The Ancient Babylonian Legal System

Nataly Persekian
Legal Systems Very Different From Ours
Professor David Friedman
8 April 2010

•	FYI: The footnotes are weird. I included page numbers on all them and have cited supra’s weird, because I wanted to keep the page numbers (not Id.) in case I moved things around. 	
This essay will focus on the Babylonians, the main ruler of the ancient state of Babylon.  Of course, there are many early inhabitants and rulers of Babylon, including the Sumerians, the Kassites, the Elamites, the Persians, the Medes, the Greeks, the Assyrians, and the Parthians. The Babylonians existed in Mesoptamia, which is modern day Iraq. The city of Babylonia was “. . . was the alluvial plain shut in between the two great rivers of Western Asia, and extended southwards from a point where they almost touched one another to the marshes at the head of the Persian Gulf, where they flowed into the sea.” Next to Babylon, but to the north of it, came the land of Assyria. Assyria is one of the diametrically different lands and societies as Babylon; however, because they co-existed, Assyria and Babylon were very closely related. 
One major difference between these two civilizations is their geographic locale. The country of Assyria “differed essentially from the country of Babylonia, and this difference exercised an influence upon the character of the populations which dwelt in them. Namely, the difference was that, “Assyria was a land of limestone hills and thick forests, and was watered by the Tigres and its affluents, which cut their way through channels of rock.” On the other hand, Babylon was “flat and marshy; its soil was rich and fertile, but the rivers and streams that intersected it could be prevented from flooding the country only by means of a carefully organized system of canals.”  In addition to the two countries being geographically different, each had different societies. Namely, Babylon had “lawyers [whom] . . . existed and exercised their trade or profession, like their representatives in modern days.” Because Babylon was more sophisticated than some of the other ancient civilizations, their laws and legal system are both quite fascinating and quite surprising. 
This essay will attempt to explain the legal and social system of ancient Babylon. Although the system is quite large, this essay will focus on primarily four topics. First, this essay will cover the Code of Hammurabi, which is the basis of the legal system in ancient Babylon. Second, this essay will speak of the social organization of ancient Babylon, in which there are three main classes. Next, this essay will focus on the legal process in ancient Babylon, namely the key players in the legal system, disputes settled out of court, and the court procedure for legal disputes. Finally, this essay will partake in an in-depth analysis of three types of laws in the Code of Hammurabi: criminal laws, societal laws, and familial laws. This essay will then conclude with a summary of the ancient legal and societal system of Babylon. 
Unlike some other ancient societies, the Babylonians were quite modern in their actions and attitudes. “The average Babylonian strikes [the researchers] as a just, good man, no wild savage, but a law-abiding citizen, a faithful; husband, good father, kind son, firm friend, industrious trader, or careful man of business.”
In ancient Babylon, every person could partake in the legal process. In Assyria, “there is no trace of disability;” thus, every individual, whether citizen or alien, has public rights and could bring a lawsuit. In Babylonia, there is exactly “the same freedom.” Thus, under both rulers, “. . . [e]gyptians, Elamites, Armenians, Jews, Arameans [could] contract exactly like natives.” This essay will thus focus on the legal system and legal rules of ancient Babylon, where all people could partake in the legal process. 
	Much is known about the legal system of Babylon because the Code of Hammurabi (circa 2250 b.c.) was found. Prior to this finding, almost nothing was known about how the ancient civilizations dealt with criminal law.  “. . . [E]xcept from the recently discovered Code of Hammurabi scarcely anything is known of the law in respect to crimes. Contracts and binding agreements are found in great profusion; but there is nothing to show how theft or murder was treated.” Thus, the researchers—and this essay—will rely heavily on the Code of Hammurabi to explain the legal system of the ancient Babylonians. 
I.	The Code of Hammurabi
The Code of Hammurabi (hereafter, the Code) is the cornerstone of the ancient Babylon legal system. The Code is “[t]he longest and by far the most important ancient code hitherto discovered. . . .” Physically, the actual Code is “. . . a block of black diorite about 2.25 metres high, tapering from 1.90 to 1.65 metres in circumference” (spelling in original).   The Code was found almost a century ago by a Persian. “It was found by De Morgan at Susa . . . in December 1901, and January 1902. . . .” 
Currently, the Code is not completely, but is mostly, preserved. It is not completely preserved probably because of the order of a monarch, who changed the Code in order to personalize it. “[T]his monument now preserves forty-four columns with some three thousand six hundred lines. There were fire columns more, which were once intentionally erased and the stone re-polished, probably by the order of some monarch of Susa, who meant to put his own name and titles there.” This intentional change of the code was a favorite of most kings, and was hated in ancient times. “This method of blotting out the name of a king was a favorite device in the ancient East and is frequently protested against and cursed in the inscription set up in Babylonia.”   Because of this intentional changing, the Code is not completely preserved but is a great source of information about the ancient legal system. 
