Legal Aspects of Slavery in Babylonia

LEGAL ASPECTS OF SLAVERY
IN
BABYLONIA, ASSYRIA AND PALESTINE

A Comparative Study (3000-500 B. C.)
By
ISAAC MENDELSOHN, PH.D.
THE BAYARD PRESS

WILLIAMSPORT, PA.
HeinOnline -- 1 Isaac Mendelsohn, Legal Aspects of Slavery in Babylonia, Assyria and Palestine: A Comparative Study (3000-500 B.C.) [i] 1932
Copyright, 1932, by The Bayard Press
Printedin the U. S. A.
HeinOnline -- 1 Isaac Mendelsohn, Legal Aspects of Slavery in Babylonia, Assyria and Palestine: A Comparative Study (3000-500 B.C.) [ii] 1932
NOTE Mr. Mendelsohn, in the work before us, has gone most carefully into a comparative study of slavery as it existed in Babylonia, Assyria, and Palestine. He has dealt exclusively with the sources, as his knowledge of the languages in which these sources are written are perfectly familiar to him. The whole question is one of much interest to us Americans-not only on archeaological grounds, but because at one time the question of slavery was an acute one in our own country. It now remains for some Egyptian scholar to treat of this subject in the Land of the Nile, so that we may have a full picture of the different phases of this question in the Near East. I commend Mr. Mendelsohn's work very cordially to all those who are interested in the history of the Near East. RICHARD GOTTHEIL Columbia University April 25, 1932
HeinOnline -- 1 Isaac Mendelsohn, Legal Aspects of Slavery in Babylonia, Assyria and Palestine: A Comparative Study (3000-500 B.C.) [iii] 1932
HeinOnline -- 1 Isaac Mendelsohn, Legal Aspects of Slavery in Babylonia, Assyria and Palestine: A Comparative Study (3000-500 B.C.) [iv] 1932
INDEX Chapter I. Sources of Slavery 1. The Adopted Free-Born Child ................ 2. D ebt ..............................................................
3. Selling of Children ....................................
2 7
21
4. 5. Chapter 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.
Selling of W ives ....................................... Self-Sale ...................-----------------------.----------
25 27
II. The Legal Status of the Slave The Slave as a Chattel ----------..................... 28 The Slave-M ark ......................................... 30 The Runaway Slave ------- _-----................... 37 The Sale of Slaves--.................................. 43 The Female Slave -------------..........------------47 Marriage of Slaves ................................... 50 Marriage Between a Slave and a Free 51 W oman ................................................ 8. The Temple Slave ...................................... 52 9. Peculium -----------------------------------------56 62
Chapter III. Release ..................................................
HeinOnline -- 1 Isaac Mendelsohn, Legal Aspects of Slavery in Babylonia, Assyria and Palestine: A Comparative Study (3000-500 B.C.) [v] 1932
HeinOnline -- 1 Isaac Mendelsohn, Legal Aspects of Slavery in Babylonia, Assyria and Palestine: A Comparative Study (3000-500 B.C.) [vi] 1932
BIBLIOGRAPHY Barton, G. A. RISA The Royal Inscriptions of Sumer 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 Persian Periods, Chiefly from Nippur, BE, vol. VII, part I, 1908. Clay, A. T. BD Business Documents of Murashu Sons of Nippur, Dated in the Reign of Artaxerxes I, by H. V. Hilprecht and A. T. Clay, BE, vol. IX, 1898. Clay, A. T. DTAN Documents from the Temple Archives of Nippur, Dated in the Reign of the Cassite 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 Rechtsurkunden, Stuttgart, 1929. Delitzsch, F. AL Assyrische Lesestuecke, Leipzig, 1900. Dougherty, R. Ph. REN Records from Erech, Time of Nabonidus, YOS, vol. VI, 1920.
HeinOnline -- 1 Isaac Mendelsohn, Legal Aspects of Slavery in Babylonia, Assyria and Palestine: A Comparative Study (3000-500 B.C.) [vii] 1932
Mueller, D. H. GH Die Gesetse Hammurabi's und ihr Verhaeltniss zur mosaischen Gesetzgebung sowie zu den XII Tafeln, Wien, 1903. Muss-Arnold, W. CT A Concise Dictionary of the Assyrian Language, Berlin, 1905. Myhrman, D. W. SAD Sumerian Administrative Documents, Dated in the Reign of the Second Dynasty of Ur, from the Temple Archives of Nippur, BE, vol. III, part I, 1910. Peiser, F. S. UDBD Urkunden aus der Zeit der dritten babylonischen Dynastie, Berlin, 1905. Peiser, F. S. BV Babylonische Vertraege, Berlin, 1890. Peiser, F. S. TJG Text juristischen und gesellschaftlichen Inhalts, KB, vol. IV, 1896. Poebel, A. BLBD Babylonian Legal and Business Documents, 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 Business Documents, BE, vol. VI, part I, 1906. Schorr, M. U Urkunden des altbabylonischen zivilund Prozessrechts, Leipzig, 1913. AJSL-American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literature. B-Babyloniaca. BA-Beitraege zur Assyrialogie und Semitischen Sprach-wissenschaften. BE-Babylonian Expedition of the University of Pennsylvania, Series A, Cuneiform Texts. BR-Babylonian Records in the Library of J. Pierpont 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.
HeinOnline -- 1 Isaac Mendelsohn, Legal Aspects of Slavery in Babylonia, Assyria and Palestine: A Comparative Study (3000-500 B.C.) [viii] 1932
Dougherty, R. Ph. SHBD The Shirkutu of Babylonian Deities, YOSR, vol. V, part II, 1922. Dougherty, R. Ph. AE Archives from Erech, Time of Nebuchadrezzar and Nabonidus, Yale University Press, 1923. Eisser, G.-Levy, J. ARK Die altassyrischen Rechtsurkunden vom Kueltepe, MVAG, vol. 33, 1930. Johns, C. H. W. ADD Assyrian Deeds and Documents, vol. III, Cambridge, 1901. John, C. H. W. ADB An Assyrian Doomsday Book, Leipzig, 1901. Keiser, C. E. CB Cuneiform Bullae of the Third Millenium B. C., BR, part III, 1914. King, L. W. LIH Letters and Inscriptions of Hammurabi, vol. III, London, 1900. Kohler, J.-Peiser, F. E. BR Aus dem babylonischen Rechtsleben, vols. I-IV, 1898-1900. Kohler, J.-Ungnad, A. AR Assyrische Rechtsurkunden, Leipzig, 1913. Kohler, J.-Ungnad, A. HAR Hundert ausgewaehlte Rechtsurkunden, Leipzig, 1911. Koschaker, P. BAB Babylonisch-Assyrisches Buergschaftsrecht, 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 Babylonian Texts, UMPBS, vol. I, no. 2, 1919. Lutz, H. F. LEDA Legal and Economic Documents from Ashjaly, UCPSPH, vol. X, 1931. Lutz, H. F. NBDE Neo-Babylonian Administrative Documents from Erech, UCPSPH, vol. IX, 1931. Missner, B. BAP Beitraege zum altbabylonischen Privatrecht,Leipzig, 1893. Moldenke, A. B. CT Cuneiform Texts, New York, 1893.
HeinOnline -- 1 Isaac Mendelsohn, Legal Aspects of Slavery in Babylonia, Assyria and Palestine: A Comparative Study (3000-500 B.C.) [ix] 1932
MVAG-Mitteilungen der Vorderasiatischen Gesellschaft. MVASM-Mitteilungen aus der Vorderasiatischen Abteilung der Staatlichen Museen zu Berlin, Heft 1. OLZ-Orientalische Literaturseitung. PSBA-Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology. UCPSPH-University of California, Publications in Semitic Philology. UMPBS-University of Pennsylvania, The University Museum, Publications of the Babylonian Section. WZKM-Wiener Zeitschrift fuer die Kunde des Morgenlandes. YOS-Yale Oriental Series, Babylonian Texts. YOSR-Yale Oriental Series, Researches. ZA-Zeitschrift fuer Assyriologie.
HeinOnline -- 1 Isaac Mendelsohn, Legal Aspects of Slavery in Babylonia, Assyria and Palestine: A Comparative Study (3000-500 B.C.) [x] 1932
INTRODUCTION This study is an attempt to present in outline form a general and comprehensive view of slavery in Babylonia, Assyria, and Palestine from about 3000 to 500 B. C. This theme is not new. Assyriologists and historians, notably, B. Meissner, De Servitude Babylonico-Assyriaca, Berlin, 1892, C. H. W. Johns, Assyrian Deeds and Documents, vol. III, 1901, and E. Meyer, Die Sklaverei im Altertum, Dresden, 1898, have dealt with this problem. Since the publication of these works, however, veritable masses of new source material bearing directly and indirectly upon slavery have been pouring in, necessitating a new study of the economic and legal status of the slave in the early Semitic world. Most of this material has been edited in transliteration and translation, and the author has availed himself of these publications for his citation of the Sumerian, Babylonian, and Assyrian Legal and Business Documents quoted in this thesis. Unfortunately, the Hebrews preferred the light but perishable papyrus to the lasting but cumbersome clay tablets, so that the only source for the state of slavery in early Israel is the Bible. Talmud passages are cited here to prove the tenacity of a few old customs (slave marks and the promiscuous use of female slaves) which were still prevalent in Babylonia in the Talmudic period. Since this author was primarily interested in original documents and not in interpretation, only documents are quoted in the thesis.
HeinOnline -- 1 Isaac Mendelsohn, Legal Aspects of Slavery in Babylonia, Assyria and Palestine: A Comparative Study (3000-500 B.C.) 1 1932
CHAPTER I SOURCES OF SLAVERY 1. THE ADOPTED FREE-BORN CHILD Adoption 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, priestesses who were allowed to marry but not to have offspring, and parents whose children had been married and had established their own homes, often took occasion to adopt minors or adults and granted them, as a rule, the same rights' as if they had been their own children. In a society in which the majority of the people depended on small-scale agriculture and manufacture, every new family-member, because of the service he could render to the household, was a useful and valuable addition." Whereas outside help, in the form of hired labor, was expensive and disadvantageous, the adopted son or daughter was reliable, cheap, and a most profitable insurance-investment; for besides the customary work expected of every child, the adopted took upon himself the specific obligation of providing for his foster 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; KohlerUngnad, AR no. 41; Eisser-Levy, ARK no. 8. *Cf. HG vol. III no. 20, the case of a father who already had five children, adopting a sixth; see also ibid. no. 19, and vol. IV, no. 782.
"Awirtum, the daughter of Hupatum, from Hupatum, her father, and Rubatum, her mother, Shalurtum, wife of I (nim)-Nannar, has adopted as her daughter. 1 2/3 shekels of silver as money (compensation) for her adoption Shalurtum has paid to Hupatum. Awirtum shall be made a votary, and then she shall let Shalartum, her mother, eat her prebend. When Awirtum says to Shalartum, her mother: 'My mother not art thou,' she shall be sold for money. But when Shalartum says to Awirtum, her daughter: 'My daughter not art thou,' she shall pay ten shekels of silver and shall forfeit the money for her adoption. By the name of the King she has '
sworn." "
Although in rare cases the cause for adoption might have been a wish to leave somebody behind who would care for the soul after death,' the underlying motive was economic in its essence and in its very nature. Adoption was a business transaction made and agreed upon by the parties concerned for their mutual economic advantage. Provisions for the dissolution of the relationship between the adopted and the adopter are clearly set forth in the so-called Sumerian Family Laws: 1. shum-ma ma-ru a-na 1. "When an (adopted) son to his (foster) a-bi-shu father, 'not my father you ul a-bi at-ta 'Poebel, BLBD, BE vol. VI, part 2; no. 4 p. 31 (dated
in the reign of Rim-Sin) ; see also Schorr U nos. 13, 14, 19, 21; HG vol. VI no. 1425; Chiera OBC, UMPBS vol. VIII no. 2, no. 153 p. 131; David-Ebeling AR no. 2 (and see chapter III 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-sa ne-e i-na-ak-Ni-shi, "when Ina-Uruk-rishat dies, then Etirtumas her daughter-shall offer her water . . ."
ik-ta-bi u-ga-la-ab-shu ab-bu-ut-tam i-sha-akkan-shu u a-na kaspi i-namdin-shu 2. shum-ma ma-ri a-na um-mi-shu ul um-mi at-ti ik-ta-bi mu-us-ta-za-su u-galbu-ma a-la-am u-sa-ah-ha-ruma u i-na biti u-she-sushu 3. shum-ma a-bu ana ma-ri-shu ul ma-ri at-ta ik-ta-bi i-na biti i-ga-rum i-te-el-la 4. u 3. 2.
are' says, he shall cut his (front) hair, brand him with a slave mark, and f or money sell him. "When an (adopted) son to his (foster) mother, 'not my mother you are' says, they shall cut his (front) hair, in the city they shall lead him around, and from the house they shall drive him forth. "When a (foster) father to his (adopted) son, 'not my son you are' says, house and wall (yard) he (the foster father) shall leave. "When a (foster) mother to her (adopted) son, 'not my son are you' says, house and furniture she (the foster mother) shall leave"
shum-ma um-mu ana ma-ri-shu ul ma-a-ri at-ta ik-ta-bi ina biti u u-na-a-ti i-te-el
4.
