Talk:Hammurabi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Hammurabi has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
February 17, 2007 Good article nominee Listed
February 22, 2007 Peer review Reviewed
May 29, 2008 Good article reassessment Kept
Current status: Good article
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / Vital (Rated GA-class)
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
 
Note icon
This article is within of subsequent release version of History.
Taskforce icon
This article is a vital article.

YSISG)

Untitled[edit]

Shouldn't this have a list of what the laws said? --139.142.227.91 (talk) 22:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Middle chronology was originally 1790 it cant go backwards BC for Hamurabi because high chronology was 2067 BC and low chronology was 1728 BC. Now with lower yet, have you created two middle chronologies, when many are still trying to revive the 2067 BC Hamurabi with Abram? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.144.120.119 (talk) 15:10, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Old comments[edit]

The German Wikipedia claims he was the 5th king.

Also there is a pretty big discrepancy in terms of when he lived.

Egil 08:33, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)


This has to do with the variations in the systems of Chronology of the Ancient Near East. I think someone's working on harmonizing it.--Rob117 04:03, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I added the paragraph about the questionable nature of the steele. Taken from the source listed (which uses the primary sources excavated from the region), it says explicity that not one legal document ever found has referenced it (the code).


I don't know about that reference, it appears to be a book that just came out within the past 10 months (2005); hardly anything like a "general consensus", but it also appears to contradict everything else, from Ashurbanipal's Library at Nineveh, and numerous references to the Code. Codex Sinaiticus 15:38, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Okay, well until you can point out a single legal document from the time period that references the steele, or even a secondary source saying otherwise, I'm going to have to side with the expert and I'm changing it back. To imply that because it is new that it is questionable is absurd.

I think we've already pointed out one secondary source saying otherwise - the 1911 Britannica. Your 2005 source is not just questionable because it's new; it's also questionable because it's questionable. Things on wikipedia aren't changed thru dogged persistence (it never works); they are changed through consensus of the editors. The burden is now on you to come up with some more convincing proof before changing it back again. Codex Sinaiticus 02:44, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

No, the burden is on you to show ANYWHERE in the 1911 Britannica it says there are relics from the period that reference the law code! You can't, because THERE ARE NONE! All that remains that refers to the steele is the steele itself. You're propagating a lie, and your logic is that because I wrote it first, it is more right. I don't really care about the issue, so keep it your way if it makes you feel better, but the veracity of this article will suffer until it is changed. Well done.The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.213.141.247 (talk • contribs) .

I also think the "questionable nature" comment is a bit odd. There is definitely a general consensus that it's a law code, even if a few scholars would dispute it.--Rob117 04:03, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Law code consensus[edit]

I have just read the book referenced by the user concerning the nature of the law code, and I think I understand where he's going. The book, History of the Ancient Near East: Ca. 3000-323 BC, is not a crackpot work, it's written by a level-headed specialist whose field of research is cuneiform documents. What we objected to was the Wikipedia contributor's slightly inaccurate representation of what the author says; he never says that there is no reference to the law code in Babylonian law; just no references contemporary with it. In later times the law code was studied and applied, just not, in his view, in the time of Hammurabi himself. I'll change the article to acknowledge this authors view (although I'm not sure I agree with his interpretation, it's the right thing to do).--Rob117 22:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

If we have references to the contemporary use of the law code, please cite them, because the book I'm referencing claims there are none. I looked through the Babylonian Law article in the 1911 Britannica and did not find any there either.--Rob117 23:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

So then, if the author was right, the copies and references at Ashurbanipal's library, mentioned in "Babylonian Law" are from a later period, and not from Hammurabi's own time? I think that's what you mean, if so, the article should make that clearer IMO ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 23:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. How come your signature is three question marks instead of Codex (I assume this is codex because that's what it says on the edit screen before the question marks)? --Rob117 01:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Because you don't have gfzemen.ttf in your font folder...ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 02:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

== Hammurabi == good leader but his civiliation failed eventually

Who is Hammurabi and what were the laws he created intended for

Cultural depictions of Hammurabi[edit]

I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information. I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list. Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article. Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this approach as a model for the editors here. Regards, Durova 17:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Birth+Death[edit]

I don't understand i have visited a lot of sites and they dates of Hammurabi's birth and death are different i don't think it is right to give people the wrong infromation. I know it is the Internet ,but your suppose to be a trusted site.