	In writing this Code, Hammurabi did not invent all the laws; he borrowed some of them yet created others. “. . . [T]he code of Hammurabi is [. . . ] a compilation. He did not invent his laws. . . .Doubtless he did enact some fresh laws. But he built for the most part on other men’s foundation. The decisions already passed by the judges had made men ready to accept as ‘right’ what was now made ‘law’.”  Because of this borrowing, the Code is not a stark change from the societal norms, because some rules had already been enacted by judges. “As far back as we can trace the history or its written monuments, there is no time of which we can say, ‘[a]s yet there was no law’.” “. . . [L]egal decisions which recorded the ruling of some judicial functionary on points of law submitted to him . . . and the hints given by the legal phrase-books had allowed [the writers of the book] to attain considerable knowledge of what was legal and right in ancient Babylonia. . . .” 
	Similarly, the format of the Code is permissive, in that a judge can impose a certain sentence.  “Most clauses are permissive rather than positive. The verb ‘shall’ is not an imperative, but a future. Doubtless in cases of heinous crimes the death-penalty had to be inflicted.” Thus, the sentence of the criminal was partially in the judge’s discretion, but even before that, the accused criminal always had a trial. 
II.	The Social Organization of the Ancient Babylonians
In the Code of Hammurabi, the state of Babylonia appears to have been “composed of three great classes, the amêlu, the muškênu, and the ardu.” The main difference between the amêlu and the muškênu is that “there can be no doubt that the . . . [former] was the ‘gentleman’ or ‘nobleman,’ and the . . . [latter was] a common man, or poor man.”
A.	The Amêlu
The first class is the amêlu, which is comprised of the top tier of society. The amêlu belonged to “. . . the king and the chief officers of state, and also the landed proprietors.” As the top tier, “[t]heir liabilities for fines and punishments were higher.” One variation of the three classes is that in the case of the amêlu, “the old law of ‘eye for the eye, tooth for a tooth’ still held; while others came under a scale of compensation and damages.” This variation may be because of a racial difference since the “ancient laws of Arabia may have been carried with them by Hammurabi’s tribal followers, while the older subject-residents accepted the more commercial system of fines.” Hammurabi’s tribal followers may have been forbidden, by “the old pride of the Arab tribesman,” from “taking money as payment for his damaged eye, or tooth.” In the Code of Hammurabi, the word amêlu is commonly used because it “usually means no more than ‘man’.” Thus, the amêlu, the top tier of society, were similar to the elite of society, and were treated as such. In comparison, the muškênu–which this essay will next focus on—comprised the bulk of the middle class. 
B.	The Muškênu
	The middle tier is the muškênu and was comprised of the “bulk of subject-population.” The muškênu member was “a free man, not a beggar. He was not without considerable means. . . He had slaves. . . .” Unlike the amêlu, because the muškênu were more “humble,” they could take money as payment. “His fees to a doctor or surgeon were less than those paid by an amêlu. He paid less to his wife for a divorce and could assault another poor man more cheaply than could an amêlu.” Although a muškênu’s fees were less, “[t]here is no suggestion of any legal disability on the part of a muškênu; he is merely a person of less consideration.” It is very possible that the muškênu’s “. . . ranks were recruited from the children of slaves by free parents.” The muškênu, as the majority of society, were similar to a modern-day middle class in that they had considerable means and were able to participate fully in the society. The bottom class of society, the ardu, was comprised entirely of slaves and as such, has no equivalent in modern-day society. 
C.	The Ardu
The lowest tier, the ardu, is comprised of the slaves of the Babylonian state. The slaves in this ancient society were similar to black slaves in the United States: he was at his master’s command, he was to some extent a chattel, and he could be pledged for debt, as could a wife and child. However, unlike the United States’ system, slaves in Ancient Bablyon, were “free to marry a marry a free woman and the children were free. So a slave-girl was free on her master’s death, if she had born him children; and the children were also free.”The ardu were slaves and were treated as such, for example they were chattel and could be exchanged for money. Yet, at the same time, were given much more freedom than ancient slaves usually are given. 
D.	The Rîd Sabî and the Bâ’iru
Besides the three main classes of men, there existed in Ancient Babylon a certain class of men, employed by the king, who were in charge of public works. These men, called the rîd sabî and the bâ’iru. These two classes “. . . were closely connected, if not identical, officials. They had charge of the levy, the local quota for the army, or for public works.” The rîd sabî was similar to a “levy-master” in that they were the “‘taskmaster’[:] the one over the gang of forced laborers and reminiscent of the old time press-gang officers.” The bâ’iru, on the other hand, were similar to a “field cornet” in that they may have been “a local policeman, whose chief duty was to apprehend criminals and reluctant conscripts.” Nevertheless, it is not clear what the bâ’iru did because that name was also used for “‘fisherman’ who were ‘catchers’ in another sense, and of hunters.” The researchers have found that “[a] really satisfactory rendering [of the both classes] is impossible, as we have now no officials whose duties actually correspond to theirs.” 
