
Kingship in the Ancient World
At the outset of the third
millennium, the urban landscape began to be changed with the construction of
defensive walls encircling cities. With
the massive public defense, a new class of leaders began to appear as well,
that of the Ensi. The post of the Ensi
emerges in times of crisis. As
communities grew larger disputes began to emerge, and an official was called
upon to settle these disputes (may take form of several types i.e. such as
boundary or military), and leading to a permanent establishment of an
Ensi. The Ensi was given the time frame
of a Bala, during which he was allowed to take as much time as required in order
to settle the dispute. Over time as the frequency of disputes increased the
Ensi was called upon time after time to deal with clashes. The Ensi after gaining experience working
with the communities and developing a power base amongst the people, became a
sort of ‘wise’ man. And with the
frequency of disputes, the office gradually became a permanent position. From the temporary post during time of need
to a permanent position as leader of the city is quite a shift. Once the role of Ensi became a established,
the close nexus between the populace and the cult of its patron deity ensured
that the ruler’s (Ensi) secular status was integrated with the city cult, and
ideological statements about his function are made in both heavenly and earthly
terms[1]. The earthly and heavenly interpretation of
the ruler help to explain the reason as to why an individual received the
accolade of ruling the city.
Explanations are framed in religious terms and the ruler is seen as a
mortal acting as a representative of the deity.
Rulers were localized throughout
many of the cities and the next level of conflict emerged, where cities began
to clash. When cities were embroiled in
confrontation an explanation had to be sought once again. The deities of the cities must be dragged
into the muddle, and the hierarchy of deities began to develop. Just as the religious structure of the
city-state is reflected in the internal political order, a religious parallel
is needed to express the power relationships between the different deities. Marital relations between the deities
mirrored the power alliances between states in the heavens. The divine pantheon and its ordering
reflected the secular when it came to the domination of one state by another[2].
The leap from Ensi to that of king
became a far-reaching transition. The
reasoning behind the election of an Ensi now was expressed in a more
theological manner. The election of the
Ensi was the choice of the gods, who chose an individual to become a ‘king.’
Hereafter the title of ‘lugal’ (big
man) was bestowed upon the chosen individual.
The king in Mesopotamia is not regarded as a ‘natural’ ruler, meaning
that not all things were made to conform to his will. Additionally almost any man could rise to the post of Ensi and
eventually take the position as the Lugal.
The word lugal also does not imply in any sense the validity of an
individual as the sole power across the region. The population of a city could call an Ensi a Lugal, but to other
cities this lugal is just an Ensi. The
Mesopotamians attested the institution of kingship as a gift brought down from
the heavens, by Enlil. The king was
seen as a mortal endowed with a divine burden.
The divine burden is that of two fold.
The first burden required the king to act towards his people in a proper
manner in accordance with the tradition and rituals of the community. The second side was to provide prosperity
and righteousness to the people[3].
The discussion of kingship cannot be
treated without the mention of religion.
The god Enlil (the air-god) takes center stage as we move into the
theological aspects of kingship. Enlil
is the god of human politics and the dispenser of kingship. Kings and rulers
boast that it is Enlil who has given the kingship of the land, who has made the
land prosperous for them, who gave them all the lands to conquer by his
strength. The Sumerians had a deep
veneration for Enlil. Sumerians not
only cherished the god Enlil, but all that which he represented. The Sumerians cherished goodness and truth, law
and order, justice and freedom, righteousness and straightforwardness, mercy
and compassion, and naturally hated the opposites, evil and falsehood,
lawlessness and disorder, injustice and oppression, sinfulness and perversity,
and cruelty and pitilessness[4]. Kings in their law-codes praise themselves
as establishers of law and order, protectors of the weak and helpless and the
eradicators of evil and violence. We
see these themes prevalent in the codes or Ur-Nammu and Lipit-Ishtar (something
which I will not get into in this paper, but an interesting subject matter for
another paper).