*Text in Delitzsch AL p. 115. 4
This severe punishment meted out in the Sumerian Family Laws to the adopted child in case of refusal to provide for his foster-father was consistent with the very nature of the undertaking. Both contracting parties made investments with desire for future returns: the foster-father expected to be cared for all his life and the adopted child, on the other hand, hoped for his share of the inheritance. Since repudiation by either of the parties (by saying "you are not my son" or "you are not my father") carried with it financial loss, the repudiated party had to be compensated. The fosterfather forfeited "house and yard," and the adopted child, who possessed nothing save his body, was sold into slavery.! According to the laws mentioned above, slavery was the punishment for repudiating the fosterfather only. Another Sumerian Code, however, shows that in some parts of Sumeria no difference was made between 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 his mother, 'Not my father, not my mother,' has said, of house, field, garden, slaves and property shall he be disinherited; and that adopted child (?) for his full price shall- he sell. And if his father and his mother 'Not our son' said to him, they shall be deprived of utensils (?) and house."' This extension of the slavery clause to include the repudiation 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 Translated by Langdon, JRAS 1920, p. 510 f.
adoption documents of the Semitic period. It reads: (10) Shamash-tu-ku-ul-ti (11) a-na Ma-ti-ilu a-bi-shu (12) u-ul a-bi i-ga-bi-ma (13) u a-na E-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) father Mati-ilu, 'You are not my father,' or to his (foster) mother Erishtum, 'You are not my mother,' then they shall make him a mark (?)' and sell
' him 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 Hammurabi Code only in connection with the child whose father or mother were temple-favorites. If adopted, he must not return to his father's house or repudiate his fosterparents. Should he, however, choose to do so, his tongue and eyes are to be torn out (ff 192-93). Though the other paragraphs relating to adoption in the Hammurabi Code ( f 185-91) do not provide for the case of renunciation by the child and the penalty therefor, nevertheless the slavery-clause continues to be incorporated in most' of the adoption-documents even in the post-Hammurabi period.' Furthermore, we find this i. e., cut his (front) hair.
" Ranke BLBD, BE vol. VI, part 1,' p. 27, no. 17 (AbilSin) ; see also Schorr U no. 9 (Sin-Muballit), and no. 8 (dated 14th year of Hammurabi); Meissner BAP 95. U In some adoption documents, expulsion from the house and disinheritance are the penalties for repudiating the foster parents, cf. Poebel BLBD, BE vol. VI, part 2, no. 28, p. 29; Chiera OBC, UPPBC vol. VIII, no. 2, no. 153, p. 131; Meissner 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.
old Sumerian clause in an adoption document of the Cassite period, 800 years after the promulgation of the Hammurabi Code, ' and in an Assyrian adoption-document of the same time.'. II. DEBT
Although adoption was a widespread custom in early Babylonia, and, though the threat of enslaving the rebellious adopted child might have been carried out to some extent, the fundamental cause for the evermounting number of free-born citizens thrust into the arms of slavery was insolvency, for in case of default the insolvent debtor was seized by the creditor and compelled by him to perform service. Furthermore, even the thief and the offender were not sold into slavery for the actual crime which they had committed, but for their inability to pay for the damages done and the fine 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, houseindustry, and internal trade were the chief occupations of the population, credit-facilities were naturally of "Text in Clay DTAN, BE XIV no. 40, transliterated and translated by Ungnad OLZ 1906, p. 534 (dated in the reign of Kurigalzu 1302-1331 B. C.). It reads in part as follows:
shum-ma a-n mu-tim i-nam-din-shi shum-ma ha-ri-muta ip-pu-us-si amat-sa u-ul i-sha-ka-an amat-sa i-sha-ak-kaan-ma a-na bit abi-sha usi ....... E-ti-ir-tum ul um-mi i-ga-ab-bi-ma a-mu-ut-sa ish-sha-ak-ka-an...., ".... be it that she (the foster mother) gives her to a husband, be it that she makes her a votary, her slave she shall not make her; should she make her her slave, to the house of her father she shall go......... If Etirtum (the adopted daughter) 'not my mother' say, then her slave she shall make her . .
"Cf. David-Ebeling AR p. 102.
great importance. The farmer needed seed, working animals, and money to meet his expenses of the harvest labor; the craftsman needed raw material; and the retail merchant or peddler needed manufactured goods in advance. These urgent demands were supplied by loans secured in kind or in money from the temples, priests (chiefly Shamash priestesses in early Babylonia), landlords, capitalists,' and in Assyria also from high government officials who, in addition to their required duty at the court, dealt extensively in real estate, in cattle, and in slaves.' These loans were granted on interest; and the exorbitant and usurious rates which were charged by the respective lenders aggravated the precarious situation of the borrower for often it may have caused a complete insolvency which inevitably led to his enslavement. The average rate of interest charged in Babylonia was 20-25 % on money and 33 1/3 % on grain. The Sumerian formula for loans of money reads: mash 5 gin 1 gin-ta "the interest upon 5 shekels shall be 1
of Larsa during the reign of Rim-Sin. He loaned money: HG vol. VI, nos. 1448, 1481; bought slaves: ibid. nos. 1635,
'See
the business activities of the merchant Ubar-Shamash
1636; hired out slaves: ibid. no. 1486; bought and sold real See also the business activities of the notorious Balmunamhe of the same period and place. He bought slaves: HG vol. 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. estate: 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 the business activities of Rimani-Adad, "the strong rein-holder of Ashurbanipal." He loaned money: KohlerUngnad AR, nos. 153, 320; bought and sold slaves: ibid. nos. 65, 67, 71, 83, 90, 200, 461, 465, 466, 482, 538; bought and sold 445, 141, 226, 321.
real estate: ibid. nos. 100, 109, 167, 168, 211, 226, 356, 443, 444,
shekel," or mash 4 gin 1 gin-ta "the interest upon 4 shekels shall be 1 shekel;" that for loans on grain reads: mash 1 gur 100 (ka) ta "the interest upon 1 gur shall be 100 ka."' The Semitic formula reads: sibtu 1 ma-na 12 shiklu kaspi u-sa-ab "interest upon 1 mina, 12 shekels of silver he shall pay. ' or sibtu 1 gur 1 pi 40 ka u-sa-ab "interest upon 1 gur, 1 pi 40 ka he shall pay."" In a number of documents of early Babylonia the interest rate charged is referred to as siptam kettam u-za-ap" "the normal interest he shall pay." or sipat (ilu)Shamash u-za-ap,' "interest according to Shamash he shall pay." These two formulas do not imply a different interest rate. The former refers to the normal rate, and the latter to the rate of the temple oikos, the largest financial institution in the city. In both cases the average interest (i. e. 20-25 % on money and 33 1/3 % on grain) was meant.' The documents do not state whether interest was reckoned on a month' Cf. Huber, "Die altbabylonischen Darlehnstexte," Hilprecht . . . Anniversary Volume, pp. 191 and 193; Myhrman SAD, 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 commercial institution 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 from the same colony leaves us in no doubt as to what rate the formula mentioned above refers: ki-ma a-wa-at ga-ri-im 1'A shiklam ta a-na 1 manim u-sa-ab, "according to the word of the garum 132 shekels interest per mina he shall pay" (ibid.). This is 30%, the average interest charged in that colony on loans of money. In one loan-document the Shamash interest on money is given as V %. This, however, is no criterion for it may have been an exceptional case. We find loans granted directly by the temple on which the average interest of
ly or yearly basis. Judging from early Sumerian loantexts (cf. Huber, op. cit., pp. 197, 218), and Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian documents, where interest was charged by the month, we may assume that either that was also the case in early Babylonia, or that the interest was 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 in Babylonia down to the Persian period. Only in one case, during the reign of Darius II, a record interest of 40 % per annum was demanded on a loan of money.' Assyria did not have a fixed interest-rate either on loans of money or on grain. The usurer had a free hand in determining the amount of interest which he wished the borrower to pay. Interest on money varied from 20% to as much as 80% per annum. In the case of 20%, the formula reads: 5 mane kaspi .... 5 shikla kaspi sha arhi irabbi," "5 mina of silver .... 5 shekels of silver per month it shall increase ;" 25% : 5shikil kaspi .... ana 4-ut-ti-shu irabbi,' "5 shekels of silver . . . . it increases a fourth part; 40 % : 3 mane kaspi . . . 6 shiklu sha arhishu irabbi," "3 mina ot silver . . . . 6 shekels per month it shall increase;" 50% : kaspu ana mishil shiklishu i-rab-bi, "the money shall 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 often found in private loan-documents contracted outside of the Shamash temple.
4 shiklu kaspi ana 1 nwne sha arhishu irabbi,' "2 mina 4 shekels of silver per 1 mina monthly of silver .... it shall increase." The average interest charged on loans of grain was 50% per annum.' There were still two other types of loans current in Babylonia and Assyria: loans granted without interest (by the temples and landlords to their tenants), and loans on which interest was charged only after the date of maturity stipulated in the contract. In the latter case, the interest charged was enormous and out of all proportion. In Sumeria and at the time of the First Dynasty of Babylon, the double of the principal, i. e. 100%, was charged ;o in Neo-Babylonian times we find 40% , but also 100% ;" in Assyria it reached 100%,' 141 %,"' and even 1607o.' Unfortunately, there is no certain and definite information in the Old Testament as to the rate of interest charged in Palestine. From the injunctions against the taking of interest from a Hebrew" we may infer that Palestine was no exception to the rule. In the case of a foreigner, however, interest was legitimate: "unto a foreigner thou mayest lend upon usury."'
Ibid. no. 245. Ibid. nos. 307, 309, 311, 313, etc. " Huber, "Die aItbabyl. Darlehnstexte," Hilprecht AnniVol. p. 202 and Schorr U, no. 106. versary 8 Clay BD, BE IX, p. 33, no. 6.
8'Ibid. p. 33, no. 4.
22:12, Neh. 5:10, Ps. 15:5, Pr. 28:8. It would be of interest to compare these passages where the taking of interest from foreigners (i. e. from non citizens) was permitted, with the so-called Cappadocian Tablets. It has been observed by
"Ibid. 271. wIbid. 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,
Kohler-Ungnad AR, nos. 246, 291, 319, 314.
The debtor who was unable to pay his loan could be reduced to slavery, for the creditor had a right to seize him and put him under compulsory service. This right was acknowledged by the Hammurabi Code. In fact, the lawgiver took it to be so self-evident that he limited himself only to regulating its practice' and to prohibiting its misuse." The creditor assumed full power over the seized debtor and could dispose of him in whatever manner he pleased. Thus, Belizunu, who jointly with her husband owed 2/3 mina to Nur-Shamash, was seized by Idin-Ea, a second creditor, and carried away to the city of Malgum. " The creditor could subject the seized debtor to maltreatment, and by so doing could exercise a pressure upon his family or kinsfolk to redeem him. Cases where the defaulting debtor was put in a dungeon by his creditor are reported from the Cassite and Neo-Babylonian periods: Mi-na-a-e-gu-a-na-Shamash mar (m) Sal-li-lumur ishshakku i-na Ki-li (m)Amel-Marduk belishu ik-la-shu-ma (m)ArkatNegal mar (m)Ardunu-bat-ti bu-us-su im-ha-az-ma u-she-si-shu XIII 1/3 shiklu hurasu i-lik(ka)-ma a-na (m)Marduk-ri-su-u-a i-nam-din u (m)Min-naa-e-gu-ana-Shamash u . . . .DAM-A-NI i-likka-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 Koschaker BAB p. 130.
f 114.
Schorr U no. 64 (document dated in the seventh year of
Sin-muballit; see also Koschaker BAB p. 20). Stephens (Studies of the Cuneiform Tablets from Cappadocia)
that in those cases where an exorbitant interest rate was

charged, the borrower bore a non-Semitic name.
