Egyptian-Hittite peace treaty

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Assembled fragments of a clay tablet with the text of the contract, exhibited in the Istanbul Archaeological Museum
Hieroglyphic inscription with the text of the treaty on the western outer wall of the Cachette courtyard in the temple of Karnak

As an Egyptian-Hittite peace treaty , an agreement between the Egyptian pharaoh Ramses II and the Hittite great king Ḫattušili III, dated to the 21st Peret in the 21st year of Ramses II's reign (corresponds to November 10, 1259 BC ) . designated. With this agreement, both rulers reaffirmed the peace that existed between them and recognized each other as equal partners. As such, they mutually promised military support against internal and external threats, Ramses II committed himself in the same way to the heir to the throne Ḫattušilis III. In addition, the two rulers agreed to extradite “refugees” to the other's territory.

An Egyptian version of the text had been known since the early 19th century, and a cuneiform version was discovered by German archaeologists in Turkey at the beginning of the 20th century. Since then, the treaty has kept Egyptology , ancient oriental studies and legal history busy. No agreement has been reached to this day, either with regard to the significance of its content or its historical evaluation. Especially in older research and its reception, the document is rated as the oldest equal state treaty and peace treaty in human history. On the one hand, however, recent research doubts whether this is a peace agreement in the modern sense. On the other hand, it is assumed that peace treaties were signed earlier, even if no text has survived. The extent to which this is a state treaty at all has also not been conclusively clarified.

In the public media, the reception of the classic view as a groundbreaking peace agreement predominates. A copy of the text of the treaty will be issued today in the UN building in New York.

Sources

Presumed column counting in the original text, which led to the swapping of columns 3 and 4 when the Egyptian inscriptions were made

To this day, no originals of the Egyptian-Hittite peace treaty have been found. Instead, antiquity research relies on copies, which essentially testify to two versions of the text of the treaty:

  • An Egyptian version written in hieroglyphics has come down to us through two inscriptions. One of these was found on the western outer wall of the Cachette Court in the Temple of Amun at Karnak . It not only reproduces the contract text, but also reports on the conclusion of the contract itself and the seals attached to the contract board. The other inscription is only very fragmentary and was carved on the west tower of the outer pylon in the Ramesseum in Thebes-West . It is generally accepted in research that the Egyptian version of the treaty has some inaccuracies compared to the original text. On the one hand, when the inscriptions were made, the third and fourth columns of the contract text were probably swapped, which is why text lines 32 ff. Follow line 24 in terms of content and lines 25–31 appear as an insert. On the other hand, the text of the treaty was also embellished in terms of the content of the Egyptian ruler's ideology by adding the great king Ḫattušili III, who had the same rank as the pharaoh. downgraded to the rank of Grand Duke.
  • An Akkadian text version written in cuneiform has been handed down through at least two clay tablets from Ḫattuša that have only survived in fragments . The fragments KBo I 7, KBo XXVIII 115 and KUB III 121 are now assigned to one of these clay tablets (text witness A), which are named after their place of publication ; A second clay tablet (text witness B) consists of at least fragment KBo I 25. Whether KUB III 11, KUB III 120, KUB XLVIII 73 and VBoT 6 are also to be assigned to text witness B or whether they belong to a third clay tablet (text witness D) judged differently. According to the manuscript, these fragments come from the same scribe as KBo I 25, but in contrast to this fragment, they are written on both sides.

This transmission of the text of the contract in several versions, some of which diverged in content, has repeatedly raised the question of the reliability of the text witnesses in research. It has long been known that the Egyptian version must be the translation of a text originally written in Akkadian. In an extensive study in the 1980s , Anthony Spalinger showed that the well-known cuneiform version could not be considered as a template. This, in turn, is a translation of an originally Egyptian text. As a result, there are essentially three approaches to the relationship between the individual text witnesses. According to the oldest of these approaches from 1997, a clay tablet is the translation of the real text of the contract sent by Ramses, which in turn is based on the other clay tablet, while the Egyptian inscriptions were based on another, previously unknown draft. According to a more recent approach, both clay tablets are said to have served as templates for the final version of the contract, which are based on an unknown Egyptian draft. A third approach emphasizes that only speculation is possible on this question. One can assume, however, that the text of the contract as such in the Egyptian inscriptions was essentially correctly reproduced, but that the concrete wording of the contract was transmitted more authentically through the clay tablets.

Discovery and history of research

Signing of the hieroglyphic inscription with the contract text in Karnak by Richard Lepsius (1849)

The Egyptian text witnesses had been known since Jean-François Champollion's Franco-Tuscan expedition to Egypt in the late 1820s. He autographed both inscriptions in the 2nd volume of his Notices Descriptives and mentioned them in his letters. The real meaning of the text, however, only grasped its student Ippolito Rosellini , who also made the first attempt at translation. The clay tablet fragments with the Akkadian contract version were then found in 1906/1907 by Hugo Winckler during his excavations in the Hittite capital Ḫattuša , but were only fully published during the First World War . Bruno Meissner produced the first critical edition of this newly accessible text version during the war . Since then, numerous other text editions have been created, of which today the German-language editing of both text versions by Elmar Edel from 1997 is decisive. The cuneiform version of the contract with the number 91 is recorded in the catalog of the text Hittites .

Classical studies and legal history were repeatedly preoccupied with the contract. The Yugoslav legal historian Viktor Korošec presented a particularly important study in 1931. It still determines the state of research to this day and is still often quoted. As recently as 2002, a qualification thesis on this topic essentially only reflects his findings. At the same time, there are certain economic trends in research and shifts in perspectives. Today's research criticizes above all exaggerations of the contract and anachronistic comparisons, which for a long time also determined the scientific study of the contract. The tendency to exaggerate the treaty becomes evident when Korošec describes the treaty as a “pearl in ancient international law” and other authors assume that it itself corresponds to the standards of modern international law . Anachronisms can be seen, for example, in Bruno Meissner's view of 1918 that the treaty was at the end of a “world war” or in Guy Kestemont's comparison of the two empires with NATO and the Warsaw Pact . Today the treaty is assessed in a more differentiated manner, while the old narratives live on in reception, particularly through the neighboring disciplines of Egyptology and Assyriology. Since the turn of the millennium, more and more extensive work has been done on the contract, which, in addition to the aforementioned dissertation from 2002, also includes a monographic review of the state of research by Horst Klengel from the same year, which is aimed at a more general audience.

Historical context

Middle East in the 13th century BC Chr.

Egypt and the Hittite Empire competed from around the second half of the 14th century BC. About their supremacy in the Syro - Canaanite area. Thutmose III had already gone there. extended the Egyptian sphere of influence. Rather varied contacts between the two empires began at the latest when the Hittite great king Šuppiluliuma I conquered almost all of northern Syria. As a result, border conflicts arose again and again, but also diplomatic contacts, as evidenced by the Kuruštama Treaty , a forerunner of the Egyptian-Hittite peace treaty, or the so-called Amarna letters . However, especially during the reign of Ramses II, the conflicts broke out again and led to the famous Battle of Kadesch on the Orontes (1274 BC) and the Battle of Dapur (1271 BC). For these conflicts the 1259 BC marked The Egyptian-Hittite peace treaty concluded in the 4th century BC, although it is largely unclear how it is to be related to these events and to be understood against this background.

Classic narrative

The Egyptian-Hittite peace treaty owes its particular popularity to a common narrative according to which it marked a dramatic turn in the thinking of Ramses II and Ḫattušili III. testify. Instead of continuing the conflict, both would have decided to cooperate with one another, whereby different nuances can be discerned between the authors with regard to the details. In general, the treaty is considered to be a late consequence of the Battle of Kadesh, in which neither of the adversaries was able to prevail in the military field. Against this background - and possibly also based on their own war experiences - the older literature in particular stated that the rulers needed peace. Other authors tend to focus on the goal of a cooperation relationship based on peace, already in keeping with today's United Nations Charter . So the treaty texts would present the other ruler as a peacemaker . Peace is presented in the sources as the sole goal of the previous conflict, which should appear as a " just war " . It is primarily from this narrative that transfigures the treaty that the common designation of this treaty in its portrayal in the public media as the oldest peace treaty and the oldest parity state treaty in human history comes from .

Younger approaches

The majority of recent ancient scholarship rejects such a romanticizing perspective. Instead, various motivations for concluding a contract are discussed and multi-causal explanatory models are sometimes preferred. The strengthening of the Central Assyrian Empire under Salmānu-ašarēd I , which led to a shift in the balance of power in the Syrian region and above all threatened the Hittites, is named as an essential factor for the conclusion of the contract . They wanted to oppose a solid military alliance. Ramses II's interest in a consolidation of Egypt's northern border with the Hittites is also justified by the fact that he had to put down rebellions in the Nile valley and repel attacks by Libyans on the western border of his empire. Especially for Ḫattušili III. His usurpation of the Hittite throne is also a possible reason for the conclusion of the contract in two respects . On the one hand, this may have resulted in an interest in securing power on the “international stage”. This would have found its concrete expression in § 10 of the contract, according to which Ramses II committed himself to the heirs of Ḫattušilis III. to keep on the throne. On the other hand, the deposed king and brother Ḫattušilis III., Muršili III. / Urḫi-Teššup , fled into exile in the Egyptian-controlled areas of Syria. Ḫattušili III. tried repeatedly to get his extradition, which may have been the background for the provisions made in §§ 11-13 of the contract on the extradition of refugees. In addition, the Hittite Empire is said to have suffered from crop failures and therefore became dependent on grain deliveries from Egypt.

The conclusion of the contract is therefore mainly justified by recent literature with political-strategic considerations of opportunity. Against this background, whether the treaty is classified as a peace treaty in the true sense of the word or not as the establishment of a military alliance depends on the weighting of the factors mentioned and the understanding of the individual parts of the treaty.

