Code Of Hammurabi Source Analysis

The passage, “Code of Hammurabi,” is written by a historian to educate readers on the vital aspect of Hammurabi’s regime. For a source to be primary, it must be a direct link to the historical time period in question; otherwise, if the source is a summary or an analysis of historical events then it must be secondary. In this situation, the first two paragraphs of the reading are secondary sources due to their analytical and indirect aspects. For one, the writer was not present during Hammurabi’s rule, so he is explaining what he learned, and he analyzes the clear connects between the other laws, such as the Hebrew law. However, the rest of the document, following “The Laws” is a primary source since it is a translation of the laws that were literally written in stone to create order in the Hammurabi’s dynasty. Overall, the primary source is informative; however, it demonstrates bias to the lower class by focusing on “seigniors” and their consequences mostly. The law set includes 282 codes, but this document only has several hand picked ones.
If laws were to be orally available only, then it would leave room for variation and arguments, rather than having an actual, unquestionable proof. This leads to the importance of Hammurabi’s code. As the document claims, “the Code of Hammurabi was hailed as the first law code in Western History,” and historians are able to back that up because there are remainders of the stone pieces left that were translated. Overall, the source was written to imply the importance of written history and to show how intense the punishments were for some specific pivotal crimes: stealing, murder, and