12
prison; and Arkat-Nergal, son of Ardu-nubatti made an agreement, and brought him forth. 13 1/3 shekels of gold he shall take, and pay to Marduk-risua (the jailer, or his agent) ; whereupon Mina-egu-ana-Shamash, and ..... .his wife, he shall take, and to Amel-Marduk shall pay (i. e. through the agency of Marduk-risua.)" Date: Shagarakti-Shuriash, year 6th, Tammu 9th.' Since the wife and children of the defaulting debtor were part of his property, the creditor could legally seize them and keep them either as hostages or reduce them to slavery. Such a course, when carried out by a creditor who was primarily interested in procuring his money, might in some cases have been more efficient than the seizure of the debtor himself. With his wife and children held in bond-slavery the debtor could be expected to make every effort to redeem them. Should he, however, be unsuccessful and the money not be forthcoming after a given period, the creditor could more easily and more profitably dispose of a woman and minors than he could of an aged creditor. In a case where the loan had been guaranteed by a third person and was not paid in time, the responsibility for the payment fell upon the guarantor, who, in turn, took over the right of seizure of the defaulting debtor. Thus, Nabu-etir, who guaranteed a loan of 52 mina for Billamur asked his brother to pay the said sum to the creditor and to seize the defaulting debtor together with his family:
"'Clay DTAN, BE vol. XIV p. 37, no. 135; cf. Koschaker BAB p. 63 and note 22. For similar cases in the Persian period, where defaulting debtors were put in fetters and imprisoned by their debtors, cf. Kohler-Peiser BR II p. 76 (Koschaker BAB p. 58); Clay \BD, BE IX 57, p. 31, (Koschaker BAB p. 58-9); and ibid. BD, BE X 10 (Koschaker BAB p.
59).
Nabu-iti-ir a-hu-u-a ul-tu siri il-tap-ra um-ma ma-na Kaspi a-na Nirgal-iddin (amelu) rashu-u sha Bil-lu-mur i-din-ma Bil-lu-mur u mari-shu sa-bit-ma duppu a-pil-ti sha biti-shu ina kati-shu ku-nu-uk 5y ma-na kaspi sha ramni-ja a-na Nirgil-iddin at-ta-din I-a-lu-mur marishu u alti-shu ki-i a-bu-ku ina biti inakkuri sha Da-ad-di-a as-sa-bat, "Nabu-etir, my brother, from the country, has sent the following: '5Y2 mina silver to Nirgaliddin, the creditor of Bel-lumur, give. Bellumur and his son seize and a tablet concerning the taking over of his house in his own hand seal.' 52 mina of silver of my own to Nirgaliddin I have given. E-a-lu-mur (read Bel-lumur), his son and his wife, in order that I may bring them to the treasury of Daddia, I seized.
5Y2
(Date wanting) To stave off his own enslavement, the debtor handed over to the creditor as hostages his slave concubine, wife, and children. Theoretically they were to be kept in bondage until the debt had been worked off. In practice, however, unless they were redeemed, they remained in the possession of the creditor as long as they lived.' 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 a daughter by the creditor (Cassite Period) see Peiser UDBD no. 116, p. 18. For the handing over of the debtor's wife to the creditor in Neo-Babylonian times see Koschaker BAB pp. 4647, 53 note 7. "Cf. Kohler-Ungnad HG vol. VI no. 1474, a loan document from Larsa dated in the reign of Rim-Sin. A father pledged his son for a loan of 2 shekels of silver redeemable after payment of this loan. The pledging of family members seems to have been a common practice in Southern Babylonia in the pre-Hammurabi era as it was later in the Semitic colony of Ganesh in Cappadocia and in Assyria.
powers, which were exercised by the creditor over his defaulting debtor's family, and which tended to reduce large numbers of free born Babylonians into slavery, that paragraphs 117 and 119 of the Hammurabi Code were aimed. In case the hostage was a slave, the creditor could dispose of him whenever and in whatever way he might please, the debtor having no right to protest (ff 118). If the pledge was the debtor's concubine who had borne him children, the Code attempted to exercise a moral pressure on both creditor and debtor; upon the former not to dispose of her as he would be free to do in the case of a mere slave, and upon the debtor to redeem the concubine whenever possible (fT 119); in case a wife and children were given as hostages, the Code limited their term of servitude to three years (IT 117). Whereas the concubine was regarded as an antichretic pledge, i. e. working off the interest, the wife and the children were to repay by service within three years both interest and principal irrespective of the sum owed. In view of the fact that the creditor had a right to seize the debtor himself and to keep him in bondage as long as he wished, a right which the Code did not deny him, it is difficult to recognize the practicability of, I 117 as a measure against the avaricious creditor. Why should the creditor have satisfied himself by accepting as compensation the debtor's wife and children whom he could legally hold only for three years when he could have seized the debtor himself whose service was not limited to any given number of years? (See chapter III.) Loans on security were common in Assyria both in early and in later times. Houses, fields, slaves, and
very often family members were given as pledges." As a set off against the interest of the loan the creditor could inhabit the house of the pledgeor without paying rent, and could enjoy the usufruct of the field and the labor of the pledged person. As in the case of the pledged house, field, and slave, the debtor's wife, son, or daughter remained in the possession of the creditor until the debt was paid: umi anaka u she-im u sipateshu i-du-nu-(u-ni) assat-su i-pa-tar, "on the day when the lead, the grain, and its interest he returns, his wife
he 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 in case he could not get his money back, the pledged wife and children would, after the date of payment had expired, automatically become the property of the creditor: e-da-nu e-ti-ik isha-ab-ra-(tu)-shu-nu la-ki-a tua-ru da-ba-bu (la)-ash-shu, "is the time elapsed, then their pledges will be taken. Return (and) claim there shall be none."'' The Assyrian Code' prohibited the detention of an
"For the pledging of children in Ganesh cf. Eisser-Levy ARK, 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 the pledging 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 his wife 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 defaulting debtor by his creditor and his subsequent enslavement in Ganesh cf. Eisser-Levy ARK, nos. 87, 185, 188.) "Otto Schrader, Keilschrifttexte aus Assur verschiedenen Inhalts, Wissenschaftliche Veroeffentlichung der deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft, 35, Leipzig 1920.
16
Assyrian man or woman for debt: "If an Assyrian man or an Assyrian woman is retained for a transaction, whatever its amount, in the house of a man, the full amount is taken away, and he is obliged to give a This quittance. They mutilate his ears by boring."' law, however, did not apply to wives,' minor sons, or unmarried daughters. They could be pledged, and were retained by the creditor until redeemed. "If a man has given another man's daughter to a husband, her father having been at some time a debtor for a transaction at a settlement of a former business partnership, he (i. e., the husband) must go (and) pay against the pledging of the girl the price of the girl. If he cannot give the pledge, then the man takes the one pledged. But if she is living in misery, she is free to any who rescues her; and if the one who takes the girl, be it that a document is drawn up 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 a man 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 must ask among her brothers. To each one of her brothers in turn he shall speak, and if one brother 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 her free (i. e. he is not obliged to undergo any further 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 Rechtsbuch," p. 44, MVASM 1922, p. 37). "' See Jastrow, ibid. note 75. ' Ibid. no. 38, p. 32. "Ibid. no. 47, p. 46.
Documents of the imperial period, however, prove that Assyrians, men as well as women, were held as pledges 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- su naplhar 3 napshati ishtu pan (amel)tamkari ip-tatar ..... "Money for his debt, Salmu-sharru-ikbu to the merchant has given. Mannu-ki-ninib, Arbailu-sharrat, his wife, and his daughter, together 3 souls from the merchant he (Salmusharru-ikbu) has redeemed."" A certain Nargi from Bamati (?) owed 32 imers 50 kas of barley and one bull. He could not pay his debt and consequently entered into servitude to Bel-duri, the creditor: ku-um she. pat mesh ku-um alpi zikari a-na Beluduri i-pa-lah-shu sha-nish sha she. bar alpu zikaru u-she-rab-a-ni amelu u- she-ia, "instead of the barley (and) instead of the bull he will serve Bel-duri. When somebody the grain (and) the bull brings, the man he will lead out."" The right of seizure of the defaulting debtor by the creditor was in like manner exercised in Palestine. In 2K 4:1-2' the creditor seized the two children of a deceased debtor and when the widow appealed to Elisha for help, the prophet knew no other means but to resort to a miracle by which he hoped to obtain enough money "Now there cried a certain woman of the wives of the sons of the prophets unto Elisha saying: 'Thy servant, my husband is dead; and thou knowest that thy servant did fear the Lord; and the creditor is come to take unto him my two children to be slaves.'"
"Ibid. no. 653; see also ibid. nos. 652, 655.
Kohler-Ungnad AR, no. 656.
to redeem them from slavery. The seizure and the subsequent selling of the insolvent debtor in early Israel is also reflected in Amos 2:6: "because they have sold the righteous for silver and the needy for a pair of shoes." Nehemiah 5:1-5 proves that in Palestine loans were obtained, as in Assyria, on security. Houses, fields, vineyards, olive groves, and children were pledged, and if the debts were not repaid, the creditors would retain the land as their property and the children as slaves." Realizing the danger of the limitless power of the creditor over the defaulting debtor, and viewing with apprehension the increasing number of debtslaves, early Hebrew legislation attempted, as did the Babylonian and Assyrian, to arrest this growing menace, which ultimately resulted in permanent slavery, by limiting the service of the debt-slave to six years irrespective of the sum owed."' In demanding the release of the debt-slave himself and not only of his family, this Biblical ordinance, had it been enforced, might have served as a more practical barrier against wholesale enslavement of free-born citizens than the Hammurabi Code, which was concerned only with the freeing of the debtor's family, but not with that of the debtor himself. The Deuteronomic law upheld the sixyear term of servitude,' but considered it necessary to give a new interpretation of the old injunction which prohibited the enslavement of the insolvent debtor for life. It impressed upon the mind of the reluctant creditor who was loath to free his debtor after six years of servitude that he had been actually served double the
"See also Job 22:6. "Ex. 21:2-3. " Dt. 15:12.
term of what was traditionally deemed to be sufficient to work off one's debt: Dt. 15:18, "It shall not seem hard unto thee when thou lettest him go free from thee; for to the double of the hire of an hireling hath he served thee six years." The argument set forth in this passage would have been unnecessary had the law of Exodus been enforced. The very fact that the ancient ordinance had to be reaffirmed with due emphasis and with an impressive appeal to national dignity" makes it sufficiently clear that, contrary to the law the seized debtor and his family had not been freed in the seventh year. That this was actually the case is proved by Jeremiah 34:816. Under the pressure of the enemy every effort was made to present a united and solid front against the advancing armies of Nebukadnezzar. The nobility and the opulent of Jerusalem freed their slaves and pressed them into the army. No sooner, however, was the danger over, than the released slaves were, notwithstanding the solemn covenant and oath to the contrary, compelled to return to their permanent servitude. The scathing protest of Jeremiah that this was in open violation of the law which demanded the release of the Hebrew debt-slave in the seventh year was unheeded. The complete breakdown of both the law of Exodus and that of Deuteronomy was squarely faced by the Levitical slave legislation. By increasing the number of years of servitude from seven to seven times seven, it made a last effort to prevent the establishment of an hereditary caste of slaves in Isiael. (See chapter III, p. 77.) " Ibid. 15:15.
III.
SELLING OF CHILDREN (A) INFANTS
The selling of infants by their parents was common in early Babylonia. A mother who was unable to pay for the nursing would leave her baby with the wetnurse, who either bought the child or adopted it as her own. In cases where the wetnurse felt a particular liking for the child, or where the sum owed for the nursing was judged to be lower than the actual value of the infant, the parents would receive the difference in the form of a gift. Thus, Zahuntum, the wife of Anum-kinum, who found herself unable to pay the votary Iltany for nursing her child, said to the latter: ta-ab-li zu-ha-ra-am lu-u ma-ru-ki, "take the baby, let it be your child."" Iltani was so pleased with the bargain that she presented the mother with a gift of 3 shekels 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, 12 inches tall was sold by her mother, brother, and another woman for 9 shekels of silver without stating in what capacity she was sold.6' Economically the legal status of the infant, whether sold as a slave or given in adoption, was of no consequence, for as far as the parents and the wetnurse or whoever the buyer of the child might have been was concerned, this was a mere business transaction.
6
Schorr U no. 78 (dated 27th year (?) of Hammurabi).
" HG vol. III, no. 435.
