legal aspects of slavery in babylonia

7/29/2019 Legal Aspects of Slavery in Babylonia

1/89

LEGAL ASPECTS OF SLAVERYIN

BABYLONIA, ASSYRIA AND PALESTINEA Comparative Study(3000-500 B. C.)

ByISAAC MENDELSOHN, PH.D.

THE BAYARD PRESSWILLIAMSPORT, PA.

HeinOnline -- 1 Isaac Mendelsohn, Legal Aspects of Slavery in Babylonia, Assyria and Palestine: A Comparative Study (3000-500

B C ) [i] 1932


2/89

Copyright, 1932, by The BayardPress

Printedin the U. S. A.


B C ) [ii] 1932


3/89

NOTE

Mr. Mendelsohn, in the work before us, has gonemost carefully into a comparative study of slavery asit existed in Babylonia, Assyria, and Palestine. Hehas dealt exclusively with the sources, as his knowledgeof the languages in which these sources are writtenare perfectly familiar to him. The whole question isone of much interest to us Americans-not only onarcheaological grounds, but because at one time thequestion of slavery was an acute one in our ow ncountry. It now remains for some Egyptian scholarto treat of this subject in the Land of the Nile, so thatwe may have a full picture of the different phases ofthis question in the Near East.I commend Mr. Mendelsohn's work very cordially toall those who are interested in the history of the NearEast.

RICHARD GOTTHEILColumbia UniversityApril 25, 1932


B C ) [iii] 1932


4/89


B C ) [iv] 1932


5/89

INDEX

Chapter I. Sources of Slavery1. The Adopted Free-Born Child ................ 22. Debt .............................................................. 73. Selling of Children .................................... 214. Selling of W ives ....................................... 255. Self-Sale ...................-----------------------.---------- 27

Chapter II. The Legal Status of the Slave1. The Slave as a Chattel ----------..................... 282. The Slave-Mark ......................................... 303. The Runaway Slave ------- _-----................... 374. The Sale of Slaves---................................. 435. The Female Slave -------------..........------------- 476. Marriage of Slaves ................................... 507. Marriage Between a Slave and a Free

Woman ................................................ 518. The Temple Slave ...................................... 529. Peculium -----------------------------------------6

Chapter III. Release .................................................. 62


B C ) [v] 1932


6/89


B C ) [vi] 1932


7/89

BIBLIOGRAPHYBarton, G. A. RISA The Royal Inscriptions ofSumer and Akkad, New Haven, 1929.Bezold, C. BAG Babylonisch-Assyrisches Glossar,Heidelberg, 1926.Chiera, E. OBC Old Babylonian Contracts,UMPBS,vol. VIII, no. 2, 1922.Clay, A. T. LCD Legal and Commercial Documents,

Dated in the Assyrian, Neo-Babylonian, and Per-sian Periods,Chiefly from Nippur, BE, vol. VII,part I, 1908.Clay, A. T. BD Business Documents of MurashuSons of Nippur, Dated in the Reign of ArtaxerxesI, by H. V. Hilprecht and A. T. Clay, BE, vol.IX, 1898.Clay, A. T. DTAN Documents from the TempleArchives of Nippur, Dated in the Reign of theCassite Rulers, BE, vols. XIV and XV, 1906.Clay, A. T. LDE Legal Documents from Erech,Dated in the Seleucid Era,BR, part II, 1913.David, M.-Ebeling, E. AR Assyrische Rechtsurkun-den, Stuttgart, 1929.Delitzsch, F. AL Assyrische Lesestuecke, Leipzig,1900.Dougherty, R. Ph. REN Records from Erech, Timeof Nabonidus,YOS, vol. VI, 1920.


B C ) [vii] 1932


8/89

Mueller, D. H. GH Die Gesetse Hammurabi's undihr Verhaeltniss zur mosaischen Gesetzgebungsowie zu den XII Tafeln, Wien, 1903.Muss-Arnold, W. CT A Concise Dictionary of theAssyrian Language, Berlin, 1905.Myhrman, D. W. SAD Sumerian AdministrativeDocuments, Dated in the Reign of the Second Dy-nasty of Ur, from the Temple Archives of Nippur,BE, vol. III, part I, 1910.Peiser, F. S. UDBD Urkunden aus der Zeit derdritten babylonischen Dynastie, Berlin, 1905.Peiser, F. S. BV Babylonische Vertraege, Berlin,1890.Peiser, F. S. TJG Text juristischen und gesell-schaftlichen Inhalts, KB, vol. IV, 1896.Poebel, A. BLBD Babylonian Legal and BusinessDocuments, BE, vol. VI, part II, 1909.Radau, H. LCK Letters to Cassite Kings, BE, vol.XVII, part I, 1908.Ranke, H. BLBD Babylonian Legal and BusinessDocuments, BE, vol. VI, part I, 1906.Schorr, M. U Urkunden des altbabylonischen zivil-und Prozessrechts,Leipzig, 1913.AJSL-American Journal of Semitic Languages andLiterature.B-Babyloniaca.BA-Beitraege zur Assyrialogie und SemitischenSprach-wissenschaften.BE-Babylonian Expedition of the University ofPennsylvania, Series A, Cuneiform Texts.BR-Babylonian Records in the Library of J. Pier-pont Morgan.HG-Hammurabi's Gesetz, Kohler-Ungnad, vols. III(1909), IV (1910), V (1911), Koschaker-Ungnad,vol. VI (1923).JAOS-Journal of the American Oriental Society.JRAS-The Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society.KB-Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek.


B C ) [viii] 1932


9/89

Dougherty, R. Ph. SHBD The Shirkutu of Baby-lonian Deities, YOSR, vol. V, part II, 1922.Dougherty, R. Ph. AE Archives from Erech, Timeof Nebuchadrezzar and Nabonidus, Yale Univer-sity Press, 1923.Eisser, G.-Levy, J. ARK Die altassyrischenRecht-surkunden vom Kueltepe, MVAG, vol. 33, 1930.Johns, C. H. W. ADD Assyrian Deeds and Docu-ments, vol. III, Cambridge, 1901.John, C. H. W. ADB An Assyrian Doomsday Book,Leipzig, 1901.Keiser, C. E. CB Cuneiform Bullae of the ThirdMillenium B. C., BR, part III, 1914.King, L. W. LIH Letters and Inscriptionsof Ham-murabi, vol. III, London, 1900.Kohler, J.-Peiser, F. E. BR Aus dem babylonischenRechtsleben, vols. I-IV, 1898-1900.Kohler, J.-Ungnad, A. AR Assyrische Rechtsurk-unden, Leipzig, 1913.Kohler, J.-Ungnad, A. HAR Hundert ausgewaehlteRechtsurkunden, Leipzig, 1911.Koschaker, P. BAB Babylonisch-AssyrischesBuerg-schaftsrecht, Leipzig, 1911.Kraus, P. AB Altbabylonische Briefe, MVAG, 35.2. Heft, 1931.Legrain, L. HF Historical Fragments, UMPBS,

vol. XIII, 1922.Lutz, H. F. SSBT Selected Sumerian and Baby-lonian Texts, UMPBS, vol. I, no. 2, 1919.Lutz, H. F. LEDA Legal and Economic Documentsfrom Ashjaly, UCPSPH, vol. X, 1931.Lutz, H. F. NBDE Neo-Babylonian AdministrativeDocuments from Erech, UCPSPH, vol. IX, 1931.Missner, B. BAP Beitraege zum altbabylonischenPrivatrecht,Leipzig, 1893.Moldenke, A. B. CT Cuneiform Texts, New York,

1893.


B C ) [ix] 1932


10/89

MVAG-Mitteilungen der Vorderasiatischen Gesell-schaft.MVASM-Mitteilungen aus der VorderasiatischenAbteilung der Staatlichen Museen zu Berlin,Heft 1.OLZ-OrientalischeLiteraturseitung.PSBA-Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Arch-aeology.UCPSPH-University of California, Publications inSemitic Philology.UMPBS-University of Pennsylvania, The UniversityMuseum, Publications of the Babylonian Section.WZKM-Wiener Zeitschrift fuer die Kunde des Mor-genlandes.YOS-Yale Oriental Series, Babylonian Texts.YOSR-Yale Oriental Series, Researches.ZA-Zeitschrift fuer Assyriologie.


B C ) [x] 1932


11/89

INTRODUCTIONThis study is an attempt to present in outline form a

general and comprehensive view of slavery in Baby-lonia, Assyria, and Palestine from about 3000 to 500B. C. This theme is not new. Assyriologists andhistorians, notably, B. Meissner, De Servitude Baby-lonico-Assyriaca, Berlin, 1892, C. H. W. Johns, As-syrian Deeds and Documents, vol. III, 1901, and E.Meyer, Die Sklaverei im Altertum, Dresden, 1898, havedealt with this problem. Since the publication of theseworks, however, veritable masses of new source ma-terial bearing directly and indirectly upon slavery havebeen pouring in, necessitating a new study of the eco-nomic and legal status of the slave in the early Semiticworld. Most of this material has been edited in trans-literation and translation, and the author has availedhimself of these publications for his citation of theSumerian, Babylonian, and Assyrian Legal and Busi-ness Documents quoted in this thesis.

Unfortunately, the Hebrews preferred the light butperishable papyrus to the lasting but cumbersome claytablets, so that the only source for the state of slaveryin early Israel is the Bible. Talmud passagesare cited here to prove the tenacity of a few oldcustoms (slave marks and the promiscuous use offemale slaves) which were still prevalent in Babyloniain the Talmudic period.

Since this author was primarily interested in orig-inal documents and not in interpretation, only docu-ments are quoted in the thesis.


B C ) 1 1932


12/89

CHAPTER ISOURCES OF SLAVERY

1. THE ADOPTED FREE-BORN CHILDAdoption of free-born children and even of slaves'

was a common and frequent practice in early Babylonia.Married couples who had no issue of their own, priest-esses who were allowed to marry but not to have off-spring, and parents whose children had been marriedand had established their own homes, often took oc-casion to adopt minors or adults and granted them, asa rule, the same rights' as if they had been their ownchildren. In a society in which the majority of thepeople depended on small-scale agriculture and manu-facture, every new family-member, because of the ser-vice he could render to the household, was a useful andvaluable addition." Whereas outside help, in the formof hired labor, was expensive and disadvantageous, theadopted son or daughter was reliable, cheap, and a mostprofitable insurance-investment; for besides the cus-tomary work expected of every child, the adopted tookupon himself the specific obligation of providing for hisfoster parents as long as they lived.