The Two Kings
Ur-Nammu
The origin of Ur-Nammu is must be seen in a greater context, that which of the Gutian domination of Sumer. The Gutian’s appear on the scene of the Near East after conquering the Dynasty of Agade. Under the Gutian dynasty, oppression was the preeminent characteristic. As the Gutians invade Babylon chaos ensued and caused an end to the dynasty of Sargon. Written accounts place the blame of the invaders on Naram-Sin for committing “a sacrilegious assault on the holy city of Nippur (the residence of Enlil),” leaving it in a state of ruin and enraging the supreme storm god of Mesopotamia Enlil. Enlil therefore visits the land with the Gutians and the curses of famine, hunger, war, and ruin[5]. From the beginning the Gutians are a race not caring for culture or domination, but for resources and loot. Gutians are destroyers and harpies of the wealth of the land. The general feeling of oppression, sorrow, and chaos can be seen through the texts of the time. In this Dark Age, a hero does emerge, Utu-khegal (also Utu-hegal) a king of Uruk. There are only a few inscriptions of Utu-khegal on record[6]. The one inscription of the two which we do have is an inscription dealing with Utu-khegal’s own hatred towards the Gutians, “Gutium, the stinging serpent of the hills, who was the enemy of the gods, who had carried off the kingship of Sumer to the mountains and filled Sumer with evil.”[7] The culmination of the two forces, the Gutians led by king Tirigan, and the Sumerians under Utu-khegal was at the battle of Ennigi. The battle is fought and the outcome is a decisive Sumerian victory. “[Utu-khegal] set his foot upon his [Tirigan’s] neck, and restored the kingship of Sumer into its own hands. The famous victory, like so many other historical incidents, was remembered in the diviners’ books. The victory was a victory in the greatest sense because it marks an end to the Gutian depletion of the land, its people, its crops, and its wealth. And end to the two centuries of subjection, first to the Akkadians and subsequently to Gutians. A burst of patriotism emerges during the new phase of Mesopotamian history and the establishment of a new Sumerian Dynasty centered upon UR as the capital.[8]
Utu-khegal was the victor, but the
Third Dynasty begins with the appointment of Ur-Nammu (2112 BCE)[9]. Ur-Nammu was not the successor at Uruk, but
at a new capital UR. Ur-Nammu is
referred to in inscriptions as the “man of UR”. He is selected to resolve a border problem for Utu-khegal between
the principalities of UR and Lagash.
Ur-Nammu eventually usurps the power of the Utu-khegal and begins to
dominate Mesopotamia from UR. The
scarcity of information leaves many questions unanswered. We have little information as to how this
dynasty of UR was won, how it was sustained, and how it was finally lost[10]. The reign of Ur-Nammu lasts between sixteen
and eighteen years. Ur-Nammu is
regarded as a great victorious leader, a great military commander, and an
administrator, not to mention his public works pinnacled by his ziggurat at
UR. He promulgates one of the earliest
law codes recorded in human history[11]. The end of Ur-Nammu is unknown, but we are
left with an inscription “he had been abandoned in the battle field like a
crushed vessel,” probably died in a battle against the Gutian remnant. The reign of Ur-Nammu is regarded as a time
of increasing power and wealth in Mesopotamia, the great public works, the
expansion of the kingdom to the inclusion of more and more city states, this
policy is expansion is heavily followed by Ur-Nammu’s son Shulgi.
Lipit-Ishtar
Relative
to Ur-Nammu (about 2112 BCE), the reign of Lipit-Ishtar begins almost two
centuries later about (1934 BCE).