"One suckling baby, Ili-awilum by name, the son of Ajartum, from Ajartum its mother, and Erishtum, her husband, Iasirum and Ama-Sin have taken as their son. Iasirum and Ama-Sin shall give to Ajartum and Erishtum 10 shekels of silver and two manas of wool as a gift for having given it birth. Jasirum and Ama-Sin shall take Ili-awilim from Ajartum and Erishtum, and be allowed to depart.". The 10 shekels of silver and the two manas of wool in this document, the remuneration for three years' nursing paid to a votary of Adad for her child by the adopting woman,' and the 52 shekels of silver and two headgears given as an "adoption gift" in another case," all constituted the head-price paid to the mother or parents for the sold child. (B) MINORS Selling of minors into slavery by their own parents was also a common practice. These were sales pure and simple. The parents received a given amount of money, and the son or daughter was handed over to the prospective buyer. Thus, Ama-dingir was sold by his father A-tud for the price of 5 shekels of silver,' and Galu-usar-barra exchanged his son for 1 4/5 gurs 4 kas of barley.' During the reign of Rim-Sin, the notorious usurer Balmu-namlhe bought Uka-ili from his 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 Secondi "Ibid. no. XI; see also Langdon ZA XXV, p. 212 f.
Dynastie d'Our, Babyloniaca 3, 1910, no. VI, p. 103.
of silver, and a certain Enlil-durshu purchased Amatshala from her father and mother for the price of 10Y2 shekels of silver.' In the twelfth year of the reign of Hammurabi, Bunini-abi and his wife Belizunu bought Shamash-nuri from her father for the price of 5 shekels of silver. Shamash-nuri was to serve in a double capacity: a-na (ilu) bu-ni-ni-a-bi a-sha-at a-na be-li-zunu a-mat-at, "to Bunini-abi she is a wife (concubine) ; to Belizunu she is a slave.""9 This practice prevailed also 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 Zerukin." Although dedication of minors to temple slavery, in Neo-Babylonian times did not, technically speaking, constitute a sale, it must be mentioned here, for as far as the child was concerned, dedication to a temple meant for it permanent slavery without the slightest hope of ever being released.' Thus, "Banat-Innin, the daughter of Nergal-iddin, in the assembly to Nabu-shar-usur, the chief officer of the king, the chief overseer of Eanna, Gabbi-ilani-shar-usur, the guardian of Eanna, and Zeria, the administrator of Eanna, the son of Ibna, son of Egibi, spoke as follows: 'Nabuzer-ukin, my husband, has gone to his fate. Famine is established in the land and Shamasheriba and Shamash-li'u, infant sons, I have marked with a star and given to the Belit of Erech. As long as they live, let them be members of the shirkutu of the Belit of Erech.' ' HG vol. VI, no. 1645. "Ibid. no. 1646. "Schorr U no. 77. p. 40 (Nbk. 70).
"'
"Marx, "Die Stellung der Frauen in Babylonia," BA no. 4, See below, "Temple Slaves," p. 57.
Nabu-shar-usur, the guardian, the administrator and the chief overseer of Eanna, the statement of Banat-Innin, the daughter of Nergal-iddin, herd and food from Eanna to Shamash-eriba and Sbamash-li'u gave. Shamash-eriba and Shamash-li'u are members of the shirkutu of the
Belit of Erech .
. .
. Erech, the 28th of Adar,
the 11th year of Nabanidus."' Selling of minors was also practiced in Assyria. Direct handing over of a daughter for a debt of 30 shekels of silver to the creditor is recorded from the reign of Ashur-duru-usur (650 B. C.?); ku-um ha-bul-li-e-shu marat-su a-na Zab-di-i (?) it-ti-din shinishtu shu-a-tu za-ar-pat lak-ki-at . . . . "instead of his debt, his daughter to Zabdi he has given. That woman is
bought, taken . . ."' During the reign of Senacherib,
a mother sold her daughter Addalat for the price of 30 shekels of silver."' From another document (date wanting) we learn of a father who sold his son for 19 shekels 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, "the money is fully given, his son is bought, taken.";' That a father had a right to sell his children into slavery in Palestine is obvious from the Biblical slave legislation. The very fact that Ex. 21:7 ff. made the stipulation that the sold daughter should become the master's concubine or that of his son, and, further, that she must
" Text in Dougherty REN literated ibid. SHBD p. 38. 154 translated and trans-
Kohler-Ungnad AR no. 43.

*' Ibid. no. 39; see also Johns ADD vol. III, nos. 221 (p. 441), 307 (p. 511), 315 (p. 529). 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.
not be treated as a mere slave, proves that the selling of children by parents was as common in early Israel as it was in Babylonia and Assyria. The emphasis laid upon her becoming the lawful concubine of her master was an attempt to elevate the position of the Hebrew female slave from the start, thus differentiating her position from that which she would have had in Babylonia, where the female slave gained the status of a concubine only after she had borne children to her master. The Deutoronomic law does not contemplate the desirability of a Hebrew female slave becoming the concubine of her master. She is equal to the male slave, and is to be freed in the seventh year. This omission of the concubinage-status in regard to the free-born sold daughter was probably due to the increasing number of female slaves in the household of later times; that they should all become the lawful concubines of their master was well-nigh impossible. IV. SELLING OF WIVES
Selling of wives into slavery was most probably resorted to only in extreme emergency. Such must have been the case with Shamash-daian, who, to stave off his own enslavement, was forced to sell his whole family to the creditor: "..... his brother, for 10 gold gins ...bi, his brother, for 10 gold gins bi, his son, for 10 gold gins h..
. gilsa, his wife, for 5 gold gins . abkirabe, his daughter, for 5 gold gins
*
Sin-ludlul, his daughter, for 5 gold gins Rogab-Sinbalti, his daughter, for 5 gold gins 7 kinsfolk of Shamash-daian,
12 female and male slaves for 2 manehs, 19 gins gold, Put-ili, son of Sag-Enlil, their creditors, , * *Kidinum-Enlil, archivist at Nippur ...... for their full son of Ninib-nadin-ahe ......
p ric e. ' '
The Hammurabi Code recognizes the right of a husband to sell his wife when hard pressed by his creditors (ff 117). In a society where a creditor had a right to enslave his debtor, where parents could legally sell their children, and where a free-born man could sell himself, the selling of wives into slavery is not surprising. Two documents of the Neo-Babylonian period contain a clause that, in case the loan is not repaid, the wife of the debtor or that of the guarantor would be handed over as a slave to the creditor.' These two documents, however, are not well preserved, and it is not clear whether the respective wives were to be sold or merely given as hostages. The selling of a wife by her husband in Assyria is recorded in a document of the reign of Marlarim" (668 B. C.): Manu-ki-arbailu sold his wife0 Bilikutu to Zarpi, wife of the governor, for 30 shekels 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-Ungnad AR no. 40 transcribe the ideogram as ahatu "sister" while Oppert (ZA 13, 1898, p. 267) maintains that this ideogram may also be read belti or assati, and translates it "his wife." He
arrives at the conclusion that: "der Verkauf seiner Frau scheint also in Ninive geduldet gewesen zu sein, waehrend er in Babylon eine causa illicita war" (ibid.).
V.
SELF-SALE
The cause for self-sale into slavery was twofold: a debtor might hand himself over to his creditor when unable to repay his debt, and a freeborn man or woman might sell himself, or herself to gain sustenance unobtainable otherwise. In the former case, the debtor was a mere hostage who was held in bondage until the principal was paid off. Thus, Ibkatum, who needed 5 shekels to pay a debt handed himself over to Ubar-Shamash, who had advanced him the money.' Ibkatum served his new creditor Ubar-Shamash until he was able to repay the loan. In the latter case inability to secure work as a free laborer was the reason for self-sale into slavery. During an economic depression caused by natural calamity or political chaos, the laborer could escape starvation only by selling himself. Such cases are reported during the reign of Rim-Sin, when a certain Lilmad-ili sold himself for the price of twelve shekel of silver to the usurer Balmu-namhe. " The Hammurabi Code does not contemplate such an emergency-case; the laws of Dt. 15:12 and Lev. 25:30 place one who sold himself into slavery on the same footing with those sold for debt.
HG vol. VI, no. 1481. Ibid. no. 1644; see also ibid. no. 1482. 27
CHAPTER II THE LEGAL STATUS OF THE SLAVE I. THE SLAVE AS A CHATTEL
Legally 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 the case of a freeman, by the name of his father? He was a mere chattel, a piece of property, who could be bought, sold, hired out, exchanged,' given as a gift,'
1 The Sumerian determinative SAG signifies the slave as a 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. Meissner BAP, p. 42), which in course of time came to be used as an equivalent for "slave" (cf. Langdon, Babylonian Wisdom, p. 16 sher-ra-ha-ku-ma a-tur a-na ri-e-shi "Although I was powerful, I am become a slave.") In Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian times this determinative was discarded and ardu "male slave" (Sumerian uru and arad) or amtu "female slave" (Sumerian gin) was usually preceded by the determinative amilu, pl. amilatu, or nisha "person." "The slave has no genealogy; he is "a son of nobody," and is ordinarily identified by the name of his master, A., ardu sha B., "A., the slave of B." (see also M. Lidzbarski, Ephemeris fuer Semitische Epigraphik, vol. II, p. 142 f.). However, neither the omission of the father's name nor mention of it can
be taken as a criterion that the person in question was actually a slave or a freeman. There are sufficient instances where a slave 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. 632 and 633 (three slaves exchanged for a horse) ; Johns ADD, vol. III, no. 321, p. 532 (assignment of a slave as compensation for manslaughter).
or inherited. He was viewed as a money equivalent," and was subject to the laws and regulations of private property. When injured or maimed,' his owner received compensation,' for the law took cognizance of the slave's existence only in relation to a third party, i.e. as the property of an owner who must be recompensed for damage or injury done to his property, which was in conformity with the whole conception of slavery as a private inalienable possession. If killed by a third person, the lex talionis was not invoked, the murderer or the one who caused his death having merely to pay his price to the owner.' This is the reason why the Code of Hammurabi did not contem'In Babylonia the slave was valued at 20 shekels of silver and 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, a document dated in the 35th year of Hammurabi, where a slave was hired out for two years with the stipulation that if he died the 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. 's 213, 214, 231. According to 1 116 of the Code, 'Ibid. if a man died of abuse or neglect in the house of him who seized him (as a pledge), the latter's son should be put to death; but if the one seized was a slave, the one who seized him should pay to his owner 20 shekels of silver and forfeit whatever amount he had lent. The latter was not meant as a penalty for killing the slave but as a punishment for the commitment of an unlawful act, just as the one who helped himself out of the granary of his debtor was punished with the for113. feiture of the whole amount owed him by the debtor in '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 (13 male and 13 female slaves), vol. VI, nos. 1730, 1733; Lutz LEDA, no. 105, p. 1; Clay LDE, part II, p. 7.
plate the contingency of a slave being killed by his own master, for he was his own money. The early Biblical legislation does not forbid the maltreatment of a slave; if his master beat him with a rod and he died on the following day, the master was free for "he is his money."' As in Babylonia, his death at the hands of a third person was not avenged; the one who caused his death had merely to pay his price to the owner." Unlike the Hammurabi Code, the Biblical legislation contemplated the possibility of a slave being killed by his master and decreed that his death should surely be avenged. In principle the slave is thus recognized in the Bible as a human being but of inferior status; his murderer was not put to death, as would have been the case had the murdered been a freeman.' II. THE SLAVE-MARK
Babylonia had a class legislation; it was not a caste state. The inequality and discrimination of the Hammurabi Code in regard to the three classes which constituted Babylonian society were not based on race or birth, but on wealth. To be sold as a slave was, from the point of view of the individual affected an extreme misfortune, a disaster which, caused by an economic depression, could befall every commoner. This being the case, throughout the whole history of Babylonia there was no need to "mark" the slave as such, i.e. to single out a given part of the population and brand it as an hereditary class of slaves.' As
'Ex. 21:21. oIbid. 21:32. 'Ibid. 21:20.
