Research Paper On The Code Of Hammurabi

The Code of Hammurabi was the code of law in ancient Mesopotamia city of Babylonia, which today is modern Iraq, part of Syria, Iran, and Turkey. It is one of the oldest set of laws in human history that was written during the reign of Hammurabi. Hammurabi was the sixth Babylonian king, and he reigned from 1792-1750 BCE, and is best known for his code of laws which served as a model for other cultures such as the Hebrew scribes. The Hammurabi code of laws, a list of about 300 rules that include economic provisions, family law, criminal law, and civil law, and was created in 1754 BC. These codes were inscribed on a tall black stone stela, which is a pillar used for dedication, or commemoration. The codes are written in Akkadian language in

cuneiform, and There are copies of the Codes of Hammurabi written on clay tablets. At the top of the stela is Hammurabi explaining to the Babylonian god Shamash about his code of laws to the god. A whole piece of the code that was found was discovered at Susa (present day Iran) in 1901 by French researcher Jean-Vincent Scheil.
While Hammurabi’s code of laws was one of the oldest text that survived from Mesopotamia, they were not the first set of laws. Earlier collections of laws include the Code of Ur-Nammu, king of Ur (c. 2050 BC), the Laws of Eshnunna (c. 1930 BC) and the codex of Lipit-Ishtar of Isin (c. 1870 BC), while later ones include the Hittite laws, the Assyrian laws, and Mosaic Law. Hammurabi used these earlier laws to establish his own code of laws so that his people would know what was to be expected of them, and to be behave correctly in society or else punishment would be administered to those that did. The codes that are addressed in the Code of Hammurabi pertain to practical law, business/trade, family, and injuries. Unlike the previous laws before the Code of Hammurabi, his allowed each party to be innocent until proven guilty, this is called Lex Talionis, “the law of retributive justice, in which punishment corresponds directly to the crime.” The Code places the population into three classes, the amelu, muskinu and ardu. Similar of how people today are put into working classes like the poor, middle class, and rich. The amelu had “more” rights, and higher status over the other two classes because the muskinu were the poor people, but free, and the ardu were the slaves. Some of the codes that are in the Code of Hammurabi are:
196. If a man put out the eye of another man, his eye shall be put out. [ An eye for an eye]
197. If he break another man's bone, his bone shall be broken.
198. If he put out the eye of a freed man, or break the bone of a freed man, he shall pay one gold mina.
199. If he put out the eye of a man's slave, or break the bone of a man's slave, he shall pay one-half of its value.
Although the Code of Hammurabi. The punishment was to be that of the crime committed, but the interesting thing here that can be asked is was punishment more severe on slaves, lower-class people, and women? Apparently so because “if a doctor killed a rich patient, he would have his hands cut off, but if he killed a slave, only financial restitution was required.” This shows how the system of the laws played in favor of those that had status in Babylonia by not giving them a death sentence if the crime was committed against someone with lower social class. In the example of how the Code below treated women:
If she had been a bad wife, the Code allowed him to send her away, while he kept the children and her dowry; or he could degrade her to the position of a slave in his own house, where she would have food and clothing. She might bring an action against him for cruelty and neglect and, if she proved her case, obtain a judicial separation, taking with her dowry. No other punishment fell on the man. If she did not prove her case, but proved to be a bad wife, she was drowned.
The patriarchy system is quite apparent in the ancient world of Babylonia, even though the code is setup to try and achieve an order of fairness, it is still biased. There is also some bias by Hammurabi himself.
In the epilogue of the codes, Hammurabi seems to be glorifying himself towards the end:
The great gods have called me, I am the salvation-bearing shepherd, whose staff is straight, the good shadow that is spread over my city; on my breast I cherish the inhabitants of the land of Sumer and Akkad; in my shelter I have let them repose in peace; in my deep wisdom have I enclosed them. That the strong might not injure the weak, in order to protect the widows and orphans, I have in Babylon the city where Anu and Bel raise high their head… written upon my memorial stone, before the image of me, as king of righteousness.
Calling himself the salvation-bearing shepherd that because of his rule he had made his city of Babylon a much better civilization for his people. To a certain extent that may be true because he was one of the most celebrated Mesopotamian kings, but the code does have its flaws. In Tracey M. Dilascio’s article about the Code of Hammurabi she agrees as well that he boasts about himself “Hammurabi reiterates his divine authority and says that he “expounded all great difficulties” and “made the light shine upon” the people within the kingdom. He refers to himself as the “king of righteousness” and extols his own great wisdom and virtue.”
This piece of text tells that the ancient Babylonians society were civilized if Hammurabi added the law of retributive justice in his codes. Babylonia and other neighboring cities were diverse in race, and Hammurabi wanted “to make Babylon his metropolis and weld together his vast empire by a uniform system of law.” With the cities having different people in them it shows that their civilizations got along and agreed with the laws for the most part while being different from each other. Archeologists have even found the code of Hammurabi in different languages, which proposes that other people from different areas adopted these laws. Hammurabi’s code also so suggests that since society agreed up these laws it would be out of respect for Hammurabi, and that his people did adore him if he was remembered to be a great king. By looking at other civilizations text of this in different languages it suggests that Hammurabi’s code is accurate in that it was used wide spread to as a uniform system of law.
The translated used was done by L.

W. King. While looking at other translations of the text they seem to be accurate. There could be possible errors when translating different languages that were used when adopting Hammurabi’s code for their own society. Even the copies of the code on the clay tablets could have the slightest errors on them when the scribes were writing them down, but if most of the copies have little difference then it would be easy to translate the correct translation.

When reading Hammurabi’s code today people might see these codes as harsh compared to today’s laws, but people back in ancient Mesopotamia had a different way of thinking than people today, and some people may not recognize that. Some people who read this could be biased and say how women back then were not treated as fairly as men, and that is true to some extent, but some of Hammurabi’s codes did treat women respectfully. An example would be:

142. If a woman quarrel with her husband, and say: "You are not congenial to me," the reasons for her prejudice must be presented. If she is guiltless, and there is no fault on her part, but he leaves and neglects her, then no guilt attaches to this woman, she shall take her dowry and go back to her father's

house.
A few decades ago women were not allowed to divorce their husband if they were having problems with them, where back in ancient Mesopotamia under Hammurabi’s code they were able to leave their husband and return home. There is a similarity to the idea of justice being done with today’s laws with how some laws require a payment, but not as severe an “eye for eye” punishment.