If i am wrong please tell me. The "Real" dates are (

1792-1750)No they are not the dates are 1891-1856

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.58.193.122 (talk) 00:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC).

Hey, about the dates for Hammurabi, all the different years you see is due to the different chronologies and uncertainties of this period. There is no "right date", because there are large margins of error due mostly to inconsistent sources. The range you provided, 1792-1750, is the most common chronology, but there has been a revised chronology which puts his reign a generation later. Apparently it's starting to gain favor among Assyriologists, but that's open to interpretation. --Šarukinu 21:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe that the dates given are not birth and death dates, but dates of Hammurabi's reign. Experts please comment! 155.68.1.194 (talk) 15:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)D. Kramer

-To add to this, the "Code of Hamurabi" page lists that it is from around 1772. if this is the case than the dates listed on this page are wrong even if thy represent his rule and not birth/death — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.225.191.45 (talk) 03:04, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Technically speaking I believe the years should include decimals, since the Babylonian calendar (Luni-Solar) was different from our own. So instead of 1802, it'd be 1801.2-1802.2. Furthermore, I've heard talk in the field of revising the dates since for the 2nd millenia they're most likely quite wrong. Alot of the dates are gotten by assuming that the Assyrians in the Middle Assyrian calendar corrected their calendar (they used a Lunar calendar). A lunar year is ~354 days, thus every 2.7 years you lose an entire month. I believe it's during the reign of Tiglath-Pileser I that there are months listed both by the Babylonian calendar, and the Assyrian calendar, the latter of which as the reign goes on begin moving in position in relation to the Babylonian months which are Luni-Solar. In this time period also the name of at least one month changes, the month name meaning "harvest" is changed and named after the god "Sin." There are those who posit that in official scribal documentation the Assyrians corrected their calendars, and that this being the case the years are correct; there's not a shred of evidence of this. This would change the dates of Hammurabi by about 20 years, if memory serves. If I get motivated enough I'll post the paper, it was recently done out of UPenn. (Alcibiades979 (talk) 11:44, 27 March 2016 (UTC))

Semi-protection[edit]

I've semi-protected again, for a bit longer. Can someone who really knows this topic check the article for old vandalism that is still in it? GRBerry 02:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I found and reverted one item from early September. I've checked back to July 6 and don't see anything else. Anyone else want to go through this article? I raised this concern because I've seen other articles where persistent vandalism stopped when old but missed vandalism was cleaned up. GRBerry 17:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

WEll i checked for it and i did find a good —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.192.217.92 (talk) 18:32, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Hammurabi Semitic man[edit]

is Hammurabi Semitic man from the Amorites

GA Sweeps[edit]

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. Regards, Jackyd101 (talk) 12:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Dates[edit]

Y. Yadin, excavator of Hazor, said that Hammurabi contemporaneous of Zimri-Linshould be dated before MBIIA, because Hazor, mentionned in the Mari archive, was not a big city before that time. I i dont mistake, the start of MBIIA would be around 1750 in a middle chronology, then it seems that Hammurabi should be dated after 1750. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.67.188.234 (talk) 18:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

dates and life expectancy[edit]