'See chapter III p. 70 f.'i. e., the right of inheritance; cf . HG vol. VI no. 1421, vol.III, no. 17, vol. IV, no. 779, vol. III, nos. 19, 20, 22, 23; Kohler-Ungnad, AR no . 41 ; Eisser-Levy, ARK no . 8.*Cf. HG vol. III no. 20, the case of a father who alreadyhad five children, adopting a sixth; see also ibid. no. 19, andvol. IV, no . 782.


B C ) 2 1932


13/89

"Awirtum, the daughter of Hupatum, fromHupatum, her father, and Rubatum, her mother,Shalurtum, wife of I (nim)-Nannar, has adoptedas her daughter. 1 2/3 shekels of silver as money(compensation) for her adoption Shalurtum haspaid to Hupatum. Awirtum shall be made avotary, and then she shall let Shalartum, hermother, eat her prebend. When Awirtum saysto Shalartum, her mother: 'My mother not artthou,' she shall be sold for money. But whenShalartum says to Awirtum, her daughter: 'Mydaughter not art thou,' she shall pay ten shekelsof silver and shall forfeit the money for heradoption. By the name of the King she hassworn."' "

Although in rare cases the cause for adoption mighthave been a wish to leave somebody behind who wouldcare for the soul after death,' the underlying motivewas economic in its essence and in its very nature.Adoption was a business transaction made and agreedupon by the parties concerned for their mutual economicadvantage. Provisions for the dissolution of the re-lationship between the adopted and the adopter areclearly set forth in the so-called Sumerian FamilyLaws:1. shum-ma ma-ru a-na 1. "When an (adopted)a-bi-shu son to his (foster)father,ul a-bi at-ta 'not my father you

'Poebel, BLBD, BE vol. VI, part 2; no . 4 p. 31 (datedin the reign of Rim-Sin) ; see also Schorr U nos. 13, 14, 19,21 ; HG vol. VI no . 1425; Chiera OBC, UMPBS vol. VIIIno. 2, no. 153 p. 131; David-Ebeling AR no . 2 (and see chapterIII p. 70 ff.).'See below, Adoption Document of the Cassite Period,(sal)I-na-U-ru-uk-ri-shat i-ma-at-ma (sal)E-ti-ir-tum marat-sane-e i-na-ak-Ni-shi, "when Ina-Uruk-rishat dies, then Etirtum-as her daughter-shall offer her water . . ."


B C ) 3 1932


14/89

ik-ta-biu-ga-la-ab-shuab-bu-ut-tam i-sha-ak-kan-shuu a-na kaspi i-nam-din-shu

2. shum-ma ma-ri a-naum-mi-shuul um-mi at-ti ik-ta-bimu-us-ta-za-su u-gal-bu-maa-la-am u-sa-ah-ha-ru-mau i-na biti u-she-su-shu3. shum-maa-bu ana ma-ri-shu

ul ma-ri at-taik-ta-bi i-na biti ui-ga-rumi-te-el-la4. shum-maum-mu ana ma-ri-shu

ul ma-a-ri at-taik-ta-biina biti u u-na-a-tii-te-el*Text in Delitzsch AL p. 1

are'says,he shall cut his (front)hair,brand him with a slavemark,and for money sellhim.2. "When an (adopted)

son to his (foster)mother,'not my mother youare' says,they shall cut his(front) hair,in the city they shalllead him around,and from the housethey shall drive himforth.

3. "Whena (foster) father tohis (adopted) son,'not my son you are'says, house and wall(yard)he (the foster father)shall leave.4. "Whena (foster) mother toher (adopted) son,'not my son are you'says,house and furnitureshe (the fostermother) shall leave"

15.4


B C ) 4 1932


15/89

This severe punishment meted out in the SumerianFamily Laws to the adopted child in case of refusal toprovide for his foster-father was consistent with thevery nature of the undertaking. Both contracting par-ties made investments with desire for future returns:the foster-father expected to be cared for all his lifeand the adopted child, on the other hand, hoped for hisshare of the inheritance. Since repudiation by eitherof the parties (by saying "you are not my son" or "youare not my father") carried with it financial loss, therepudiated party had to be compensated. The foster-father forfeited "house and yard," and the adoptedchild, who possessed nothing save his body, was soldinto slavery.! According to the laws mentioned above,slavery was the punishment for repudiating the foster-father only. Another Sumerian Code, however, showsthat in some parts of Sumeria no difference was madebetween the repudiation of a foster-father or mother;the rebellious son was reduced to slavery in either case:

"If an adopted child (?) to his father and hismother, 'Not my father, not my mother,' hassaid, of house, field, garden, slaves and propertyshall he be disinherited; and that adopted child(?) for his full price shall- he sell. And if hisfather and his mother 'Not our son' said to him,they shall be deprived of utensils (?) andhouse."'

This extension of the slavery clause to include therepudiation of the foster-mother is also incorporated in

"Cf. Poebel BLBD, BE vol. VI, part 2, no . 4; HG vol. VI,nos. 1421-1423 (dated in the reign of Rim-Sin).'Lutz, SSBT, Text 101-102, Transliterated and Trans-lated by Langdon, JRAS 1920, p. 510 f.


B C ) 5 1932


16/89

adoption documents of the Semitic period. It reads:(10) Shamash-tu-ku-ul-ti (11) a-na Ma-ti-ilua-bi-shu (12) u-ul a-bi i-ga-bi-ma (13) u a-naE-ri-ish-tum (14) um-mi-shu u-ul um-mi (15)i-ga-bi-ma (16) u-ga-la-ab-shu-ma a-na Kaspim(17) i-na-di-nu-shu"if Shamash-tukulti says to his (foster) fatherMati-ilu, 'You are not my father,' or to his (fos-ter) mother Erishtum, 'You are not my mother,'then they shall make him a mark (?)' and sellhim for money."

The phrase u-ul a-bi at-ta u-ul um-mi at-ti.you are not my father, you are not my mother,"is mentioned in the laws on adoption in the Hammur-abi Code only in connection with the child whose fatheror mother were temple-favorites. If adopted, he mustnot return to his father's house or repudiate his foster-parents. Should he, however, choose to do so, histongue and eyes are to be torn out (ff 192-93). Thoughthe other paragraphs relating to adoption in the Ham-murabi Code ( 185-91) do not provide for the case ofrenunciation by the child and the penalty therefor,nevertheless the slavery-clause continues to be incor-porated in most' of the adoption-documents even in thepost-Hammurabi period.' Furthermore, we find this

i. e. , cut his (front) hair." Ranke BLBD, BE vol. VI, part 1,' p. 27, no . 17 (Abil-

Sin) ; see also Schorr U no. 9 (Sin-Muballit), and no. 8 (dated14th year of Hammurabi); Meissner BAP 95.U In some adoption documents, expulsion from the houseand disinheritance are the penalties for repudiating the fosterparents, cf. Poebel BLBD, BE vol. VI, part 2, no. 28, p. 29;Chiera OBC, UPPBC vol. VIII, no . 2, no . 153, p. 131; Meiss-ner BAP, no . 93; HG vol. I, no . 15, vol. IV, no . 780.' Cf. Poebel BLBD, BE vol. VI, part 2, nos. 24 (p. 27)and 57 (p. 31) ; Meissner BAP, nos. 96, 97, 98; HG vol. III,no . 21, vol. V, no . 1088, vol. VI, no . 1426.

6


B C ) 6 1932


17/89

old Sumerian clause in an adoption document of theCassite period, 800 years after the promulgation of theHammurabi Code, ' and in an Assyrian adoption-docu-ment of the same time.'.II. DEBT

Although adoption was a widespread custom in earlyBabylonia, and, though the threat of enslaving the re-bellious adopted child might have been carried out tosome extent, the fundamental cause for the ever-mounting number of free-born citizens thrust into thearms of slavery was insolvency, for in case of defaultthe insolvent debtor was seized by the creditor andcompelled by him to perform service. Furthermore,even the thief and the offender were not sold into slav-ery for the actual crime which they had committed, bu tfor their inability to pay for the damages done and thefine thereof (cf. Ham. Code 53-54, 256; M. Jastrow,"An Assyrian Law Code, no. 5, JAOS 41, 1921, p. 14;Ex. 22:1).

In a society in which small-scale farming, house-industry, and internal trade were the chief occupationsof the population, credit-facilities were naturally of

"Text in Clay DTAN, BE XIV no. 40, transliterated andtranslated by Ungnad OLZ 1906, p. 534 (dated in the reign ofKurigalzu 1302-1331 B. C.). It reads in part as follows:shum-ma a-n mu-tim i-nam-din-shi shum-ma ha-ri-mu-ta ip-pu-us-si amat-sa u-ul i-sha-ka-an amat-sa i-sha-ak-ka-an-ma a-na bit abi-sha usi ....... E-ti-ir-tum ul um-mii-ga-ab-bi-ma a-mu-ut-sa ish-sha-ak-ka-an....,".... be it that she (the foster mother) gives her to a hus-band, be it that she makes her a votary, her slave she shall notmake her; should she make her her slave, to the house of herfather she shall go......... If Etirtum (the adopted daugh-ter) 'not my mother' say, then her slave she shall make her . ."Cf. David-Ebeling AR p. 102.


B C ) 7 1932


18/89

great importance. The farmer needed seed, workinganimals, and money to meet his expenses of the harvestlabor; the craftsman needed raw material; and the re-tail merchant or peddler needed manufactured goods inadvance. These urgent demands were supplied byloans secured in kind or in money from the temples,priests (chiefly Shamash priestesses in early Babylo-nia), landlords, capitalists,' and in Assyria also fromhigh government officials who, in addition to their re-quired duty at the court, dealt extensively in real estate,in cattle, and in slaves.'

These loans were granted on interest; and the ex-orbitant and usurious rates which were charged by therespective lenders aggravated the precarious situationof the borrower for often it may have caused a com-plete insolvency which inevitably led to his enslavement.