Impact history

In any case, the impact of the treaty only lasted a few decades because the Hittite Empire collapsed soon after its conclusion and Egypt also lost considerable power during the so-called sea ​​peoples storm . It is known, however, that the Egyptian-Hittite relations were secured by two interdynastic marriages some time after the conclusion of the contract. In addition, several surviving letters document a lively correspondence between the two ruling houses, with repeated references to the treaty.

Text carrier and seal

Bronze plaque with a treaty between Tudḫaliya IV and Kurunta of Tarḫuntašša
Comparison of the two approaches to the interpretation of the seal description

As evidenced by both text versions, the originals of the contract texts were recorded on silver tablets. This information is generally believed to be credible, especially since a bronze plaque was found in Boǧazköy in 1986 , on which a treaty between Tudḫaliya IV and Kurunta of Tarḫuntašša was engraved. The use of metal as a text carrier is also documented in other Hittite treaties. What motivated this extraordinary choice of material has not yet been conclusively clarified. Most of the literature assumes that the durability of the material should symbolize the validity of the contract. Other authors, on the other hand, focus more on the value of the material that reflects the meaning of the contract on it. The silver tablet of Ḫattušili III. according to a letter from Ramses II to Ḫattušili III. laid down in front of the portrait of Re-Harachte in Heliopolis . The same letter also shows that the silver tablet of Ramses II in front of a portrait of Tarḫunna was possibly in the so-called "Temple 1" in Ḫattuša, although this place itself has not been recorded.

An indication of the hieroglyphic inscription from Karnak one inferred that at least the silver tablet of Ḫattušili III. was also sealed . According to the inscription, there was a seal in the middle of the front and the back of the silver tablet, for which two interpretive approaches were developed. According to an older interpretation, which goes back to Thomas Beran , the panel is said to have been embossed with bronze or stone seals . It was never possible to clarify how this should have been done technically and manually. A more recent interpretation, however, refers to the bronze plaque with the state treaty between Tudḫaliya IV and Kurunta von Tarḫuntašša, which has meanwhile become known. Chains with metal capsules were attached to this, in which originally clay bulls were possibly enclosed with seal impressions. The same is therefore also assumed for the Egyptian-Hittite peace treaty.

The hieroglyphic inscription also describes the seal images themselves. According to this, the seal on the obverse represented Ḫattušili III, and that on the reverse represented his wife Puduḫepa in an embrace by a main deity. The inscriptions on the edge of the seal would have explained these seal images in a corresponding manner. Thomas Beran already pointed out that this representation has a parallel in relief No. 81 in chamber A of Yazılıkaya , where Tudḫaliya IV. Was depicted in the embrace of the god Sarruma . Current research assumes that this type of so-called embrace seal has been in use since King Muwattalli II . However, beyond speculation, nothing is known about the meaning of the hugging scene and the function of such seals in general.

Text structure

Various approaches have been formulated on the question of the internal structure of the Egyptian-Hittite peace treaty. On the one hand, they depend on whether the respective author tries to capture the text of the contract in a schematic way or sees the value of such a scheme largely limited to a heuristic function . If a schematic recording is attempted, on the other hand the decisive factor is the textual basis on which the respective author developed the schema. The classifications that have emerged to this day can essentially be traced back to three basic models, which sometimes appear to be combined with one another:

  • The functional structure that is relevant today was proposed by Viktor Korošec in 1931 on the basis of an examination of all the Hittite state treaties known at the time: he distinguished preamble, fraternization, prehistory, treaty provisions and invocation of the gods. With this, he noted a slight deviation from the structure of the vassal contracts he had assumed, which could vary from case to case anyway, but was clearly indicated by horizontal lines on the panels of the vassal contracts themselves. Compared to these, the Egyptian-Hittite peace treaty had a section called “fraternization”, but not the otherwise customary deposit and readout clauses. With regard to the terms of the contract itself, Korošec also made a distinction between military alliance and regulation of succession, obligations to refuse asylum and promises of amnesty. This classification is still in use in the more recent literature in its unchanged form. It was only recently proposed that various paragraphs identified by Korošec be grouped together. But even this proposal does not fundamentally question Korošec's division: fraternization and history should together form a prologue, the regulation of the succession to the throne should only be part of the military alliance, and obligations to refuse asylum and promises of amnesty were part of ensuring territorial and personnel levels.
  • On the other hand, an alternative functional structure published by Guy Kestemont in 1982 failed to establish itself in research. In an extensive study, he had already studied the forms of international traffic between 1600 and 1200 BC. Chr. In the Longue durée and on this basis proposed a fundamental three-way division of the contract text: The first element is a "protocol" based on the customs of international traffic, consisting of the title of the legal act, signature and addressee. The second element is the body of the text, which in turn consists of four elements: introduction, basic alliance agreement, basic agreement and additional agreements, each of which has a specific subdivision. The third and last element is a final article, which consists of a testimony clause, invocation of the gods, list of gods, clauses threatening to be repressive and warning clauses. The research has hardly tied in with the work of Kestemont and, as far as it has dealt with his theses, accused him above all of over-mathematizing.
  • In addition, the content of the text has been structured according to paragraphs for a long time , which has already been found in Bruno Meißner. This is also the basis of the paragraph classification made in Elmar Edel's 1997 text edition , which is common today . Edel also assigned the paragraphs to Viktor Korošec's functional elements. Therefore, today a common distinction is made between preamble (§ 1), previous history (§ 2), fraternization with a non-aggression pact (§§ 3–5), military alliance (§§ 6–9), regulation of the succession to the throne (§ 10), obligations to refuse asylum (§§ 11–16 ), Pledge of amnesty (§§ 17–20), invocation of the gods (§ 21), curses and blessings (§§ 22–27).

Beyond this detailed structure of the contract, more fundamental classifications have been tried again and again. Individual authors differentiate between the normative and non-normative parts of the contract. Sections 6–20 are regarded as the normative part. Other authors have suggested drawing a dividing line between §§ 1–20 and §§ 21–27. This corresponds to the distinction between “bond” (isḫiul-) and “oath” (lingai-) , which is found in the ancient oriental designation of this genre (Akkadian: riksu u māmītu ; Hittite: isḫiul- lingai- , dt .: “bond and oath “) Reflect. However, such approaches have not yet been the subject of an in-depth scientific debate.

Content of the contract

It is characteristic of the content of the contract that almost all contract clauses are formulated in a strictly reciprocal manner. In the Egyptian inscriptions, vertragattušilis III follows every contractual assurance. a mirror-image assurance of Ramses II. In the clay tablet fragments from Ḫattuša this order is reversed. The only exception is the so-called succession regulation in § 10, which only obliges Ramses II. Without a reciprocal obligation for Ḫattušili III. would exist.

preamble

The contract begins with a preamble , which, depending on the author, is also called a heading , title or rubrum . She names the two rulers and describes the treaty itself as a "Peace and Brotherhood Treaty":

“The contract that Ramses II signed on a silver plaque with Ḫattušili III, his brother, for the land of Egypt and the land of Hatti, in order to establish such great peace and great brotherhood between them forever. So (says) Ramses II to Ḫattušili III: See, I have now established good brotherhood and good peace between us forever, in order to establish good peace and good brotherhood between the land of Egypt and the land of Hatti forever "

- Cuneiform version : Elmar Edel, The Treaty between Ramses II of Egypt and Hattusili III. von Hatti , Berlin 1997, p. 20 f.

The introduction to the text of the contract with the note “So (says) Sender ” corresponds in formal terms to the ancient oriental formula for introducing letters. This is attributed to the fact that the silver tablets were brought by an embassy .

Historical prologue

According to the prevailing opinion in the literature, the preamble is immediately followed by a historical prologue , which, in comparison to other Hittite state treaties, appears extremely short. For this reason, some authors do not assign this text element any independent function and thus deny the existence of a historical prologue in the Egyptian-Hittite peace treaty:

“Formerly, (already) from eternity, as far as the relationship between the Great King of Egypt and the Grand Duke of Ḫatti is concerned, God did not allow enmity between them by means of a treaty <for ever>. In the time of Muwatalli, the Grand Duke of Ḫatti, my brother, he fought with Ramses II. After Muwatalli, the Grand Duke of Ḫatti, my brother, had hurried to his fate, Ḫattušili sat on his throne as Grand Duke of Ḫatti Father. "

- Karnak inscription : Elmar Edel, The contract between Ramses II of Egypt and Hattusili III. von Hatti , Berlin 1997, p. 20 f.

The function of this text element is highly controversial in ancient oriental studies for state treaties in general and the Egyptian-Hittite peace treaty in particular. There are three fundamentally different approaches:

  • Again and again a legal function was suspected. Korošec, Kestemont and Neumann assumed for international treaties in general that the obligations laid down therein were derived from previous history. Especially with a view to the Egyptian-Hittite State Treaty, Kestemont derived from the reference to the previous conflict contained only in the Karnak inscription in this sense that Ḫattušili III. thus asserted rights acquired in war. Altman , who in a fundamental paper on the historical prologues had advocated their predominantly legal function, however, took the view that the prologue of the Egyptian-Hittite peace treaty had no legal function, but was only intended to underline the will to conclude a treaty.
  • Above all, an Italian research group around Carlo Zaccagnini and Mario Liverani assumed a propagandistic function . The prologue had constructed a certain historical image and its swearing together with the content of the contract stipulated the opponent on the same.
  • A theological and ideological function is also discussed. In the 1970s, Dennis J. McCarthy considered whether the reference to the gods might not represent a classification of the treaty in terms of salvation history . However, he rejected this idea, especially because the Hittites did not have a canonical historical construction , as is typical for Judaism . In contrast, Steffen M. Jauß understood the prologue only as part of a larger text unit, which should also include the subsequent fraternization. This serves the cosmological classification of the contract, in that the prologue in the narrower sense outlines an ideal willed by God, which was implemented with the fraternization.

Regardless of the function of the historical prologue, it is also discussed how it is to be evaluated in historiographical terms. In particular, Sürenhagen took from him the reference to earlier contractual connections between Ḫatti and Egypt, as they are now also evidenced by the Kuruštama Treaty. This had previously been doubted by other authors. For treatment as a historiographical source , it is also stated in particular that the Hittites themselves used historical prologues of state treaties as templates for annals .