Lipit-Ishtar comes to power under very different circumstances. He is the fifth ruler in the line of kings
from the city of Isin. To see the
developments of the region we need to go back to the end of the third dynasty
of Ur and the see the rise of the city-states of Isin and Larsa. In the reign of Ibbi-Sin, records points to
an external threat that of the Amorites and the Elamites. Ibbi-Sin is able to hold power, but the area
of domination begins to shrink more and more until only the city is the extent
of the dominion[12]. The Amorites and the Elamites are able to
attack and devastate the land leading to famine and hunger. Under these conditions the Ensis of
neighboring cities cut ties with the imperial authority at Ur and began to fend
for themselves. A state of disorder and
confusion ensued. With a lack of grain
and the city stricken with famine, Ibbi-Sin conscripted Ishbi-Erra for an expedition
to secure grains for Ur. Ishbi-Erra’s
correspondence back to Ibbi-Sin describes his successful venture and the
purchase of 72,000 gur of grain at the normal price of one shekel per gur. But having heard of Amorite advances,
Ishbi-Erra goes onto explain, that he is not able to march the grain to Ur,
instead he required a transport ship convoy, pleading the case that he had
enough grain to satisfy the hunger of the city. Ishbi-Erra also asks due to the urgency of the situation to have
the cities of Nippur and Isin under his guard.
Ibbi-Sin’s trust in Ishbi-Erra was his downfall, he did entrust
Ishbi-Erra with the cities Nippur and Isin and Ishbi-Erra firmly establishes
his rule in Isin. This generous gift
from the king, allowed Ishbi-Erra to head the founding of his own dynasty at Isin,
leading into the Isin-Larsa period. Ultimately,
several years later, the invading forces of the Elamites are able to sack the
city of Ur, as well as garrison the city, and the city-state of Isin begins to
dominate affairs in Mesopotamia. The
culmination of this chaotic period is the second sack of Ur in which Ishbi-Erra
is able to route the Elamite garrison at Ur and with the most important cities
in his grasp (Ur-administration, Nippur-religion, and Isin-capital), he adopts
the title of “king of Sumer and Akkad.”
The kings of Isin claimed the spotlight and attributed their power to
the inheritance and continuation of tradition from Ur. Ur still played an important role, that
mainly of commerce, but Ur lost it prior prestige, while the cities of Isin and
Larsa began the next segment of Sumerian history, that of the Isin-Larsa period[13].
Aside
from what has been stated, not much information is given in regards to
Lipit-Ishtar. Lipit-Ishtar does promulgate a law code, which is later modeled
by Hammurabi for his magnificent law code.
During the reign of Lipit-Ishtar an event of note does occur, it is the
loss of Ur to the second rising power in the region, that of Larsa. This transition sees the old power of the
Isin take the lesser role and the period of Isin domination comes to an end
under the reign of Lipit-Ishtar. The
Isin-Larsa period incidentally is the backdrop for the Old Babylonian
Empire. Which in turn brings an end to
Sumer and the history of Babylon begins[14].
Background of the Law Codes
The Ur-Nammu (2112-2095 BCE) was the
founding ruler of UR III, but most of the scholarly productions are from
centuries later between 1800 – 1700 BCE.
The clay tablet has been poorly preserved and great chucks of the text
are missing. The tablet is divided by
the ancient scribe into eight columns, four columns on each side of the
table. The prologue spells out for the
reader of the text the choice of Ur-Nammu as the representative of the god over
the area of Sumer and Ur. The new king
begins his reign by employing a monopoly of force in order to establish
boundaries for the extent of his kingdom.
The laws continue with the internal affairs of the community and the
social and moral reforms that accompany the reign of the king. The tablet had been left badly damaged and a
great deal of the content is not accounted for. The laws do illustrate that even before the time of Ur-Nammu the
laws had given way to a more humane approach to exact fines as a punishment[15].
Two centuries later, Lipit-Ishtar
honors the world with his own law code compiled during the eighteenth year of
his reign. The fragments recovered are
part of a much larger twenty-six column tablet. The code of Lipit-Ishtar is the precursor to the code of Hammurabi
and it consists of three well-defined sections: the prologue, the laws, and an
epilogue. Lipit-Ishtar begins his
prologue in the customary manner with the selection of Lipit-Ishtar as the
representative of the gods. The laws of
the code are intact only for the second half of the code, but the first half
has entirely destroyed. The epilogue is
partially understandable due to the breaks in the text, but the deeds of
Lipit-Ishtar are reiterated and curses/blessings are placed upon the people
depending on how the code is treated by the individual reading or implementing[16].