The average rate of interest charged in Babyloniawas 20-25 % on money and 33 1/3 % on grain. TheSumerian formula for loans of money reads: mash 5gin 1 gin-ta "the interest upon 5 shekels shall be 1

'See the business activities of the merchant Ubar-Shamashof Larsa during the reign of Rim-Sin. He loaned money:HG vol. VI, nos. 1448, 1481; bought slaves: ibid. nos. 1635,1636; hired out slaves: ibid. no. 1486; bought and sold realestate: ibid. nos. 1566, 1568, 1609, 1610, 1613, 1616, 1617, 1618,1621, 1622, 1656; bought and gold food supplies: ibid. nos. 1527,1771; bought and sold cattle: ibid. nos. 1505, 1823.See also the business activities of the notorious Balmu-namhe of the same period and place. He bought slaves: HGvol. VI, no. 1633; freeborn men: HG vol. VI, nos. 1644, 1645;hired them out to work: ibid. nos. 1472, 1473, 1475, 1476, 1477,1478, 1479, 1471, 1480, 1487.'See the business activities of Rimani-Adad, "the strongrein-holder of Ashurbanipal." He loaned money: Kohler-Ungnad AR, os. 153, 320; bought and sold slaves: ibid. nos.65, 67, 71, 83, 90, 200, 461, 465, 466, 482, 538; bought and soldreal estate: ibid. nos. 100, 109, 167, 168, 211, 226, 356, 443, 444,445, 141, 226, 321.


B C ) 8 1932


19/89

shekel," or mash 4 gin 1 gin-ta "the interest upon 4shekels shall be 1 shekel;" that for loans on grainreads: mash 1 gur 100 (ka) ta "the interest upon 1 gurshall be 100 ka."' The Semitic formula reads: sibtu1 ma-na 12 shiklu kaspi u-sa-ab "interest upon 1 mina,12 shekels of silver he shall pay. ' or sibtu 1 gur 1pi 40 ka u-sa-ab "interest upon 1 gur, 1 pi 40 ka heshall pay."" In a number of documents of earlyBabylonia the interest rate charged is referred to assiptam kettam u-za-ap" "the normal interest he shallpay." or sipat (ilu)Shamash u-za-ap,' "interest accord-ing to Shamash he shall pay." These tw o formulas do notimply a different interest rate. The former refers tothe normal rate, and the latter to the rate of the templeoikos, the largest financial institution in the city. Inboth cases the average interest (i. e. 20-25 % on moneyand 33 1/3 % on grain) was meant.' The documentsdo not state whether interest was reckoned on a month-

' Cf. Huber, "Die altbabylonischen Darlehnstexte," Hil-precht ...Anniversary Volume, pp. 191 and 193; MyhrmanSAD, BE vol. III, p. 62.' Meissner BAP p. 22, Text Bu. 88-5-12, no. 346." Ranke DLBD, BE vol. VI, p. 25, no. 38.Schorr U no. 45.'Ibid. no. 58.'A reference to a fixed rate of an established commercialinstitution is found in the so-called Cappadocian Tablets (F.Stephens, Studies of the Cuneiform Tablets from Cappadocia):

ki-ma a-wa-at ga-ri-im "According to the word of the garum(interest he shall pay)" (ibid. p. 22). Another document fromthe same colony leaves us in no doubt as to what rate theformula mentioned above refers: ki-ma a-wa-at ga-ri-im 1'Ashiklam ta a-na 1 manim u-sa-ab, "according to the word ofthe garum 132 shekels interest per mina he shall pay" (ibid.).This is 30%, the average interest charged in that colony onloans of money. In one loan-document the Shamash intereston money is given as V %. This, however, is no criterion forit may have been an exceptional case. We find loans granteddirectly by the temple on which the average interest of9


B C ) 9 1932


20/89

ly or yearly basis. Judging from early Sumerian loan-texts (cf. Huber, op. cit., pp. 197, 218), and Assyrianand Neo-Babylonian documents, where interest wascharged by the month, we may assume that either thatwas also the case in early Babylonia, or that the interestwas meant to be for the whole period of the loan, i. e.from the day of issue until the fixed date of return.This rate of interest remained practically unchanged inBabylonia down to the Persian period. Only in onecase, during the reign of Darius II, a record interestof 40% per annum was demanded on a loan of money.'

Assyria did not have a fixed interest-rate either onloans of money or on grain. The usurer had a freehand in determining the amount of interest which hewished the borrower to pay. Interest on money variedfrom 20% to as much as 80% per annum. In thecase of 20%, the formula reads: 5 mane kaspi ....5 shikla kaspi sha arh irabbi," "5 mina of silver ....5 shekels of silver per month it shall increase ;" 25% :5shikil kaspi .... na 4-ut-ti-shu irabbi,' "5 shekels ofsilver . . . .it increases a fourth part; 40 % : 3 manekaspi . . . 6 shiklu sha arhishu irabbi," "3 mina otsilver . . . . 6 shekels per month it shall increase;"50% : kaspu ana mishil shiklishu i-rab-bi, "the moneyshall increase in its half ;" 80% : 2 mane kaspi ....

'Kohler-Ungnad HAR, no. 16.Kohler-Ungnad AR, no. 261.Ibid. no . 253.'Ibid. no . 248.'Ibid. no. 264.33 1/3% was charged on grain (HG vol. IV, nos. 915, 899).The formula "according to Shamash he shall pay" is very oftenfound in private loan-documents contracted outside of theShamash temple.


B C ) 10 1932


21/89

4 shiklu kaspi ana 1 nwne sha arhishu irabbi,' "2 minaof silver .... 4 shekels of silver per 1 mina monthlyit shall increase." The average interest charged onloans of grain was 50% per annum.' There werestill two other types of loans current in Babylonia andAssyria: loans granted without interest (by the tem-ples and landlords to their tenants), and loans on whichinterest was charged only after the date of maturitystipulated in the contract. In the latter case, the in-terest charged was enormous and out of all proportion.In Sumeria and at the time of the First Dynasty ofBabylon, the double of the principal, i. e. 100%, wascharged ;o in Neo-Babylonian times we find 40% , butalso 100% ;" in Assyria it reached 100%,' 141 %,"'and even 1607o.'

Unfortunately, there is no certain and definite in-formation in the Old Testament as to the rate of in-terest charged in Palestine. From the injunctionsagainst the taking of interest from a Hebrew" we mayinfer that Palestine was no exception to the rule. Inthe case of a foreigner, however, interest was legiti-mate: "unto a foreigner thou mayest lend upon usury."'

Ibid. no. 245.Ibid. nos. 307, 309, 311, 313, etc." Huber, "Die aItbabyl. Darlehnstexte," Hilprecht Anni-versary Vol. p. 202 and Schorr U, no . 106.8 Clay BD, BE IX, p. 33, no. 6.

8' bid. p.33, no. 4.Kohler-Ungnad AR, nos. 246, 291, 319, 314."Ibid. 271.w bid. 252.,' Ex. 22:25, Dt. 23:19, Lev. 25:35-38.' Ex. 22:25, Dt. 23:20, Lev. 25:36-37; see also Ezk. 18:8-17,22:12, Neh. 5:10, Ps. 15:5, Pr. 28:8. It would be of interestto compare these passages where the taking of interest fromforeigners (i. e. from non citizens) was permitted, with theso-called Cappadocian Tablets. It has been observed by


B C ) 11 1932


22/89

The debtor who was unable to pay his loan could bereduced to slavery, for the creditor had a right to seizehim and put him under compulsory service. This rightwas acknowledged by the Hammurabi Code. In fact,the lawgiver took it to be so self-evident that he limitedhimself only to regulating its practice' and to prohibit-ing its misuse." The creditor assumed full power overthe seized debtor and could dispose of him in whatevermanner he pleased. Thus, Belizunu, who jointly withher husband owed 2/3 mina to Nur-Shamash, wasseized by Idin-Ea, a second creditor, and carried awayto the city of Malgum." The creditor could subject theseized debtor to maltreatment, and by so doing couldexercise a pressure upon his family or kinsfolk to re-deem him. Cases where the defaulting debtor was putin a dungeon by his creditor are reported from theCassite and Neo-Babylonian periods:

Mi-na-a-e-gu-a-na-Shamash mar (m)Sal-li-lu-mur ishshakku i-na Ki-li (m)Amel-Marduk beli-shu ik-la-shu-ma (m)ArkatNegal mar (m)Ardu-nu-bat-ti bu-us-su im-ha-az-ma u-she-si-shuXIII 1/3 shiklu hurasu i-lik(ka)-ma a-na(m)Marduk-ri-su-u-a i-nam-din u (m)Min-na-a-e-gu-ana-Shamash u . . . .DAM-A-NI i-lik-ka-am-ma a-na (m)Amel-Marduk i-nam-din."Mina-egu-ana-Shamash, son of Salli-lumur,the priest, Amel-Marduk, his lord, put him in

,1 115, 116; see also Mueller GH p. 109 and KoschakerBAB p. 130.f 114.Schorr U no . 64 (document dated in the seventh year ofSin-muballit; see also Koschaker BAB p. 20).Stephens (Studies of the Cuneiform Tablets from Cappadocia)that in those cases where an exorbitant interest rate wascharged, the borrower bore a non-Semitic name.

12


B C ) 12 1932


23/89

prison; and Arkat-Nergal, son of Ardu-nubattimade an agreement, and brought him forth.13 1/3 shekels of gold he shall take, and pay toMarduk-risua (the jailer, or his agent) ; where-upon Mina-egu-ana-Shamash, and ..... .hiswife, he shall take, and to Amel-Marduk shallpay (i. e. through the agency of Marduk-risua.)"Date: Shagarakti-Shuriash, year 6th, Tammu 9th.'Since the wife and children of the defaulting debtorwere part of his property, the creditor could legallyseize them and keep them either as hostages or reducethem to slavery. Such a course, when carried out bya creditor who was primarily interested in procuringhis money, might in some cases have been more effi-cient than the seizure of the debtor himself. With hiswife and children held in bond-slavery the debtor couldbe expected to make every effort to redeem them.Should he , however, be unsuccessful and the money notbe forthcoming after a given period, the creditor couldmore easily and more profitably dispose of a womanand minors than he could of an aged creditor. In acase where the loan had been guaranteed by a thirdperson and was not paid in time, the responsibility fo rthe payment fell upon the guarantor, who, in turn, tookover the right of seizure of the defaulting debtor. Thus,Nabu-etir, who guaranteed a loan of 52 mina for Bil-lamur asked his brother to pay the said sum to thecreditor and to seize the defaulting debtor togetherwith his family:

"'Clay DTAN, BE vol. XIV p. 37, no. 135; cf . KoschakerBAB p. 63 and note 22. For similar cases in the Persian per-iod, where defaulting debtors were pu t in fetters and impris-oned by their debtors, cf. Kohler-Peiser BR II p. 76 (Kosch-aker BAB p. 58); Clay \BD, BE IX 57, p. 31, (KoschakerBAB p. 58-9); an d ibid. BD, BE X 10 (Koschaker BAB p.59).