Fraternization

The fraternization of the historical prologue is what most authors consider to be the central contractual provision. It is based on the metaphor of the “brotherhood”, which stood for good relationships in international traffic in the late Bronze Age. According to Elmar Edel's count, it comprises §§ 3–5:

“ § 3 After that, however, from this day on, see, there is Ḫattušili III. in the contract, which is supposed to make permanent the relationship that the sun god created and that Seth created for the land of Egypt and the land of Ḫatti, so that enmity should never arise between them. See, Ḫattušili III. has allied himself through the treaty <on the silver plate> with Ramses II, from this day on, in order to establish between us forever good peace and good brotherhood by being fraternized with me, by being peaceful with me, by being fraternized with him (and) by being at peace with him forever. After Muwatalli, the Grand Duke of Hatti, my brother, had followed his fate, Hattusili sat on his father's throne as Grand Duke of Hatti. See, I am with Ramses II (in covenant) in that the relationship of our peace (and) our brotherhood is good; by being better than the (former) peace (and) than the (former) brotherhood that existed in the land <Egypt (and) in the land of Ḫatti>. See, I, as the Grand Duke of Ḫatti, find myself with Ramses II, in good peace (and) good brotherhood; (also) the grandchildren of the Grand Duke of Ḫatti should fraternize and be peaceful with the grandchildren of Ramses II, <forever>, in that they are in our relationship of brotherhood (and) in our relationship of peace; (also) the land of Egypt and the land of Ḫatti should be peaceful (and) fraternize like us forever without enmity ever emerging between them;
§ 4 without Ḫattušili III. ever attack the land of Egypt to take anything away from it; without Ramses II ever attacking the land of Ḫatti to take anything away from it.
§ 5 With regard to the established treaty that existed here at the time of the Šuppiluliuma, the Grand Duke of Ḫatti, and also the established treaty that existed in the time of the Muwatalli, the Grand Duke of Ḫatti, my brother, I have resumed it. See, (also) Ramses II, has taken up the contract again, (and) from this day on it is that he acts together with us. We have taken it up again, (and) it is according to this fixed relationship that we act. "

- Karnak inscription : Elmar Edel, The contract between Ramses II of Egypt and Hattusili III. von Hatti , Berlin 1997, pp. 24-29.

This passage is generally understood to mean that the fraternization corresponding to the will of the gods is presented as the causa efficiens , from which all further provisions follow. This is also shown in the fact that the topos of brotherhood is repeatedly taken up in the following provisions. It will not only be extended to the descendants and the states (on this already above), but will be specified in Section 4 as a non-aggression pact. In this context, however, § 5 triggered some discussions because, unlike § 4, it does not seem to make any material regulation and thus appears as a foreign body between § 4 and § 6. Horst Klengel ultimately held this clause for a concession to Ḫattušili III. Jauß translated the Akkadian term ṣabatu (m), reproduced by Elmar Edel as “to pick up ”, as “to hold on” instead. In its overall approach to §§ 2-5, § 5 appeared as a final statement that the two rulers had preserved the cosmic order called parṣu with their conclusion of the contract . Ultimately, he established a parallel to the function of prologues in ancient oriental codes, such as the Codex Hammurapi .

Military alliance

The fraternization is followed by a series of reciprocally formulated clauses which, according to their essential content, are chiastically crossed . With them, the rulers assured each other of assistance against internal and external threats:

Karnak inscription Cuneiform version
§ 6 Ḫattušili III. Ramses II should stand by against attacks from outside Ramses II should Ḫattušili III. stand against attacks from outside
§ 7 Ḫattušili III. Ramses II is supposed to stand by against servants who have committed a crime against him Ramses II should Ḫattušili III. stand up against servants who have committed a crime against him
§ 8th Ramses II should Ḫattušili III. stand against attacks from outside Ḫattušili III. Ramses II should stand by against attacks from outside
§ 9 Ramses II should Ḫattušili III. stand up against servants who have committed a crime against him Ḫattušili III. Ramses II is supposed to stand by against servants who have committed a crime against him
Ḫattušili III. mandatory clauses in italics; Ramses II. Mandatory exams normal .

With regard to their concrete formulation, these clauses nevertheless differ from one another, whereby there is a tendency to increasingly terse formulations. In the Egyptian version of the contract, only § 5 and 8 set a request for help from Ḫattušilis III. to Ramses II ahead, while § 6 of both versions of the contract even specifies a specific wording for this request for help. The extent to which these differences were of legal significance is assessed differently. Katrin Schmidt assumed that it was a deliberate differentiation that created different requirements for the duty of assistance. On the other hand, Steffen Jauß considered these differences to be the result of a control technique postulated by him , in which subsequent regulations refer to previous ones and could therefore be formulated more briefly.

Succession clause

As an annex, the provisions of the military alliance are followed by a clause on the succession to the throne of Ḫattušili III. which is the only clause in the entire contract that has no reciprocal equivalent for Ramses II:

“And behold, the son of Ḫattušili II is to be made king of the land of Ḫatti in the place of Ḫattušili, his father, after many years of Ḫattušili. And if the sons of the land of Ḫatti should commit an offense against him, then Ramses II should send troops and chariots <to his aid <and> give him satisfaction "

- Cuneiform version : Elmar Edel, The Treaty between Ramses II of Egypt and Hattusili III. von Hatti , Berlin 1997, p. 40 f.

It is particularly responsible for part of the more recent approaches to the historical classification of the treaty. Because it is the only non-parity regulation of the contract, Breyer concluded, for example, that it is precisely here that the main motive of the Hittites for the conclusion of the contract is revealed. Ḫattušili III. wanted to prepare his dynastic succession , which incidentally also emerges from his correspondence. This securing of the succession to the throne was necessary, according to Shafik Allam , because that of Ḫattušili III. The overthrown Urḫi-Teššup (Muršili III.) by Ramses II. otherwise could have been used as bargaining chip. According to Katrin Schmidt, however, the one-sidedness of the regulation itself can be explained by the fact that Hittite history in particular was shaped by attempts at usurpation, while such a regulation appeared superfluous in view of the Egyptian ruler's ideology. The pharaoh derived his rule from divine legitimation instead of subjecting it to the protection of other ruling houses. Whether the heir to the throne Ḫattušilis III. could actually have invoked this regulation in his favor , is unclear, however.

Obligation to refuse asylum

In the cuneiform version, there are six, in the Egyptian version, four regulations on dealing with refugees from the other country, which in turn are crossed chiastically. The different numbers in the two versions of the text are justified by their redundancy: the terms 'great' (in the cuneiform text: LU.GAL ) and 'noble' (in the cuneiform text: kabtu (m) ) are synonymous and therefore have the same meaning in the silver tablet of Ḫattušili III. can be omitted, so that they were not transferred into the hieroglyphic inscriptions.

Karnak inscription Cuneiform version
§ 11 Ḫattušili III. should not take up any 'great' or cities from Egypt and bring them back to Egypt. Ramses II should not take up any 'great' or cities from Ḫatti and lead them back to Ḫatti.
§ 12 Ḫattušili III. should not take people who are not known from Egypt as servants and lead them back to Egypt. Ramses II should not accept people from atti who are not known as servants and lead them back to Ḫatti.
§ 13 Ramses II should not take up any 'great' or cities from Ḫatti and lead them back to Ḫatti. Ḫattušili III. should not take up any 'great' or cities from Egypt and bring them back to Egypt.
§ 14 Ramses II should not accept people from atti who are not known as servants and lead them back to Ḫatti. Ḫattušili III. should not take people who are not known from Egypt as servants and lead them back to Egypt.
§ 15 no equivalent Ramses II should not be 'noble' or people you do not know, the Ḫattušili III. do not want to perform any more services, take them up from Ḫatti and lead them back to Ḫatti.
§ 16 no equivalent Ḫattušili III. should not take in any 'nobles' or people from Egypt and bring them back to Egypt.
Ḫattušili III. mandatory clauses in italics; Ramses II. Mandatory exams normal .

Basically, most of the literature has understood these regulations as an obligation to refuse asylum and extradition. This may have specifically targeted Urḫi-Teššup, but in any case was intended to prevent the emigration of workers. In this way, a solution was created in advance for typical conflict situations, which further ensured peace. On the other hand, a view that is increasingly being held now understands this regulation as mutual recognition and protection of personal and territorial spheres of power. In particular from the provisions of §§ 11 and 13 that no “cities” should be included, it is clear that it is not about migration movements . The background to these regulations is rather the uncertain loyalty relationships of the Syrian vassal states, which like Amurru under King Aziru changed sides several times.

Amnesty promise

The factual regulations of the contract are concluded with two clauses in the Egyptian and four in the Hittite version, which also concern the extradition of refugees. This difference in the number of clauses is also explained by the redundancy of two regulations. Section 17 of the Egyptian version can be considered paradigmatic for these provisions:

“And if a person fled the land of Egypt, or two or three, and they came to the Grand Duke of Ḫatti, the Grand Duke of Ḫatti should seize them and have them brought back to Ramses II. As for the person who is to be brought back to Ramses II, his offense should not be credited to him; one should not destroy his house, his wives (and) his children (and) one should not destroy him (oneself), one should not kill him, one should not mutilate his eyes, his ears, his mouth (and) his feet; one should not credit him with any offense at all. "

- Karnak inscription : Elmar Edel, The contract between Ramses II of Egypt and Hattusili III. von Hatti , Berlin 1997, p. 56 f.

In the literature, the assessment and understanding of this clause is extremely controversial. In the context of the previous obligation to refuse asylum, Korošec saw it as an instrument to encourage political refugees to return home. Allam, on the other hand, found an amnesty difficult to imagine, especially for political refugees. This view was also shared by Jauß, who pointed out that the promise of amnesty differs from the obligations to refuse asylum in that it only applies to ordinary people, not to 'big people' and cities or to people who offer themselves to the other ruler for services . Therefore, asylum refusal obligations and amnesty promises should actually be seen as a unit. In contrast, Schmidt saw these clauses as the first international humanitarian law regulation in human history, which can only be explained with the interplay of high-quality Egyptian culture on the one hand and the comparatively modern Hittite legal system on the other. It is also remarkable insofar as the exemption of family members from the punishment testifies to a step in the direction of moving away from collective liability. It is unclear whether, conversely, a corresponding punishment of refugees who are not subject to the regulation is to be expected.