As compensation for their duties, each of these officials received a “benefice [which]. . . consisted of land, house, and garden, certain sheep and cattle as stock, and a salary.” This compensation ‘. . . was directly ascribed to the king as benefactor.” If an official neglected the care of his benefice, he “ran the risk of forfeiture [of that benefice].” Although he ran the risk of forfeiture, “the official and his benefice were protected. He could not be hired out by his superior officers, no in any way plundered or oppressed. He held tax free, subject only to his feudal duty.” These two classes of men, the rîd sabî and the bâ’iru, were employed by the king, and as such, answered entirely to him. These men had a considerable workload, yet simultaneously, received considerable compensation for the work that they did for the king. 
III.	The Legal Process of Ancient Babylon
The legal system was quite modern in that there is a trial of the accused and there is a jury and judge present. “[T]here was always a trial, and proof was demanded on oath . . . There is no proof that the jury decided only facts and found the prisoner guilty or not, leaving the judge no option but to inflict the extreme penalty. The judge, on the contrary, seems to have had much legislative power.”
Because some of the earliest known documents are written by judges, “. . . it may fairly be said that judges were found in ancient Babylonia from time immemorial.” The researchers have discovered that judges “. . . must have decided what was right when there was no written law to which to appeal.” In Babylonia, specifically, “. . . hardly anything was done without committing it to writing. Hence we are as well informed about domestic affairs in Babylonia as about those of Europe in the Middle Ages.” Nevertheless, far more is known about domestic affairs in ancient Babylon “in the early periods than in the later. Hence the discussion of early legal usage is unusually full.” The next part of this essay will go through the key players in the legal process –the judges, the scribes, and the witnesses – and give a synopsis of what each role did. 
A.	The Key Players: Judges, Scribes and Witnesses
	Because so much is known about the legal affairs of Babylon in the early times, the researches have discovered that there is a vast source of information relating to lawsuits. In suits, for example, “. . . there was no word for ‘law,’ only the terms ‘judgments,’ ‘right’ and ‘wrong’. It was significant that the parties to a suit always seemed to have agreed on what was right between man and man, and then to have sworn by their gods to observe that ‘right’.”  Due to the parties both agreeing to a lawsuit, one could say that the legal system was quite efficient. It was also partially efficient because of the key players in the legal system, that is the judge, the scribe, and the witnesses.
i.	Judges
Judges were a crucial part of the domestic affairs of ancient Babylon; however, they may not have received compensation for it. “[I]t must not be understood that [judges] had no other means of livelihood. Indeed, there is no hint anywhere that they receive any remuneration for their services. But it was a high honor and by no means subsidiary to another office.” A majority of the judges were comprised of higher officials and “[d]oubtless the king himself acted as judge on occasions. . . .” Nevertheless, the judges were probably not priests. “The judges were men of great importance and high rank, but there is nothing to show that they were priests. An age qualification is more likely.” The judges may have been appointed by the king, as is evidenced in the phrase “the king’s judges[];” however, there is “clear evidence of the office being hereditary.” Quite different from other legal systems is the notion that a woman could be a judge. On occasion, Ishtar-ummu, who was the daughter of the king and whose brothers were all judges, was a judge.  
In the Code of Hammurabi, the judge is revered and respected, however, in reading the Code, “. . . it seems probable that the sentences there laid down had to be pronounced by the judge, if not carried out by him.” Although he may have to carry out the sentence, researchers are “still in complete ignorance as to the machinery of police administration.” The judge may grant some leniency to people in certain situations. In a criminal case, “where a man had to produce witnesses to save his life form a death-sentence, the judge might grant him six months’ grace in which to produce his witness.” The judge thus had the power, and responsibility, to invoke and carry out, the sentences. 
There were severe penalties for a judge giving and then revoking his punishment. Under the Code, “. . . if a judge had given a judgment, decided the case, and embodied it in a legal decision, he was subjected to severe penalties for afterwards revoking his decision.” If a judge had inflicted a penalty in his sentence and could not justify his revocation of the sentence, “he had now to repay it twelve-fold to him from whom it was exacted. Further, he was to be publicly deposed from his office, expelled from his seat of judgment. . . [] and no longer be permitted to sit with the judges.” There was a great and severe penalty for giving and then revoking one’s punishment. This may be why the judge would grant leniency in some cases, for fear that he would revoke his sentence, and did not want to face those penalties. 
ii. Scribes
	The scribe is the writer of the document at the legal proceeding, and “there is no evidence that anyone else ever wrote a word on the document.” However, we do not know how scribes were appointed because they only put their name and their title, not their father’s name, thus we do not know whether the office was hereditary. Similar to judges, “[w]omen certainly were scribes. Out of a total of ninety names of scribes known, at least ten were women.”  Moreover, just like the judge, a scribe was not a priest. “There is no evidence whatever that either priests were all scribes, or could all writes, or that scribes were necessary priests. . . the offices are distinct and no man ever bears both titles.” Thus, the scribes, as men and women, were quite necessary in the legal system. 