According to the current version (ca. 1792 – 1686 BC) he would have died at the age of 106 which is obviously wrong. I would change that but don't know the correct years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.180.207.1 (talk) 14:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Who are you to say that no one lived 106 years. Do you dare take away the Christian right to beleive this longevity? If you dont believe Hamurabi died at 106 as a young man, then you wont beleive IbbiSin was born with the foundation of Nineveh in 2060 BC, became an elder (king) in 2029 BC when Ur I fell, created a throne in Isan for Ishbi-Erra in 2018 BC at Abram's birth (who lived 175), 9 years before 2009 BC UrNammu created Ur III, and didnt become sole chief king himself until 1925 at age 135 to die in 1901 BC at age 159 dispersing Ur to Babylon and to the Indus River honored 1200 years by Venus later in 700 BC, and mistaken as Amizadugua's Venus dates (1626 BC) when his death dispersed the relatives to the Indus River making them think the Tablets were from 1901 BC. All 2000 years of christian chronology prove the tablets were regarded as the origin for Adam epocs 5500 BC & 5200 BC using 3600+2400 years, and 4025 BC & 4000 BC using 2400+3600 years. 98.144.120.119 (talk) 15:31, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Article was almost all in "short chronology" so I tidied up a couple dates that were in "middle chronology" to match. Should all make sense now. Ploversegg (talk) 16:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)ploversegg

Gigogag (talk · contribs) has since changed all the dates to use "middle chronology" as well as added an unsourced birth date (which I've removed as dubious). Although modern scholarship may be moving to "short chronology", the use of middle chronology seems to be the most common (Arnold describes it as having "wide acceptence in the secondary literature" e.g). and its the chronology used by three of our cited sources Arnold, DeBlois, Van De Mieroop as well as for example Britannica. In any case I've added a note about this article using "middle chronology". Paul August 17:41, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Nimrod connection[edit]

why this articles doesn't mention the conection various historians conlcude between Nimrod and hummurabi as same person. this is very important issue that needs to be addressed in this article. I hope someone with fill this info. thanks116.71.52.57 (talk) 14:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

New stuff goes at the bottom. If there are reliable sources, that would be a fine addition, although "need" is a bit strong. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Modern Assyrian name[edit]

I shall be putting Hammurabi's name in Modern Assyrian (Neo-Aramaic), anyone object to this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Assyrio (talkcontribs) 21:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Aramaic is not relevant to an 18th century BC Babylonian. ܥܝܪܐܩ (talk) 21:37, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

but he's of Assyrian history, and that's why his name should also be in Aramaic because Akkadian was replaced by Aramaic, and I'm pretty sure they wrote his name in Aramaic too. ܐܬܘܪܐܝܐ 18:41, 26 March 2010 (UTC) user:Assyrio

He's not of Assyrian history. ܥܝܪܐܩ (talk) 19:10, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

actually, he is; the Assyrians today comprise of ancient Assyrians, Babylonians, Arameans, and Amorites, and I request his name to be in Assyrian because he's one of the most important figures in Assyrian history. ܐܬܘܪܐܝܐ 04:06, 27 March 2010 (UTC) User:Assyrio

He was an 18th century BC Babylonian of Amorite descent. He has nothing to with Assyria or Aramaic. and it is a nonsense to espouse that modern Assyrians are some kind of all-encompassing Mesopotamians. This is not Assyrian history. ܥܝܪܐܩ (talk) 04:28, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Assyrians encompass ALL Mesopotamians because that's what modern Assyrians are, they are the descendants of the past Mesopotamians, why? because books say so, even the school textbooks say that, along with Assyrian folk stories handed down generations after generation, same with the ancient cuneiform tablets made by Assyro-Babylonians; Amorites and Assyrians are both Semitic, so are their languages, so it's appropriate to put his name in Aramaic, yes it is Assyrian history, and yes he had something to do with Assyria, he came to control the city state of Assur after the death of shamshi-adad and incorporated it into his empire; plus, I highly doubt your knowledge of history, so please leave this to the professionals. ܐܵܬܘܿܪܵܝܵܐ 17:39, 27 March 2010 (UTC) user:Assyrio

Youtube link[edit]

The link appears below the second paragraph. Not sure if it can just be deleted or what. I've added a linebreak in the page to fix the ==History== section Ienpw III (talk) 23:16, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if I'm reporting this in the right way, but the stele of Hammaurabi is not located at the Oriental Museum. That is a plaster replica, the real copy resides in the Louvre. Would edit this myself, but I have a paper to write! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.30.12.46 (talk) 12:44, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

lex talionis[edit]