B C ) 13 1932


24/89

Nabu-iti-ir a-hu-u-a ul-tu siri il-tap-ra um-ma5Y2 ma-na Kaspi a-na Nirgal-iddin (amelu)rashu-u sha Bil-lu-mur i-din-ma Bil-lu-mur umari-shu sa-bit-ma duppu a-pil-ti sha biti-shuina kati-shu ku-nu-uk 5y ma-na kaspi sha ram-ni-ja a-na Nirgil-iddin at-ta-din I-a-lu-mur mari-shu u alti-shu ki-i a-bu-ku ina biti inakkuri shaDa-ad-di-a as-sa-bat,

"Nabu-etir, my brother, from the country, hassent the following: '5Y2 mina silver to Nirgal-iddin, the creditor of Bel-lumur, give. Bel-lumur and his son seize and a tablet concerningthe taking over of his house in his own handseal.' 52 mina of silver of my own to Nirgal-iddin I have given. E-a-lu-mur (read Bel-lu-mur), his son and his wife, in order that I maybring them to the treasury of Daddia, I seized.(Date wanting)

To stave off his own enslavement, the debtor handedover to the creditor as hostages his slave concubine,wife, and children. Theoretically they were to be keptin bondage until the debt had been worked off. Inpractice, however, unless they were redeemed, they re-mained in the possession of the creditor as long as theylived.' It was against such arbitrary and unlimited

' Transliterated and translated by Kohler-Peiser BR II p.73 f.; see also Koschaker BAB p. 52; for the seizure of adaughter by the creditor (Cassite Period) see Peiser UDBDno. 116, p. 18. For the handing over of the debtor's wife to thecreditor in Neo-Babylonian times see Koschaker BAB pp. 46-47, 53 note 7."Cf. Kohler-Ungnad HG vol. VI no. 1474, a loan docu-ment from Larsa dated in the reign of Rim-Sin. A fatherpledged his son for a loan of 2 shekels of silver redeemableafter payment of this loan. The pledging of family membersseems to have been a common practice in Southern Babyloniain the pre-Hammurabi era as it was later in the Semitic colonyof Ganesh in Cappadocia and in Assyria.


B C ) 14 1932


25/89

powers, which were exercised by the creditor over hisdefaulting debtor's family, and which tended to reducelarge numbers of free born Babylonians into slavery,that paragraphs 117 and 119 of the Hammurabi Codewere aimed. In case the hostage was a slave, the cred-itor could dispose of him whenever and in whateverway he might please, the debtor having no right toprotest (ff 118). If the pledge was the debtor's concu-bine who had borne him children, the Code attemptedto exercise a moral pressure on both creditor anddebtor; upon the former not to dispose of her as hewould be free to do in the case of a mere slave, andupon the debtor to redeem the concubine whenever pos-sible (fT119); in case a wife and children were givenas hostages, the Code limited their term of servitude tothree years (IT 117). Whereas the concubine was re-garded as an antichretic pledge, i. e. working off theinterest, the wife and the children were to repay by ser-vice within three years both interest and principal ir-respective of the sum owed. In view of the fact thatthe creditor had a right to seize the debtor himself andto keep him in bondage as long as he wished, a rightwhich the Code did not deny him, it is difficult torecognize the practicability of, I 117 as a measureagainst the avaricious creditor. Why should the cred-itor have satisfied himself by accepting as compensationthe debtor's wife and children whom he could legallyhold only for three years when he could have seized thedebtor himself whose service was not limited to anygiven number of years? (See chapter III.)

Loans on security were common in Assyria both inearly and in later times. Houses, fields, slaves, and


B C ) 15 1932


26/89

very often family members were given as pledges." Asa set off against the interest of the loan the creditorcould inhabit the house of the pledgeor without payingrent, and could enjoy the usufruct of the field and thelabor of the pledged person. As in the case of thepledged house, field, and slave, the debtor's wife, son,or daughter remained in the possession of the creditoruntil the debt was paid: umi anaka u she-im u sipate-shu i-du-nu-(u-ni) assat-su i-pa-tar,"on the day whenthe lead, the grain, and its interest he returns, his wifehe will redeem ;"' or ina uma anaka i-hi-tu-ni mar-shu(i)-pa-at-tar, "on the day when the lead he weighs,his son he will redeem."" Since these were, as a rule,antichretic pledges which the creditor would keep incase he could not get his money back, the pledged wifeand children would, after the date of payment had ex-pired, automatically become the property of the cred-itor: e-da-nu e-ti-ik isha-ab-ra-(tu)-shu-nu la-ki-a tu-a-ru da-ba-bu (la)-ash-shu, "is the time elapsed, thentheir pledges will be taken. Return (and) claim thereshall be none."''

The Assyrian Code' prohibited the detention of an"For the pledging of children in Ganesh cf. Eisser-LevyARK, no . 15: Ku-uk-ra-an me-ra-su a-na sha-pa-ar-tim u-ka-al,"Kukran, his daughter, for a pledge he will keep. For thepledging of the debtor's wife and children cf. ibid. no. 14 ...

bit-su u a-sha-su u she-ru-shu a-da-gal "his house and hiswife and his child I will behold" (Sayce, B, 2, p. 11 , translates"I will take in pledge").'David Eberling AR, no. 43 ; see also ibid. nos. 48, 56, 26." Ibid. no. 13; see also ibid. nos. 14, 24, 34, 60.'Ibid. no. 55 (For the right of seizure of the defaultingdebtor by his creditor and his subsequent enslavement inGanesh cf . Eisser-Levy ARK, nos. 87, 185, 188.)"Otto Schrader, Keilschrifttexte aus Assur verschiedenenInhalts, Wissenschaftliche Veroeffentlichung der deutschenOrient-Gesellschaft,35, Leipzig 1920.

16


B C ) 16 1932


27/89

Assyrian man or woman for debt: "If an Assyrianman or an Assyrian woman is retained for a trans-action, whatever its amount, in the house of a man, thefull amount is taken away, and he is obliged to give aquittance. They mutilate his ears by boring."' Thislaw, however, did not apply to wives,' minor sons, orunmarried daughters. They could be pledged, andwere retained by the creditor until redeemed.

"If a man has given another man's daughterto a husband, her father having been at sometime a debtor for a transaction at a settlement ofa former business partnership, he (i. e., the hus-band) must go (and) pay against the pledgingof the girl the price of the girl. If he cannotgive the pledge, then the man takes the onepledged. But if she is living in misery, sh e isfree to any who rescues her; and if the one whotakes the girl, be it that a document is drawnup for him or that a claim is put in for him,settles for the price of the girl, the one pledged[is taken away (?) ].'"If a man who has retained the daughter of aman who is his debtor, as a pledge in his house,asks her father, he may give her to a man;(but) if her father is not willing he cannot give(her). If her father has died, the owner mustask among her brothers. To each one of herbrothers in turn he shall speak, and if one broth-er says: 'I will redeem my sister in one month,'-if at the end of the month he does not redeem(her), the master is at liberty, to declare herfree (i. e. he is not obliged to undergo anyfurther formalities) and to give her to a man."""M. Jastow, "An Assyrian Law Code," no. 43, JAOS 41,1921, p. 40 (see also H. Ehelolf, "Ein altassyrisches Rechts-buch," p. 44, MVASM 1922, p. 37)."' See Jastrow, ibid. note 75.' Ibid. no . 38, p. 32."Ibid. no. 47, p. 46.


B C ) 17 1932


28/89

Documents of the imperial period, however, provethat Assyrians, men as well as women, were held aspledges and as debt slaves by their creditors:

(..... ) Man-nu-ki- (ilu) Ni (nib ..... kas) -ap hiu-bu-li-shu ((ilu) Salmu-sharru-) ik-bi-a-na(amel) tamkari i (d-di) n Man-nu-ki-i (ilu) Ninib(sal) Arbailu -shar- (rat) shinishtu-shu marat- sunaplhar 3 napshati ishtu pan (amel)tamkari ip-ta-tar .....

"Money for his debt, Salmu-sharru-ikbu tothe merchant has given. Mannu-ki-ninib, Ar-bailu-sharrat, his wife, and his daughter, to-gether 3 souls from the merchant he (Salmu-sharru-ikbu) has redeemed.""A certain Nargi from Bamati (?) owed 32 imers 50kas of barley and one bull. He could not pay his debtand consequently entered into servitude to Bel-duri, thecreditor: ku-um she. pat mesh ku-um alpi zikari a-naBeluduri i-pa-lah-shu sha-nish sha she. bar alpu zikaruu-she-rab-a-ni amelu u- she-ia, "instead of the barley(and) instead of the bull he will serve Bel-duri. Whensomebody the grain (and) the bull brings, the man hewill lead out.""

The right of seizure of the defaulting debtor by thecreditor was in like manner exercised in Palestine. In2K 4:1-2' the creditor seized the two children of adeceased debtor and when the widow appealed to Elishafor help, the prophet knew no other means but to resortto a miracle by which he hoped to obtain enough money

Kohler-Ungnad AR, no. 656."Ibid. no. 653; see also ibid. nos. 652, 655."Now there cried a certain woman of the wives of thesons of the prophets unto Elisha saying: 'Thy servant, myhusband is dead; and thou knowest that thy servant did fearthe Lord; and the creditor is come to take unto him my twochildren to be slaves.'"