The reports that the scribe makes of the legal proceedings are very peculiar. Specifically, the scribe, writing after the legal proceeding has taken place, “. . . ascribes the property to the rightful owner from the start of his document, and regards the wrongful holder as laying claim to it.” Hence, the cases are slightly skewed because of this style of writing; nevertheless, one can see how crucial the scribes were because they memorialized all of the legal proceedings. 
iii. Witnesses
	The witnesses comprised the vast majority of the people at a legal proceeding, and were similar to a modern-day jury. They witnesses are comprised of the šîbu who are the elders of the city. The šîbu may have been “. . . nominated, or at least approved, by the king.” Similar to judges and scribes, the šîbu was not comprised of exclusively men. Just like a modern day grand jury, “[t]he recurrence of the same names, at the same dates, indicates that a body of official witnesses were held in readiness to act on such occasions.” Unlike a modern-day jury however, these jurors usually “. . . had an interest in the case. They might be relatives of the parties, neighbors of the estate in question, [or] officials whose rights were concerned.” The jury in ancient times were not disassociated from the case, as such, may have been a lot more attentive during the case because they had a personal connection with the object at issue in the case. 
B.	Disputes Settled Out of Court
Not all disputes had to go to court; some could be, and preferably were, settled out of court. It is “probable that many cases were settled by mutual agreement,” that is, out of court. The system is almost exactly the same as the American system in that, “[w]hen parties disagreed, they might discuss their difference between themselves and arrive at an agreement.” After this agreement, “. . . they procured a scribe, who embodied the agreement in a binding compact. . . .” This compact also had some clauses in it where the parties mutually undertook “not to withdraw from the agreement, re-open the dispute, or bring legal action, one against the other.” In order to sanction this agreement the two parties “swore by the gods and the kings.” Furthermore, “[w]itnesses were called upon to be cognizant of and attest the contract; and their names were added to the contract.” In addition, in order to authenticate their names, “both parties and witnesses often impressed their seals or, in default of seals, made a nail-mark.” Finally, the date was added to the compact and there were three copies of the agreement made: one for each party and one for the scribe, who may have “. . . deposited it in the archives.” This process was quite thorough and very efficient, possibly in order to promote the settling of disputes out of court. 
If a party violated this promise not to bring a legal action, they had to forfeit something. In fact, there “were terrific penalties intended to deter any attempt at litigation.” One of these terrific penalties was that “. . . the litigant should be punished by the sacrifice of his child as a ‘burnt offering’ to the god.” Although this punishment is severe, “[w]e have no proof that such an offering ever took place;” it may have simply been meant as a punishment of deterrence. Although the severe forfeiture may simply have been a deterrence, they may have worked because a vast number of cases were settled out of court. 
C.	The Court Procedure for Legal Disputes 
Because the Code of Hammurabi is not very detailed about the legal procedure in the courts, “[w]e have only scattered hints regarding legal procedure.” We do know that the scribe first records the plaintiff’s statement of claim and then records the counter-statement, thus, this is probably the order of the legal procedure. We also know that as a part of the legal procedure, “. . . the object in dispute, or at any rate, the deeds relating to it, were brought into court, and resigned into the hands of the god.” The god was charged with “discern[ing] the rightful owner [of the object] and restor[ing] the object to him.” Because the god made the decision, the defendant had to make his claim before the god. This process is quite different from the modern-day American one, in that, the object in dispute is brought into court, the defendant has to make his claim before the god, and the god made the ultimate decision. 
i.	The Oath 
Both parties and the witnesses had to take an oath which was administered by the judge. The exact form of words used in the oath is not certain, but they had to give the oath of god. The purpose of this oath was “not to give false evidence, or, in the case of contracts, not to alter the stipulated agreement.” We do not know the consequence of violating this oath because “[e]ither it was too well known, or too awful, for the scribe to write it down.” This vow to god solidified the seriousness of the legal dispute, and may have made it far more difficult for someone to violate this vow. 
ii.	The Penalties for an Unsuccessful Suitor
The penalties were very severe for an unsuccessful suitor. If a person sued and lost, he was “not allowed get off merely with this loss of his suit.” This is mostly because “[h]e had been put on his oath and had been unable to justify himself, or the word that he had spoken.” If the suit was for a capital offense, per the Code, the punishment was death for the suitor. If the suit was for a less serious offense, “. . . it was slander to have brought a false accusation, and the penalty for slander was branding.” There was another form of penalty, focused on retaliation, in which the unsuccessful suitor had “to pay the penalty, which he, if successful, would have brought on the other party.” The threat of slander may have been far worse than any possible punishment, because you had committed slander against a god. 
iii.	The Sentence for the Criminal
If the accusation turned out to be true and a suitor was punished for wrong-doing, the options available for punishment were vast and severe. Most punishments are explicitly stated in the offenses, but the death penalty punishment deserves special consideration because of its severity. The death penalty is the worst punishment and under the Code, it was inflicted for “witchcraft, for theft, for corruption of justice, for rape, for causing death by assault, for neglect of duties by certain officials, for allowing a seditious assembly, for causing death by bad building, and for varieties of these crimes.” Although the Code makes no mention of “murder pure and simple,” it is “assumed” and “[a]n explicit statement was clearly not needed.” There were various offenses and various forms of death penalty, yet a criminal who committed any of these serious offenses had the option to be sentenced to capital punishment. 
