The Code epilogue curses any later king who erases the stele

The Code epilogue curses any later ruler who erases or changes the stele. Hammurabi’s documented role is: The epilogue blesses keepers and curses erasers of the monument. Stonecutters cut; he is the royal speaker; later Louvre is access. Curses on later kings are not the case-law list. Later editors, printers, and excavators remain named where they appear. Hammurabi's documented role is: The epilogue blesses keepers and curses erasers of the monument.

Context

A monument meant to stand in a public place, unnamed stonecutters, and later Elamite removal already sit in the file. A curse is not unique authorship of every later damnatio. Later Louvre is not -1755. Named others on the file: Unnamed stonecutters, later Elamite spoilers, and Louvre keepers as access share the object. The public setting is the file around -1755-08-01. The instrument stays The Code epilogue curses any later king who erases the stele. The setting of The Code epilogue curses any later king who erases the stele is the public file around -1755-08-01. Driver political-polarization is attached because the significance names a mechanism from this act, not because a standing list needed coverage.

Confidence is stated on the impact path, not hidden in adjectives. Mixed effects of The Code epilogue curses any later king who erases the stele are separate paths.

Why it matters

Worsening polarisation path: public curse-language protecting a royal monument. Complex later carrier. Welfare reading worsening. The attached mechanism is A dated curse-formula put public threat-language onto the same stele, distinct from the penalty clauses as law. Lag to any modern indicator is not treated as zero. This path is attached because the mechanism is named from this act, not because a driver list needed coverage. The welfare reading on this path is worsening.

That reading is an impact-path choice, not a property stored on the Fact itself.