B C ) 18 1932


29/89

to redeem them from slavery. The seizure and thesubsequent selling of the insolvent debtor in early Israelis also reflected in Amos 2:6: "because they have soldthe righteous for silver and the needy for a pair ofshoes." Nehemiah 5:1-5 proves that in Palestine loanswere obtained, as in Assyria, on security. Houses,fields, vineyards, olive groves, and children werepledged, and if the debts were not repaid, the creditorswould retain the land as their property and the childrenas slaves." Realizing the danger of the limitless powerof the creditor over the defaulting debtor, and viewingwith apprehension the increasing number of debt-slaves, early Hebrew legislation attempted, as did theBabylonian and Assyrian, to arrest this growing men-ace, which ultimately resulted in permanent slavery, bylimiting the service of the debt-slave to six years irre-spective of the sum owed."' In demanding the releaseof the debt-slave himself and not only of his family,this Biblical ordinance, had it been enforced, mighthave served as a more practical barrier against whole-sale enslavement of free-born citizens than the Ham-murabi Code, which was concerned only with the free-ing of the debtor's family, but not with that of thedebtor himself. The Deuteronomic law upheld the six-year term of servitude,' but considered it necessary togive a new interpretation of the old injunction whichprohibited the enslavement of the insolvent debtor fo rlife. It impressed upon the mind of the reluctantcreditor who was loath to free his debtor after six yearsof servitude that he had been actually served double the"See also Job 22:6."Ex. 21:2-3." Dt. 15:12.


B C ) 19 1932


30/89

term of what was traditionally deemed to be sufficientto work off one's debt: Dt. 15:18,

"It shall not seem hard unto thee when thoulettest him go free from thee; for to the doubleof the hire of an hireling hath he served thee sixyears."The argument set forth in this passage would havebeen unnecessary had the law of Exodus been en-forced. The very fact that the ancient ordinance hadto be reaffirmed with due emphasis and with an impres-sive appeal to national dignity" makes it sufficientlyclear that, contrary to the law the seized debtor and hisfamily had not been freed in the seventh year. Thatthis was actually the case is proved by Jeremiah 34:8-16. Under the pressure of the enemy every effortwas made to present a united and solid front againstthe advancing armies of Nebukadnezzar. The nobilityand the opulent of Jerusalem freed their slaves andpressed them into the army. No sooner, however,was the danger over, than the released slaves were,notwithstanding the solemn covenant and oath to thecontrary, compelled to return to their permanent serv-itude. The scathing protest of Jeremiah that this wasin open violation of the law which demanded the re-lease of the Hebrew debt-slave in the seventh year wasunheeded. The complete breakdown of both the lawof Exodus and that of Deuteronomy was squarelyfaced by the Levitical slave legislation. By increasingthe number of years of servitude from seven to seventimes seven, it made a last effort to prevent the estab-lishment of an hereditary caste of slaves in Isiael. (Seechapter III, p. 77.)

"Ibid. 15:15.


B C ) 20 1932


31/89

III. SELLING OF CHILDREN(A) INFANTS

The selling of infants by their parents was commonin early Babylonia. A mother who was unable to payfor the nursing would leave her baby with the wet-nurse, who either bought the child or adopted it as herown. In cases where the wetnurse felt a particularliking for the child, or where the sum owed for thenursing was judged to be lower than the actual valueof the infant, the parents would receive the differencein the form of a gift. Thus, Zahuntum, the wife ofAnum-kinum, who found herself unable to pay thevotary Iltany for nursing her child, said to the latter:ta-ab-li zu-ha-ra-am lu-u ma-ru-ki, "take the baby, letit be your child."" Iltani was so pleased with the bar-gain that she presented the mother with a gift of 3shekels of silver. The phrase "let it be your child"may or may not have implied adoption by the votary.In a document of the Cassite period, a girl infant, 12inches tall was sold by her mother, brother, and an-other woman for 9 shekels of silver without stating inwhat capacity she was sold.6' Economically the legalstatus of the infant, whether sold as a slave or givenin adoption, was of no consequence, for as far as theparents and the wetnurse or whoever the buyer of thechild might have been was concerned, this was a merebusiness transaction.

6 Schorr U no . 78 (dated 27th year (?) of Hammurabi)."HG vol. III, no. 435.


B C ) 21 1932


32/89

"One suckling baby, Ili-awilum by name, theson of Ajartum, from Ajartum its mother, andErishtum, her husband, Iasirum and Ama-Sinhave taken as their son. Iasirum and Ama-Sinshall give to Ajartum and Erishtum 10 shekelsof silver and two manas of wool as a gift forhaving given it birth. Jasirum and Ama-Sinshall take Ili-awilim from Ajartum and Erish-tum, and be allowed to depart.".The 10 shekels of silver and the two manas of wool inthis document, the remuneration for three years' nurs-ing paid to a votary of Adad for her child by the adopt-ing woman,' and the 52 shekels of silver and twoheadgears given as an "adoption gift" in another case,"all constituted the head-price paid to the mother orparents for the sold child.

(B) MINORSSelling of minors into slavery by their own parents

was also a common practice. These were sales pureand simple. The parents received a given amount ofmoney, and the son or daughter was handed over to theprospective buyer. Thus, Ama-dingir was sold by hisfather A-tud for the price of 5 shekels of silver,' andGalu-usar-barra exchanged his son for 1 4/5 gurs 4kas of barley.' During the reign of Rim-Sin, thenotorious usurer Balmu-namlhe bought Uka-ili fromhis father Sin-tamkari for the full price of 10 shekels

'2 Chiera OBC, UMPBC vol. VIII, no. 2, no. 107 p. 129-30.HG vol. V, no. 1088.Ibid. vol. VI, no. 1422; see also Poebel BLBD, BE vol.VI, part 2, no. 4 p. 31 , HG vol. VI, nos. 1424, 1426."Cf. F. PMlagaud, Textes Juridiques de la SecondiDynastie d'Our, Babyloniaca 3, 1910, no . VI, p. 103."Ibid. no. XI; see also Langdon ZA XXV, p. 212 f.


B C ) 22 1932


33/89

of silver, and a certain Enlil-durshu purchased Amat-shala from her father and mother for the price of 10Y2shekels of silver.' In the twelfth year of the reign ofHammurabi, Bunini-abi and his wife Belizunu boughtShamash-nuri from her father for the price of 5 shek-els of silver. Shamash-nuri was to serve in a doublecapacity: a-na (ilu) bu-ni-ni-a-bi a-sha-at a-na be-li-zu-nu a-mat-at, "to Bunini-abi she is a wife (concubine) ;to Belizunu she is a slave.""9 This practice prevailedalso in Neo-Babylonia: Adi'ilu, son of Nabu-zer-iddin,and Hulti, his wife, sold their son Marduka for the"fixed price" (a-na shim ha-ri-is) to Shula, son of Zer-ukin." Although dedication of minors to temple slav-ery, in Neo-Babylonian times did not, technically speak-ing, constitute a sale, it must be mentioned here, for asfar as the child was concerned, dedication to a templemeant for it permanent slavery without the slightesthope of ever being released.' Thus,

"Banat-Innin, the daughter of Nergal-iddin,in the assembly to Nabu-shar-usur, the chiefofficer of the king, the chief overseer of Eanna,Gabbi-ilani-shar-usur, the guardian of Eanna,and Zeria, the administrator of Eanna, the sonof Ibna, son of Egibi, spoke as follows: 'Nabu-zer-ukin, my husband, has gone to his fate. Fa-mine is established in the land and Shamash-eriba and Shamash-li'u, infant sons, I havemarked with a star and given to the Belit ofErech. As long as they live, let them be mem-bers of the shirkutu of the Belit of Erech.'' HG vol. VI, no. 1645."Ibid. no. 1646."Schorr U no. 77."Marx, "Die Stellung der Frauen in Babylonia," BA no . 4,p. 40 (Nbk. 70)."' See below, "Temple Slaves," p. 57.


B C ) 23 1932


34/89

Nabu-shar-usur, the guardian, the administratorand the chief overseer of Eanna, the statementof Banat-Innin, the daughter of Nergal-iddin,herd and food from Eanna to Shamash-eribaand Sbamash-li'u gave. Shamash-eriba and Sha-mash-li'u are members of the shirkutu of theBelit of Erech . . . . Erech, the 28th of Adar,the 11th year of Nabanidus."'

Selling of minors was also practiced in Assyria. Directhanding over of a daughter for a debt of 30 shekels ofsilver to the creditor is recorded from the reign ofAshur-duru-usur (650 B. C.?); ku-um ha-bul-li-e-shumarat-su a-na Zab-di-i (?) it-ti-din shinishtu shu-a-tuza-ar-pat lak-ki-at . . . . "instead of his debt, hisdaughter to Zabdi he has given. That woman isbought, taken . . ."' During the reign of Senacherib,a mother sold her daughter Addalat for the price of30 shekels of silver."' From another document (datewanting) we learn of a father who sold his son for 19shekels of silver,' and during the reign of Ibi-ittea(694 B. C.) a father sold his son for 2 mana of silver:kas-pu (garn-mur) ta-din mar-shu za-rip la-ki, "themoney is fully given, his son is bought, taken.";' Thata father had a right to sell his children into slavery inPalestine is obvious from the Biblical slave legislation.The very fact that Ex. 21:7 ff. made the stipulationthat the sold daughter should become the master's con-cubine or that of his son, and, further, that she must

" Text in Dougherty REN 154 translated and trans-literated ibid. SHBD p. 38.Kohler-Ungnad AR no. 43.*' Ibid. no. 39; see also Johns ADD vol. III, nos. 221 (p.

441), 307 (p. 11), 315 (p. 29).Kohler-Ungnad AR no . 42." Ibid. no . 38; see also Johns ADD vol. III, nos. 319 (p.531), 186 (p. 412) and Eisser-Levy ARK no. 214.