There were various forms of enacting the death penalty, including death by drowning, death by fire, and impalement. Death by drowning was inflicted on mainly women. The offenses for this penalty were “. . . a beer-seller for selling beer too cheaply; on a woman for adultery, for being a bad wife, for incest; or for desertion of her husband’s home.” Death by fire was ordered as the punishment for a votary, a woman who lives at the convent, “who opens or enters a beer-shop, for a man and his mother in incest, and indirectly for a thief at a fire.” Impalement at the stake is reserved only “. . . for a wife procuring her husband’s death.” There were three main forms of inflicting the death penalty and some were resrved exclusively for certain offenses. 
IV.	Certain Laws in the Code: Criminal Laws, Slavery Laws, and Familial Laws 
The Code speaks of a wide variety of offenses, ranging from kidnapping to marriage to property laws. This essay will focus on primarily three types of laws in the Code: criminal laws, societal laws and familial laws. First, the essay will speak of criminal laws under the Code. This section will provide an analysis of the various laws surrounding assault, ???. The second portion of this section will speak of the societal laws in the Code. Namely, the focus will be on marriage laws and slavery laws. The third, and final, portion will be about familial laws, specifically,  laws surrounding a familial relationship, and incestuous relationship, and foster children. 
A.	Criminal Laws
The Code goes into quite a bit of detail and depth describing the possible offenses and various punishments for these offenses. The entire Code, that is, that that has been preserved, has 272 sections, with one offense comprising each section. This section will go through an analysis of some of the sections relating to criminal law and explain the offense and the possible punishment. This section will thus be divided into: (i) slander and kidnapping, (ii) theft and robbery, (iii) assaults, and finally, (iv) offenses relating to debt. 
i.	Slander and Kidnapping 
Section 2 of the Code deals primarily with someone who has accused someone, but has not proved it. This section speaks of the punishment for the accused. It states that “[i]f a man has accused another of laying a kišpu (spell) upon him, but has not proved it, the accused shall go to the sacred river, he shall plunge into the sacred river, and if the sacred river shall conquer him, he that accused him shall take possession of his house. If the sacred river shall show his innocence and he is saved, his accused shall be put to death. He that plunged in the sacred river shall appropriate the house of him that accused him.” This punishment is reminiscent of the Salem Witch Trials, whereby mother nature would decide who was innocent and who was guilty. 
Section 127 deals directly with a man who commits slander against either a married woman or a nun. This section states that “[i]f a man has caused the finger to be pointed at a votary, or a man’s wife, and has not justified himself, that man shall be brought before the judges, and have his forehead branded.” If a man commits slander against either a nun or a married woman, he will be branded, whereby he has his hair shaved, a symbol of degradation. 
The prohibition against kidnapping is quite direct and is very short, in that it only comprises one section. This section, number 14, denotes the death penalty for someone who has kidnapped a child. Section 14 of the Code states that “[i]f a man has stolen a child, he shall be put to death.” This section of the code, and the curtness of it, may have been much more efficient than the convoluted codes in modern times. 
ii. 	Theft and Robbery
Unlike kidnapping, the Code has various sections for theft and robbery; however, most offenses proclaim the punishment as the death penalty, but in various ways. Section 6 of the Code states that “[i]f a man has stolen goods from a temple, or house, he shall be put to death; and he that has received the stolen property from him shall be put to death.” This section deals with the theft of stolen property, and the receipt of stolen goods, of which both punishments are death. 
The ancient legal system also addressed possible thefts during a fire and highway robbery. Section 25 of the Code states that “[i]f a fire has broken out in a man’s house and one who has come to put it out has coveted the property of the householder and appropriated any of it, that man shall be cast into the self-same fire.” If a person has come to put out a burning house and has coveted, or taken, any of the property in that house, that person will be cast into the fire. Section 22 of the Code states that “[i]f a man has committed highway robbery and has been caught, that man shall be put to death.” All these offenses, although relating to various criminal acts, have the same punishment: death. 
iii. 	Assaults
The Code has a multitude of sections relating to the crime of assault and varieties of assaults. The harshest punishments are for a child who has assaulted his parent. For example, section 195 states that “[i]f a son has struck his father, his hands shall be cut off.” Unlike a son hitting his father, no similar penalty was enforced against a man who hit a pregnant woman, and caused her to miscarry. Section 209 states that “[i]f a man has struck a free woman with child, and has caused her to miscarry, he shall pay ten shekels for her miscarriage. Section 210 is a continuation of the previous section whereby “[i]f that woman die[s], his daughter shall be killed.” 
