Welcome to Stuff You Missed in History Class from how Stuff Works dot com. Hello, and welcome to the podcast. I'm editor Candice Gibson, joined as always by writer Jane McGrath. Hey there, Hey Jane. Have you ever been to the Loop? I have once. Actually I had to rush through it because I didn't have much time. But I did see the Mona Lisa. Oh, well, did you see the Code of Hamma Robbie. I didn't. I didn't get around to that. It's one of those things that isn't as aesthetically appealing as the Mona Lisa or the sundry other works of art hanging in the Loop, but it's a pretty important piece of well, big black stone. It's basically a big stilla, which just means monument. Basically, I just kidding. It's more important than that. It stands about a little over seven ft tall. The monument itself isn't as important as what actually has written on it, and it has about three hundred laws on It's all written in sort of a conditional if this then that format, and it's really it's it's fascinating for archaeologists and historians because it's one of the earliest and most intact codes of law that has ever been found, and it was developed by Himurabi and he is synonymous with Babylon, and Babylon was really one of the first, really sort of bustling empires of the ancient world. And he was a really intelligent ruler and one of the things that he prided himself on was being fair and just, and he really laid out his expectations for his subjects in black and white, and the Code of him A Rabi exemplifies this because he made them available for everyone to see and he displayed them in a very public place. So while Himmurabi was pretty strict and he held his people accountable for their behavior in a very severe way, there really was no excuse for breaking the law, because you would have seen that very clearly. And so the monument, like we said today, is in the Louver and that's because in nineteen o one a French archaeologist found it, and he didn't find it in Babylon. He actually found it in a really mountainous sort of remote region of Persia. And presumably it's because one of the later conquerors who came in every through Babylon would have taken the Code back as part of the spoils, and it's really trophy of symbolic of look at this very mighty empire and how it's fallen. But what Jane and I are really interested in is the code itself and what it means, not just in the ancient Babylonian society but today. That's right, and historians anyone who's interested in the history of law in general love looking at the Code of Amara because it's one of the earliest we know of. To give you an idea of how it detailed, these laws can get um. You look at number of fifty nine says if any man, without the knowledge of the owner of a garden, fill a tree in a garden, he shall pay half a minor and money. This is incredibly detailed, specific law, and this is one of the reasons why um historians actually don't think the code stood on its own and sort of an independent of itself, because it has these very deep detailed laws like the one I mentioned, but it doesn't have some more obvious ones that you would expect, more overarching laws. This is what happens when you murder someone in general, sort of something like that. But it's it's very detailed, So historians tend to think that it was sort of an addition to laws that were already on the book so to speak. Um, but that have been lost to history, so it's supplemental. And like Damon's mentioning, they're so specific, one has to wonder if these laws were written after some sort of event occurred that set up president for needing a certain role. Like For instance, one that struck me really interesting is this law that reads, if a man give his child to a nurse and the child die in her hands, but the nurse, unbeknownst to the father and mother, nurse another child, then they shall convict her of having nursed another child without the knowledge of the father and mother. Here's the clincher, and her breasts shall be cut off. So have I forbid you'd be a wet nurse an ancient Babylon But um, a law like this, really, it's just sort of smacks of, well, something must have happened for them to have written this law. It just doesn't see me later that Hammer Rabbi would have, you know, written this as one of the codes without some sort of precedent. Yeah, And I think historians like we actually look at this and they say, you know, maybe, um, there were laws on the books and everything, but that specific cases would come up to Hammurabi himself and he would make an executive decision that weren't addressed previously in the law. And these decisions that he made ended up being written because he was so proud of how just he is obviously that he wrote them on the on the books, on his stella. But also another reason why historians saying didn't stand on its own was because there are some inconsistencies, interestingly on the code of Hammurab. For instance, if you were an ancient Babylon, you and me, and I gave you like a mule for safe keeping. Thanks um, So if I gave it to you, but I didn't have