who was the hammurabi codes written for and who did they exclude?

Answer 1

I do not believe Hammurabi's inscription of laws DOES omit slaves, women, etc (more on that below), but even if it does --or does not include as much as we expect -- that need not be any indication that the legal SYSTEM of Hammurabi's Babylonia made no provision for them.

First, note that the traditional label "(law) code" is not the most helpful or accurate to describe the function of this inscriptions and others like it.

For one thing, it was inscribed on a black stele, NOT as a formal document for judges, et.al. to consult. Rather we discover in the inscription's prologue and epilogue that Hammurabi was bragging to his gods, portraying himself as a good king and "shepherd" of his people, an ideal king of justice. The other "codes" give evidence of a similar structure and purpose.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hammurabi
http://eawc.evansville.edu/anthology/hammurabi.htm

In other words, in the narrowest sense the inscriptions themselves are not written for ANY human group, but for the gods! Of course, the laws themselves concerned people.. and reflect principles and examples human judges were supposed to use .

And it is also true that these rulers intended PEOPLE to see the inscriptions (which included curses against those who would tamper with them --that is warnings to those tempted to do so!)


Further, as has been hinted at, all these sets of laws seem to function more as EXAMPLES, a collection of CASE LAW, not as a detailed "system.". At time they may be more like the ancient proverb collections -- a set of decisions collected as general examples of how decisions should be made... and how the existing "system" should work. . (This would also explain the fact that laws within one set may seem to contradict each other.)

Nonetheless, they DO reveal much about the legal 'principles' and how decisions were made in ancient Mesopotamia. (The picture is even fuller when we take into account records of contracts and court decisions preserved from this era in Babylonia -- and these should be included in any treatment of "Hammurabi's laws") Beyond that they are valuable in their portrayal of the IDEAL of the king as dispenser of justice, 'shepherd' of his people and defender of the weak (esp. of the widow and orphan!).

see also: "The Development Of Ancient Mesopotamian Law"
http://www.gmalivuk.com/otherstuff/fall02/danking.htm

Another detail people seem to forget is that there ARE portions of the inscription that are so poorly preserved we cannot read them. This makes it impossible to state with certainty that the laws "did not include" a particular group or concern

Now, once we recognize that Hammurabi's work was a collection of case laws and NOT a thorough "code" we need not expect it to systematically (much less 'consistently') cover all of society, and all situations. The fact that a particular subject, of variation of a case is "missing" may not prove much of anything.

____________________________________

One of two other answers have noted that these laws DO cover a number of 'women's concerns'. Look for example at laws 129-156 -- several of which concern what women are entitled to in certain cases.

____________________________________

Perhaps one reason some claim these laws IGNORE women and slaves is that they often DO make distinctions, esp. in the area of PENALTIES for PERSONAL injuries -- the "eye for eye" principle, for example, ONLY applies when the two parties are social equals. The penalties are significantly higher if the offended party is higher in the social scale, and lower if he is beneath the guilty party. Nonetheless, there ARE penalties!

Also, a number of the laws are NOT restricted by social status. So, for instance, a SLAVE might be able to own property... in which case, the property laws would have some application to him. Or perhaps it is better to say -- his case WOULD be heard in court (and that, not what is written in Hammurabi's formal list, is the real issue).
___________________________________

Finally, the fact that slaves or women may not have enjoyed freedom or equality with others higher in the social system does NOT mean they were overlooked. Take a look, for instance, at the following article. It proceeds from a strong feminist perspective and argues that the laws did not really CARE about women (though I think he very much overstates his case, and often misunderstands particular points in the laws). But he still acknowledges that matters concerning women and 'justice' for them ARE addressed (however unfairly in the author's judgment).
http://www.associatedcontent.com/pop_print.shtml?content_type=article&content_type_id=22128

Answer 2

No, it did *not* happen before the Egyptians. The Code of Hammurabi dates to the 18th cent. BC, during the reign of the Babylonian king by the same name. Egyptian history goes back before 3500 BC. Pay no attention to the poster above.

As for the code, it was intended for the Babylonian citizens, those under the Babylonian empire. It included all land-owning males, and excluded women and slaves, who were not protected under the law.

Answer 3

The codes were written by King Hammurabi for his people. They were written in stones, and placed around his kingdom. Can't remmeber exactly what time.

Answer 4

They were laws and codes of conduct for citizens in 1760 BC. Many people could not read, so they would have been unable to know these laws.

Answer 5

The laws were written for all. He brought all the laws of that area together for the first time. The code regulates all of society from top to bottom, no one was excluded.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/hamcode.html
http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/MESO/CODE.HTM