"The punishments tended to be very harsh by modern standards, with many offenses resulting in death, disfigurement, or the use of the "Eye for eye, tooth for tooth" (Lex Talionis "Law of Retaliation") philosophy.[24] " As against this reference, please find sources that reference these laws and explain how they are lex talionis since they don't result in death or an equal physical punishment: law # 116 where a slave put in jail for theft dies but money is paid instead of capital punishment; 194 a wet-nurse has her breasts cut off if the child dies; 199 for putting out the eye of a slave a man pays money to the owner; 203 a man striking his equal pays money; 206 a man who causes an injury pays the doctor bill; 209 a man who strikes a woman and causes a miscarriage pays a fine; 219 a physician who operates on a slave and the slave dies, the physician replaces the slave. These aren't all the laws that don't correspond to lex talionis and those have to be explained before a writer can categorically state that lex talionis always applied. If your source says that, find another source that evaluates the entire code according to what it actually says. 4.249.48.55 (talk) 21:08, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

The operative word you seem to missing in the sentence is the word OR. Here, try reading it again with the relevant words bolded, and see if it really says that lex talionis "always" applied: "The punishments tended to be very harsh by modern standards, with many offenses resulting in death, disfigurement, OR the use of the "Eye for eye, tooth for tooth" (Lex Talionis "Law of Retaliation") philosophy.[24] " Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 23:25, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Mosaic code[edit]

I removed the reference to the Mosaic code under "Code of Hammurabi." While I am in agreement with the likelihood that Hammurabi's code predates Moses', it's not relevant enough to the topic to merit bogging down the article with an explanation of the various theories on dating the Mosaic code. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.80.144.230 (talk) 13:46, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Sayfawa dynasty[edit]

Hammurabi was part of the Akkad civilization's Sayfawa dynasty, but I am wondering where to add this. Thoughts anyone? Twillisjr (talk) 09:49, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

On a different website. Not enough people seriously think Hammurabi was part of the Akkad civilization's Sayfawa dynasty, to make it even a noteworthy viewpoint. Mainstream view, substantiated by archaeology, considers him a king of Babylonia. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:14, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Etymology of the name[edit]

The meaning of the name is disputed and several very different translations can be found in the literature: ʻam(mu) = «nation|family|kin|uncle» or «(sun? god) Ham» and rapi(ḫ)|rabi|rawi = «great|wide» or «healer». The late Assyrians themselves thought it meant «great nation», not «uncle (is a) healer».

The current situation is summed up in the 1991 Holman Bible Dictionary's entry, which is substantially unchanged since the 1917 article by Luckenbill in JAOS 37.1 pp. 250-253.

I propose to remove the etymology of the name from the first line of the article altogether or move it to its own section, where the different etymologies can be discussed with references (as it is, the etymology does not even cite a source).

-- RiseOfTheAnts (talk) 18:47, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Confusing sentence[edit]

He became the first king of the Babylonian Empire following the abdication of his father, Sin-Muballit, who had become very ill and died, extending Babylon's control over Mesopotamia by winning a series of wars against neighboring kingdoms

That says to me that he became king after his father's death, so what's the relevance of the abdication? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 08:41, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Clarity[edit]

Edited the lead for clarity and brevity. Hope it meets with approval. SereneRain (talk) 01:50, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Hammurabi. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:02, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Hammurabi/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Article needs major expansion and inline citations. Kaldari 17:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC) I've upgraded the rating to B. This should be submitted for a GA review. --Bookworm857158367 03:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 03:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 17:04, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 December 2016[edit]

you need to change 1792 and 1750 they are backwards so i thought that i would tell you. Crysiloohoo (talk) 17:20, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

No they are in the correct order, as 1792 BC is 42 years earlier than 1750 BC. Paul August 17:30, 23 December 2016 (UTC)