any witnesses and I didn't have a contract, in one law it says that I the giver, I don't have a claim on the mule anymore. But in another instance, a very the exact same kind of situation, it says that you would be at fault and you would actually be a thief and you would be put to death. That's what's so funny to me about the Kurd Hamarabi, not the inconsistencies. But what you were mentioning before, If if I didn't have any proof that you had given me this mule, there's no room for hearsay. And the code evidence is absolutely imperative. And so I guess that's the good news. If you are an accused perpetrator not yet an accused criminal. You know, if they say that you've stolen something in ancient Babylon, well you better have the thing that you are thought to have stolen in your possession. If they say that you've committed adultery, well some peeping tom better have seen you, you know, ravishing somebody else's wife. There has to be evidentiary support. And once you were accused as a criminal, there were sort of two ways out. One of them was death, which will get to in justin Mena, and the other was this sort of witchcraft trial you could undergo and the Euphrates River, and again historians conjecture that people in ancient Babylon hadn't really mastered the art of swimming, so you could wade into the river and if you sank and drowned, then you were guilty, and you know, good riddence. You were dead. You were put to death. But if for some magical reason the water was able to convey you back to shore and you came out alive, then you were innocent and you were allowed to keep your life. And it's interesting they're they're creative when it came to ways to die as well. Um. I think it was about twenty eight different crimes weren't death in these laws. They've ranged from things like robbery, adultery, maybe witchcraft similar to what you were talking about, and even harboring or runaway slave, which kind of warkens back to our podcast on the underground Railroad. So in some other ways you could die besides this interesting witchcraft or whether you sink or swim, was burning buried alive, which is my personal favorite or least favorite, i should say, and also impalement. So they were very creative when it came aways to die. You say that with such relish, I feel like now I have an ally in Maya my interest in medieval formship Georgia. Um. Anyway, for all of you out there, you think I'm I'm a strange bird. Um. The people in ancient Babylon had a very specific idea of justice, and it was rooted in a code called the lex talionis, which is the law of retaliation or the law of retribution. And surely you've all heard the expression and I for an eye, and that's exactly what lex talionis was. It was a form of justice based on the idea that whatever wrongdoing you pay to your neighbor, your neighbor can pay back to you. But an important difference under the Code of Hammer Rabbi is that if you created some sort of affront to your neighbor, your neighbor couldn't be the one to turn around and pay you back for that misdeed. It would have to come directly from the state government. And that was to put an end to a cycle of wrongdoing back and forth because it came from a higher power, the sort of retribution. That's really interesting. Yeah, And another thing that really intrigues historians, especially like as soon as they found the quote of Farmer Robbie, was that they had known the idea of lex talionis before from from Mosaic law, you know, from Moses, and they thought, well, you know, this outdates Moses by a couple of hundred years, So that mean that Moses got these ideas from the Code of Hammer Robbie or from Babylonia in general, and that idea has sort of been um pushed aside for the idea that they both have a common source among them. Uh So it's interesting just to see the the differences of similarities between the two different ways of handling. You know, if someone plucks out your eye, what do you do in response? One important difference, though, is that under the coat of hammer Robbie, class actually made a difference. So, for instance, if I were among the upper class in ancient Babylonia called the Amalu, and Candice was a slave in the wordy class, and I plucked out her eye, shouldn't she couldn't necessarily have my eye plucked out as well. But if it was the other way around, if Candice plucked out my eye, uh, the thing, it would be much much harsher on her as a punishment. So, just to make sure I understand this, if I plucked out your eye, I might face certain death. But if you pluck my eye out, you might only owe me a small monetary mountain compensation exactly, But I have to buy a new eye exactly. But like if I if it happened between people the same class, you would have that eye for an eye thing business going on, whereas the Moses Mosaic law didn't have that distinction. So that's one big thing that that historians. It's a point that historians want to make that it's very different. So I have a couple of friends in law school, and I'm meant to ask them about the kind of hamor Abbie over the