The laws take the form of casuistic
laws, where the common for is of: if X does this then Y happens. The laws of Ur-Nammu are known mainly from
the scribal schools of Nippur and Ur several centuries later than the actual
reign of Ur-Nammu. The laws are reconstructed
from two texts one from Nippur and the other from UR. The code of Lipit-Ishtar is reconstructed from seven clay
tablets. The compilation of the code is
ascribed to the reign of Lipit-Ishtar, and dated to the 11th year of
his reign. From Ur-Nammu we have 29
laws and from Lipit-Ishtar we have 38 laws.[17]
The Nature of Law
When dealing with laws of the
ancient world, a distinction has to be made, where we as modern men must
realize that the nature of law as being much different than today. As Mendenhall puts it “theology and
jurisprudence have a great deal in common.
Both impose obligations upon the individual and the community. Both have to deal with questions of fact as
well as judgment of value.” Ancient
man, as Dr Green points out, was pragmatic.
What he did not understand he deified.
All he cared for were the necessities of life: food, family, and
shelter. The laws we find in the codes
reflect these notions of necessity and survival.
Returning to the fact stated above,
ancient man was pragmatic. In context
of religions obligations, man was in the sub-ordinate position to the
deity. The system was that of mutual
aid, prayer and sacrifice in order to be bestowed favor by the gods. When a wrong was committed, it was the
community that was the target of god’s wrath.
To be pragmatic, the community had to distance itself from the
‘criminal’ and save itself from divine attack.
Laws emerge as a cautionary step to avoid misfortune to be cast on the
community. Gods acted in a manner the
people could understand (i.e. that of famine, floods, storms), hence a natural
disaster. It is here, why the storm god
is such a powerful force; he can bring forth the worst possible to the region
(rains, thunder, lightning, etc). The
ancient communities witnessed the power of the god(s) and recognized the fact
that the deity was punishing the entire community not just the individual
responsible for the wrong. The
community wanted to distance itself from the wrath of the deity as well as
distancing the community from the individual who committed the ‘criminal’
act. Over an extended period of time
the community develops for itself norms and standards that the elders of the
group agree upon to be right and wrong.
The wrongs bring forth proper punishment and are policies the community
works with. These policies are then
combined with acts and traditions to become techniques, on how to deal with
legal action. The final act is the use
of a coercive force in order to implement the technique; this use of a monopoly
of force is the law[18]. To the men of the ancient world the most
sacred institutions were those that of survival: Agriculture, Family, and
Shelter. And it's no surprise that,
these are expressed in the law codes of Ur-Nammu and Lipit-Ishtar.
In
examining the law codes of the two kings, an open mind is essential. We are dealing with ancient man, and our
minds needs to be focused on what mattered or was considered important to
him. I am using the masculine tense on
purpose, since men were the ones who were the scribes, leaders, and kings. In essence, men ruled, but this does not
mean that women were not allowed to exercise power. Once again the open mind is required to go beyond our modern
mindsets and see what life was like for ancient man as we trace back the laws
and traditions to their earliest occurrences.
The Laws of Ur-Nammu and Lipit-Ishtar
Laws on Slavery
In Mesopotamia Slavery was a feature of life. Owners of slaves could take a number of forms: the temple, palace, and estate owners. Many slaves were prisoners of war, not just foreigners but people from neighboring cities as well. Enslavement came also several sources: economic misfortune, offense, or warfare. To ease debt or payments parents could sell members of the family (children or wives) into slavery. Slaves were marked by either tonsure or more permanently by tattoos or brands in order to distinguish them from free persons[19]. The slave was the property of his master; he could be branded and severely punished if he/she attempted to escape. In the times of Ur-Nammu and Lipit-Ishtar we have several laws pertaining to slaves.
The
trend to see is the continuation of tradition.