Invocation of gods, blessings and curses

In the Egyptian version of the contract, the gods of both kingdoms are called to bear witness to the contract and the oaths are listed. In the Akkadian version, this section of the clay tablet has been broken off, but a corresponding element can be reconstructed. Compared to Hittite vassal contracts, it is striking that Egyptian and Hittite gods are listed. That this takes account of the fact that one only felt obliged to one's own gods is generally recognized today.

Even cursing and blessing formulas following the invocation of the gods are only passed down very fragmentarily in the cuneiform version of the contract. In the case of the Egyptian inscriptions, however, it is noticeable that the rulers' self-curse, which is typical for ancient oriental treaties, is missing in the event of a breach of contract. Since at least remnants of it are preserved in the Akkadian text, research assumes that this element was found in both silver tablets. But because the self-curse of a pharaoh who sees himself as God would have been considered sacrilege in a public inscription , this part of the contract was omitted when the hieroglyphic inscriptions were made.

Commitment

There is unanimous opinion in research that the Egyptian-Hittite peace treaty was already felt to be binding in ancient times. Against Viktor Korošec's idea that the embarrassing preservation of parity between the contracting parties proves that they were aware of “participating in the conclusion of an [...] international treaty between two sovereign states”, resistance arose early on. In his review of Korošec's work, Paul Koschaker raised the question of whether in the 13th century BC Chr. One could speak of international law at all or rather a kind of comitas gentium (national custom) could not be assumed. On the other hand, it is stated today, among other things, that the perceived liability is indirectly evidenced by the reference of this contract, like other contracts, to earlier agreements, is also shown in conflict of law rules or by the fact that Ramses II. In a letter to the king of Mira expressly referred to his contractual obligation. Where the contract got its binding effect from, how far its binding effect extended and how compliance with the contract was ensured is extremely controversial.

Validity

How the Egyptian-Hittite peace treaty came into force is not undisputed in research. A declaration of the conclusion of the contract that goes back to Viktor Korošec and has been undisputed for a long time is criticized in recent literature as being too strongly influenced by ideas of Roman law and being criticized as being little source-based. The starting point of Korošec's considerations was his reconstruction of the conclusion of vassal contracts. For these he assumed that the ruler imposed so-called "bonds" ( akk . Rikiltu ) on the vassal , under which the vassal then submitted with an oath ( akk . Māmītu ). This mechanism was used twice in the Egyptian-Hittite peace treaty: Both rulers had mutually imposed bonds in the form of silver tablets, to which the other had to submit with an oath. Here Korošec appeared problematic that Ramses II and .attušili III. as sovereign rulers were facing, mutually - unlike against vassals - actually had no obligations may impose. Rather, they could only have committed themselves. This problem was solved in that the rulers first committed themselves through appropriate clauses. The self-commitment then justified to impose corresponding obligations on the contractual partner. This is how the order of the individual treaty provisions should be explained, which in the Egyptian inscriptions always Ḫattušili III. and then Ramses II, in the clay tablet fragments first Ramses II and then Ḫattušili III. commit. Although the contracting party still had to submit to these obligations in an oath for the contract to be effective, this mechanism already contained the early idea of ​​a real contract . Other authors put the consensus in the corresponding table texts into the foreground, during which the swearing-in is sometimes only interpreted as a great solemn act on the occasion of the conclusion of the contract.

This model of explanation is countered by the fact that it underestimated the importance of religion in the ancient Orient. The decisive moment in the conclusion of the contract is precisely the submission of the respective ruler in an oath, which, however, does not take place under the obligation imposed by the contractual partner. Rather, each ruler had sworn and sealed his own silver tablet with the text of the treaty documented on it before the tablets were exchanged and placed in front of the symbols of the gods. This is already evident in the preambles, where the text is referred to as the rikiltu of the ruler from whom the respective copy originates. It was from this bond between the rulers and the gods that the contract derived its effectiveness. The consensus of the two rulers, however, did not matter. The problem discussed by Korošec, why a sovereign ruler could impose duties on another, did not arise at all and is not passed down as a problem in the sources.

scope

The question of the personal scope of the contract has long been hotly disputed, i.e. who exactly should become a contracting party and who should be entitled and obliged under it. Part of the literature understands the document as a pure "ruler's contract", not as a state treaty in the actual sense. It was concluded between the two rulers as individuals, only binding the two rulers personally and therefore could only claim validity as long as both ruled. As a justification, these authors essentially pointed out that the advanced civilizations of the ancient Orient never produced a concept of the “ state ”. That is why one could only think of ties personally. The other part of the literature counters this by saying that the ancient Orient developed its own concepts of “statehood”. Most advocates of this view emphasized that international relations in the ancient Orient were conceived in analogy to family relations: rulers with equal rights would therefore address each other as "brothers", while rulers and vassals as "father" or "son". A few other authors apparently also assumed that the ancient Orient knew states, but without delineating the adopted state concept in more detail. Especially for the Egyptian-Hittite peace treaty, a passage of fraternization (§ 3) was repeatedly cited, according to which the “sons” of both rulers were fraternized. As far as this was understood as an obligation of the descendants, it was assumed that this outlived the lifespan of the rulers themselves and that the treaty could therefore not be purely personal. Insofar as “sons” were understood as a term for vassals in accordance with international relationships based on family relationships, it was assumed that this was not a purely personal obligation. According to this understanding, the Egyptian-Hittite state treaty was not a pure ruling treaty, but a state treaty in the sense that it bound the respective empires beyond the rulers.

Sanctions

Closely related to the binding nature of the contract is the question of how a possible breach of contract would have been sanctioned. In research, the lack of real-world, effective enforcement mechanisms is a problem, which, depending on the author, should even call into question the legality of the contract itself. Parts of the literature tried to solve this by reconstructing such sanctions, essentially following two approaches:

  • Above all, Korošec assumed that in the event of a breach of contract, the other ruler could break free of the contract through a kind of right of withdrawal and thus trigger a state of war . This was necessary because, unlike a vassal contract in the case of the parity state treaty, no process could have taken place before the higher-ranking ruler. The parties with equal rights should therefore have watched over compliance with the contract themselves.
  • In addition, Korošec and Sürenhagen assumed that the contract had to be read out publicly and was thus politically sanctioned. The treaty does not have the read-out clause otherwise customary in international treaties. According to Sürenhagen, however, this should be reconstructed because it was written in a letter from Ramses II to Ḫattušili III. is quoted almost verbatim.

It is undisputed that the treaty was also subject to sacred sanctions. Korošec already assumed in this sense that, according to ancient oriental beliefs, a breach of contract would have conjured up the wrath of the gods, whose vengeance was then carried out by the contractual partner using military means. He later revised this view based on the knowledge that the Hittites used war in international traffic to bring about a divine judgment . The view that in the event of a breach of contract one sought its determination through a divine judgment by way of a military conflict has since gained greater acceptance. In addition, the treaty was also provided with blessings and curses, which generally characterize oaths in the ancient Orient . To what extent these oaths were used in the 13th century Chr. Still took it seriously, i.e. actually counted on divine punishments in the event of a breach of the oath, is unclear.

The most recent literature already criticizes the distinction between real-world and sacral sanctions as anachronistic . In the ancient Orient, no distinction was made between immanence and transcendence , the gods were rather part of the real world. The distinction therefore only transports modern categories to antiquity and leads to the fact that all those properties of ancient oriental law that have no equivalent in modernity are faded out from consideration.

Reception outside of science

The modern reception of the Egyptian-Hittite peace treaty is primarily based on the older narrative about its historical significance. The display of a copy of the contract at the entrance to the UN Security Council room in the UN headquarters in New York is particularly prominent . This glorification of the treaty, corresponding to an outdated narrative, is criticized on the part of specialist science. The Hittitologist Trevor R. Bryce pointed out, for example, that the treaty came from a world in which war was the norm and that the treaty was therefore not based on the idea of ​​a world in peace and harmony, but as an opportune and self-serving strategic alliance between two rulers to be seen, part of whose self-image belonged to have to excel on the battlefield and to have to lead their peoples to war. That cannot be the ideal that the United Nations invokes. In a corresponding way, the contract was repeatedly thematized in episodes of the Terra X program brand , in particular Sunken Metropolises 2. Focal point Hattuša - the Hittites' power center (first broadcast July 1, 2007) and Egypt 2. Longing for immortality (first broadcast April 9, 2011).