weekend, and I didn't get a chance because I was busy watching the Academy Awards. But I'm wondering if any of you out there are in law school or any lawyers who might be fans of our podcast. Um, I'm curious to know what you study about the code of Hammurabie, if anything in law school. I mean, I'm sure that there's a period of time in which you look over laws of the ancient world and how they might still be relevant today. And I I wonder if this eye for an eye business is just sort of a a clever phrase that people throw around, and if that's all it's been reduced to, then I would like to propose in its place another clever phrase which is due into others as you would have done unto you, Because I think the golden rule, and this instance at least is pretty similar and much nicer, you know, turn the other cheek thing. Yeah, I would like to not have my eye plucked out, so I'm going to not pluck Jain's out. It's still has a lot of real events today, I mean, and just thinking of at the time, it must have seemed very fair, you know. I mean, if you look at it from just a cold point of view, I mean that that's fair. I guess in a weird way of looking at it. But I think that the people of ancient Babylon were onto something. You can't just have your neighbors, you know, sort of propagate this this misdeed cycle to each other. There has to be a higher level of government in place to put an end, to deal out the final saying retribution. Otherwise you've got a society that devolves into complete chaos. And it's interesting that Hammarabbi himself found himself so just he expresses and there's a prologue and epilogue on the stella that that contains the code, and he expressed, like, oh, I protect the oppressed from the oppressors. And it's interesting that he still had these laws that they did distinguish between the classes too. He was a pretty complex guy. And if you want to learn more about Hammurabi and his code and the peoples of ancient Babylon, be sure to check out our website on how stuff works dot com. That's right, and also be sure to check out a blog that how stuff works dot com is launching pretty soon and well. One of the blogs is a stuff you Missed in History class blog written by Yours truly and Candice. So our blog is another place where you can contact us with your ideas and you can comment on the entries that we post and in the m trump be sure to keep sending us emails at history podcast at how stuff works dot com. For more on this and thousands of other topics. Is that how stuff works dot com

Welcome to Stuff You Missed in History Class from how Stuff Works dot com. Hello, and welcome to the podcast. I'm editor Candice Gibson, joined as always by writer Jane McGrath. Hey there, Hey Jane. Have you ever been to the Loop? I have once. Actually I had to rush through it because I didn't have much time. But I did see the Mona Lisa. Oh, well, did you see the Code of Hamma Robbie. I didn't. I didn't get around to that. It's one of those things that isn't as aesthetically appealing as the Mona Lisa or the sundry other works of art hanging in the Loop, but it's a pretty important piece of well, big black stone. It's basically a big stilla, which just means monument. Basically, I just kidding. It's more important than that. It stands about a little over seven ft tall. The monument itself isn't as important as what actually has written on it, and it has about three hundred laws on It's all written in sort of a conditional if this then that format, and it's really it's it's fascinating for archaeologists and historians because it's one of the earliest and most intact codes of law that has ever been found, and it was developed by Himurabi and he is synonymous with Babylon, and Babylon was really one of the first, really sort of bustling empires of the ancient world. And he was a really intelligent ruler and one of the things that he prided himself on was being fair and just, and he really laid out his expectations for his subjects in black and white, and the Code of him A Rabi exemplifies this because he made them available for everyone to see and he displayed them in a very public place. So while Himmurabi was pretty strict and he held his people accountable for their behavior in a very severe way, there really was no excuse for breaking the law, because you would have seen that very clearly. And so the monument, like we said today, is in the Louver and that's because in nineteen o one a French archaeologist found it, and he didn't find it in Babylon. He actually found it in a really mountainous sort of remote region of Persia. And presumably it's because one of the later conquerors who came in every through Babylon would have taken the Code back as part of the spoils, and it's really trophy of symbolic of look at this very mighty empire and how it's fallen. But what Jane and I are really interested in is the code itself and what it means, not just in the ancient Babylonian society but today. That's right, and historians anyone who's interested in the history of law in general love looking at the Code