With Ur-Nammu we see law 14:
14: if … a slave-woman [or a male slave fled from the master’s house] and crossed beyond the territory of the city, and (another) man brought her/him back, the owner of the slave shall pay to the one who brought him back two shekels of sliver.[20]
The law states
that if a slave has left his/her dominion and another man has returned the slave,
an amount of cash shall be paid the ‘good’ Samaritan. With Lipit-Ishtar we see two laws dealing with the returning of a
slave laws 12 and 13:
12: if a slaver girl or slave of a man has fled into the heart of the city and it has been confirmed that he or she dwelt in the house of another man for one month, he shall give slave for slave.
13: if he has no slave, he shall pay fifteen
shekels of silver.[21]
The laws in
Lipit-Ishtar’s code suggest a clear continuation of traditions from the time of
Ur-Nammu’s reign. It is highly doubtful
that the scribes of Lipit-Ishtar’s time did not know about past customs of
slavery and devised a completely new system of law. The use of borrowing and continuity are reasonable to
expect. In regards to law 12 If a slave
during Lipit-Ishtar’s time flees and is caught in another man’s home, that man
has the option of either replacing the slave or giving a monetary sum for the
worth of the slave in this case that of fifteen shekels. Quite a contract is seen when a slave needs
to be returned in Ur-Nammu’s time and that of Lipit-Ishtar’s. Law 21 of Ur-Nammu states:
21: … he shall surely bring. If he has no slave-woman, he must surely pay ten shekels of silver. If he has no silver, he shall pay him (with) whatever possessions he (owns).[22]
If a man cannot compensate the owner of the
slave with another slave, the owner must be reimbursed with ten shekels of
silver. Going to Lipit-Ishtar’s time we
see the same in law 13 where the owner must receive fifteen shekels. What can account for this difference of
value? Inflation? Quite possibly, but
it there something else? Again, the
context is so important. During the
time of Ur-Nammu things are beginning to get better in the region. A stable monopoly of force is establishing
its rule. Things are generally getting
better, canals are being rebuilt and a sense of calm is spreading. In the case of Ur-Nammu’s time the fee of
ten shekels must have been quite reasonable.
Since slaves were the ones who were of great value performing tasks of
agriculture and commerce. Slaves need
to be taken care of and be healthy to perform the most demanding jobs[23]. In the context of Lipit-Ishtar the times are
quite different. This is the time of
powerful cities vying for domination in the region. Isin and Larsa the two powers of the time and it is this key
reign in which a power transfer is occurring where Isin is giving way to the
city of Larsa. In this time of chaos
and struggling power structures the value of a slave increase since, it is
still the slaves doing a great deal of the hard work, but the scarcity of food
and the imminent dangers of the region place an even more emphasis on the
slaves, their lives, and their labor.
Along with the context of Isin-Larsa
we see another law from the time of Lipit-Ishtar,
14: if a man’s slave has compensated his slaveship to his master and it is confirmed the he has compensated his master twofold, that slave shall be freed.[24]
The need to have slaves as I have mentioned was even greater, so it is not surprising to see the burden put on slaves for their freedom, the 200% increase of the payment that originally put them in bondage. In order to be free, a slave had to compensate the master double of what the original price was. This drastic measure as can be guessed, is implemented in order to keep the slave in slavery. The longer the slave is with his/her master the more the master can exact from the slave. Benefiting the master as long as the slave is his to own.
Laws on Family
The basic unit of Sumerian society
was, as with us, the family, whose members were knit closely together by love,
respect, and mutual obligations. As one
of the most basic needs of humans the family is the most important aspect of
life and survival[25]. Man ultimately sought survival, no matter
what he/she wanted or aspired for in this world; one of the necessities for
survival is that of family. The family
in Sumer had its own nature. The
parents arranged marriage, and the betrothal was legally recognized as soon as
the groom presented a bridal gift to the father. A woman in Sumer had certain important legal rights: she could
hold property, engage in business, and qualify as a witness. But her husband could divorce her on
relatively tight grounds, and if she had no children, he could marry a second
wife. Children were under the absolute
authority of their parents, who could be disinherited or even sold into
slavery. But as is the case in most families, they were dearly loved and
cherished and at the parents’ death inherited all their property[26].
