hammurabi

March 31, 2003 8:33 AM

The Code of Hammurabi is generally recognized as the first laws ever written. Hammurabi was the ruler who chiefly established the greatness of Babylon (present day Iraq), the world's first metropolis.
posted by stbalbach (14 comments total)

The Code of Hammurabi is generally recognized as the first laws ever written. Hammurabi was the ruler who chiefly established the greatness of Babylon (present day Iraq), the world's first metropolis

....and?
posted by clavdivs at 8:56 AM on March 31, 2003

As the Egyptians were building Pyramids and covering them with Hieroglyphics and the Sumerians were writing out Laws on clay tablets for centuries before Hammurabi copied those same Sumerian laws I wouldn't say that it is generally recognized anywhere that "Hammaraubi's Code" were the first laws ever written! Parts of the legal codes of the Israelites that formed Judeo Christian beliefs were written by the time Hammurabi came along in the 1700's BCE! He may have been a great leader, known even today by name, he may have copied ancient Sumerian law down in a form that is decipherable today and has lasted through time (on stone rather than papyrus or clay) but he was far from the first to do so. You think that Cheops was built roughly 500 years before his birth, constructed by vast armies of slaves captured through regional conquest all without benefit of a code of laws? Be careful when qualifying statements like "the first" or "the greatest" around here.
posted by Pollomacho at 9:11 AM on March 31, 2003

If the "finger is pointed" at a man's wife about another man, but she is not caught sleeping with the other man, she shall jump into the river for her husband.

Excerpt from the World's Oldest Harlequin;

"Meena felt the swirling brown water close over her head as her voluptuous form sank into the water. Surfacing, she flicked back her heavy drenched dark hair and began to swim for the opposite shore. Smiling happily to herself as she took long overhand strokes with her long curved golden arms, she decided that later when she was lying entangled with Rahab on his pallet, her head resting peacefully on his broad brown chest, she'd tell him how she and her friends used to sneak down to the river at night and teach each other how to swim."
posted by orange swan at 9:17 AM on March 31, 2003

If the robber is not caught, then shall he who was robbed claim under oath the amount of his loss; then shall the community, and . . . on whose ground and territory and in whose domain it was compensate him for the goods stolen.

That's one way to encourage community: hold people responsible for what goes on in their neighborhood.
posted by lbergstr at 9:25 AM on March 31, 2003

Quibbling aside, this makes interesting reading, more interesting that I would have anticipated. It gives a flavor for the kinds of financial relationships people had, the types of crime problems that society experienced, the impact of war on family life, and so on.

It's slightly disturbing that an awful lot of crimes get the death penalty. Like robbery. Or:

If conspirators meet in the house of a tavern-keeper, and these conspirators are not captured and delivered to the court, the tavern-keeper shall be put to death.

Ouch. Would make it rather dangerous to be a tavern-keeper, I suppose.
posted by Slithy_Tove at 9:27 AM on March 31, 2003

and?

well.. given that FPPs are links to interesting things, and not political agendas, what you make of this is up to the reader. However I can find some interesting bits for discussion along current events

1. One of the Divisions defending Baghdad is called the Hammurabi Division. ironically it is defending a lawless regime.

2. There is often talk of a moral equivalency on MeFi. That is, the US is guilty of the same crimes as Iraq and thus is hypocritical. However, nations can not be "moral" anymore than they can have "feelings". Morality is something only individuals have. Instead, nations have laws. The laws reflect the morals of the people. Iraq is lawless it has no laws, Saddam and his family are above the law and make the laws. As such the US is not morally equivalent to Iraq. The US is a nation of laws. Which is all ironic given some of the earliest laws were from Babylon and even Saddam named one of his Republic Guard divisions after Hammurabi.
posted by stbalbach at 9:34 AM on March 31, 2003

Morality is something only individuals have. Instead, nations have laws. The laws reflect the morals of the people. [...] The US is a nation of laws.

Very well said. This is a point that seems to be easily forgotten in political and judicial circles when popular emotions run high. At the risk of derail, this is one of the things that upset me when Ashcroft appeared before Congress to defend the Administration's request for extraordinary powers: repeatedly in response to questions about how the powers would be used, the A.G. would just shake his head slowly, looking down and say, as if it were obvious, "I don't think that the President is going to abuse these powers." This in reference to a president who'd held office for less than a year, so it really wasn't obvious at all. Buy more importantly, as you point out: we are a nation of laws, not of men. We do not, as a matter of policy put all our trust in the good faith of individuals. Because if we do, we must then call them kings, not public servants.
posted by George_Spiggott at 9:55 AM on March 31, 2003

Er, that penultimate sentence should read "But more importantly..."
posted by George_Spiggott at 9:57 AM on March 31, 2003

speaking of cuneiform, don't forget good old gilgamesh. what's being done to protect iraq's antiquities? (and look, hammurabi for kids!)
posted by steef at 10:39 AM on March 31, 2003

1. One of the Divisions defending Baghdad is called the Hammurabi Division. ironically it is defending a lawless regime.

The US airborne division in the North of Iraq is nicknamed the Screaming Eagles despite neither screaming nor containing any eagles.

2. ...Which is all ironic given some of the earliest laws were from Babylon and even Saddam named one of his Republic Guard divisions after Hammurabi.

Hammurabi lived in Iraq nearly 4000 years ago. Comparing the Arabs who live in modern Iraq to the Babylonians of Hammurabi's time is like comparing Tony Blair era England to the mud people that built Stonehenge, almost quite literally. Times change, even modern America is vastly different in thought, action, morality and ethos from 200 years ago yet we might call a military brigade the "George Washington Division" despite it having little to do with anything Washington would recognize or comprehend. We drive Lincoln cars despite the horseless carriage being a futuristic dream during Lincoln's days. Your connections are quite a stretch, we are wasteful and destructive of nature in 2003 CE USA despite 1700 BCE American hunter gatherers being extremely resourceful and having a religious and cultural obligation (as well as a survival necessity) to respect their environment. besides that, calling an iron fisted, national socialist (yet Stalinist) dictator "lawless" is simply jingoistic. Saddam is oppressive and restrictive not "lawless" and anarchistic! That is the whole problem with Saddam, he goes overboard with the laws!
posted by Pollomacho at 11:40 AM on March 31, 2003

Plain text version, from Exploring Ancient World Cultures.
posted by walrus at 11:41 AM on March 31, 2003

Six or eight thousand years ago
They laid down the law
Aa aa aa aa aa aaa
In Mesopotamia
Aa aa aa aa aa aaa

The B52s - 'Mesopotamia'
posted by yonderboy at 11:56 AM on March 31, 2003

Pollomacho, Saddam himself is lawless, he is above the law he answers to no one. In that sense there are no real laws, laws are above everyone and if they are not, are they laws except in a very technical sense, they more like rules. Saddam has a lot of rules but to call them law? Law concurs somthing above men, like the law of the street, or the law of God or the law of the land.. greater than all. At least in dictatorships of old they would claim Divine Right to make laws inspired by blood lineage to God. Saddams only claim to make law is his brutal use of force which is lawlessness.
posted by stbalbach at 3:21 PM on March 31, 2003

The laws of a despot, while arbitrary, are still laws. They are not necessarily just laws, but they are laws.

You are right, by one definition, a law is "a code of principles based on morality, conscience, or nature." But there are at least 13 other definitions listed in that link that have nothing to do with morality.

Wouldn't want to get in the way of your literary license for irony, but I agree with Pollomacho that connecting Hammurabi with the current Iraq war is stretching it a bit.
posted by wrench at 5:16 PM on March 31, 2003