"But see the section on Temple Slaves, p. 57 ff. 30
individuals, however, the slave very often bore a property-sign attached to or incised upon him by his master (private, king, god), just as any other kind of property was marked. Whatever relations might exist between the master and his slave, whatever hopes the latter might cherish to be adopted or to be able to purchase his freedom, so long as he remained a slave, the private property of someone, he was in no better position than a privately owned field marked by a boundary stone, or privately owned cattle marked by a seal" or tag."' The slave mark denoted its bearer as being the private property of and possessed by a master; its removal was tantamount to theft and punishable with death in the Hammurabi Code. 226 If a brander, without the consent of the owner of the slave, the mark of an unsellable" slave cut out," the hands of that brander they shall cut off. 227 If a man deceive a brander, and he the mark of an unsellable slave cut out, that man shall be put to death and in his house be buried; the brander shall swear: 'I did not cut out knowingly,' and shall 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 for Neo-Babylonian times, Dougherty REN, YBT, vol. VI, nos. 123, 156, 169, 208, etc. See also ibid., SHBD, p. 83, regarding temple sheep marked with a star, the sacred symbol of Ishtar. "Cf. Barton RISA, p. 73, and Keiser CB. 'Cf. D. H. Mueller GH, 1 226. "For the translation of the terms gullubu and abbutam shakanu cf. Schorr WZKM, 18, 1904, p. 233-34. ' That the change of a mark is equivalent to theft is also evident from f 265 of the Hammurabi Code: "If a shepherd, to whom oxen or sheep have been given to pasture, has been dishonest or has altered the mark, or sold them, they shall call
There is, of course, no way of determining what the incised slave-mark looked like. Whether it had an individual design like that of a modern trade-mark," or whether it bore only the name or the initials of the respective master, is not known. Judging from the evidence of animal marks and late Babylonian slavemarks and slave-tags, the latter was most probably 1 the case. That the mark was incised with a hot iron so that its removal required the skill of a surgeon is evident from the paragraphs just quoted, and is sufficiently attested by numerous documents of almost every period in Babylonian history. Thus, WaradBunene, a native of Babylon, was sold to a foreign country. After serving there for five years he fled and came back to his native city. The authorities, in accordance with 1280 of the Code,1' set him free. They said to him: el-li-ta ab-bu-ut-ta-ka gu- "You are cleansed (free), your slave mark is hereul-lu-ba-at, with cut out."' Paragraphs 226 and 227 of the Code are based on the Sumerian laws, according to which the disobedient
Cf. Clay LCD, BE, vol. VIII, no. 106, transliterated and A-mattranslated; Ungnad OLZ, 1908, 2. Beiheft, p. 23 .... (ilu) Mar-biti-us. ur ardu sha (ilu) Nabu-makin-zerisha (ilu) Nabumukin-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," Le Monde Oriental, vol. XXIII, 1929, p. 54. 'Cf. Chapter III. Schorr, U, no. 37. him to account, and he shall restore to their owner oxen and sheep tenfold that he has taken." For the translation of shimtu (=shintu=shnt in the Elephantine Papyri) by "mark," cf. Ungnad OLZ, 1908, 2. Beiheft, pp. 23-24.
32
adopted child was to be branded with a slave-mark and sold for money. The execution of these penalties, as set forth in the Sumerian family-laws and in the adoption-contracts ("They shall cut his hair ..... him for .sell brand him with a slave mark ..... money"), 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 of this Sumerian slave clause in the adoption-documents of the Hammurabi period proves that the act of degrading a free-born adopted child, an adopted slave, and even a slave concubine into slavery was necessarily accompanied by branding, the symbol of servitude." As already observed, there is no way of ascertaining whether the Sumerian and early Babylonian slave-mark bore the name of the slave's owner or not. In later times, however, it seems to have been the rule that the slave should be branded or tattooed with a mark bearing the name or the initials of his master. Thus, the female slave Bilit-si-lim was sold by her master Nabu-ban-zir to Nabu-shum-lishir, who, incised his name on the hand of the newly acquired slave: Nabushum-lishir rit-ta-shu a-na shu-mi-shu (ishtur) "N. In a document on her hand his name has incised."' "Cf. Code of Hammurabi, 1 146: "If a man takes a wife and she gives a maid slave to her husband, and that maid slave bears children, and on account of that would take rank with her mistress, her mistress shall not sell her for money, but may brand her with a slave mark (ab-bu-ut-tam i-sha-ak-kaan-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 very graphically recorded. This Bariki-ilu had been handed over from one master to the other. He managed to flee twice and when at last brought to court, he pleaded that he had been adopted by Belrimini. The court, however, demanded his 33
dated in the time of Seleucus, a slave who had already been stamped by his former master was marked again by the new master to whom he was sold: "Nidinutum-Anu, son of Labashi, and Labashi his son, sons of Ah'utu, of their own free will, Richat-Anu their servant, whose right hand was stamped for the name of Anu-zer-lishir, son of Shamash-iddanu; a second paqqut takaltum was stamped for the name of Labashi, son of Nidintum-Anu, sold to Nanaiddin, son of Tanittum-Anu, son of Ah'utu, for future time, for one-half mina of - silver of coined Alexander staters," ...... etc."" In Neo-Babylonian times some of the slaves who were dedicated by their masters to the shirkutu, an order consecrated to various Babylonian deities, were marked with a star, the sacred symbol of Ishtar, upon their hand, and often, as an additional mark, were also branded. A temple tried to hold a man for service on the ground that his grandmother was a marked 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 sha
H. qal-lat sha N. ahi-abi-ia .... la anmuru, "the star
and the brandings upon the hand of H., the female

slave 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 a runaway and that his mistress had marked him, Nu-ub-ta takFor nu-ka-an-ni-ma "Nu-ub-ta has sealed (marked) me." 104; Peiser BV,no. LXXI, p. 96.
similar documents cf. Pinches PBSA, 1883, p. 103, 1884, p.
A star and branding on the hand of a female slave dedicated to the Ishtar of Erech are also mentioned in another document. These marks are cited, as in the previous one, as proof and are stated as a matter of fact: "Eshi-etir, my brother, the star and branding placed upon her hand, and for the shirkutu to the Belit of Erech gave her."' The incised mark mentioned both in the Sumerian and Babylonian codes and their actual application, as conclusively proved by numerous documents from both early' and late Babylonian periods, are not, however, to be taken as evidence that the Babylonian slave was universally stamped with an indelible sign. As a chattel, the private property of a master, the slave has most probably always been marked. The method of applying the mark and its character, however, varied considerably and was entirely dependent upon the discretion of the respective master. Thus, we find that those slaves who were not marked otherwise, wore tags bearing the name of their owner attached to their These tags were widely used. neck or wrist. not only in Neo-Babylonian times,' but also to some extent 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 upon him" (upon the slave). 'Cf. section on the Adopted Free-born Child, p. 1 ff. 'Cf. Oppert-Meinant, Doc. Jurisdiques, p. 168; see also Babylonian Talmud, Tract Sabbat, f. 58 a: "A slave may go out with a seal around his neck, but not with a seal on his clothes." "Keiser CB, nos. 101 and 181, and Introduction, p. 16. The cutting of the hair, though sometimes incorporated as a special clause in the adoption-contracts of the Hammurabi period as a preliminary step before selling an adopted son or daughter into slavery, cannot be considered a slave-mark. The
35
Unlike early and late Babylonia, there is no proof that the Assyrian slave was marked. From the Assyrian Law Code (no. 39, see note below ) we learn that the slave girl, like the unclean woman, the captive woman, the unmarried hierodule, and the harlot, had to appear in the street with uncovered head. If one found a female slave veiled in the street, he was to bring her to the palace, where they cut off her ear and took away her garments. This difference in appearance may be taken as an indication that slaves in general were distinguished in some way from other classes of Assyrian society. A slave mark signifying possession and inalienability was also not unknown in early Israel. According to Ex. 21:6 and Dt. 15:17, the Hebrew slave who refused of his own free will to depart from his master's house
degradation.127 of the Hammurabi Code decrees the cutting of one's hair as a punishment for those guilty of spreading false rumors concerning the chastity of a priestess or of a married woman ("mw-tu-ta-za u-gal-la-bu,") ; cf. A. Buechler, "Das Schneiden des Haures als Strafe der Ehebrecher bei den
forcible cutting of one's hair was an act of punishment and
Semiten" WZKM 19, 1905, pp. 91-138. The same punishment
was handed down in a judicial decision of the court of Sippar against a fraudulent claimant (Schorr U, no. 263). According to the second paragraph of the so-called Sumerian FamilyLaws, a rebellious (adopted) son was disinherited, and driven. from the house, and 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 of the 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 being

and containing the slavery-clause, but not the phrase, "they
sold into slavery, is evident from the following adoption-
contracts dated in the same period as those mentioned above, shall 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.
after the sixth year of servitude had his ear bored through with an awl and remained in slavery forever. Thus it appears that those slaves who were declared to be a perpetual possession of their respective masters, never to be freed, bore a special mark. The ear was singled out to bear the brand for the simple reason that it did not incapacitate the slave for work, a practice also applied in Babylonia' and in Assyria.' III. THE RUNAWAY SLAVE
In conformity with the basic principle that possession of man by man was strictly a private affair not to be interfered with by the authorities in power, the Sumerian and Babylonian codes were primarily interested, not in the fugitive slave per se, but in his abettor and abductor. It was they who were guilty of unlawful appropriation and the sheltering of stolen goods; the law-giver was not concerned with the recaptured slave or with his subsequent punishment, which was left entirely to the judgment of the respective owners.' The severity of the Semitic legislation, when compared with that of the older Sumerian in regard to offences against the family tie, is also evident in connection with the safeguarding of private property. While in Sumeria the punishment for harbor' Cf. Code of Hammurabi, 282,--if a slave repudiates his master by saying, "You are not my master," his ear is to be
cut off.
'Cf.
JAOS, 1921; The slave's ear is cut off as punishment for stealing. "Cf. Myhrman SAD, BE, vol. III, part I, no. 1; a certain
H. Jastrow, "An Assyrian Law Code," no. 4, p. 4,
Alala brought his slave Sirka to court to have it put on record that 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).
ing a runaway slave was restitution in kind or twentyfive shekels of silver," the Hammurabi code punished with death not only the one who helped the slave to escape from the city gates, or refused to hand him over to the government when asked to do so, but even the one who harbored him." The owner had a right to appeal to the authorities for help in locating his runaway slave, and it was the duty of the latter to comply with this request. Thus, Abeshu, the eighth ruler of the first Dynasty of Babylon, was asked by a citizen to help him find his female slave who had run away to Sippar, whereupon the king sent a messenger thither to fetch the slave and bring her back to Babylon.' The very fact that the Hammurabi Code devoted six paragraphs to the runaway slave, covering all possible circumstances, demonstrates that flights were of frequent occurence in early Babylonia, and that only the most severe penalty was deemed strong enough to curb this tendency. The frequency of this practice is also reflected in the seventh paragraph of the so-called Sumerian Family Laws: shu-ma a-wi-lum ar-da i-gu-ur-ma im-tu-ut ih-ta-lik. it-ta-ba-ta it-ta-par-ka If a man a slave has hired and he dies, has run away has disappeared, has ceased to work,
" Cf. Langdon, The Sumerian Law Code compared with the Code of Hammurabi, JRAS 1920, pp. 489-515, 5; "If a female or a male slave from a freeman in a city escapes and in 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 shall give. If he have no slave, twenty-five shekels of silver he shall pay." ff's 15, 16, 19.
King LIH, vol. III, p. 134.
38
has fallen sick, im-ta-ra-sa i-di-shu sha u-ma-kal his wages per day BAR. TA. A. AN she-am 10 ka of corn i-ma-an-da-ad" he shall measure out The tendency to run away' was so widespread that the owner of a slave hired out protected himself by a guarantee on the part of the one who hired the slave for work that should the slave run away, the hirer would be responsible. In a document from Larsa this 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 Balmunamhe one-third of a mana of silver' will pay." 9 In another document of the same place we read: "One slave, Gimillum by name, the slave of Ubar-Shamash, from Ubar-Shamash, his owner, Sh., T., and S., suretyship for Gimillum have accepted. (Should) Gimillum run away, Sh., T., and S. will compensate UbarShamash."' Such a guarantee clause is also found in some contracts of the Cassite period: a-na h'a-la-ki pu-ut-ni ni-te-mi-id, "that they will not run away we guarantee;"' and in Neo-Babylonia; pu-ut hi-li-qu u mi-tu-tu "in case of flight or death,"' or pu-ut la ha-lain 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 slaves in 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 male
"Text
slave.