B C ) 24 1932


35/89

not be treated as a mere slave, proves that the sellingof children by parents was as common in early Israelas it was in Babylonia and Assyria. The emphasislaid upon her becoming the lawful concubine of hermaster was an attempt to elevate the position of theHebrew female slave from the start, thus differentiat-ing her position from that which she would have had inBabylonia, where the female slave gained the status ofa concubine only after she had borne children to hermaster. The Deutoronomic law does not contemplatethe desirability of a Hebrew female slave becoming theconcubine of her master. She is equal to the maleslave, and is to be freed in the seventh year. Thisomission of the concubinage-status in regard to thefree-born sold daughter was probably due to the in-creasing number of female slaves in the household oflater times; that they should all become the lawful con-cubines of their master was well-nigh impossible.IV. SELLING OF WIVES

Selling of wives into slavery was most probably re-sorted to only in extreme emergency. Such must havebeen the case with Shamash-daian, who, to stave offhis own enslavement, was forced to sell his whole fam-ily to the creditor:

". ... is brother, for 10 gold gins... i, his brother, for 10 gold ginsh..i, his son, for 10 gold gins

* . gilsa, his wife, for 5 gold gins abkirabe, his daughter, for 5 gold ginsSin-ludlul, his daughter, for 5 gold ginsRogab-Sinbalti, his daughter, for 5 gold gins7 kinsfolk of Shamash-daian,


B C ) 25 1932


36/89

12 female and male slaves for 2 manehs, 19 ginsgold,Put-ili, son of Sag-Enlil, their creditors,, * *Kidinum-Enlil, archivist at Nippur ......son of Ninib-nadin-ahe ...... for their fullp r c e ' '

The Hammurabi Code recognizes the right of a hus-band to sell his wife when hard pressed by his creditors(ff 117). In a society where a creditor had a right toenslave his debtor, where parents could legally sell theirchildren, and where a free-born man could sell him-self, the selling of wives into slavery is not surprising.Two documents of the Neo-Babylonian period containa clause that, in case the loan is not repaid, the wifeof the debtor or that of the guarantor would be handedover as a slave to the creditor.' These tw o documents,however, are not well preserved, and it is not clearwhether the respective wives were to be sold or merelygiven as hostages. The selling of a wife by her hus-band in Assyria is recorded in a document of the reignof Marlarim" (668 B. C.): Manu-ki-arbailu sold hiswife0 Bilikutu to Zarpi, wife of the governor, for 30shekels of silver according to the weight of Carchemish.

Legrain, HF, UMPBS vol. XIII, no. 64, p. 94."'Cf.Kohler-Peiser BR I, p. 12 (Nbk. 366) and p. 26

(Nbn. 655); see also Koschaker BAB p. 46-47.Johns ADD vol. III, no. 208, p. 430.'0Peiser KB IV p. 133, Johns (ibid.) and Kohler-UngnadAR no. 40 transcribe the ideogram as ahatu "sister" whileOppert (ZA 13, 1898, p.267) maintains that this ideogram mayalso be read belti or assati, and translates it "his wife." Hearrives at the conclusion that: "der Verkauf seiner Frau scheintalso in Ninive geduldet gewesen zu sein, waehrend er inBabylon eine causa illicita war" (ibid.).


B C ) 26 1932


37/89

V. SELF-SALEThe cause for self-sale into slavery was twofold:

a debtor might hand himself over to his creditor whenunable to repay his debt, and a freeborn man or womanmight sell himself, or herself to gain sustenance unob-tainable otherwise. In the former case, the debtor was amere hostage who was held in bondage until the princi-pa l was paid off. Thus, Ibkatum, who needed 5 shekelsto pay a debt handed himself over to Ubar-Shamash,who had advanced him the money.' Ibkatum servedhis new creditor Ubar-Shamash until he was able torepay the loan. In the latter case inability to securework as a free laborer was the reason for self-sale intoslavery. During an economic depression caused bynatural calamity or political chaos, the laborer couldescape starvation only by selling himself. Such casesare reported during the reign of Rim-Sin, when acertain Lilmad-ili sold himself for the price of twelveshekel of silver to the usurer Balmu-namhe." TheHammurabi Code does not contemplate such an emer-gency-case; the laws of Dt. 15:12 and Lev. 25:30 placeone who sold himself into slavery on the same footingwith those sold for debt.

HG vol. VI, no. 1481.Ibid. no. 1644; see also ibid. no. 1482.

27


B C ) 27 1932


38/89

CHAPTER IITHE LEGAL STATUS OF THE SLAVE

I. THE SLAVE AS A CHATTELLegally the slave was not a person. His name,

when recorded in a document of sale or inheritance,was always preceded by the determinative SAG' "head"in early Babylonia and was seldom followed, as in thecase of a freeman, by the name of his father? He wasa mere chattel, a piece of property, who could bebought, sold, hired out, exchanged,' given as a gift,'

1The Sumerian determinative SAG signifies the slave asa mere piece of property to be counted (cf. ZA, XXV, p. 211;document dated in the reign of Entemena, patesi of Lagash).The Akkadian determinative is reshu "head" (cf. MeissnerBAP, p. 42), which in course of time came to be used as anequivalent for "slave" (cf. Langdon, Babylonian Wisdom, p.16 sher-ra-ha-ku-ma a-tur a-na ri-e-shi "Although I was pow-erful, I am become a slave.") In Assyrian and Neo-Babylon-ian times this determinative was discarded and ardu "maleslave" (Sumerian uru and arad) or amtu "female slave" (Sum-erian gin) was usually preceded by the determinative amilu, pl.amilatu, or nisha "person.""The slave has no genealogy; he is "a son of nobody," andis ordinarily identified by the name of his master, A., ardusha B., "A., the slave of B." (see also M. Lidzbarski, Ephemerisfuer Semitische Epigraphik, vol. II, p. 142 f.). However,neither the omission of the father's name nor mention of it canbe taken as a criterion that the person in question was actuallya slave or a freeman. There are sufficient instances where aslave is mentioned with the name of his father, cf. HG, no.1636; Lutz LEDA, no. 26 , p. 39; Johns ADD, vol. III, nos.658 (p. 404), 690 (p. 433), etc.; Clay BD, BE, vol. IX, no. 5,p. 34; ibid. BD, BE, vol. X, no. 1, p. 21.

'Cf. HG, vol. III, no. 450, vol. IV, no. 985, vol. VI, nos.1659, 1663; Kohler-Ungnad AR, nos. 63 2 and 633 (three slavesexchanged for a horse) ; Johns ADD, vol. III, no. 321, p. 532(assignment of a slave as compensation for manslaughter).


B C ) 28 1932


39/89

or inherited. He was viewed as a money equivalent,"and was subject to the laws and regulations of privateproperty. When injured or maimed,' his owner re-ceived compensation,' for the law took cognizance ofthe slave's existence only in relation to a third party,i.e. as the property of an owner who must be recom-pensed for damage or injury done to his property,which was in conformity with the whole conceptionof slavery as a private inalienable possession. If killedby a third person, the lex talionis was not invoked, themurderer or the one who caused his death havingmerely to pay his price to the owner.' This is thereason why the Code of Hammurabi did not contem-

'In Babylonia the slave was valued at 20 shekels of silverand a child of a slave at 2 shekels, cf. Code of Hammurabi,'s 116, 199, 214, 252, and 213. See also Schorr U no. 152, adocument dated in the 35th year of Hammurabi, where a slavewas hired out for two years with the stipulation that if he diedthe one who hired him pay 20 shekels of silver to his master.In Palestine the slave was valued at 30 shekels of silver; cf.Ex. 21:32.

'For the laws of injury in the Bible see Chapter III, p.75 f.

' Code df Hammurabi, ff's 199, 219, 220, 252.'Ibid. 's 213, 214, 231. According to 1 116 of the Code,if a man died of abuse or neglect in the house of him whoseized him (as a pledge), the latter's son should be put todeath; but if the one seized was a slave, the one who seizedhim should pay to his owner 20 shekels of silver and forfeitwhatever amount he had lent. The latter was not meant as a

penalty for killing the slave but as a punishment for the com-mitment of an unlawful act, just as the one who helped himselfout of the granary of his debtor was punished with the for-feiture of the whole amount owed him by the debtor in 113.'Cf. V. Scheil, Une Scison de fouilles a Sippar, p. 10(10 male and 10 female slaves given as a dowry) ; HG, vol.

III, nos. 14, 15, 19, 454, 456, 461, 462, 482, 483, 485, 492, 494 (13male and 13 female slaves), vol. VI, nos. 1730, 1733; LutzLEDA, no. 105, p. 1; Clay LDE, part II, p. 7.


B C ) 29 1932


40/89

plate the contingency of a slave being killed by hisown master, for he was his own money.The early Biblical legislation does not forbid the

maltreatment of a slave; if his master beat him witha rod and he died on the following day, the master wasfree for "he is his money."' As in Babylonia, hisdeath at the hands of a third person was not avenged;the one who caused his death had merely to pay hisprice to the owner." Unlike the Hammurabi Code,the Biblical legislation contemplated the possibility ofa slave being killed by his master and decreed that hisdeath should surely be avenged. In principle theslave is thus recognized in the Bible as a human beingbut of inferior status; his murderer was not put todeath, as would have been the case had the murderedbeen a freeman.'II. THE SLAVE-MARKBabylonia had a class legislation; it was not a castestate. The inequality and discrimination of theHammurabi Code in regard to the three classes whichconstituted Babylonian society were not based on raceor birth, but on wealth. To be sold as a slave was,from the point of view of the individual affected anextreme misfortune, a disaster which, caused by aneconomic depression, could befall every commoner.This being the case, throughout the whole history ofBabylonia there was no need to "mark" the slave assuch, i.e. to single out a given part of the populationand brand it as an hereditary class of slaves.' As

'Ex. 21:21.o bid. 21:32.'Ibid. 21:20."But see the section on Temple Slaves, p. 57 ff.

30


B C ) 30 1932


41/89

individuals, however, the slave very often bore aproperty-sign attached to or incised upon him by hismaster (private, king, god), just as any other kind ofproperty was marked. Whatever relations might existbetween the master and his slave, whatever hopes thelatter might cherish to be adopted or to be able topurchase his freedom, so long as he remained a slave,the private property of someone, he was in no betterposition than a privately owned field marked by aboundary stone, or privately owned cattle marked bya seal" or tag."'

The slave mark denoted its bearer as being the pri-vate property of and possessed by a master; itsremoval was tantamount to theft and punishable withdeath in the Hammurabi Code.

226 If a brander, without the consent of theowner of the slave, the mark of an un-sellable" slave cut out," the hands of thatbrander they shall cut off.

