Comparing The Stele Of Hammurabi And The Column

Art has frequently been used as propaganda, promoting the interests of the elite in a controlled manner over their subjects. The images presented, the Stele of Hammurabi and the Column of Trajan, are monumental examples of such propaganda.
The Stele of Hammurabi is over 7 feet tall and was displayed in a public space. Trajan’s column was 38 meters high and displayed publically. It was important for propaganda to be seen by as many people as possible to be successful. More than just eye-catching, the monuments also had to be understood by as many people as possible. Understanding was achieved in both cases by convention and artistic shorthand. Culture and social structure are key to the conventions. For example, the Babylonians were theocratic
The laws and subsequent punishments on the stele, written in cuneiform, take up a large portion of the stele, yet the narrative image at the top holds far more importance. This is indicated with its placement at the top (rather than the middle or the bottom.) It depicts Hammurabi in orant pose receiving the laws directly from Shamash, god of justice. This image served a two-fold purpose: underscoring and enhancing Hammurabi’s authority as a Priest King regardless of literacy, and as a reminder of his power. Use of hieratic scale indicates that Hammurabi is almost as important as Shamash. Shamash is seated and very slightly taller than the ruler, but at first glance they are almost on a level playing field. As for the Romans, the narrative banding on the column spirals upward are a continual depiction of Trajan’s military accomplishments during the Dacian campaign. As you follow the narrative (originally through the architecture that surrounded it), you are drawn higher. At the peak, there would have been a statue of Trajan, symbolically and literally closer to heaven; closer to Trajan’s
In reality it differentiated based on class and gender, in the favor of the elite. Crimes more likely to be committed by lower-class citizens were more numerous, women bore harsher punishments, and there were no mitigating circumstances – only the crime and punishment. However, as the lower-class were unlikely to read, it seems this bit of propaganda was two-faced. On one hand, the elite would be able to understand ahead of time that Hammurabi’s laws effected them in a lighter degree simply by reading the text. The illiterate would have to trust that the laws were indeed intended to create equality. In the eyes of either, Hammurabi would appear to be a benevolent