"'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).
ku' sha amelu-tu . . . na-shu-u, "that the slaves will
not run away we guarantee."" On the other hand if a slave were given as a pledge it was his owner who bad to guarantee to the creditor that the slave would not run away. Such a formula is found in Assyrian documents; mita halka ina eli beli-shu, "if he die or run away, the responsibility lies upon his master."" Similar precautions were also taken in early Babylonia in slave-sales. The purchaser of a slave had to ascertain first his antecedents before he would definitely conclude the transaction, for the slave might later turn out to be a runaway, in which case the new master would be subject to prosecution.' An "inquiry" period of from one to three days was, therefore, granted by the seller to the purchaser. Should it become known within these three days that the slave bought was a runaway, the sale would be annuled, and the money refunded. The Deuteronomic ordinance (23:16) "Thou shalt not deliver a slave unto his master who escapes to you from his master," stands unparalleled in the slavelegislation of the early Semitic world, the Biblical included. The offence for harboring a fugitive slave was so grave that even the mild Sumerian code, which punished such a crime with restitution in kind or twenty-five
" Strassmaier, Darius 431, line 11 f.; see also Daugherty SHBD, 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 for enticing a slave to flee or for harboring a fugitive slave seems to have become obsolete in later days; cf. Kohler-Peiser BR, vol. III, p. 51 (Darius 53), p. 30 (Darius 434). See also Johns ADD, vol. III, p. 270, no. 61, where a slave who had stolen four slaves was fined 200 mina of bronze.
shekels of silver, promulgated a special law stipulating when and under what circumstances a man was allowed, without fear of incurring a penalty, to give temporary shelter to a destitute slave, who, having grown old and incapable of work, or stricken with a malady, was deserted by his master
:'
17 "If
there be a malady, there shall be a gift of the king. Not shall he be left destitute.
118 If
there be a malady, and of his own free will he come to a freeman, that freeman shall not reject him, but to the place of his desire he shall cause him to go." The Hammurabi Code not only punishes with death the one who harbors a slave, but also grants a reward of two shekels of silver to him who captures a fugitive slave in the open field and hands him over to his master or to the palace authorities for investigation.' Biblical slave legislation (Ex. 21:2-11, Dt. 15:12-18, Lev. 25:39-55) does not contemplate the case of the fugitive slave, although the tendency to run away was as widespread in Palestine as in the adjacent countries. Hagar ran away from her mistress Sarah ;" and when David sent 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 fugitive slave 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.
the rich but churlish farmer Nabal, on the ground that his shepherds, when pasturing their flocks in the desert, had not been maltreated or robbed by David and his followers, Nabal very defiantly answered: "Who is David and who is the son of Jesse? There be many slaves nowadays that break away every man from his master."" As in Babylonia, fugitive slaves were handed over to their masters even if they had fled outside the country. David had to swear to the fugitive Egyptian slave that he would not kill him or hand him over to his Amalekite master before he would 0 tell him the whereabouts of the enemy's camp," and when Shimei heard that his two slaves had run away to Achish, King of Gath, he went there and brought them back to Jerusalem. 1 Had the above cited Deuteronomic law been taken literally, it would have resulted in the immediate abolition of slavery in Palestine. This ordinance must, therefore, be explained from an economic rather than from an ethical or a religious point of view. It was most probably aimed at the Hebrew slave who had run away from slavery in a foreign country." The following sentence: "He shall dwell with you, among you, in the place which he -shall choose within one of your gates, where he likes it best, you shall not oppress him," Dt. 23:16, suggests that the fugitive slave settled as a client under the protection of a master.
'I Sam. 25:10.
6 'I
Ibid. 30:15.
K, 2:39-40. "2Cf. Code of Hammurabi, 280, according to which a native Babylonian slave who had been sold into a foreign country, and fled from there, was, upon his return, to be declared free
42
IV.
THE SALE OF SLAVES
Since the slave constituted a commodity bought and sold in the market, a slave sale document did not essentially differ in form and legal wording from any other document of sale save for one additional clause peculiar only to the nature of slave transactions. As already mentioned in the preceding section on the runaway slave, there were the possibilities (1) that the newly acquired slave might turn out to be a fugitive, in which case his purchaser might become liable to the death penalty; (2) that the slave might suffer from an incurable disease undetectable at the time of the purchase; and (3) that a claimant might arise contesting the legality of the sale. Against these contingencies the buyer had to protect himself. Hence, a special clause was incorporated in the document of sale whereby the seller of the slave stood guarantee to the effect that should any of these defects arise, he would annul the sale and return the money paid. The Hammurabi Code recognizes the invalidity of a slave sale contract in case (1) it be found out within one month after the purchase that the slave suffers from the disease bennu (f 278), and (2) in case the slave bought is lawfully claimed by a third party ( 1 279). In addition to these two, the documents contain a third contingency, inquiry after his antecedents. Thus, the formula included in most of the slave sale documents of early Babylonia reads: um 3 (kan)te-ib-i-tum wahum 1 (kan)bi-en-nu-um a-na ba-ag-ri-sha ki-ma si-im-da-at sharrim iz-za-a-az, "3 days for inquiry,
1 month for bennu (epilepsy); for her vindication accorded to the laws of the king he (the seller) stands surety"' While three days were allowed for "inquiry" and one month for the dreaded disease bennu, no linfit was set in case a baqru "claim" or "complaint" should arise, so that it could be pleaded at any time. The term baqru is also found in slave sale documents of Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian times and was probably employed as a technical term to cover various legal defects. For instance, the slave bought might turn out to be a freeborn citizen who had been stolen5' and later sold in a far-off city or village, in which case his or her family could legally reclaim him or her; he could be an adopted or manumitted slave ' who had been forcibly sold by a contending heir; or a temple could claim him as its hereditary property if he were a descendant of a member of the shirkutu class of temple-slaves.' In addition to bennu, the Assyrian slave-sale documents mention another disease, sibtu," for both of which the ' Schorr U, no. 84; see also ibid. no. 85, Peiser TJG, KB, vol. IV, p. 44, HG, vol. III, nos. 422, 429, 431, 432, 438, vol. V, no. 1154, vol. IV, 1634, 1635, 1642, 1643; see also Eiser-Levy, Assyrische Rechtsurkunden vom Kueltepe, no. 105. "Cf. Code of Hammurabi, 14, shum-ma a-wi-lum mar azwi-Irm si-ih-ra-am ish-ta-ri-ik id-da-ak, "if a man steals Anollur's son, who is a minor, he shall be put to death." Ex. 21:16, "And he that steals a man and sells him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death." Dt. 24:7, "If a man be found stealing any of his brothers of the children of Israel, and deal with him as a slave, or sell him; then that thief shall die: So shalt thou put away the evil from the midst of thee."
"5 See below.
See paragraph on Temple Slaves. translates sibtu bennu "fuer Ergriffenwerden von Epilepsie." It seems, however, that these two words must be separated, for the former represents a different
'Kohler-Ungnad
seller had to guarantee one hundred days, while for sartu, which seems to have had the same legal meaning as the baqru of the early and late Babylonian documents, no time-limit was set. This clause reads: sip-ti be-ni a-na 100 ume (mesh)sa-ar-tu a-na kal shanati (mesh)"6 "against leprosy, epilepsy one hundred days, against vindication all years."' " 279 of the Hammurabi Code, a NeoSimilar to 1" 0 that if a man who had Babylonian law requires" sold a female slave against whom an objection was raised, (pa-ka-ru ina eli ib-shu-ma), he had to return the money which the buyer had originally paid, and, in addition, must pay one-half shekel of silver for each child born to her while in the possession of the buyer. Thus, the old Babylonian baqru was retained in the slave documents throughout all periods, including the Persian. The bennu-clause, however, had disappeared and had been replaced by three other terms, sihu, arad-sharrutu, and mar-banutu, for which, like baqru, no time-limit of responsibility on the part of the seller was set:
'Johns ADD, vol. I, no. 211 (Kohler-Ungnad AR, no. 217).
"Cf. Kohler-Ungnad AR, nos. 37, 38, 40, 66, 77, 83, 105, 158, 179, 180, 191, 214, 215, 217, 455-470, 507, 630, 649. " Peiser TJG, KB, vol. IV, p. 320 f.
disease, best translated by "leprosy;" cf. Koschaker BAB, p. 247, note 59, and see also Babylonian Talmud, Tract Gittin, f. 86 a. "Rab Judah established the formula for the sale of a slave: 'This slave is lawfully a slave, he is not subject to and is separated from freedom, charge, and claim of the king and state; a slave-mark of any man is not upon him; he is free from all objectionable qualities and from any eruption (skin disease) that has come out to the 'white spot' (indication of leprosy) recent or old."
Shamash-uballi-it u (amiltu) U-bar-turn mari sha 2 Za-kir apil amil Pa-shi (ki)ina hu-ud lib-bishu-nu 3 (amiltu) Na-na-a-di( ?)-rat u(amilu) sha ili tu-lu-h 4 Amilu-ut-su-nu a-na 19 shikli kaspi 5 a-na shimi ha-ri-is a-na Ka-sir 6 u Nadin-Marduk mari sha Iki-sha-aplu 7 apil Nu-Sin-iddinu id-din-nu pu-ut si-hi-i ' 8 u pa-qir-ra-nu arad-sharru-utu 9 u mar-ba-nu-tu Shamash-uballi-it u (amiltu) U-bar-turn na-shu-u2 1 Shamash-uballit and Ulbartum, the children of 2 Zakir, son of the Pashi-nan, in the joy of their heart, 3 Nana-dirat and her child who is on (her) breast, 4 their slaves, for 19 shekels of silver, 5 the fixed price, to Kasir 6 and Nadin-Marduk, the sons of Iki-sha-aplu, 7 son of Nur-Sin-iddin, have given; against desertion 8 and vindication, royal slavery,'
61The meaning of the term sehu is not clear. Peiser, ibid. translates "Rebellion;" Delitzsch AH, p. 492, "Abfallen, abtruening werden, Aufstand;" Muss-Arnold CD, p. 749, "desertion, rebellion;" and Bezold BAG, p. 210, "Unordnung hervorrufen, abtruening werden, sich weigern," and also "Einsprucherhebung, Reklamation;" Schorr WZKM, 21, p. 57, refers to the Code of Hammurabi ff 33, ni-is-ha-tim and translates "desertion;" see also Koschaker BAB, 1 17. " Peiser TJG, KB, vol. IV, p. 184, no. 9 (Nbk. 67). "Since slaves were subject to the levy and corvie, the seller had to guarantee that the slave either was not liable to the "king's service" or that he had already discharged it prior to the sale. Forced labor applied also to female slaves, "amat sharrutu," who were employed in the local temple weaveries. Cf. Johns ADB, p. 24; Kohler-Peiser BR, vol. III, p. 32 (Darius nos. 164, 167), p. 60 (Darius no. 156).
46
and freedom"' Shamash-uballit and Ubartum stand surety"
V. - THE FEMALE SLAVE In .the case of the female slave the master had a right not only to her labor, but also to her body. He or a member of the family could cohabit with her freely without assuming the slightest obligation." Furthermore, as a source of profit she was in certain respects
'Mar banutu, "the son of an ancestor" in opposition to
the slave who has no father. The buyer protected himself lest the slave claim that he was a freeborn man or a manumitted slave. Cf. Peiser TJG, KB, vol. IV, p. 244 (Nbn. 697), where the adopted slave received duppi mar banu-u-tu-shu "The tablet of his adoption," and ibid. p. 255 (Nbn. 1113), where the slave Bari-ki-ili claimed his freedom on the ground that he was a mar-ba-ni-i, "an adopted son." 'Cf. Peiser TJG KB, vol. IV, p. 166 (Asarhaddon), p. 222, no. 18 (Nbn. 196), p. 230, no. 26 (Nbn. 300), p. 292, no. 12 (Camb. 344); Marks BA, vol. IV, p. 29 (Nbch. 386), p. 40 (Nbch. 70) ; Peiser ZA, vol. III, p. 83 (Neriglissar) ; Lutz, A Slave Sale Document of the Time of Neriglissar, UCPSPH, vol. IX, no. 12 (Neriglissar) ; Kohler-Peiser BR, vol. I, p. 5 (Nbch. 346), p. 4 (Nbn. 564), p. 27 (Nbn. 765), p. 14 (Nbn. 829), ibid. vol. II, p. 39 (Camb. 309), ibid. vol. IV, p. 71 (Nbn. 273), p. 72 (Nbn. 400 and 665), p. 82 (Nbn. 509); Moldenke CT, p. 2 (Nbn. 334), p. 105 (Nbn. 53) ; Peiser BV, no. 11 (Cyrus), no. 34 (Camb.), nos. 71, 88, 90 (Darius), etc., etc. ""That a female slave was not. always bought for mere help in the household can be seen from the high prices which some of them fetched in the market. In early Babylonia the average price paid for a male slave was 20 to 30 shekels of silver, for a female slave 10 to 15 shekels of silver; the highest price for a male slave was 90 shekels (Schorr U, no. 37), that for a female 64 shekels (HG, vol. VI, no. 1642). In Assyria, the average price paid for a male slave was 30 to 90 shekels of silver, for a female slave 30 to 60 shekels of silver; the highest price for a male slave was 130 shekels (KohlerUngnad AR, no. 487), for a female 120 (ibid. no. 506). In Neo'-Babylonia the average price paid for a male slave was 60 shekels of silver, for a female 20 to 30; the highest price paid for a male slave was 135 shekels (Peiser BV,no. 40), for a female 140 shekels (ibid. no. 71).
