HITTITE LAWS.

These differ markedly from the better-known Code  of Hammurabi of Babylon (1792­1750 BC), not only in content  but also in the form in which they have survived. Whereas the laws  of Hammurabi are inscribed on a stela found by the French expedition in Susa, southwestern Iran, the Hittite laws have been transliterated, translated and edited from hundreds of fragments of clay  tablets excavated in Hattusa, for the most part in Büyükkale. Inevitably many such pieces duplicate larger fragments; but gaps in  the texts have been filled from elsewhere, such is the number of  fragments recovered by the German expedition. 

The Hittite Laws have been published in successive editions in  French, English, German, Italian and most recently again in English, beginning with the pioneer publication by Bedrich Hrozny  (1922). Johannes Friedrich used contemporary grammatical and  lexical research to produce an updated German edition (1959); and  Fiorella Imparati’s Italian edition (1964) built on the work of Friedrich. Since then the late Annelies Kammenhuber, in due course  in collaboration with Inge Hoffmann, developed the work of Friedrich (1975­ ). Now the Hittite Dictionary of the Oriental Institute  of the University of Chicago is under the sole command of Harry  Hoffner, following the death in 2000 of Hans Güterbock. American scholarship has indeed played an increasing role in Hittite studies over the past two decades. These details serve to exemplify the  international character of research into the civilizations of the ancient Near East, unimpeded by claims for patents!  There is agreement among specialists that there was a code of  laws divided into two series, each numbering 100, and accordingly  numbered 1­200B in the modern literature. The laws were each  worded beginning with a conditional clause (“if a man. . . .,” “if a  vineyard. . . .”), the first series concerned mainly with persons and  the second largely with property, although the order of subjectmatter is by no means entirely logical. This suggests additions  made from time to time, without redrafting the entire code. The  matters covered by the Hittite Laws are remarkably wide-ranging,  more so than the Babylonian code. It is worth listing these:  homi-cide, justifiable or not, or by pushing a man into a fire; assault and  battery; ownership of slaves; sanitation; marriage procedure, in  exceptional cases or where irregularity has been alleged; feudal duties in the context of land tenure, and conditions of land tenure; hiring for a campaign; accidents at a ford; magical contamination;  finding property; offenses related to cattle; theft; arson; offenses  related to vineyards and orchards; theft and damage to various  types of property; irregularities in sale and purchase; rates of pay  for various services; offenses connected with canals, and with cattle; religious ordinances related to agriculture; sorcery; disinheritance by a mother; compensation for maintenance during famine;  refusal to comply with a legal sentence; an obscure offense (bestiality?) connected with a bull; list of prices; sexual offenses; the  standard fee for instruction of an apprentice.

The wide range of the Hittite Laws gives a clear indication of  the complexity of the state. Unfortunately there is only the most  meager evidence concerning the Hittite courts and legal tribunals,  largely owing to the total absence of private lawsuits, in marked  contrast with Babylonia, though textual references do occur. The  specific coverage of some of the laws indicates their basis in case  law, in decisions over the years by the courts. The king was the  fount of all law, and his decisions are frequently recorded, often in  the context of changing a penalty formerly in force to one now decreed, usually less severe. This is one of the indications that Hittite  law was always evolving, without excessive respect for the precise  regulations of the past. Indeed, it seems to have come into force  only as the need arose, custom presumably governing such fields  as inheritance and contract, not included in the Hittite Laws.  It has been claimed with some reason that the laws of the Hittite state were more humane than those of Babylon and Assyria.  This claim rests primarily on the more sparing application of the  death penalty, the Hittite courts often imposing fines instead: as  with the Germanic (including Anglo-Saxon) wergeld, payment depended on the status of the victim. Capital punishment was reserved for only a few crimes, comprising bestiality, incest, sorcery  by a slave against a free man and stealing a bronze weapon from  the King’s Gate. This last--reminiscent of the English law against  setting fire to the king’s docks--is a hint of fears for the security of  the state. It could also of course be an indication of the value attached to the products of the bronzesmiths.    While there is no doubt of the evolving character of the main  law code, never as rigid as the word “code” may imply, another  factor probably limited its remit. This was the likelihood that the  law was not uniform throughout the Hittite Empire, and that this  was an accepted fact, with tolerance of local customs. At one point  garrison commanders were ordered to apply the death penalty  wherever this was customary for certain crimes; but elsewhere banishment was to continue as the appropriate penalty.