Nevertheless, this punishment would become even more minute if a man assaults another man’s maid, not a free woman. Section 213 states that “[i]f he has struck a man’s maid and caused her to miscarry, he shall pay two shekels of silver.” As a continuation, Section 214 states that “[i]f that woman die[s], he shall pay one-third of a mina of silver.” Thus, the punishment for an assault offense was seemingly on a sliding scale contingent upon whom the offender was and whom the offender assaulted. 
iv.	Offenses Relating to Debt
Some of these punishments for offenses relating to debt sound quite sophisticated, and are similar to the offenses in modern days. Section 100 of the Code states that “[If an agent has received money of a merchant, he shall write down the amount] and [what is to be] the interest of the money, and when his time is up, he shall settle with his merchant.”  This section thus requires an agent to write down how much he is owed and then settle the debt, much like a modern day receipt. Section 117 relates to a debt that a man has and has given his family member as a hostage to clear that debt. “If a man owes a debt, and he has given his wife, his son, or his daughter [as hostage] for the money, or has handed someone over to work it off, the hostage shall do the work of the creditor’s house, but in the fourth year he shall set them free.” Thus, one is ordered to write a receipt for any money owned and if a man gives one of his family members to pay that debt, they will be released in the fourth year. 
Section 122, 123, and 124 of the Code speak of receiving a receipt and having witness for any deposit you make in order to prosecute a fraud. Section 122 states that “[i]f a man has given another gold, silver, or any goods whatever, on deposit, all that he gives shall he show to witnesses, and take a bond and so give on deposit.”  This implies that for every sale one makes, one has to have witnesses observe the sale or he must take a receipt for the sale. Section 123 states that “[i]f he has given on deposit without witnesses and bonds, and has been defrauded where he made his deposit, he has no claim to prosecute.” If a person has been defrauded, and he completed the sale without a witness or receipt, he cannot prosecute the thief.  Section 124 states that “[i]f a man has given on deposit to another, before witnesses, gold, silver, or any goods whatever, on deposit, and his claim has been contested, he shall prosecute that man, and [the man] shall return double what he disputed.” (second brackets in original) If a man has received a receipt or has witnesses, and the thief still contests the claim, the man can prosecute the thief and receive double the disputed amount. 
V.	Societal Laws
The Code speaks of various societal laws surrounding the relationship between people. This section comprises the majority of the laws in the Code of Hammurabi, and may have been the most useful for people. These laws dictate their everyday lives and the way in which they must carry themselves and interact with one another. 
A.	Marriage Laws
The first category of these societal laws are marriage laws. Section 129 through 132 speak primarily of marriage laws and the relationship between a husband and a wife. Section 129 of the Code deals with the wife having an affair. Presumably, there is no law regarding the husband having an affair, because this was common practice. This section states that “[i]f a man’s wife be caught lying with another, they shall be strangled and cast into the water.” If the wife is the adulterer, both her and her lover will be killed. However, there is a caveat to this rule. “If the wife’s husband would save his wife, the king can save his servant.” Thus, if the husband chooses not to have his wife killed, the king could also choose the same for the wife’s lover. 
The punishment for rape of a betrothed virgin is also more sophisticated than one would have thought. Section 130 states that “[i]f a man has ravished another’s betrothed wife, who is a virgin, while still living in her father’s house, and has been caught in the act, that man shall be put to death; the woman shall go free.” One might have thought that the punishment for rape of a virgin may be a forced marriage; however, the punishment is actually death for the man who initiated the rape. 
Section 132 deals with the situation when there are suspicions that the wife is having an affair, yet she is not caught having an affair. This section states that “[i]f a man’s wife has the finger pointed at her on account of another, but has not been caught lying with him, for her husband’s sake she shall plunge into the sacred river.” This means that if there are suspicions that the wife is having an affair but she was not caught in the act, she will kill herself for her husband’s sake. The next category of societal laws are those relating to slaves and slave-owners. 
B.	Slavery Laws
A bit of historical context may be needed to understand the social conditions surrounding slaves in ancient times and why the laws were formed they way they were. In ancient Babylonian times, a slave was an inferior to the man, but also had a great amount of freedom. The Babylonians regarded the “. . . slave [as] an inferior domestic. . . .That he was actually a chattel is clear from his being sold, pledged, or deposited.” The Babylonians thought of their slaves and property and treated them as such. A slave “. . . was bound to do service without pay, though he had the right to food and drink. . . He was tied to one spot, not being allowed to leave the city, but might be sent anywhere at command.” However, a slave was not in a worse off position than a child or wife.  “[T]he slave had a great amount of freedom, and was in no respect worse off than a child or even a wife. He could acquire property, marry a free woman, engage in trade, and act as principal in contract with a free man.” The only condition to this “freedom” was that at a slave’s death, “his property. . . fell to his master.”  The Code of Hammurabi directly addresses the rights and duties a slave has, and a slave-owner has to a slave. 
	In the Code, sections 278 through 282 deal directly with slaves and slave-owners. Section 278 states that “[i]f a man has bought a male or female slave and the slave has not fulfilled his month, but the bennu disease has fallen upon him, he shall return the slave to the seller and the buyer shall the back the money he paid.” (italics in original). Thus, if a slave-owner has bought a slave for a limited time period, yet that the slave got sick during the time period, the new owner should return the slave to his previous owner and shall get his money back. This further exemplifies the idea that a slave is chattel, and can be bought and sold just as easy as property. 