227 If a man deceive a brander, and he themark of an unsellable slave cut out, thatman shall be put to death and in hishouse be buried; the brander shallswear: 'I did not cut out knowingly,' andshall go free.'Cf. King LIH, vol. III, pp. 162-3 (u ka-ni-ka-at sene pl."of the sheep which are marked.") ; HG, vol. VI. 1823; and forNeo-Babylonian times, Dougherty REN, YBT, vol. VI, nos.123, 156, 169, 208, etc. See also ibid., SHBD, p. 83, regardingtemple sheep marked with a star, the sacred symbol of Ishtar."Cf. Barton RISA, p. 73, and Keiser CB.

'Cf. D. H. Mueller GH, 1226."For the translation of the terms gullubu and abbutamshakanu cf . Schorr WZKM, 18, 1904, p. 233-34.'That the change of a mark is equivalent to theft is alsoevident from f 265 of the Hammurabi Code: "If a shepherd,to whom oxen or sheep have been given to pasture, has beendishonest or has altered the mark, or sold them, they shall call


B C ) 31 1932


42/89

There is, of course, no way of determining what theincised slave-mark looked like. Whether it had anindividual design like that of a modern trade-mark,"or whether it bore only the name or the initials of therespective master, is not known. Judging from theevidence of animal marks and late Babylonian slave-marks and slave-tags, the latter was most probablythe case. That the mark was incised with a hot iron1so that its removal required the skill of a surgeon isevident from the paragraphs just quoted, and is suffi-ciently attested by numerous documents of almostevery period in Babylonian history. Thus, Warad-Bunene, a native of Babylon, was sold to a foreigncountry. After serving there for five years he fled andcame back to his native city. The authorities, inaccordance with 1280 of the Code,1' se t him free.They said to him:el-li-ta ab-bu-ut-ta-ka gu- "You are cleansed (free),ul-lu-ba-at, your slave mark is here-

with cut out."Paragraphs 226 and 227 of the Code are based on

the Sumerian laws, according to which the disobedientCf. Clay LCD, BE, vol. VIII, no . 106, transliterated andtranslated; Ungnad OLZ, 1908, 2. Beiheft, p. 23 .... A-mat-(ilu)Mar-biti-us.rardusha (ilu) Nabu-makin-zerisha (ilu)Nabu-mukin-zeri mar-ru uqa-an-tup-pi ina elf rit-ti-shu id-du-u . .."A., der Sklave des N., auf dessen Hand N. eine Hacke und

Schreibgriffel geworfen hatte" (Persian period)."Cf. Robert Eisler, "Das Qainzeichen und die Qeniter," LeMonde Oriental, vol. XXIII, 1929, p. 54.'Cf. Chapter III.Schorr, U, no . 37.him to account, and he shall restore to their owner oxen andsheep tenfold that he has taken." For the translation of shimtu(=shintu=shnt n the Elephantine Papyri) by "mark," cf. Ung-nad OLZ, 1908, 2. Beiheft, pp. 23-24.

32


B C ) 32 1932


43/89

adopted child was to be branded with a slave-markand sold for money. The execution of these penal-ties, as set forth in the Sumerian family-laws and inthe adoption-contracts ("They shall cut his hair .....brand him with a slave mark ..... .sell him formoney"), might have referred either to the authorities,as in the case of the rebellious son in Dt. 21:18-21,or to the parents themselves. The incorporation ofthis Sumerian slave clause in the adoption-documentsof the Hammurabi period proves that the act ofdegrading a free-born adopted child, an adopted slave,and even a slave concubine into slavery was necessarilyaccompanied by branding, the symbol of servitude."

As already observed, there is no way of ascertainingwhether the Sumerian and early Babylonian slave-markbore the name of the slave's owner or not. In latertimes, however, it seems to have been the rule thatthe slave should be branded or tattooed with a markbearing the name or the initials of his master. Thus,the female slave Bilit-si-lim was sold by her masterNabu-ban-zir to Nabu-shum-lishir, who, incised hisname on the hand of the newly acquired slave: Nabu-shum-lishir rit-ta-shu a-na shu-mi-shu (ishtur) "N.on her hand his name has incised."' In a document

"Cf. Code of Hammurabi, 1 146: "If a man takes a wifeand she gives a maid slave to her husband, and that maid slavebears children, and on account of that would take rank withher mistress, her mistress shall not sell her for money, butmay brand her with a slave mark (ab-bu-ut-tam i-sha-ak-ka-an-shi-ma) and count her among the maid slaves.""Peiser TJG, KB, vol. IV, p. 213. See also ibid. p. 255 f.,where the adventures of the runaway slave Bariki-ilu are verygraphically recorded. This Bariki-ilu had been handed overfrom one master to the other. He managed to flee twice andwhen at last brought to court, he pleaded that he had beenadopted by Belrimini. The court, however, demanded his

33


B C ) 33 1932


44/89

dated in the time of Seleucus, a slave who had alreadybeen stamped by his former master was marked againby the new master to whom he was sold:

"Nidinutum-Anu, son of Labashi, and Labashihis son, sons of Ah'utu, of their own free will,Richat-Anu their servant, whose right hand wasstamped for the name of Anu-zer-lishir, sonof Shamash-iddanu; a second paqqut takaltumwas stamped for the name of Labashi, son ofNidintum-Anu, sold to Nanaiddin, son of Tanit-tum-Anu, son of Ah'utu, for future time, forone-half mina of - silver of coined Alexanderstaters,"...... tc.""

In Neo-Babylonian times some of the slaves whowere dedicated by their masters to the shirkutu, anorder consecrated to various Babylonian deities, weremarked with a star, the sacred symbol of Ishtar, upontheir hand, and often, as an additional mark, werealso branded. A temple tried to hold a man forservice on the ground that his grandmother was amarked and branded shirku. He produced, however,in his defense a female witness who testified that:a-na-ku kak-kab-ti u ar-ra-a-tum i-na muh-hi rit-ti shaH. qal-lat sha N. ahi-abi-ia .... la anmuru, "the starand the brandings upon the hand of H., the femaleslave of N., my uncle .... I did not see."'

"Clay LDE, part II, p. 25; see also Ungnad OLZ, 1908,2. Beiheft, p. 22.'Dougherty SHBD, p. 36 ; see also ibid. p. 34.

adoption tablet, and he finally had to admit that he was arunaway and that his mistress had marked him, Nu-ub-ta tak-nu-ka-an-ni-ma "Nu-ub-ta has sealed (marked) me." Fo rsimilar documents cf. Pinches PBSA, 1883, p. 103, 1884, p.104; Peiser BV, o. LXXI, p. 96.


B C ) 34 1932


45/89

A star and branding on the hand of a female slavededicated to the Ishtar of Erech are also mentionedin another document. These marks are cited, as inthe previous one, as proof and are stated as a matterof fact: "Eshi-etir, my brother, the star and brandingplaced upon her hand, and for the shirkutu to the Belitof Erech gave her."

The incised mark mentioned both in the Sumerianand Babylonian codes and their actual application, asconclusively proved by numerous documents fromboth early' and late Babylonian periods, are not, how-ever, to be taken as evidence that the Babylonian slavewas universally stamped with an indelible sign. Asa chattel, the private property of a master, the slavehas most probably always been marked. The methodof applying the mark and its character, however, variedconsiderably and was entirely dependent upon the dis-cretion of the respective master. Thus, we find thatthose slaves who were not marked otherwise, woretags bearing the name of their owner attached to theirneck or wrist. These tags were widely used.not only in Neo-Babylonian times,' but also to someextent in early Babylonia.

Ibid. pp. 38, 39, and 43; see also Babylonian Talmud,Tract Gittin, f. 862, "A slave mark of any man is not uponhim" (upon the slave).'Cf. section on the Adopted Free-born Child, p. 1 ff.'Cf. Oppert-Meinant, Doc. Jurisdiques, p. 168; see alsoBabylonian Talmud, Tract Sabbat, f. 58 a: "A slave may goout with a seal around his neck, but not with a seal on hisclothes.""Keiser CB, os. 101 an d 181, and Introduction, p. 16.The cutting of the hair, though sometimes incorporated asa special clause in the adoption-contracts of the Hammurabiperiod as a preliminary step before selling an adopted son ordaughter into slavery, cannot be considered a slave-mark. The

35


B C ) 35 1932


46/89

Unlike early and late Babylonia, there is no proofthat the Assyrian slave was marked. From theAssyrian Law Code (no. 39, see note below ) we learnthat the slave girl, like the unclean woman, the captivewoman, the unmarried hierodule, and the harlot, hadto appear in the street with uncovered head. If onefound a female slave veiled in the street, he was tobring her to the palace, where they cut off her ear andtook away her garments. This difference in appear-ance may be taken as an indication that slaves ingeneral were distinguished in some way from otherclasses of Assyrian society.

A slave mark signifying possession and inalienabilitywas also not unknown in early Israel. According toEx. 21:6 and Dt. 15:17, the Hebrew slave who refusedof his own free will to depart from his master's houseforcible cutting of one's hair was an act of punishment anddegradation.- 127 of the Hammurabi Code decrees the cut-ting of one's hair as a punishment for those guilty of spread-ing false rumors concerning the chastity of a priestess or of amarried woman ("mw-tu-ta-za u-gal-la-bu,") ; cf . A. Buechler,"Das Schneiden des Haures als Strafe der Ehebrecher bei denSemiten" WZKM 19, 1905, pp. 91-138. The same punishmentwas handed down in a judicial decision of the court of Sipparagainst a fraudulent claimant (Schorr U, no . 263). Accord-ing to the second paragraph of the so-called Sumerian Family-Laws, a rebellious (adopted) son was disinherited, and driven.from the house, an d as a sign of degradation his hair was cut.See Meissner BAP, nos. 83 , 89, 94; Schorr U, nos. 6, 9, 77;HG, vol. III, no. 14, vol. VI, no. 1426. That the cutting ofthe hair in those cases cannot be taken to mean a slave mark,but rather a temporary act of degradation and disgrace fol-lowed by actual and more lasting punishment, that of beingsold into slavery, is evident from the following adoption-contracts dated in the same period as those mentioned above,and containing the slavery-clause, but not the phrase, "theyshall cut his hair." See Meissner BAP, nos. 97, 98; HG, vol.III, nos. 21, 24 (Cassite period), vol. IV, nos. 781, 782, vol. VI,nos. 1421, 1422.