of Amara because it's one of the earliest we know of. To give you an idea of how it detailed, these laws can get um. You look at number of fifty nine says if any man, without the knowledge of the owner of a garden, fill a tree in a garden, he shall pay half a minor and money. This is incredibly detailed, specific law, and this is one of the reasons why um historians actually don't think the code stood on its own and sort of an independent of itself, because it has these very deep detailed laws like the one I mentioned, but it doesn't have some more obvious ones that you would expect, more overarching laws. This is what happens when you murder someone in general, sort of something like that. But it's it's very detailed, So historians tend to think that it was sort of an addition to laws that were already on the book so to speak. Um, but that have been lost to history, so it's supplemental. And like Damon's mentioning, they're so specific, one has to wonder if these laws were written after some sort of event occurred that set up president for needing a certain role. Like For instance, one that struck me really interesting is this law that reads, if a man give his child to a nurse and the child die in her hands, but the nurse, unbeknownst to the father and mother, nurse another child, then they shall convict her of having nursed another child without the knowledge of the father and mother. Here's the clincher, and her breasts shall be cut off. So have I forbid you'd be a wet nurse an ancient Babylon But um, a law like this, really, it's just sort of smacks of, well, something must have happened for them to have written this law. It just doesn't see me later that Hammer Rabbi would have, you know, written this as one of the codes without some sort of precedent. Yeah, And I think historians like we actually look at this and they say, you know, maybe, um, there were laws on the books and everything, but that specific cases would come up to Hammurabi himself and he would make an executive decision that weren't addressed previously in the law. And these decisions that he made ended up being written because he was so proud of how just he is obviously that he wrote them on the on the books, on his stella. But also another reason why historians saying didn't stand on its own was because there are some inconsistencies, interestingly on the code of Hammurab. For instance, if you were an ancient Babylon, you and me, and I gave you like a mule for safe keeping. Thanks um, So if I gave it to you, but I didn't have any witnesses and I didn't have a contract, in one law it says that I the giver, I don't have a claim on the mule anymore. But in another instance, a very the exact same kind of situation, it says that you would be at fault and you would actually be a thief and you would be put to death. That's what's so funny to me about the Kurd Hamarabi, not the inconsistencies. But what you were mentioning before, If if I didn't have any proof that you had given me this mule, there's no room for hearsay. And the code evidence is absolutely imperative. And so I guess that's the good news. If you are an accused perpetrator not yet an accused criminal. You know, if they say that you've stolen something in ancient Babylon, well you better have the thing that you are thought to have stolen in your possession. If they say that you've committed adultery, well some peeping tom better have seen you, you know, ravishing somebody else's wife. There has to be evidentiary support. And once you were accused as a criminal, there were sort of two ways out. One of them was death, which will get to in justin Mena, and the other was this sort of witchcraft trial you could undergo and the Euphrates River, and again historians conjecture that people in ancient Babylon hadn't really mastered the art of swimming, so you could wade into the river and if you sank and drowned, then you were guilty, and you know, good riddence. You were dead. You were put to death. But if for some magical reason the water was able to convey you back to shore and you came out alive, then you were innocent and you were allowed to keep your life. And it's interesting they're they're creative when it came to ways to die as well. Um. I think it was about twenty eight different crimes weren't death in these laws. They've ranged from things like robbery, adultery, maybe witchcraft similar to what you were talking about, and even harboring or runaway slave, which kind of warkens back to our podcast on the underground Railroad. So in some other ways you could die besides this interesting witchcraft or whether you sink or swim, was burning buried alive, which is my personal favorite or least favorite, i should say, and also impalement. So they were very creative when it came aways to die. You say that with such relish, I feel like now I have an ally in Maya my interest in medieval formship Georgia. Um. Anyway, for all of you out there, you think I'm I'm a strange bird. Um. The people in ancient Babylon had a very specific idea of justice, and it was rooted in a code