By contrast, section 280 explains the rights of a slave in his native land. This section states that “[i]f a man, in a foreign land, has bought a male, or female, slave of another, and if when he has come home the owner of the male or female slave has recognized his slave, and if the slave be a native of the land, he shall grant him his liberty without money.” This is a bit more complicated than section 278. This means that if a slave owner has bought a slave and taken him home, if the slave is a native of that land, and if the slave’s original owner recognizes him, the slave shall be set free. There is a bit of confusion as to whether the “without money” portion of the section is referring to the slave or the slave-owner. That is, whether this means that a slave shall be granted freedom, but be given no money or whether this means that a slave-owner, having released the slave, shall be granted no money (as he would have if the slave got sick, as in section 278).
The last [predominant section is section 282. This section states that “[i]f a slave has said to his master, ‘[y]ou are not my master,’ he shall be brought to account as his slave, and his master shall cut off his ear.” This is a common thread in the entire Code, in that there are separate sections saying just this in the situation of a father saying this to his father or to his mother, and vice versa. Thus, if a slave is to tell his owner that the owner is not his master, the owner shall then cut off the slave’s ear. Although the punishments are different, one will soon see that this same situation can arise in multiple relationships. Thus, the next topic will analyze the various laws regarding familial relationships. 
VI.	Familial Laws
The area of familial laws is actually quite numerous in the Code of Hammurabi and other materials. This essay will primarily focus on three varieties of familial laws. First, the essay will focus on parental relationship laws. Second, the essay will discuss laws surrounding an incestuous relationship. Last, the essay will then go into an analysis of the laws surrounding foster children. 
A.	Parental Relationship
	Because not all components of the Code are recovered and still intact, one cannot find any mention of a parental relationship in the Code. Thus, some time ago, certain scribes drew up a legal phrasebook and called it ana ittišu. Ana ittišu gave as specimens certain laws and probably “they really are extracts from something like a code of laws.” Thus, these following laws do not have a section number, as they are not in the Code but are in ana ittišu. 
	Similar to the rule regarding a slave denying his slave-owner as his true master, there are laws regarding a child denying either of his parents, and vice versa. “ If a son has said to his father, ‘[y]ou are not my father,’ he may brand him, lay fetters upon him, and sell him.” If a son denies his father as such, he may be branded, fettered, and sold. The use of the word “‘. . . brand’ has often been taken to mean ‘shave.’ The cutting short of the hair was a mark of degradation. The Semitic Babylonians wore their hair long, while slaves . . . are represented as hairless.” To brand something also implies “cutting or incision” similar to how a person brands cattle. This may mean “a tattooed mark.” The use of the word “‘. . . fetter’ seems also to be used of a branded body-mark.” This law of what a father may do to a son who rebels against him “means that the rebellious son is to be degraded to the status of a slave and treated as such.” The consequences for a son who denies his father are quite serious; however, are not as serious for a son who denies his mother. 
	If a son rebels against his mother, she may punish him, yet no to the extent he may have been given if he denied his father. “If a son has said to his mother, ‘[y]ou are not my mother,’ one shall brand his forehead, drive him out of the city, and make him go out of the house.” Thus, if a son denies his mother, she may brand him and make him leave the house and the city. The same ambiguity about branding is found in this law also, but by branding his forehead, one may assume that this law implies that a person can shave the rebellious son’s head. The use of the phrase “go out of the house” means, “. . . the son retains his freedom, only he is an exile and homeless.” The mother is not usually the one who exacts the penalty on the son; “. . . [t]he family or city magistrates are probably the ones to execute the law.” Although the mother is the one who is denied by the son, she is not the one to extract the punishment. 
	The penalties are quite different if these scenarios are reversed. First off, if the father tells his son, “. . . [y]ou are not my son, he shall leave house and yard.” It is quite different what the father has the power to do, “[h]ere the father has power to repudiate a son, who must go.” Thus, if a son repudiates his father, the father can kick him out and deny him as a son. Secondly, if a mother tells her son, “. . . [y]ou are not my son, he shall leave house and property.” Unlike if the father repudiates him, “. . . he need not leave the city” if his mother repudiates him; yet, the repudiated son “. . . has no claim to inherent anything” if the mother disowns him.
Even more starting than this contrast in penalties is the one between a husband repudiating his wife and vice versa. “If a wife hates her husband and has said, ‘[y]ou are not my husband,’ one shall throw her into the river.” Thus, if a wife repudiates her husband, she will be killed. If, alternatively, the husband has repudiated his wife, “. . . he shall pay half a mina of silver.” Thus, if the husband repudiates his wife, he shall only be fined. In the first instance, of the woman repudiating the husband, “[t]he executioners here are the family, or city, not the husband. Publicity is therefore implied. It is not a private quarrel, but a refusal of conjugal rights.” This may be a commonality in the legal system of ancient Babylon, in that the community is the executioner, not the actual person harmed. The second category of familial laws is the laws surrounding an incestuous relationship. 