B C ) 36 1932


47/89

after the sixth year of servitude had his ear boredthrough with an awl and remained in slavery forever.Thus it appears that those slaves who were declaredto be a perpetual possession of their respective masters,never to be freed, bore a special mark. The ear wassingled out to bear the brand for the simple reasonthat it did not incapacitate the slave for work, apractice also applied in Babylonia' and in Assyria.'III. THE RUNAWAY SLAVE

In conformity with the basic principle that possessionof man by man was strictly a private affair not to beinterfered with by the authorities in power, theSumerian and Babylonian codes were primarily in-terested, not in the fugitive slave per se, but in hisabettor and abductor. It was they who were guiltyof unlawful appropriation and the sheltering of stolengoods; the law-giver was not concerned with therecaptured slave or with his subsequent punishment,which was left entirely to the judgment of the respec-tive owners.' The severity of the Semitic legislation,when compared with that of the older Sumerian inregard to offences against the family tie, is also evidentin connection with the safeguarding of private pro-perty. While in Sumeria the punishment for harbor-

' Cf. Code of Hammurabi, 282,--if a slave repudiates hismaster by saying, "You are not my master," his ea r is to becut off.'Cf. H. Jastrow, "An Assyrian Law Code," no . 4, p. 4,JAOS, 1921; The slave's ear is cut off as punishment forstealing."Cf. Myhrman SAD, BE, vol. III, part I, no. 1; a certainAlala brought his slave Sirka to court to have it put on recordthat whenever he ran away he would be subject to the treat-ment accorded to a fugitive slave; see also Meissner BAP, p.6; Kohler-Peiser BR, vol. II, p. 76 (Cyrus 281).


B C ) 37 1932


48/89

ing a runaway slave was restitution in kind or twenty-five shekels of silver," the Hammurabi code punishedwith death not only the one who helped the slave toescape from the city gates, or refused to hand him overto the government when asked to do so, but even theone who harbored him." The owner had a right toappeal to the authorities for help in locating his run-away slave, and it was the duty of the latter to complywith this request. Thus, Abeshu, the eighth ruler ofthe first Dynasty of Babylon, was asked by a citizento help him find his female slave who had run awayto Sippar, whereupon the king sent a messengerthither to fetch the slave and bring her back toBabylon.' The very fact that the Hammurabi Codedevoted six paragraphs to the runaway slave, coveringall possible circumstances, demonstrates that flightswere of frequent occurence in early Babylonia, and thatonly the most severe penalty was deemed strongenough to curb this tendency. The frequency of thispractice is also reflected in the seventh paragraph ofthe so-called Sumerian Family Laws:shu-ma Ifa-wi-lum a manar-da i-gu-ur-ma a slave has hiredim-tu-ut ih-ta-lik. and he dies, has run awayit-ta-ba-ta has disappeared,it-ta-par-ka has ceased to work," Cf. Langdon, The Sumerian Law Code compared withthe Code of Hammurabi,JRAS 1920, pp. 489-515, 5; "If afemale or a male slave from a freeman in a city escapes andin the house of a freeman for one month take up abode, and he(or she) be confined (as the owner's), slave for slave he shallgive. If he have no slave, twenty-five shekels of silver heshall pay."

ff s 15, 16, 19.King LIH, vol. III, p. 134.

38


B C ) 38 1932


49/89

im-ta-ra-sa has fallen sick,i-di-shu sha u-ma-kal his wages per dayBAR. TA. A. AN she-am 10 ka of corni-ma-an-da-ad" he shall measure outThe tendency to run away' was so widespread that

the owner of a slave hired out protected himself bya guarantee on the part of the one who hired theslave for work that should the slave run away, thehirer would be responsible. In a document from Larsathis guarantee clause reads: Wardum u-ga-ba-an-de(ilu)Sin-erish nam Bal-mu-nam-he 1/3 ma-na ni-da-e"(should) the slave run away Sin-erish unto Balmu-namhe one-third of a mana of silver' will pay." 9 Inanother document of the same place we read: "Oneslave, Gimillum by name, the slave of Ubar-Shamash,from Ubar-Shamash, his owner, Sh., T., and S., sure-tyship for Gimillum have accepted. (Should) Gimil-lum run away, Sh., T., and S. will compensate Ubar-Shamash."' Such a guarantee clause is also foundin some contracts of the Cassite period: a-na h'a-la-kipu-ut-ni ni-te-mi-id, "that they will not run away weguarantee;"' and in Neo-Babylonia; pu-ut hi-li-qu umi-tu-tu "in case of flight or death," or pu-ut la ha-la-

"Text in Delitzsch AL, p. 116.' Cf. HG, vol. V, no . 1095, vol. VI, no . 1970; Kraus AB,p. 12, no . 3, and p. 28, no . 2. For references to fugitive slavesin the Cassite and Neo-Babylonian periods, cf . Radau LCK,

p. 108, no . 44; Clay DTAN, BE, vol. XIV, p. 33-34, ibid. vol.XV, p. 7.i. e. 20 shekels of silver, the standard price of a maleslave."'Grant AJSL, vol. 34, p. 203-4, and ibid. p. 202."Ibid. vol. 33, p. 200; see also HG, vol. VI, nos. 1471, 1473,1475, 1476, 1477, 1478, 1479, 1480, 1482, 1483, 1484, 1485, 1487,1507."Cf. Ungnad OLZ, 1905, p. 143a."Kohler-Peiser BR, I, p. 5. (Nbk. 346).


B C ) 39 1932


50/89

ku' sha amelu-tu . . . na-shu-u, "that the slaves willnot run away we guarantee."" On the other hand ifa slave were given as a pledge it was his owner whobad to guarantee to the creditor that the slave wouldnot run away. Such a formula is found in Assyriandocuments; mita halka ina eli beli-shu, "if he die orrun away, the responsibility lies upon his master.""Similar precautions were also taken in early Babyloniain slave-sales. The purchaser of a slave had to ascer-tain first his antecedents before he would definitelyconclude the transaction, for the slave might later turnout to be a runaway, in which case the new masterwould be subject to prosecution.' An "inquiry" periodof from one to three days was, therefore, granted bythe seller to the purchaser. Should it become knownwithin these three days that the slave bought was arunaway, the sale would be annuled, and the moneyrefunded.

The Deuteronomic ordinance (23:16) "Thou shaltnot deliver a slave unto his master who escapes to youfrom his master," stands unparalleled in the slave-legislation of the early Semitic world, the Biblical in-cluded. The offence for harboring a fugitive slave wasso grave that even the mild Sumerian code, which pun-ished such a crime with restitution in kind or twenty-five

"Strassmaier, Darius 431, line 11 f.; see also DaughertySHBD, p. 52."Kohler-Unguad AR, no. 112; see also ibid. nos. 124-127;Johns ADB, p. 24.'5The death-penalty decreed by the Hammurabi Code forenticing a slave to flee or for harboring a fugitive slave seemsto have become obsolete in later days; cf. Kohler-Peiser BR,vol. III, p. 51 (Darius 53), p. 30 (Darius 434). See also JohnsADD, vol. III, p. 270, no . 61, where a slave who had stolenfour slaves was fined 200 mina of bronze.


B C ) 40 1932


51/89

shekels of silver, promulgated a special law stipulatingwhen and under what circumstances a man was allowed,without fear of incurring a penalty, to give temporaryshelter to a destitute slave, who, having grown old andincapable of work, or stricken with a malady, was de-serted by his master :'

17 "Ifthere be a malady,there shall be a gift of the king.Not shall he be left destitute.

118 Ifthere be a malady,and of his own free willhe come to a freeman,that freemanshall not reject him,but to the place of his desirehe shall cause him to go."The Hammurabi Code not only punishes with deaththe one who harbors a slave, but also grants a rewardof two shekels of silver to him who captures a fugitiveslave in the open field and hands him over to his masteror to the palace authorities for investigation.' Biblicalslave legislation (Ex. 21:2-11, Dt. 15:12-18, Lev.25:39-55) does not contemplate the case of the fugitiveslave, although the tendency to run away was as wide-spread in Palestine as in the adjacent countries. Hagarran away from her mistress Sarah ;" and when Davidsent his messengers to procure food for his men from

"Langdon JRAS, 1920, p. 501-2, f's 7, 8.*'f's17, 18. For cases where a captor retained a fugitiveslave until he was paid a reward in Neo-Babylonian times, cf .Peiser ZA , vol. III, 188, p. 86, and Kohler-Peiser BR, vol. I,p. 6, and vol. IV, p. 17 (Nbk. 390).'Gen. 16:6.


B C ) 41 1932


52/89

the rich but churlish farmer Nabal, on the ground thathis shepherds, when pasturing their flocks in thedesert, had not been maltreated or robbed by Davidand his followers, Nabal very defiantly answered:"Who is David and who is the son of Jesse? There bemany slaves nowadays that break away every manfrom his master."" As in Babylonia, fugitive slaveswere handed over to their masters even if they had fledoutside the country. David had to swear to the fugi-tive Egyptian slave that he would not kill him or handhim over to his Amalekite master before he wouldtell him the whereabouts of the enemy's camp,"0 andwhen Shimei heard that his two slaves had run awayto Achish, King of Gath, he went there and broughtthem back to Jerusalem. 1 Had the above citedDeuteronomic law been taken literally, it would haveresulted in the immediate abolition of slavery in Pales-tine. This ordinance must, therefore, be explainedfrom an economic rather than from an ethical or areligious point of view. It was most probably aimedat the Hebrew slave who had run away from slaveryin a foreign country." The following sentence: "H eshall dwell with you, among you, in the place whichhe -shall choose within one of your gates, where helikes it best, you shall not oppress him," Dt. 23:16,suggests that the fugitive slave settled as a client underthe protection of a master.

'I Sam. 25:10.6 Ibid. 30:15.'I K, 2:39-40."2Cf. Code of Hammurabi, 280, according to which a na-tive Babylonian slave who ha d been sold into a foreign country,and fled from there, was, upon his return, to be declared free

42


B C ) 42 1932


53/89

IV. THE