47
even more valuable and advantageous than the male slave, for she could be hired out to any bidder as a prostitute for a fixed price." As her master's concubine her status continued to be essentially unchanged though her domestic situation might have improved over that of the average maidservant; but even as the mother of her master's children, she remained a slave, subject to be pledged for debt, hired out for work, and sold.' It was only after the master's death that she and her children gained their freedom. Her position as a female slave was more complicated if she happened to be the property not of the master of the household, but of his wife, to whom she had been given as a bridal gift with a twofold purpose, to serve the mistress as a maid and, in case of the former's childlessness, to be a concubine to the husband, thereby preventing him from taking another wife, to whom he was entitled by custom and law." Thus, Shamashnuri, the daughter of Ibi-sha'an, was bought by the married couple Bununi-abi and Belizunu for the double purpose of serving as a maid to the mistress and as a concubine to the master.' Though bought by both husband and wife, she was legally the property of the latter, for only if she should repudiate Belizunu by saying, "you are not my mistress," was she to be sold as a slave; Bununi-abi, the husband, like Abraham
'Cf. Kohler-Peiser BR, vol. IV, p. 28 (Nbn. 409), Nabuahi-iddin handed over his female slave to the brothel owner Kalba for a fixed daily wage and 75 % share of the profit; see also ibid. p. 29 (Nbn. 679), Clay LDE, part II, p. 7, no. 6, Peiser TJG, KB, vol. IV, no. XLIII (Nbk. 682), and the section on The Adopted Free-Born Child, p. 2. "Cf. Code of Hammurabi, 1 119. 'Code of Hammurabi, ff's 144, 145. " Schorr U, no. 77.
in the case of Hagar,' the private slave of Sarah, was only the beneficiary of his wife's property, but not its owner. The wife's power over her female slave was absolute until the latter gave birth to children, after which the Hammurabi Code restricted her authority over her. The most the jealous mistress could do, should the slave-mother attempt to take rank with her, was to brand her with a mark and count her among her slaves." She could not sell her as she might have, had the slave not borne children.7 In contrast to the Hebrew male slave who was to be freed, according to Exodus 21:2 on the seventh year, the Hebrew maiden who was sold by her father was to remain in bondage forever ("she shall not go out like the male slaves do") and serve her master both as a slave and as a concubine. Should, however, the master conceive a dislike for her, after she had already served him as a concubine, he had no right to sell her, for "he had dealt deceitfully with her," but "might hand her over to his son after the manner of daughters" (i. e. with a dowry). If the son refused to take her, "her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish. And if the master does not these three unto her, then shall she go out for nothing, without money" (Ex 21:7-11). While according to the Hammurabi Code both concubine and children were to be set free after the death of the master,' no mention is made here of the legal status of the children born of this union between the female slave and her master, or of the fate of the concubine herself if she does please
7
Gen. 16:1-9. f 146. f 147. f 171.
her master. In the Deuteronomic law (15:12-18), the status of the Hebrew female slave is equalized with that of the Hebrew male 'slave without any obligation of concubinage on the part of the owner. Like the latter, she is to be set free in the seventh year if she so desires, or else have her ear bored through with an awl and remain the perpetual property of her master. VI. MARRIAGE OF SLAVES
An increasing number of slaves was to a master's interest. Propagation meant profit, for each child constituted a new source of income either as an additional hand in the household or an acquisition for sale. In case the master did not possess a female slave (or vice versa), he bought one for this purpose: 1 reshu amtum (ilu) Tash-me-tum-i-ni-ib-i-la-ti(m) MU. NI. IM. a-na wi-li-id bitim sha Dilbat( ki) shana-at "one female slave, Tashmetum-inib-ilatim by name, for the household born slave of Dilbat is bought."' The purpose of the purchase is also very often stated in the Assyrian documents: "Ahuasu, son of the Aa-ahe, and another, sell their maid Sali-Belti to Kakullanu, the rab kisir of the crown prince, as wife for Tarhunazi, his slave, for half a mina of silver."'" The early Babylonian term ana ashutim or the Assyrian term ana ashshuti, "for wifedom," applied to the female slave who was bought for marriage, did not imply that the master had to respect the slave's matrimonial rights. Both parents and children were the master's property, and hence he could dispose of them separately as he saw fit. When the female
Schorr U, no. 82. " Johns ADD, vol. III, no. 308, p. 515; see also ibid. nos. 237 (p. 457), 309 (p. 516).
slave was pregnant, her condition was mentioned in the sale-tablet, the unborn child adding to the price-value of its mother," and if she had a suckling baby on her breast, it was sold with her.' A Neo-Babylonian law provides that if a man sell a female slave and has had a complaint made against her by the buyer, he must not only return the rhoney and take back the slave, but also surrender her children who had been born in the meantime, paying for each one-half shekel of silver." The promiscuous use of the female sla~e for the sake of increasing the wealth of the master is also evident from Ex. 21:4-6. The Hebrew owner took advantage of his debt-slave during the six year term of servitude by giving him one of his female slaves as a wife. "If his master give him a wife, and she bear him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself. But if the slave shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free: then his master shall bring him unto God, he shall also bring him to the door, or to the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an awl; and he shall serve him for80 ever. VII. MARRIAGE BETWEEN A SLAVE AND A FREE WOMAN With the consent of the master, the slave could marry a free woman and conclude a legal marriage settlement.
" Cf. Schorr U, no. 79; Peiser BV, nos. 11, 34; Peiser TJG, KB, IV, p. 184, no. 9, p. 293, no. 12; Kohler-Ungnad AR,
70Peiser
00
'Cf.
Moldenke CT, no. 11.
nos. 70, 208.
TJG, KB, IV, p. 320. See also Babylonian Talmud, Tract Nidab, f. 47. "Samuel married them (his female slaves), but Rab Nahman used them promiscuously."
Paragraphs 175 and 176 of the Hammurabi Code define the legal status of such a free woman and her children, and regulate the rights of the master over the property jointly accumulated by the slave and his wife after their marriage. In case the free woman brings no dowry with her, she and her children are free. The owner of the slave has no right to claim their service. If, however, she brings a dowry from her father's house, which, together with her husband, they invest in a business undertaking, build a house, and acquire property, and if later the slave dies, the woman shall receive her dowry, and the property shall be divided into two parts, the owner receiving one-half, and the free woman the other half for her children.' VIII. THE TEMPLE SLAVE
Temple slaves were mainly' recruited from two sources: prisoners of war and private dedications. Included among the various war-trophies which the successful king presented to his deity as the divinities' share of the victory over their common enemy were also war captives dedicated to perform the menial work of the temple. Rimush, the successor of Sargon of Agade, presented to Enlil, after the subjugation of Elam and Barakhshi, 30 minas of gold, 3600 minas of copper, and six male and female slaves.'1 Manishtusu, third ruler of the dynasty of Agade, showed his devotion to the
An exceptional case where a slave was married to his master's daughter is mentioned in I Chron. 2:34-35. "And Sheshan had an Egyptian slave whose name was Jarha. And Sheshan gave his daughter to Jarha for a wife and she bare him Attai." ' 1Cf. p. 24, where a widow dedicated her two free-born children to the temple to save them from starvation.
'Barton RISA, p. 125.
deity Naruti by dedicating his slave Tissub to the temple ;" and Puzur-Shushinak, the priest-king of Susa, governor of the country of Elam, presented to his lord Shushinak, among other things, emblems of silver and gold, one long dagger, one large hatchet with four edges, and prisoner after prisoner; and he, the god Shushinak, u-la ip-ru-us, "refused none."" A desire to secure the favor of the gods or of the respective ruler prompted many a private owner to dedicate one or more of his slaves to a temple. Amattar-sirsirra, daughter of Urakagina, patesi of Lagash, dedicated to the god Mesandu, eight male and three female slaves During "for the duration of the days of her life." the reign of Sin-muballit a certain lady Ahatum donated one of her slaves to the goddess Aja, "the bride," for the specific purpose of cleaning the temple yard." The beneficiary of private slave dedications in Neo-Babylonia was mostly the goddess Ishtar. Ardia, the son of Nergal-nasir, dedicated his slave Lakipi for the shirkutu to the Ishtar of Erech; Nabu-ahe-bullit, son of the priset of Enurta, and his wife, Bulta, gave their slave Ah-iddin to Ishtar "for the preservation of their lives;" and during the Seleucid era a Greek, Nikanor, son of Demokrate, dedicated of his own free will to the house of gods of Uruk his five-year old female slave Aralhuna for the life of the king, for the sake of his "Ibid. p. 137.
'Ibid. p. 157; see also HG, vol. VI, no. 1839. 'Genouillac OLZ, 1909, p. 110. 'Schorr U, no. 24; see also HG, vol. VI, no. 1739. 'Dougherty SHBT, p. 24 (AENN 361). " Ibid. p. 40 (YBT, vol. VII, 17).
health, for the sake of the people, and for the sake of himself.'" Since the temple represented the richest and best organized unit, both financially as the keeper of the treasury and money lender, and economically as the largest owner of land, cattle, and factories, it naturally followed that it was also the greatest individual slaveholder. Beginning with the menial work directly connected with the sacrificial altar through the vast areas of cultivated land and busy factories, the temple employed mostly slaves. Unfree labor was its foundation; it thrived and prospered on it. The efficiency of the temple as a well-knit economic organization is reflected in the caste-status of the shirkutu, an order of male and female slaves consecrated to various Babylonian deities in Neo-Babylonian times." These shirku slaves were organized under a rab shirki,.... chief of the shirku," an official appointed by the temple authorities to supervise their various activities, which were not confined to the temple alone. They performed tasks of *0 Clay LDE, no. 53, p. 33. For the case of an Assyrian slave dedicated to a temple, cf. Kohler-Ungnad AR, no. 45, bought in the open market a skilled weaver for the service of
and see also ibid. no. 464, where a priest of Ninib of Kalhu the temple.
'Cf. Dougherty, SHBD. The organization of this order dates back to a much earlier period than that of the Neo-Babylonian, cf. Lutz, Legal and Economic Documents from Ashjaly (about 1900 B. C.), U.C.P.S.PH vol. X, no. 1, 1931, p. 43: "Sin-abum said angrily, 'One slave, Shamash-magir, from Nannak-manse, the merchant, I bought. For his total price the money I paid. Then he returned and brought Shamash-magir away f rim the house.' For temple slavery (i-na shu-ur-gi-im) Shamash-magir was taken to Ibilk-Ishtar, his temple slave master (be-el shu-ur-gi-im) . . . etc." " Cf. Lutz NBDE, p. 34; Dougherty SHBT, p. 15 (Str. Nbn. 643), p. 25 (AENN 38), p. 74 (YBT, vol. VII, 40).
54
city and state' and, like slaves in the possession of private owners, they were hired out for a set fee to outside individuals." Legally and socially they represented a specific class of the slave population. While a privately owned slave could entertain the hope of being adopted or manumitted, the shirku order constituted a strict slave caste. Its members were branded with a sacred symbol' marking them as being possessed by and the property of a master-deity whose right of ownership was hereditary, extending from father to son, even if the latter was born of a free woman." The same caste system also prevailed in Palestine except that, unlike the Babylonian shirkutu, the temple slaves of the Hebrew sanctuaries were foreigners recruited from the ranks of subjugated natives and prisoners of war. After the campaign against the Midianites, Moses took one out of every fifty prisoners and presented him as a gift to the Levites for temple slavery.' Joshua made the Gibeonites "hewers of wood and drawers of water."' Among the Nethinim who returned with their masters from the Babylonian Diaspora were the descendants of the temple slaves whom David and the princes had given to the Levites" and the offspring of the state slaves of Solomon.'
'Ibid. p. 21 (LCE 169), p. 46 (YBT, vol. VII, 172), p. 47 (YBT, vol. VII, 70), p. 54 (YBT, vol. VII, 187). "Ibid. p. 18 (HRETA III), p. 45 (REN 56). Cf. Sections on the Slave-Mark, p. 33. 'Cf. Dougherty SHBD, p. 19 (LCE 106), p. 36 (REN 224), the temple claimed a man for service on the ground that his grandmother was a shirku of Ishtar of Erech, p. 42 (REN
116), p. 59 (YBT, vol. VII, 60).

