Hammurabi, King of Babylon, and Debt Cancellation
The Hammurabi Code is in the Louvre Museum, in Paris. The
term “code” is inappropriate, because what Hammurabi left us is a set of rules
and judgements on relations between public authorities and citizens. Hammurabi
began his 42-year reign as “king” of Babylon (located in present-day Iraq), in
1792 BC. What most history books fail to mention is that, like other governors
of the City-State of Mesopotamia, Hammurabi proclaimed the official
cancellation of citizens’ debts owed to the government, high-ranking officials,
and dignitaries. The so-called Hammurabi Code is thought to date back to 1762
BC. Its epilogue proclaims that “the powerful may not oppress the weak; the law
must protect widows and orphans (…) in order to bring justice to the
oppressed”. The many ancient documents deciphered from cuneiform script have
enabled historians to establish beyond any doubt that four general
cancellations took place during Hammurabi’s reign, in 1792, 1780, 1771, and
1762 BC.
In Hammurabi’s time, economic, political, and social life
were organised around the Temple and the Palace. Those two closely enmeshed
institutions, with their numerous artisans, workers, and, of course, scribes,
constituted the apparatus of the State, not so very different from today’s
governments. The Temple and the Palace provided their employees with board and
lodge: they thus received food rations sufficient for two full meals a day. The
peasantry was provided with land (which they rented), tools, draught animals,
livestock, and water for irrigation, so that they could grow food for the
workers and dignitaries. Thus, the peasants produced barley (their staple
grain), oil, fruit, and vegetables, a portion of which, when harvested, they
had to pay to the State as rent. As well as the land they cultivated for the
Palace and the Temple, the peasants owned their own land, home, livestock, and
tools. When the harvest was poor, they accumulated debts.
They also incurred debt through loans granted privately by high-ranking officials and dignitaries eager to get rich and to seize the peasants’ property in case of default. If peasants were unable to pay off their debts, they could also find themselves reduced to the condition of serfs or slaves; indebtedness could also lead to members of their family being made slaves. In order to ensure social peace and stability, and especially to prevent peasants’ living conditions from deteriorating, the authorities periodically cancelled all debt and restored peasants’ rights.
They also incurred debt through loans granted privately by high-ranking officials and dignitaries eager to get rich and to seize the peasants’ property in case of default. If peasants were unable to pay off their debts, they could also find themselves reduced to the condition of serfs or slaves; indebtedness could also lead to members of their family being made slaves. In order to ensure social peace and stability, and especially to prevent peasants’ living conditions from deteriorating, the authorities periodically cancelled all debt and restored peasants’ rights.
General debt cancellations in Mesopotamia over 1000 years
Proclamations of general debt cancellation began long before
Hammourabi’s reign and continued afterwards. There is evidence of debt
cancellation as far back as 2400 BC, six centuries before Hammurabi’s reign, in
the city of Lagash (Sumer). The most recent instance dates back to 1400 B.C. in
Nuzi. In all, historians have identified with certainty about thirty general
debt cancellations in Mesopotamia from 2400 to 1400 BC. Michael Hudson |2| is
right to claim that general debt cancellation was one of the principal
characteristics of Bronze Age societies in Mesopotamia. Indeed, there are
various Mesopotamian words for these cancellations, which wiped the slate
clean: amargi in Lagash (Sumer), nig-sisa in Ur, andurarum in Ashur, misharum
in Babylon, shudutu in Nuzi.
Such proclamations of debt cancellation were an occasion for
great festivities, usually at the annual celebration of Spring. It was during
the dynasty of Hammurabi’s family that the tradition of destroying the tablets
upon which the debts were inscribed was inaugurated — the public authorities
kept a strict record of debts on tablets conserved in the Temple. When
Hammurabi died in 1749 BC after a reign of 42 years, his successor, Samsuiluna,
cancelled all debts to the State, and decreed that all tablets should be
destroyed except those concerning traders’ debts.
The general debt cancellation proclaimed by Ammisaduqa, the
last governor of the Hammurabi dynasty who came to the throne in 1646 BC, was
very detailed, in a clear attempt to prevent creditors from taking advantage of
loopholes. The cancellation decree specified that official creditors and tax
collectors who had expropriated peasants should compensate them and return
their property, on pain of execution. In cases where a creditor had taken some
item of property using pressure, unless he gave it back and/or repaid its worth
in full, he would be put to death.
In the wake of this decree, commissions were set up to
review all real estate contracts and to eliminate all those which fell under
the terms of the debt cancellation proclamation with a view to restoring the
prior situation, statu quo ante. The enactment of this decree was facilitated
by the fact that the despoiled peasants were usually still working the land,
even though it was owned by the creditor. Thus, by cancelling the contracts and
making the creditors indemnify the victims, the public authorities restored
peasants’ rights. A little over two centuries later, the situation was to
change for the worse.
The limits of debt cancellation
In Mesopotamia, during the Bronze Age, debt-slaves were
freed, unlike other types of slave such as those seized at war. Nevertheless,
this debt cancellation must not be presented as if it were a form of social
emancipation. It was merely a way of restoring the pre-existing social order,
which was rife with forms of oppression. Without wishing to embellish the
organisation of these societies of 3000 to 4000 years ago, it should be noted
nonetheless that their rulers sought to maintain social cohesion by preventing
the constitution of big private domains, and took measures to ensure that
peasants enjoyed direct access to the land. They limited the rise of inequality
while overseeing the development and maintenance of irrigation systems. Michael
Hudson also insists that any decision to declare war was taken by a general
assembly of citizens – the “king” did not have the power to make such decisions
alone.