called the lex talionis, which is the law of retaliation or the law of retribution. And surely you've all heard the expression and I for an eye, and that's exactly what lex talionis was. It was a form of justice based on the idea that whatever wrongdoing you pay to your neighbor, your neighbor can pay back to you. But an important difference under the Code of Hammer Rabbi is that if you created some sort of affront to your neighbor, your neighbor couldn't be the one to turn around and pay you back for that misdeed. It would have to come directly from the state government. And that was to put an end to a cycle of wrongdoing back and forth because it came from a higher power, the sort of retribution. That's really interesting. Yeah, And another thing that really intrigues historians, especially like as soon as they found the quote of Farmer Robbie, was that they had known the idea of lex talionis before from from Mosaic law, you know, from Moses, and they thought, well, you know, this outdates Moses by a couple of hundred years, So that mean that Moses got these ideas from the Code of Hammer Robbie or from Babylonia in general, and that idea has sort of been um pushed aside for the idea that they both have a common source among them. Uh So it's interesting just to see the the differences of similarities between the two different ways of handling. You know, if someone plucks out your eye, what do you do in response? One important difference, though, is that under the coat of hammer Robbie, class actually made a difference. So, for instance, if I were among the upper class in ancient Babylonia called the Amalu, and Candice was a slave in the wordy class, and I plucked out her eye, shouldn't she couldn't necessarily have my eye plucked out as well. But if it was the other way around, if Candice plucked out my eye, uh, the thing, it would be much much harsher on her as a punishment. So, just to make sure I understand this, if I plucked out your eye, I might face certain death. But if you pluck my eye out, you might only owe me a small monetary mountain compensation exactly, But I have to buy a new eye exactly. But like if I if it happened between people the same class, you would have that eye for an eye thing business going on, whereas the Moses Mosaic law didn't have that distinction. So that's one big thing that that historians. It's a point that historians want to make that it's very different. So I have a couple of friends in law school, and I'm meant to ask them about the kind of hamor Abbie over the weekend, and I didn't get a chance because I was busy watching the Academy Awards. But I'm wondering if any of you out there are in law school or any lawyers who might be fans of our podcast. Um, I'm curious to know what you study about the code of Hammurabie, if anything in law school. I mean, I'm sure that there's a period of time in which you look over laws of the ancient world and how they might still be relevant today. And I I wonder if this eye for an eye business is just sort of a a clever phrase that people throw around, and if that's all it's been reduced to, then I would like to propose in its place another clever phrase which is due into others as you would have done unto you, Because I think the golden rule, and this instance at least is pretty similar and much nicer, you know, turn the other cheek thing. Yeah, I would like to not have my eye plucked out, so I'm going to not pluck Jain's out. It's still has a lot of real events today, I mean, and just thinking of at the time, it must have seemed very fair, you know. I mean, if you look at it from just a cold point of view, I mean that that's fair. I guess in a weird way of looking at it. But I think that the people of ancient Babylon were onto something. You can't just have your neighbors, you know, sort of propagate this this misdeed cycle to each other. There has to be a higher level of government in place to put an end, to deal out the final saying retribution. Otherwise you've got a society that devolves into complete chaos. And it's interesting that Hammarabbi himself found himself so just he expresses and there's a prologue and epilogue on the stella that that contains the code, and he expressed, like, oh, I protect the oppressed from the oppressors. And it's interesting that he still had these laws that they did distinguish between the classes too. He was a pretty complex guy. And if you want to learn more about Hammurabi and his code and the peoples of ancient Babylon, be sure to check out our website on how stuff works dot com. That's right, and also be sure to check out a blog that how stuff works dot com is launching pretty soon and well. One of the blogs is a stuff you Missed in History class blog written by Yours truly and Candice. So our blog is another place where you can contact us with your ideas and you can comment on the entries that we post and in the m trump be sure to keep sending us emails at history podcast at how stuff works dot com. For more on this and thousands of other topics. Is that how stuff works dot com