See also

Source editions

literature

Individual evidence

  1. ^ Trevor R. Bryce: The Kingdom of the Hittites . Oxford University Press, Oxford 1999, ISBN 0-19-924010-8 , pp. 256 . ; Horst Klengel, Hattuschili and Ramses, Hittites and Egyptians. Your long way to peace , Mainz 2002, p. 52; Steffen Jauß, On the conception of the contract between Pharaoh Ramses II and Great King Ḫattušili III. (1259 BC) , in: Journal of the Savigny Foundation for Legal History, Romance Department , Volume 135 (2018), pp. 21–75, here p. 25.
  2. ↑ z. B. Press release of the Cluster of Excellence Religion and Politics at the University of Münster, April 23, 2018 .
  3. ↑ The so-called vulture stele reflects about the Lagaš-Umma war around 2470 BC. B.C. ending (non-parity) peace agreement, but does not pass on its text directly.
  4. ↑ a b Michael E. Habicht, lecture: The battle of Kadesch and the peace treaty of Ramses II. Depiction locations and intention to depict (January 2007), p. 5; Steffen Jauß, On the conception of the contract between Pharaoh Ramses II and Great King Ḫattušili III. (1259 BC) , in: Journal of the Savigny Foundation for Legal History, Romance Department , Volume 135 (2018), pp. 21–75, here p. 25.
  5. ↑ Elmar Edel, The Treaty between Ramses II of Egypt and Hattusili III. von Hatti , Berlin 1997, p. 86 ff .; Anthony Spalinger, Considerations on the Hittite treaty between Egypt and Hatti , in: Studien zur Altägyptischen Kultur , Volume 9 (1981), pp. 299-358, here pp. 348 f.
  6. ^ Viktor Korošec, Hittite State Treaties. A contribution to their legal evaluation , Leipzig 1931, p. 60 f .; Jauß, Journal of the Savigny Foundation for Legal History , Volume 135 (2018), p. 26 fn. 33.
  7. ↑ Steffen Jauß, On the conception of the contract between Pharaoh Ramses II and Great King Ḫattušili III. (1259 BC) , in: Journal of the Savigny Foundation for Legal History, Romance Department , Volume 135 (2018), pp. 21–75, here p. 25 fn. 26
  8. ↑ Donbaz, Some observations on the Treaty Documents of Qadesh , in: Istanbuler Mitteilungen , Volume 43 (1993), pp. 27–37, here pp. 27 f .; Elmar Edel, The Treaty between Ramses II of Egypt and Hattusili III. von Hatti , Berlin 1997, p. 5.
  9. ↑ Stephen H. Langdon / Alan H. Gardiner, The Treaty of Alliance between Ḫattušili, King of the Hittites, and the Pharaoh Ramesses II of Egypt , in: The Journal of Egyptian Archeology , Volume 6.3 (1920), pp. 179-205 , here p. 200; Anthony Spalinger, Considerations on the Hittite treaty between Egypt and Hatti , in: Studien zur Altägyptischen Kultur , Volume 9 (1981), pp. 299–358, here pp. 299 ff.
  10. ↑ Anthony Spalinger, Considerations on the Hittite treaty between Egypt and Hatti , in: Studien zur Altägyptischen Kultur , Volume 9 (1981), pp. 299–358, here pp. 311 ff.
  11. ↑ Elmar Edel, The Treaty between Ramses II of Egypt and Hattusili III. von Hatti , Berlin 1997, p. 85 f.
  12. ^ Francis Breyer : Egypt and Anatolia. Political, cultural and linguistic contacts between the Nile Valley and Asia Minor in the 2nd millennium BC Chr. (=  Contributions to the Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean . Volume 43 ). Austrian Academy of Sciences, Vienna 2010, ISBN 978-3-7001-6593-4 , p. 244 .
  13. ↑ Steffen Jauß, On the conception of the contract between Pharaoh Ramses II and Great King Ḫattušili III. (1259 BC) , in: Journal of the Savigny Foundation for Legal History, Romance Department , Volume 135 (2018), pp. 21–75, here p. 28.
  14. ↑ a b Stephen H. Langdon / Alan H. Gardiner, The Treaty of Alliance between Ḫattušili, King of the Hittites, and the Pharaoh Ramesses II of Egypt , in: The Journal of Egyptian Archeology , Volume 6.3 (1920), p. 179 –205, here p. 179.
  15. ^ Ippolito Rosellini: Monumenti Storici (=  I monumenti dell'Egitto e della Nubia . Volume 3.2 ). Pisa 1839, p. 268-282 .
  16. ↑ Stephen H. Langdon / Alan H. Gardiner, The Treaty of Alliance between Ḫattušili, King of the Hittites, and the Pharaoh Ramesses II of Egypt , in: The Journal of Egyptian Archeology , Volume 6.3 (1920), pp. 179-205 , here p. 180.
  17. ↑ Bruno Meissner: The State Treaty of Ramses II of Egypt and Ḫattušils of Ḫatti in Akkadian version . In: Meeting reports de royal Prussian Academy of Sciences in Berlin . tape 20 , 1917, pp. 282-301 .
  18. ^ Entry in the concordance of Hittite cuneiform tablets
  19. ^ Katrin Schmidt, Peace through Contract. The peace treaty of Kadesh of 1270 BC The peace of Antalkidas of 386 BC. And the peace treaty between Byzantium and Persia of 562 AD , Frankfurt a. M. 2002; on this Steffen Jauß, On the conception of the contract between Pharaoh Ramses II and Great King Ḫattušili III. (1259 BC) , in: Journal of the Savigny Foundation for Legal History, Romance Department , Volume 135 (2018), pp. 21–75, here p. 24 fn. 21.
  20. ↑ Eckart Otto : International law in the Hebrew Bible and its ancient oriental roots . In: Journal for ancient oriental and biblical legal history . tape 12 , 2006, ISBN 978-3-447-09511-2 , pp. 29–51, here pp. 29–32 . ; Steffen Jauß, On the conception of the contract between Pharaoh Ramses II and Great King Ḫattušili III. (1259 BC) , in: Journal of the Savigny Foundation for Legal History, Romance Department , Volume 135 (2018), pp. 21–75, here p. 23 f.
  21. ^ Viktor Korošec, Hittite State Treaties. A contribution to their legal evaluation , Leipzig 1931, p. 58
  22. ^ Katrin Schmidt, Peace through Contract. The peace treaty of Kadesh of 1270 BC The peace of Antalkidas of 386 BC. And the peace treaty between Byzantium and Persia of 562 AD , Frankfurt a. M. 2002, p. 21
  23. ↑ Steffen Jauß, On the conception of the contract between Pharaoh Ramses II and Great King Ḫattušili III. (1259 BC) , in: Journal of the Savigny Foundation for Legal History, Romance Department , Volume 135 (2018), pp. 21–75, here p. 23 f.
  24. ↑ a b Bruno Meissner: The relations of Egypt to the Ḫatti empire according to ḫatti sources . In: Journal of the German Oriental Society . tape 72 , 1918, pp. 32–64, here p. 45 .
  25. ↑ Steffen Jauß, On the conception of the contract between Pharaoh Ramses II and Great King Ḫattušili III. (1259 BC) , in: Journal of the Savigny Foundation for Legal History, Romance Department , Volume 135 (2018), pp. 21–75, here p. 23.
  26. ↑ Dietrich Sürenhagen, Forerunners of the Hattusili-Ramesses treaty , in: British Museum Studies in Ancient Egypt and Sudan , Volume 6 (2006), pp. 59-67, here pp. 60 ff.
  27. ^ Lanny Bell, Conflict and Reconciliation in the Ancient Middle East. The Clash of Egyptian and Hittite Chariots in Syria, and the World's First Peace Treaty between “Superpowers” , in: Kurt A. Raaflaub (Ed.): War and peace in the ancient world , Malden (Massachusetts) 2006, p. 98– 120, here p. 108 f.
  28. ↑ Johannes Renger : Qadesch. In: The New Pauly (DNP). Volume 10, Metzler, Stuttgart 2001, ISBN 3-476-01480-0 , Sp. 674.
  29. ^ David J. Bederman : International Law in Antiquity (=  Cambridge Studies in International and Comparative Law . 16 (New Series)). Cambridge 2001, ISBN 0-521-79197-9 , pp. 150 . ; Viktor Korošec, Hittite State Treaties. A contribution to their legal evaluation , Leipzig 1931, p. 58 f .; Katrin Schmidt, Peace through Contract. The peace treaty of Kadesh of 1270 BC The peace of Antalkidas of 386 BC. And the peace treaty between Byzantium and Persia of 562 AD , Frankfurt a. M. 2002, p. 39.
  30. ^ Katrin Schmidt, Peace through Contract. The peace treaty of Kadesh of 1270 BC The peace of Antalkidas of 386 BC. And the peace treaty between Byzantium and Persia of 562 AD , Frankfurt a. M. 2002, p. 38.
  31. ^ Katrin Schmidt, Peace through Contract. The peace treaty of Kadesh of 1270 BC The peace of Antalkidas of 386 BC. And the peace treaty between Byzantium and Persia of 562 AD , Frankfurt a. M. 2002, p. 31.
  32. ↑ Trevor Bryce, The 'Eternal Treaty' from the Hittite perspective , in: British Museum Studies in Ancient Egypt and Sudan , Volume 6 (2006), pp. 1–11, here p. 4.
  33. ↑ Steffen Jauß, On the conception of the contract between Pharaoh Ramses II and Great King Ḫattušili III. (1259 BC) , in: Journal of the Savigny Foundation for Legal History, Romance Department , Volume 135 (2018), pp. 21–75, here p. 51
  34. ^ Francis Breyer, Egypt and Anatolia. Political, cultural and linguistic contacts between the Nile Valley and Asia Minor in the 2nd millennium BC Chr. , Vienna 2010, p. 233.
  35. ↑ Horst Klengel, Hattuschili and Ramses, Hittites and Egyptians. Your long way to peace , Mainz 2002, p. 88 f.
  36. ↑ Trevor Bryce, The 'Eternal Treaty' from the Hittite perspective , in: British Museum Studies in Ancient Egypt and Sudan , Volume 6 (2006), pp. 1–11, here p. 8.
  37. ↑ so Steffen Jauß, On the conception of the contract between Pharaoh Ramses II and Great King Ḫattušili III. (1259 BC) , in: Journal of the Savigny Foundation for Legal History, Romance Department , Volume 135 (2018), pp. 21–75, here p. 45.