Life as we find out is greatly
prized. The need to have offspring was
of utmost importance, for it allowed inheritance to transfer from generation to
generation, not only that but the need for worship to the ancestral spirits was
paramount. Parental authority resided
with the father so long as he lived.
The father’s power passed to his eldest son at his death. Once the father passed away the estate had
to be divided for the heirs.
From the laws of Ur-Nammu we come to
find several laws dealing with divorce and its punishments. Now in the case of Lipit-Ishtar’s code we
come to find that not a single law comes close to dealing with divorce. Why?
What can account for the difference?
The answer lies somewhere in the dynamics of the time. We are not saying divorce is prohibited or
even dismissed of. But, in order to
understand the powers at work again we must go back to the setting of the
codes. In the times of both kings, the
center of activity is the city. With
Ur-Nammu the cities are again becoming hubs and attracting people into
them. This is also a time of Imperial
authority, where we have a single force ruling the region from Ur. With the reign of Lipit-Ishtar we have a
dominion encompassing only the city of Isin and its surrounding area. UR III represents the coming together of
peoples into one kingdom, but with the Isin-Larsa period multiple power
structures are on the horizon, the dangers of invasions and death are also
prominent. What I’m trying to get at is
that, the scribes wrote down what was important to the people of the region at
that time. Laws tended to be highly
localized. Was divorce a part of life?
Absolutely, but was it important enough to be written down? A question I am not
able to answer from the given material.
From other sources we are able to discover the more complex dynamics of
the family, but from the law codes, we can determine only what was important to
the upper class or those who were able to read and produce the codes.
Another dynamic intertwined with the
family is that of marriage. There are
two notions to deal with on this topic.
One is the act of marriage itself and the second that of inheritance. The act of marriage was of great importance
to the Sumerian society, as it is today.
It was a mixture of the necessity of procreation, the human nature to
develop a family, and the need to have male heir for ancestral worship. And in
the following paragraphs I will outline the two facets of marriage: that of
marriage itself and the intricacies of inheritance. The arrangement of marriage
is noted in Ur-Nammu’s law twelve:
12: if a prospective son-in-law entered the house of his prospective father-in-law, but his father-in-law later gave his daughter (the prospective bride) to another man he (the father-in-law) shall return to him (the rejected son-in-law) two fold the amount of bridal presents he had brought.[27]
The situation of
giving the bride to another man is described here, and the fee for such a last
minute change was exacted from the father-in-law, a specific toll of two folds
the presents. Moving along to
Lipit-Ishtar’s time we see a striking parallel to the law of Ur-Nammu.
29: if a son-in-law has entered the house of his prospective father-in-law and he made his betrothal but afterwards they made him go out of the house and gave his wife to his companion, they shall present to him the betrothal-gifts which he brought and that wife may not marry his companion.[28]
A similar law to
that of Ur-Nammu, in which the prospective son-in-law is given the bride but is
later, denied the marriage and the bride given to another. The fee in this case is that of the presents
the son-in-law brought with him. A
clear indication that practices of arranged marriages carried over time from
that of Ur-Nammu to Lipit-Ishtar. It
was customary for the groom and his family to present gifts to the bride-to-be;
these gifts formally began the wedding celebration. In Sumer these gifts (called NÍG.MÍ.ÚS.SA) consisted of
contributions of food for the wedding feast or the celebrations leading up to
it. Gifts of clothing, jewelry, and
other valuables may also be given, but these were given separately from the
food. Why then is the toll of two-fold
in the case of Ur-Nammu? There has to
be a reason for the difference. The
context of time and the value of offspring are at the center of the discussion. A clear reason can be that money was not
easy to come by, with the financial burdens on the people, money was not easily
made in the time of Lipit-Ishtar than that of Ur-Nammu. The time of Ur-Nammu was that of
prosperity. The Gutians had been dealt
with and a time of reconstruction and increased commerce saw the economy grow,
and in essence the people had more material property. Now as we get to the time of Lipit-Ishtar we are in a completely
different power structure. There is no
empire, but a handful of cities vying for power of the region. Warfare and disputes were imminent and the
contrast of time periods is in a sense responsible for the inflated toll of two
fold. Inflation is a factor that must
be taken into account when dealing with monetary issues, but also the
agricultural downfalls (discussed later) led to a heavy toll to be
extracted.
