Hittite laws

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A series of Hittite clay tablet fragments that were found during the German excavations in Ḫattuša (today Boğazkale ), the capital of the Hittites in today's Turkey , are referred to as Hittite laws (also Hittite legal principles or Hittite legal collection ) . They serve as almost the only source of civil and criminal law in the Hittite Empire for cuneiform law research . The texts have been accessible to legal historical research since their translation in 1922 by Heinrich Zimmer and Johannes Friedrich , which was only one year after their publication in cuneiform autograph by Bedřich Hrozný , who also published a translation into French in the same year . On the legal side , Richard Haase and Viktor Korošek were particularly concerned with researching this legal collection.

background

As with the Mesopotamian legal collections, the legal nature of this legal collection from Anatolia has not yet been clarified. The term "laws" introduced by the first translators was criticized in 1931 by the Munich law professor Mariano San Nicolò and in 1950 by his Leipzig colleague Paul Koschaker . The former suggested an interpretation as a legal book , the latter that of a collection of decisions by a court. Koschaker's view has become the most widespread hypothesis in legal history research.

The tablets come from the archive of the royal castle of Hattuša, where the royal court was also located. Hrozný already recognized that the fragments can be combined into two tables, which their ancient scribes called " takku LÚ-aš " ( if a man ) or " takku GIŠ GEŠTIN-aš " ( if a vine ) according to their initial line . A label also found in the royal castle refers to a third panel that has not yet been found. Within the tables, the legal clauses are essentially sorted according to the weight of the legal interest concerned; From life to physical integrity to property and official duties:

  • Panel A (takku LÚ-aš): Homicides (Sections 1–6), bodily harm (Sections 7–18), kidnapping (Sections 19–21), impunity for killing (Sections 37 f.), Official duties (Sections Sections 29–42, 46–56), pets (Sections 57–97), theft from buildings (Sections 93–97), arson (Sections 98–100)
  • Panel B (takku GIŠ GEŠTIN-aš): Agriculture (Sections 101–113), theft in general (Sections 119–143), wages (Sections 150–161), religious criminal law (Sections 164–170), prices (Sections § 176-188), Sexual Criminal Law (§§ 189-200)

Two cuneiform documents found in Boğazkale contain fragments of the rules for the king's servants. They essentially contain, in so-called columns, the purity regulations for the Hittite king and prescribe the processing of animal leather from own production. Of the five columns, only the second and the third remain in reconstructable parts.

  • Column II: Sanctions misconduct, in particular contamination of food, and requires kitchen staff to take a monthly oath before the king.
  • Column III: Sanctions misconduct by craftsmen and water carriers and regulates the procurement and processing of cowhide and goat leather as well as the treatment of drinking water.

As in all other ancient oriental collections of law, the law is not fully standardized and finally regulated in the Hittite laws. Certain legal matters relating to inheritance law and the law of obligations have been left out of the collection of laws. On the one hand, this is attributed to the probable circumstance that the legislature assumed that the relevant, applicable legal situation was generally known. On the other hand, legal competition with different local legal practices should presumably be avoided.

Parts of the Hittite laws have come down to us in different versions and some of them refer to an older legal situation. The text therefore allows parts of the Hittite legal development to be understood. In this respect, they also document a legal development in the Hittite Empire, for which Viktor Korošek was able to determine a general development towards lighter sentences.

See also

literature

Individual evidence

  1. ^ Heinrich Zimmer, Johannes Friedrich: Hittite laws from the state archive of Boghazköi (=  Der Alte Orient . Volume 23/2 ). Hinrichs, Leipzig 1922.
  2. ^ Frédéric Hrozný: Code Hittite . provenant de l'Asie mineure; (verse 1350 av. J.-C.). Geuthner, Paris 1922.
  3. ^ Mariano San Nicolò: Contributions to legal history in the area of ​​cuneiform legal sources . Aschehoug, Oslo 1931, p. 48, 96, 104 .
  4. ^ Paul Koschaker: Marriage and purchase according to old rights, with special consideration of the older cuneiform rights . In: Václav Čihař , Josef Klíma , Lubor Matouš (eds.): Symbolae ad studia Orientis pertinentes, Frederico Hrozný dedicatae (=  Archive Orientální ). tape 4 . Orientální Ústav, Prague 1950, p. 262 .
  5. ↑ Ephraim Neufeld , among others, follows him : Hittite laws . translation into English and Hebrew with commentary. Luzac, London 1951. Viktor Korošek: Lè probleme de la codification dans le domaine du droit hittite . In: Revue Internationale des Droits de l'Antiquité . tape IV , 1957, p. 97 . and Richard Haase: Law in the Hittite Empire . In: Ulrich Manthe (ed.): Legal cultures of antiquity. From the ancient Orient to the Roman Empire . CH Beck, Munich 2003, p. 133 .
  6. ↑ Viktor Korošek: Sistmatika prve hetitske pravne zbirke . In: Zbornik znanstvenih razprav . tape 7 , 1930, p. 65-75 .
  7. ↑ Einar Schuler: Hethitiische law books. The Hittite laws. In: Otto Kaiser (Ed.): Texts from the environment of the Old Testament , legal books, Volume I, regulations for servants of the king . Mohn, Gütersloh 1982, p. 124-125 .
  8. ↑ Einar Schuler: Hethitiische law books. The Hittite laws . In: Otto Kaiser (ed.): Texts from the environment of the Old Testament , law books, Volume I . Mohn, Gütersloh 1982, p. 96 .
  9. ^ Viktor Korošec: Some contributions to the development of Hittite law . In: Wolfgang Voigt (Ed.): XVII. German Orientalist Day from July 21 to 27, 1963 in Würzburg , Wiesbaden 1969, pp. 174–190; Viktor Korošec: Les Lois Hittites et leur Évolution . In: Revue d'Assyriologie et d'archéologie orientale 57 (1963), pp. 121–144.
  10. ^ Viktor Korošek: Cuneiform writing law . In: Bertold Spuler (ed.): Orientalisches Recht (=  Handbook of Oriental Studies ). 1. Section supplementary volume 3. Brill-Verlag, Leiden 1964, p. 183 f .