  38. ↑ so Schafik Allam, The Treaty of Ramses II. With the Hittite king Ḫattušili III. (after the hieroglyphic inscription in the Karnak Temple) , in: Martin Lang (ed.): State Treaties, International Law and Diplomacy in the Ancient Orient and in Greco-Roman Antiquity , Wiesbaden 2010, pp. 81–115, here p. 96 with further evidence.
  39. ↑ Steffen Jauß, On the conception of the contract between Pharaoh Ramses II and Great King Ḫattušili III. (1259 BC) , in: Journal of the Savigny Foundation for Legal History, Romance Department , Volume 135 (2018), pp. 21–75, here p. 57.
  40. ↑ Trevor Bryce, The 'Eternal Treaty' from the Hittite perspective , in: British Museum Studies in Ancient Egypt and Sudan , Volume 6 (2006), pp. 1–11, here p. 10.
  41. ↑ Published in Elmar Edel: The Egyptian-Hittite Correspondence from Boghazköi in Babylonian and Hittite Language (=  treatises of the Rhenish-Westphalian Academy of Sciences . Volume 77 ). Westdeutscher Verlag, Opladen 1994, ISBN 3-531-05111-3 .
  42. ↑ Steffen Jauß, On the conception of the contract between Pharaoh Ramses II and Great King Ḫattušili III. (1259 BC) , in: Journal of the Savigny Foundation for Legal History, Romance Department , Volume 135 (2018), pp. 21–75, here p. 67.
  43. ↑ Klengel, Hattuschili and Ramses, Hittites and Egyptians. Your long way to peace , Mainz 2002, p. 80; Jana Siegelová : Metals and Metallurgy. A.II in the heth. Texts . In: Michael P. Streck u. a. (Ed.): Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Aräologie . tape 8 . de Gruyter, Berlin 2013, p. 113 .
  44. ^ Dennis J. McCarthy : Treaty and Covenant. A Study in Form in the Ancient Oriental Documents and in the Old Testament (=  Analecta Biblica . 21A). 2nd Edition. Biblical Institute Press, Rome 1978, ISBN 978-88-7653-021-0 , pp. 64 .
  45. ↑ CTH 166; Steffen Jauß, On the conception of the contract between Pharaoh Ramses II and Great King Ḫattušili III. (1259 BC) , in: Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte, Romance Department , Volume 135 (2018), pp. 21–75, here p. 68 fn. 282.
  46. ↑ a b cf. Elmar Edel, The Treaty between Ramses II of Egypt and Hattusili III. von Hatti , Berlin 1997, p. 83.
  47. ↑ a b Thomas Beran: The Hittite glyptic of Boǧazköy. The seals and seal impressions of the Pre and Old Ethite periods and the seals of the Hittite great kings (=  scientific publications of the German Orient Society . Volume 76 ). Gebrüder Mann, Berlin 1967, p. 79 .
  48. ^ Francis Breyer, Egypt and Anatolia. Political, cultural and linguistic contacts between the Nile Valley and Asia Minor in the 2nd millennium BC Chr. , Vienna 2010, pp. 238–240 with further references.
  49. ^ Suzanne Herbordt : Iconography . In: Suzanne Herbordt u. a. (Ed.): The seal of the great kings and queens on bulk Tonbullen from the Nişantepe archive in Hattusa (=  Bogazköy-H attuša . Band 23 ). von Zabern, Darmstadt 2011, ISBN 978-3-8053-4331-2 , p. 53 .
  50. ↑ for example Guy Kestemont: Accords internationaux relatifs aux ligues hittites (1600–1200 av. JC) . In: Orientalia Lovaniensia Periodica . tape 12 , 1982, ISSN  0085-4522 , pp. 15–78, here p. 54 ff . and Viktor Korošec, Hittite State Treaties. A contribution to their legal evaluation , Leipzig 1931, p. 14 f.
  51. ↑ for example Steffen Jauß, On the conception of the contract between Pharaoh Ramses II and Great King Ḫattušili III. (1259 BC) , in: Journal of the Savigny Foundation for Legal History, Romance Department , Volume 135 (2018), pp. 21–75, here p. 30.
  52. ^ Viktor Korošec, Hittite State Treaties. A contribution to their legal evaluation , Leipzig 1931, p. 14 f.
  53. ^ Einar von Schuler : Special forms of Hittite state treaties . In: Yearbook for Research on Asia Minor . 1956, p. 446 .
  54. ^ Viktor Korošec, Hittite State Treaties. A contribution to their legal evaluation , Leipzig 1931, p. 11.
  55. ↑ on this Dietrich Sürenhagen : Equal state treaties from a Hittite point of view. On historical statements and the literary position of the text CTH 379 (=  Studia mediterranea . Volume 5 ). Iuculano, Pavia 1985, pp. 71 ff .
  56. ^ Viktor Korošec, Hittite State Treaties. A contribution to their legal evaluation , Leipzig 1931, pp. 62–65.
  57. ↑ See for example Katrin Schmidt, Friede durch contract. The peace treaty of Kadesh of 1270 BC The peace of Antalkidas of 386 BC. And the peace treaty between Byzantium and Persia of 562 AD , Frankfurt a. M. 2002, p. 34 ff.
  58. ↑ Steffen Jauß, On the conception of the contract between Pharaoh Ramses II and Great King Ḫattušili III. (1259 BC) , in: Journal of the Savigny Foundation for Legal History, Romance Department , Volume 135 (2018), pp. 21–75, here p. 40.
  59. ↑ Steffen Jauß, On the conception of the contract between Pharaoh Ramses II and Great King Ḫattušili III. (1259 BC) , in: Journal of the Savigny Foundation for Legal History, Romance Department , Volume 135 (2018), pp. 21–75, here p. 50
  60. ↑ Steffen Jauß, On the conception of the contract between Pharaoh Ramses II and Great King Ḫattušili III. (1259 BC) , in: Journal of the Savigny Foundation for Legal History, Romance Department , Volume 135 (2018), pp. 21–75, here p. 56
  61. ↑ Guy Kestemont: Diplomatique et Droit International en Asie occidentale (1600–1200 av. JC) (=  Publications de l'Institut Orientaliste de Louvain . Volume 9 ). Louvain-la-Neuve 1974.
  62. ↑ Guy Kestemont, Accords internationaux relatifs aux ligues hittites (1600-1200 av. JC) , in: Orientalia Lovaniensia Periodica , Volume 12 (1982), pp. 17-78, here pp. 54 f.
  63. ↑ specifically for example Dennis J. McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant. A Study in Form in the Ancient Oriental Documents and in the Old Testament , 2nd edition, Rome 1978, p. 38 on his dissertation, Guy Kestemont, Diplomatique et Droit International en Asie occidentale (1600–1200 av. JC) , Louvain- la-Neuve 1974.
  64. ↑ Bruno Meißner, The relations of Egypt to the Ḫattireiche according to ḫatti sources , in: Journal of the Deutsche Morgenländische Gesellschaft , Volume 72 (1918), pp. 32–64, here p. 50 ff.
  65. ↑ Elena Devecchi : Trattati internazionali ittiti (=  Testi del Vicino Oriente antico . Volume 4 ). Paideia, Brescia 2015, ISBN 88-394-0874-6 , pp. 39 . ; Guy Kestemont, Diplomatique et Droit International en Asie occidentale (1600-1200 av. JC) , Louvain-la-Neuve 1974, p. 203.
  66. ↑ Steffen Jauß, On the conception of the contract between Pharaoh Ramses II and Great King Ḫattušili III. (1259 BC) , in: Journal of the Savigny Foundation for Legal History, Romance Department , Volume 135 (2018), pp. 21–75, here p. 29.
  67. ↑ Elmar Edel, The Treaty between Ramses II of Egypt and Hattusili III. von Hatti , Berlin 1997, p. 20 f.
  68. ↑ a b c d e Rulers' names and titles changed from the source wording to the common names.
  69. ↑ Stephen H. Langdon / Alan H. Gardiner, The Treaty of Alliance between Ḫattušili, King of the Hittites, and the Pharaoh Ramesses II of Egypt , in: The Journal of Egyptian Archeology , Volume 6.3 (1920), pp. 179-205 , here p. 20.
  70. ↑ Steffen Jauß, On the conception of the contract between Pharaoh Ramses II and Great King Ḫattušili III. (1259 BC) , in: Journal of the Savigny Foundation for Legal History, Romance Department , Volume 135 (2018), pp. 21–75, here p. 36
  71. ^ Fritz Schachermeyr : On the constitutional evaluation of the Hittite treaties . In: Messages of the Old Oriental Society . tape 4 , 1929, pp. 182 .
  72. ^ Viktor Korošec, Hittite State Treaties. A contribution to their legal evaluation , Leipzig 1931, p. 30; Guy Kestemont, Diplomatique et Droit International en Asie occidentale (1600-1200 av. JC) , Louvain-la-Neuve 1974, p. 336; Hans Neumann: On the legal historical and socio-political significance of the Hittite state treaties from the 2nd millennium BC Chr. In: Martin Lang (ed.): State treaties, international law and diplomacy in the ancient Orient and in Greco-Roman antiquity (=  Philippika . Volume 40 ). Wiesbaden 2010, ISBN 978-3-447-06304-3 , pp. 141–155, here p. 147 .
  73. ↑ Guy Kestemont, Accords internationaux relatifs aux ligues hittites (1600–1200 av. JC) , in: Orientalia Lovaniensia Periodica , Volume 12 (1982), pp. 17-78, here p. 56.
  74. ↑ Altman, The historical prologue of the Hittite vassal treaties. An inquiry into the concepts of Hittite interstate law , 2004, p. 24
  75. ↑ Altman, The historical prologue of the Hittite vassal treaties. An inquiry into the concepts of Hittite interstate law , 2004, p. 476 f.
  76. ^ Carlo Zaccagnini: The Forms of Alliance and Subjugation in the Near East of the Late Bronze Age . In: Luciano Canfora (ed.): I trattati nel mondo antico. Forma, ideologia, funzione (=  Saggi di storia antica . Volume 2 ). Rome 1990, ISBN 88-7062-687-3 , pp. 37–79, here p. 71 .
  77. ^ Dennis J. McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant. A Study in Form in the Ancient Oriental Documents and in the Old Testament , 2nd edition, Rome 1978, p. 146 f.