B.	Incestuous Relationship
The second category of familial laws is that of an incestuous relationship. This section is quite different from the other ancient legal system in that an incestuous relationship is forbidden by statute. This category, alternatively, was restored in the Code and thus, these laws will have section numbers. Sections 154 through 157 speak exclusively of an incestuous relationship. 
Section 154 deals with a father who has committed incest with his daughter. It states that “[i]f a man has committed incest with his daughter, that man shall be punished from the city.” Thus, an incestuous relationship between a father and son is strictly forbidden and the father will be punished for engaging in it. 
Section 155 deals with both a mother who has an incestuous relationship with her engaged son, and a father who has an incestuous relationship with his daughter-in-law. The first portion of section 155 states that “[i]f a man has betrothed a maiden to his son and his son has known her, and afterward the man has lain in her bosom, and been caught, that man shall be strangled and she shall be cast into the water.” If a mother is caught having an incestuous relationship with her son, who is betrothed to another woman, the son will be killed. It is interesting to note that there is seemingly no punishment for the mother, perhaps because they thought that the son was the initiator, and as such, he should be punished. The second part states that if the father starts an incestuous relationship with his daughter-in-law, both of them will be killed. Thus, if the father is having an incestuous relationship with his son’s wife, they will both be killed. It is interesting why in this situation, the daughter-in-law will be killed as well, but in the previous situation, the son will only be killed. 
Section 156, is the opposite of section 155, where the son does not know his future wife. The section states that “[i]f a man has betrothed a maiden to his son and his son has not known her, and afterward the man has lain in her bosom, he shall pay her half a mina of silver, and shall pay over to her whatever she brought from her father’s house, and the husband of her choice shall marry her.” If a father has arranged a wife for his son, but the wife does not know her, and the father then has an incestuous relationship with her, he shall pay her damages and will find her the husband of her choice. This is seemingly to discourage this behavior, as this punishment is not as severe as the previous one, perhaps because the son does not know the woman. 
Section 157 speaks of an incestuous relationship with one’s mother. “If a man, after his father’s death, has lain in the boson his mother, they shall both of them be burnt together.” This is the classic Oedipus complex in that after a father’s death, the man will have an incestuous relationship with his own mother. Thus, if this happens, both the mother and her son shall be killed by burning. The third, and final category, of familial laws is the laws surrounding foster children. 
C.	Foster Children
The third category of familial laws is that of foster children. Foster children must have been quite prevalent in ancient Babylonian times, so much so, that there is a special section in the Code of Hammurabi dedicate to them. Namely, sections 185 through 191 are predominantly dealing with the rights and privileges of an adopted child. 
Section 185 is a very simplistic law; yet, at the same time, speaks volumes about the social organization of ancient Babylon. It states that “[i]f a man has taken a young child, a natural son of his, to be his son, and has brought him up, no one shall make a claim against that foster child.” This seems to imply that if a father has adopted a child, he is his child, and no one should try to take that child away from him. However, the very next section addresses what happens if a father has taken a foster child, yet that foster child finds his birth parents. Section 186 states that “[i]f a man has taken a young child to be his son, and after he has taken him, the child discover[s] his own parents, he shall return to his father’s house.”  This also shows the respect that the ancient society had for family lineage, in that, if the adoptive child discovers his birth parents, he shall go with them. 
Similar to section 185, sections 188 and 189 speak of the rights of a father when he has a adopted a child, and taught him his craft. These sections are together and state that “[i]f a craftsman has taken a child to bring up and has taught him his handicraft, he shall not be reclaimed. If he has not taught him his handicraft that foster child shall return to his father’s house.” Thus, if a father has taught his adopted child his own craft, the father gets to keep the child. If the adoptive father has not taught the adoptive child his craft, the adoptive child shall return to his birth father. 
Section 191 speaks of when a father adopts a child, but subsequently, has biological children and wants to disinherit that adopted child. “If a man has brought up the child, whom he took to be his son, and then sets up a home, and after he has acquired children, decides to disinherit the foster child, that son shall not go his way [penniless]; the father that brought him up shall give him one-third of a son’s share in his goods and he shall depart. He shall not give him field, garden, or house.” (second brackets in original) Thus, if a father has adopted the child, and subsequently has biological children, that adopted child is not out of luck. This adopted child shall get money from the father; however, he shall not get property (presumably, because that is for the biological children).  
Quite surprisingly was how modern and ethical the social system and legal system of ancient Babylon were. Some of the ancient legal systems speak of misogynistic laws and societies where women and slaves have no right whatsoever. However, in ancient Babylon, both women and slaves have certain rights that they enjoy, and even more so, there is no disability to natives in that all people can equally use these rights. To sum up, a short musing on ancient civilization may be necessary and useful: “A right-thinking citizen of a modern city would probably feel more at home in ancient Babylon than in medieval Europe.”