The second feature of marriage was
value of offspring in relation to inheritance. The problem of inheritance is
entrenched within marriage. Most
marriages in Mesopotamia were monogamous, but due to the importance of male
heirs, fathers who lacked sons had the right to take multiple wives, but with
the first wife taking precedence[29]. Heirs served several purposes, the core one
being that of ancestral worship. As
Sumerians saw it, gods were like mortals and had more important things to deal
with than to worry about an individual person.
So, as in the case of the king, man must have an intermediary to
intercede on his behalf, a spirit whom the gods would be willing to hear and
favor. As an answer to this
intermediary, the notion of the personal god develops. A spirit belonging to each family head, his
divine father who begot him. It was to
this deity that the individual sufferer bared his prayers to and it was through
this spirit that man received his salvation.
As the father of the family died, the father then joined this spirit
that of his ancestors, and the eldest son took the role of the father as the
new high priest of the deity[30]. The son was given custody of the family gods
(the ilānū) along with the spirits (the etemmū) of the dead
ancestors (the mītū)[31]. It cannot be emphasized enough that a male
heir was absolutely necessary for the continuation of the family. Not only for the property that he inherited,
but more importantly the role he played in the worship of the gods.
We don’t find laws of inheritance in
Ur-Nammu’s code, but with Lipit-Ishtar we can see the dynamics of inheritance
near the end of the Sumerian dominance.
With the following excerpts laws 21 through 32 we see a complex network
of inheritance rules.
24: if the
second wife whom he had married bore him children, the dowry that she brought
from her father’s house belongs to her children, but the children of his first
wife and the children of his second wife shall divide equally the property of
their father.
28: if a man
turned his face away from his first wife…but she has not gone out of his house,
his wife whom he married as his favorite is a second wife; he shall continue to
support his first wife.
31: …he has
given him, after their father’s death the heirs shall divide the estate of
their father but the inheritance of the estate they shall not divide, they
shall not “cook their father’s word in water” (disobey).[32]
These set of
laws also display several aspects of inheritance. Law 24 describing the dowry of the mother is given to the
children. Law 28 goes on to describe the support system of the family when
there are two wives in the house and the precedence that is given to the first
wife. Lastly, law 31 again describes
the parceling off of the father’s estate to the heirs but not that of the
inheritance. The complexities of family
relations are depicted by the complexities of inheritance. The legal manner in which the family was to
divide the inheritance or even determine who gets a stake it in is quite detailed,
but in the end fulfilling the requirements of a male heir was the
quintessential goal of most families.
Laws of Agriculture
The world of the Sumerians revolved
around the two life giving rivers the Euphrates and the Tigris. The rivers derive their waters form the snow
peaks in Turkey and the annual floods are in accordance with the speed at which
the snowcaps can melt during the springtime.
The floods of the rivers are very violent, due to the fact that the
distance between the melting snowcaps and the delta is quite small resulting in
ferocious floods. The silt and soluble
salts that the water carries along its journey spread out over the marshlands
of lower Mesopotamia, where much of the water evaporates and quantities of salt
are left behind. This process of
salinization is quite a problem to the region of Mesopotamia. If a breakdown does occur in the irrigation
systems of the land, mainly the canals, huge areas of the land would become
useless and infertile due to high salt concentrations in the soil. The two rivers made it quite difficult to
allow mass cultivation of the soil, and without a massive source of maintenance
the land would yield very little[33].