  78. ↑ a b Steffen Jauß, On the conception of the contract between Pharaoh Ramses II and Great King Ḫattušili III. (1259 BC) , in: Journal of the Savigny Foundation for Legal History, Romance Department , Volume 135 (2018), pp. 21–75, here p. 42 f.
  79. ↑ Steffen Jauß, On the conception of the contract between Pharaoh Ramses II and Great King Ḫattušili III. (1259 BC) , in: Journal of the Savigny Foundation for Legal History, Romance Department , Volume 135 (2018), pp. 21–75, here pp. 45 f.
  80. ↑ Dietrich Sürenhagen, Forerunners of the Hattusili-Ramesses treaty , in: British Museum Studies in Ancient Egypt and Sudan , Volume 6 (2006), pp. 59-67, here p. 60.
  81. ↑ For example from Guy Kestemont, Diplomatique et Droit International en Asie occidentale (1600–1200 av. JC) , Louvain-la-Neuve 1974, p. 300.
  82. ↑ Elena Devecchi, Trattati internazionali ittiti , Brescia 2015, p. 36
  83. ↑ a b Schafik Allam, The contract of Ramses II. With the Hittite king Ḫattušili III. (based on the hieroglyphic inscription in the Karnak Temple) , in: Martin Lang (ed.): State Treaties, International Law and Diplomacy in the Ancient Orient and in Greco-Roman Antiquity , Wiesbaden 2010, pp. 81–115, here 91; Trevor Bryce, The 'Eternal Treaty' from the Hittite perspective , in: British Museum Studies in Ancient Egypt and Sudan , Volume 6 (2006), pp. 1–11, here pp. 6 f .; Viktor Korošec, Hittite State Treaties. A contribution to their legal evaluation , Leipzig 1931, p. 15; Katrin Schmidt, Peace through Contract. The peace treaty of Kadesh of 1270 BC The peace of Antalkidas of 386 BC. And the peace treaty between Byzantium and Persia of 562 AD , Frankfurt a. M. 2002, p. 34
  84. ^ Mario Liverani, Prestige and Interest. International Relations in the Near East approx. 1600-1100 BC , Padova 1991, p. 197.
  85. ^ Viktor Korošec, Hittite State Treaties. A contribution to their legal evaluation , Leipzig 1931, p. 15.
  86. ↑ Horst Klengel, Hattuschili and Ramses, Hittites and Egyptians. Your long way to peace , Mainz 2002, p. 87.
  87. ^ Viktor Korošec, Hittite State Treaties. A contribution to their legal evaluation , Leipzig 1931, p. 15; Dietrich Sürenhagen, Parity State Treaties from the Hittite Point of View. On historical statements and the literary position of the text CTH 379 , Pavia 1985, pp. 79 ff. And Katrin Schmidt, Friede through contract. The peace treaty of Kadesh of 1270 BC The peace of Antalkidas of 386 BC. And the peace treaty between Byzantium and Persia of 562 AD , Frankfurt a. M. 2002, pp. 38–40 deal with § 5 together with § 3; on the other hand Steffen Jauß, on the conception of the contract between Pharaoh Ramses II and Great King Ḫattušili III. (1259 BC) , in: Journal of the Savigny Foundation for Legal History, Romance Department , Volume 135 (2018), pp. 21–75, here p. 40, which understands §§ 2–5 as a unit and therefore expressis verbis § 4 considers the supposedly disturbing insert.
  88. ↑ Steffen Jauß, On the conception of the contract between Pharaoh Ramses II and Great King Ḫattušili III. (1259 BC) , in: Journal of the Savigny Foundation for Legal History, Romance Department , Volume 135 (2018), pp. 21–75, here pp. 39 and 42.
  89. ↑ Steffen Jauß, On the conception of the contract between Pharaoh Ramses II and Great King Ḫattušili III. (1259 BC) , in: Journal of the Savigny Foundation for Legal History, Romance Department , Volume 135 (2018), pp. 21–75, here p. 46.
  90. ↑ See Hans Neumann: Guilt and Atonement. On the religious and ideological foundations and implications of ancient Mesopotamian legislation and jurisprudence . In: Joachim Hengstl et al. (Ed.): Right yesterday and today. Festschrift for the 85th birthday of Richard Haase (=  Philippika . Volume 13 ). Harrassowitz, Wiesbaden 2006, ISBN 3-447-05387-9 , pp. 27–43, here p. 32 .
  91. ^ Katrin Schmidt, Peace through Contract. The peace treaty of Kadesh of 1270 BC The peace of Antalkidas of 386 BC. And the peace treaty between Byzantium and Persia of 562 AD , Frankfurt a. M. 2002, p. 40.
  92. ↑ Steffen Jauß, On the conception of the contract between Pharaoh Ramses II and Great King Ḫattušili III. (1259 BC) , in: Journal of the Savigny Foundation for Legal History, Romance Department , Volume 135 (2018), pp. 21–75, here p. 48 with reference to Ders .: Casuistry - Systematics - Reflection on Law . A diachronic consideration of the legal technique in the Hittite legal propositions . In: Journal for ancient oriental and biblical legal history . tape 21 , 2015, p. 185–206, here p. 186 f .
  93. ↑ Steffen Jauß, On the conception of the contract between Pharaoh Ramses II and Great King Ḫattušili III. (1259 BC) , in: Journal of the Savigny Foundation for Legal History, Romance Department , Volume 135 (2018), pp. 21–75, here p. 50.
  94. ^ Francis Breyer, Egypt and Anatolia. Political, cultural and linguistic contacts between the Nile Valley and Asia Minor in the 2nd millennium BC Chr. , Vienna 2010, p. 233.
  95. ^ Francis Breyer, Egypt and Anatolia. Political, cultural and linguistic contacts between the Nile Valley and Asia Minor in the 2nd millennium BC Chr. , Vienna 2010, p. 227.
  96. ↑ Shafik Allam, The Treaty of Ramses II. With the Hittite king Ḫattušili III. (based on the hieroglyphic inscription in the Karnak Temple) , in: Martin Lang (Ed.): State Treaties, International Law and Diplomacy in the Ancient Orient and in Greco-Roman Antiquity , Wiesbaden 2010, pp. 81–115, here p. 91 f .
  97. ^ Katrin Schmidt, Peace through Contract. The peace treaty of Kadesh of 1270 BC The peace of Antalkidas of 386 BC. And the peace treaty between Byzantium and Persia of 562 AD , Frankfurt a. M. 2002, p. 44 f .; similarly also Dietrich Sürenhagen, Paritätische Staatsvertvertrag aus Hittite point of view. On historical statements and the literary position of the text CTH 379 , Pavia 1985, p. 69.
  98. ^ Katrin Schmidt, Peace through Contract. The peace treaty of Kadesh of 1270 BC The peace of Antalkidas of 386 BC. And the peace treaty between Byzantium and Persia of 562 AD , Frankfurt a. M. 2002, p. 44.
  99. ^ A b Elmar Edel, The Treaty between Ramses II of Egypt and Hattusili III. von Hatti , Berlin 1997, p. 51
  100. ^ Lanny Bell, Conflict and Reconciliation in the Ancient Middle East. The Clash of Egyptian and Hittite Chariots in Syria, and the World's First Peace Treaty between “Superpowers” , in: Kurt A. Raaflaub (Ed.): War and peace in the ancient world , Malden (Massachusetts) 2006, p. 98– 120, here p. 110; Viktor Korošec, Hittite State Treaties. A contribution to their legal evaluation , Leipzig 1931, p. 64 f .; Katrin Schmidt, Peace through Contract. The peace treaty of Kadesh of 1270 BC The peace of Antalkidas of 386 BC. And the peace treaty between Byzantium and Persia of 562 AD , Frankfurt a. M. 2002, p. 46
  101. ↑ Horst Klengel, Hattuschili and Ramses, Hittites and Egyptians. Your long way to peace , Mainz 2002, p. 88 f .; Aristide Théodoridès : Les relations de L'Egypte pharaonique avec ses voisins . In: Révue Internationale des Droits de l'Antiquité . tape 12 , 1978, p. 87–140, here p. 135 .
  102. ^ Katrin Schmidt, Peace through Contract. The peace treaty of Kadesh of 1270 BC The peace of Antalkidas of 386 BC. And the peace treaty between Byzantium and Persia of 562 AD , Frankfurt a. M. 2002, p. 46 f.
  103. ↑ Schafik Allam: Le Traité égypto-hittite de paix et d'alliance entre les rois Ramsès II. Et Khattouchili III (d'après l'inscription hiéroglyphique au temple de Karnak) . In: Journal of Egyptian History . tape 4 , 2011, p. 1–39, here p. 11 . ; Steffen Jauß, On the conception of the contract between Pharaoh Ramses II and Great King Ḫattušili III. (1259 BC) , in: Journal of the Savigny Foundation for Legal History, Romance Department , Volume 135 (2018), pp. 21–75, here p. 53.
  104. ^ Viktor Korošec, Hittite State Treaties. A contribution to their legal evaluation , Leipzig 1931, p. 65.
  105. ↑ Shafik Allam, The Treaty of Ramses II. With the Hittite king Ḫattušili III. (based on the hieroglyphic inscription in the Karnak Temple) , in: Martin Lang (Ed.): State Treaties, International Law and Diplomacy in the Ancient Orient and in Greco-Roman Antiquity , Wiesbaden 2010, pp. 81–115, here p. 95
  106. ↑ Steffen Jauß, On the conception of the contract between Pharaoh Ramses II and Great King Ḫattušili III. (1259 BC) , in: Journal of the Savigny Foundation for Legal History, Romance Department , Volume 135 (2018), pp. 21–75, here p. 56.
  107. ^ Katrin Schmidt, Peace through Contract. The peace treaty of Kadesh of 1270 BC The peace of Antalkidas of 386 BC. And the peace treaty between Byzantium and Persia of 562 AD , Frankfurt a. M. 2002, p. 49.
  108. ↑ Elmar Edel, The Treaty between Ramses II of Egypt and Hattusili III. von Hatti , Berlin 1997, p. 66 ff.
  109. ^ Viktor Korošec, Hittite State Treaties. A contribution to their legal evaluation , Leipzig 1931, p. 95 f .; Steffen Jauß, On the conception of the contract between Pharaoh Ramses II and Great King Ḫattušili III. (1259 BC) , in: Journal of the Savigny Foundation for Legal History, Romance Department , Volume 135 (2018), pp. 21–75, here p. 60.
  110. ↑ Steffen Jauß, On the conception of the contract between Pharaoh Ramses II and Great King Ḫattušili III. (1259 BC) , in: Journal of the Savigny Foundation for Legal History, Romance Department , Volume 135 (2018), pp. 21–75, here p. 60.
  111. ^ Francis Breyer, Egypt and Anatolia. Political, cultural and linguistic contacts between the Nile Valley and Asia Minor in the 2nd millennium BC Chr. , Vienna 2010, p. 233; Dietrich Sürenhagen, Parity State Treaties from the Hittite Point of View. On historical statements and the literary position of the text CTH 379 , Pavia 1985, p. 66.
  112. ^ Viktor Korošec, Hittite State Treaties. A contribution to their legal evaluation , Leipzig 1931, p. 19.
  113. ^ Paul Koschaker: Review of V. Korošec, Hittite State Contracts. A contribution to their legal evaluation. (Leipzig legal studies, published by the Leipzig Faculty of Law, No. 60.) Leipzig, Theodor Weicher, 1931, 118 p. In: Journal of the Savigny Foundation for Legal History, Romance Department . tape 52 , 1932, ISSN  2304-4934 , pp. 507 f .
  114. ↑ Guido Pfeifer : Conflict Resolution Mechanisms in Ancient Near Eastern State Treaties . In: Journal for ancient oriental and biblical legal history . tape 19 , 2013, pp. 13–21, here p. 18 .
  115. ^ Amnon Altman : Tracing the earliest recorded Concepts of International Law. The Ancient Near East (2500-330 BCE) (=  Legal history library . Volume 4 ). M. Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden 2012, ISBN 978-90-04-22252-6 , pp. 118 ff .
  116. ↑ Steffen Jauß, On the conception of the contract between Pharaoh Ramses II and Great King Ḫattušili III. (1259 BC) , in: Journal of the Savigny Foundation for Legal History, Romance Department , Volume 135 (2018), pp. 21–75, here p. 57.
  117. ↑ a b c d e Viktor Korošec, Hittite State Treaties. A contribution to their legal evaluation , Leipzig 1931, pp. 23–26.
  118. ↑ for example Elena Devecchi, Trattati internazionali ittiti , Brescia 2015, p. 13.
  119. ↑ Steffen Jauß, On the conception of the contract between Pharaoh Ramses II and Great King Ḫattušili III. (1259 BC) , in: Journal of the Savigny Foundation for Legal History, Romance Department , Volume 135 (2018), pp. 21–75, here p. 59.
  120. ^ Francis Breyer, Egypt and Anatolia. Political, cultural and linguistic contacts between the Nile Valley and Asia Minor in the 2nd millennium BC Chr. , Vienna 2010, p. 244 ff. With reference to Katrin Schmidt, Friede durch contract. The peace treaty of Kadesh of 1270 BC The peace of Antalkidas of 386 BC. And the peace treaty between Byzantium and Persia of 562 AD , Frankfurt a. M. 2002, p. 36.
  121. ↑ just about at Guy Kestemont, Diplomatique et Droit International en Asie occidentale (JC 1600-1200 av.) , Louvain-la-Neuve 1974, p 208; similar also Schafik Allam: Religious binding in law and legal validity in ancient Egypt . In: Heinz Barta (Ed.): Law and Religion. Human and divine ideas of justice in the ancient worlds (=  Philippika . Volume 24 ). Harrasowitz, Wiesbaden 2008, ISBN 978-3-447-05733-2 , pp. 132 . who thinks that the will to conclude a contract has been underlined.
  122. ↑ Steffen Jauß, On the conception of the contract between Pharaoh Ramses II and Great King Ḫattušili III. (1259 BC) , in: Journal of the Savigny Foundation for Legal History, Romance Department , Volume 135 (2018), pp. 21–75, here p. 61.
  123. ↑ a b c d Steffen Jauß, On the conception of the contract between Pharaoh Ramses II and Great King Ḫattušili III. (1259 BC) , in: Journal of the Savigny Foundation for Legal History, Romance Department , Volume 135 (2018), pp. 21–75, here pp. 58 f.
  124. ^ For example, Trevor Bryce, The 'Eternal Treaty' from the Hittite perspective , in: British Museum Studies in Ancient Egypt and Sudan , Volume 6 (2006), pp. 1–11, here p. 5; Anthony Spalinger, Considerations on the Hittite treaty between Egypt and Hatti , in: Studien zur Altägyptischen Kultur , Volume 9 (1981), pp. 299–358, here p. 318; Dietrich Sürenhagen, Forerunners of the Hattusili-Ramesses treaty , in: British Museum Studies in Ancient Egypt and Sudan , Volume 6 (2006), pp. 59–67, here p. 60.
  125. ↑ Mario Liverani is fundamental : Prestige and Interest. International Relations in the Near East approx. 1600–1100 BC (=  History of the Ancient Near East . Volume 1 ). Sargon, Padova 1991, ISBN 0-333-76153-7 , p. 197 ff . ; following on from this Raymond Westbrook: International Law in the Amarna-Age . In: Ramond Cohen et al. a. (Ed.): Amarna Diplomacy. The Beginnings of International Relations . Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore 2002, ISBN 0-8018-7103-4 , pp. 29 . Martin Lang : bilateralism and contract technology in the Amarna period . In: State treaties, international law and diplomacy in the ancient Orient and in Greco-Roman antiquity (=  Philippika . Volume  40 ). Harrassowitz, Wiesbaden 2010, ISBN 3-447-06304-1 , p. 120 . and Jauß, Journal of the Savigny Foundation for Legal History , Volume 135 (2018), p. 33 f.
  126. ↑ E.g. write Francis Breyer, Egypt and Anatolia. Political, cultural and linguistic contacts between the Nile Valley and Asia Minor in the 2nd millennium BC Chr. , Vienna 2010, p. 245 from a "Principle King" and Viktor Korošec, Hittite State Contracts. A contribution to their legal evaluation , Leipzig 1931, p. 2 of the ruler as "incarnation of the state".
  127. ^ Katrin Schmidt, Peace through Contract. The peace treaty of Kadesh of 1270 BC The peace of Antalkidas of 386 BC. And the peace treaty between Byzantium and Persia of 562 AD , Frankfurt a. M. 2002, p. 39
  128. ↑ Steffen Jauß, On the conception of the contract between Pharaoh Ramses II and Great King Ḫattušili III. (1259 BC) , in: Journal of the Savigny Foundation for Legal History, Romance Department , Volume 135 (2018), pp. 21–75, here pp. 35 f.
  129. ↑ See only Amon Altman, Tracing the earliest recorded Concepts of International Law. The Ancient Near East (2500-330 BCE) , Leiden 2012, pp. Xii ff .; Guy Kestemont, Diplomatique et Droit International en Asie occidentale (1600-1200 av. JC) , Louvain-la-Neuve 1974, p. 208; Eckart Otto, International Law in the Hebrew Bible and its Ancient Near Eastern Roots , in: Zeitschrift für Altorientalische und Biblische Rechtsgeschichte , Volume 12 (2006), pp. 29–51, here pp. 13 ff.
  130. ^ Viktor Korošec, Hittite State Treaties. A contribution to their legal evaluation , Leipzig 1931, p. 98.
  131. ^ Viktor Korošec, Hittite State Treaties. A contribution to their legal evaluation , Leipzig 1931, p. 101 ff .; Dietrich Sürenhagen, Parity State Treaties from the Hittite Point of View. On historical statements and the literary position of the text CTH 379 , Pavia 1985, p. 72 f.
  132. ^ Dietrich Sürenhagen, Paritätische Staatsvertvertrag aus Hittite point of view. On historical statements and the literary position of the text CTH 379 , Pavia 1985, p. 72 f.
  133. ^ Viktor Korošec, Hittite State Treaties. A contribution to their legal evaluation , Leipzig 1931, 97 f.
  134. ^ Viktor Korošec: The Warfare of the Hittites. From the legal point of view. In: Iraq . tape 25 , 1963, ISSN  0021-0889 , pp. 159–166, here p. 164 , doi : 10.2307 / 4199746 .
  135. ^ Amon Altman, Tracing the earliest recorded Concepts of International Law. The Ancient Near East (2500-330 BCE) , Leiden 2012, pp. 89 ff .; Steffen Jauß, On the conception of the contract between Pharaoh Ramses II and Great King Ḫattušili III. (1259 BC) , in: Journal of the Savigny Foundation for Legal History, Romance Department , Volume 135 (2018), pp. 21–75, here pp. 62 f .; Mario Liverani, Prestige and Interest. International Relations in the Near East approx. 1600-1100 BC , Padova 1991, p. 150 ff.
  136. ↑ Skeptical Amnon Altman: The historical prologue of the Hittite vassal treaties. An inquiry into the concepts of Hittite interstate law. Bar-Ilan University Press, Ramat Gan 2004, ISBN 965-226-294-3 , pp. 35 .
  137. ↑ a b Steffen Jauß, On the conception of the contract between Pharaoh Ramses II and Great King Ḫattušili III. (1259 BC) , in: Journal of the Savigny Foundation for Legal History, Romance Department , Volume 135 (2018), pp. 21–75, here pp. 71 ff.
  138. ↑ Trevor Bryce, The 'Eternal Treaty' from the Hittite perspective , in: British Museum Studies in Ancient Egypt and Sudan , Volume 6 (2006), pp. 1–11, here p. 1; Steffen Jauß, On the conception of the contract between Pharaoh Ramses II and Great King Ḫattušili III. (1259 BC) , in: Journal of the Savigny Foundation for Legal History, Romance Department , Volume 135 (2018), pp. 21–75, here p. 23.
  139. ↑ Trevor Bryce, The 'Eternal Treaty' from the Hittite perspective , in: British Museum Studies in Ancient Egypt and Sudan , Volume 6 (2006), pp. 1–11, here p. 1.
This article was added to the list of excellent articles in this version on February 10, 2019 .