"Nu. 31:30-47. 'Josh. 9:21-27.
"Ezra
8:20. 'Ibid. 2:58.
These temple slaves were, together with the priests, levites, and musicians, freed by a decree of Artaxerxes from "tribute, custom, and toll."'' IX. PECULIUM
That the slave in Sumeria and early Babylonia had a right to a peculium might he argued on the basis of documents dated prior to the promulgation of the Hammurabi Code. In a document of Nippur, dated in the reign of Rim-Sin, a female slave was set free for the sum of 10 shekels of silver which she had handed over to her mistress.'' In another document of Dilbat, dated in the second year of Hammurabi, a female slave relieved her master of a debt of 20 shekels of silver, in gratitude for which the master declared her free (by adoption) and also presented her with a plot of land.' The money paid by these female slaves need not, however, have been their own; it could have been forwarded to them by their relatives or kinsfolk for redemption. In a document of Sippar, dated in the reign of Zabum, third ruler of the dynasty of Babylon, a man borrowed from the temple of Shamash 24 shekels of silver which he gave to a certain Anum-abi a-na ip-te-ri-shu "for his redemption."'' The Hammurabi Code mentions the right of the slave to a peculium only in case he married a free woman who entered his house with a dowry given her by her father. To this dowry the master could not lay claim. The slave and his free wife might use it for their own purposes; they might engage in
7:24. ' Poebel BLBD, no. 8, p. 38.
'Ibid. 02
'O Ibid. no. 52.
Schorr U, no. 26.
business, build a house, and acquire property; but after the death of the slave, the property was to be divided equally between the free wife (for her children) and the master. Thus, the master was the lawful heir of his slave's share, even though the original sum invested (the wife's dowry) was not his." The right of the master over any and every kind of property in the possession of the slave is clearly brought out in a document from Ashjaly in the Nahrawan region (about 1900 B. C.). Nutubtum presented the slave girl Kute to her aged mother Tulishtanim to serve her as long as she lived. After the death of the mother, Kute was to return to her former mistress, who became the lawful owner of Whatever the slave girl might have acquired during her stay with the mother: ma-la i-shu-u u i-raash-shu-u Nu-tu-ub-tum i-li-qi-e "whatever she (Kute) possesses and will acquire Nutubtum will lay hold of."' As in Neo-Babylonia, the Assyrian slave engaged in business, owned property, held slaves, and even possessed his own seal. The relation, however, between the property holding slave and his master is not clear. In the first place it may be questioned whether the slave who appeared aS a buyer or seller acted in his own name or in the name of his master, or, supposing the former to be correct, whether he bought and sold on his own account or by permission of his master, and secondly, the owner's rights over his slave's property are uncertain. Thus, a property-holding slave sold his
gardens: . . . ardu sh (a? . . .) bel (is)Kirati(mesh) ) owner of the (ta-da-ni) " . . . slave of ( ....
1
' J 176.
'Lutz
LEDA, no. 1, p. 7.
gardens (sold),"' and in another document a slave sold a female slave: kunuk (ilu)Nabu-belu-usur amel ardu sha (ilu) Adad-Km (f?) -a-ni bel sinishti tadani(ani), "Seal of Nabu-belu-usur, slave of Adad-rimani, owner of the woman sold."' On the other hand a whole family of slaves consisting of 10 souls, including 3 serzi vicarii, was sold by a master who received the whole amount of the sale.1" The moot problem of the right of the slave to a peculium and of the master's legal claim over it becomes more clarified in Neo-Babylonian times. In this period, and especially so during the Persian supremacy, slaves play an important role in the economic life of the country. They appear as artisians, tenants, cattleowners, merchants, and bankers. They engage in business transactions with members of their own class, with free men, and with their own masters. They buy and sell in their own name and have their own seals. Thus, Kinabu, the slave of Ardi-Nabu, leased from a free woman a house for four years and undertook to pay a daily rental of twelve meals and a yearly rental of a half shekel of silver for occupancy for four years.' Another slave rented from a merchant a granary for a yearly rental of two kur barley, and a third one rented fish ponds:
'Kohler-Ungnad
"Ibid. no. 53, see also no. 51.
AR, no. 52; see also idid. nos. 54, 55, 64.
mation on the part of either party to a business transaction is also incorporated in this document (no. 53). Should Nabu-bilusur, his children, or his children's children claim the woman back, he should pay a fine of 10 minas of silver and 5 minas of gold. 'Cf. Kohler-Ungnad AR, no. 85; see also ibid. no. 50. 'Dougherty AE, no. 35, p. 22. Kohler-Ungnad HAR, no. 44.
It is interesting to note that the clause against recla-
58
"Ribat, son of Bel-erib, servant' of Bel-nadinshumu, of his own free will spoke to Bel-nadin-shumu, son of Murashu, thus: The fish ponds which are between the towns Ashhanu and Gishshu, belonging to Bel-ab-usur, those which are in the fields of the chief of the brokers; the fish pools which are in the fields of the prefect of the hindanu (professional name); the fish pools which are in the town Natuel, let me have for rent for one year. For the Year, one-half of a talent of refined (?) silver; in addition, from the day I am given possession of those fish ponds for fishing, daily, a mess (lit. fixed amount) of fish for thy table I will furnish. Thereupon, Bel-nadin-shumu complied with his request, and rented him those pools of fish, for the year, for one-half talent of silver. For the year the silver, i. e., one-half talent, rent for those pools, Ribat shall pay to Bel-nadin-shumu, and the fish for his table he shall furnish. From the first day of Marcheshvan, year first, those pools are at the disposal of Ribat."' The reliability and trustworthiness evinced by the slaves in their business activities were so great that their masters did not hesitate to lend them large amounts of money on a purely commercial basis, with the usual interest. Marduk-nasir-aplu lent to his own slave Nabuailu 889 shekels of silver at 20% interest per annum,"' and another master forwarded goods to his slave and his partner, also a slave.' In their capacity as merArdu-"slave" "'Clay BD, BE, vol. X, p. 21; see also Kohler-Ungnad HAR, no. 3, p. 6. 'Peiser TJG, KB IV, p. 300 (Str. Nbk. 17). 'Kohler-Ungnad HAR, no. 37; see also Kohler-Peiser BR, vol. III, p. 9 (Dar. 386), p. 41 (Dar. 424), p. 49 (Dar. 395).
59
chants the slaves dealt with free men on an equal footing. Ninaa, son of Nabu-aplu-iddin, had to pay back to the slave Shailbil-asbat 4 gurs, 2 pis and 12 kas of dates in the month of Tashrit. ' And finally they also appear as bankers: Nabu-bullitanni, a slave, lent to a free man a sum of money, and a contract was drawn up, according to which "all property, as much as there was," was handed over to the creditor as a pledge ;, and another slave lent 2 mina of silver to a free man taking the latter's house as a pledge ;' and one even employed business agents and had a private secretary. n' For this freedom to engage in business and acquire property the slave paid a nandatu to his owner, or yearly tax. It seems that besides this general tax, each member of the slave's family was subject to an individual head-tax. Thus, Nabu-utirri paid to his master Itti-Marduk-ballatu 59 shekels of silver on the mandatu due from him and his wife Misatum,' and in another document the same Nabu-utirri borrowed from a fellow slave 12 shekels of silver, which he handed over to his master as the mandatu for his wife.' In his business activities the slave very often encountered legal difficulties arising from his anomalous status as both possessor and possessed at the same time. Although he could go to court and testify in a case wherein both claimant and defendant were slaves,'
Ibid. p. 22 (Dar. 117); see also Kohler-Ungnad HAR,
nos 8, 29, 35.
' Ibid. vol. II, p. 35 (Br. M. 84, 2-11, 122). Peiser TJG, KB IV, p. 304. 'Kohler-Peiser BR, vol. III, p. 8 (Dar. 8). 'Ibid. vol. I, p. 1 (Nbn. 838). 1 Ibid. p. 1 (Nbn. 858). 'Ibid. vol. II, p. 6 (Nbk. 419).
60
apparently he could not enforce his own rights against a free man. His master had to plead for him. Moreover, in dealing with a third party, the slave could pledge his peculium, but not himself, unless with owner's consent.' However free the slave might have been in the use of his peculium, and there is even evidence of a slave who made a gift of one mina of silver to the temple of Esagila for "the preservation of his life,"' the actual and legal owner of the property was not the slave, but his master. The slave was suffered to engage "freely" in business, for this activity meant additional profit for the master. That slaves had a right to a peculium in early Israel may be inferred from Lev. 25:49. In case a Hebrew sold himself into the service of a g~r, a resident alien, his nearest kinsman should redeem him: "or if he be able, he may redeem himself." The fact that the slave of Kish, the father of Saul, had in his possession one-fourth of a shekel of silver' and that Ziba, the slave of Saul had 15 sons and 20 slaves' could also be cited as evidence of a peculium, which the master suffered the slave to enjoy though legally it belonged to himself; and this is clearly stated two sentences further on: "and all that dwelt in the house of Ziba were slaves unto Mephibosheth.'"'
'Ibid. vol. I, p. 3 (Nbn. 738). Kohler-Ungnad HAR, no. 89. 'I Sam. 9:8. ' II Sam. 9:10. 'Ibid. 9:12.
CHAPTER III RELEASE A Sumerian law' bestowed freedom on slaves whom their masters exposed on account of ill health and old age, nor should a slave be allowed to die of starvation or exposure: he was to receive "a gift from the king," and everyone was requested to give him shelter and to help him on his way home. The Hammurabi Code recognized four legal ways by which freedom was granted to the slave, without the master's having anything to say in the matter: (1) wives and children handed over to the creditor were to be freed after three years of service;' children born of a legitimate marriage contracted between a free woman and a slave are free ;' a slave concubine and her children are free after the death of the master,' and a Babylonian slave bought in a foreign land and brought back to Babylonia gained his freedom. (1 280). Whether or not the provision set forth in 1 117 was actually enforced in early Babylonia cannot definitely be stated. While there are numerous documents concerning handing over of wives and children as hostage to creditors, documents of their release after the three-year term of servitude are conspicuous by their absence. Moreover, not only do we have a lack of documents to prove that this provision was enforced in life, but just the opposite
See p. 44. f 117. 8 175.
'
171.
seems to have been the case. A document dated at Babylon on the 25th of Duzum in the first year of Ammi-ditana (third ruler after Hammurabi) bears witness to the contrary. Warad-bunene, a Babylonian, had been sold by his master Pirhi-ilishu into a foreign country. After having served there for five years, he managed to flee and to return to his native Babylon. The elders of the city declared him free and at the same time ordered him to join the army. This Warad-bunene refused to do: i-na ridute (mesh) u-ul a-al-la-ak il-ka sha bit a-bi-ia a-al-la-ak, "the army I will not join. The business of the house of my father I shall conduct."' Whereupon Lipit-Adad, Adad-luzerum and LibniShamash, the three brothers of Warad-bunene, swore by Shamash and Ammi-ditana that they would not claim him for slavery. The release of Warad-bunene by the city authorities is explained by Schorr (ad loc.) as being in accordance with If 280 of the Code of Hammurabi, according to which a native slave was to be freed upon his return from a foreign land to Babylonia. Such procedure in freeing Warad-bunene would have been justifiable had he been a mere slave against whom the owner had acted illegally by selling him into a foreign land. Warad-bunene, however, was not of slave parentage, for his father possessed ilku-land and his three brothers were free. He could not have been sold, for only in dire straits did a father sell his children. Hence it is very likely that Warad-bunene had been handed over as a hostage for debt, for in no other way could a free-born Babylonian become a slave. The creditor cared little for the provision of I 117, but branded him and sold him into a foreign land. Upon
' Schorr U, no. 37.
his return the authorities did not invoke If 117, but If 280. This view is also supported by the fact that the state which freed such a slave tried to maintain some claim upon him, and hence ordered Waradbunene to join the army. That the provision of If 117 of the Hammurabi Code was not enforced in NeoBabylonian times may be inferred from a document dated in the second year of Neriglissar.' A certain Ahushunu, a shirku of Ishtar of Erech, handed over his son Ina-silli-babi as a pledge for a loan of 42 shekels of silver; and he was to remain in servitude until he should work off the loan raised by his father. After having served for ten years Ina-silli-babi appealed to the court at Erech for a judgment. His service during the past ten years, in addition to 20 gur of barley which he offered his mistress in liquidation of the debt, was deemed by the court a just equivalent for 42 shekels of silver plus interest. Accordingly, the judges rendered a decision declaring the plaintiff free and at the same time handing him over to the Ishtar of Erech.' Apart from the laws mentioned above, according to which the slave was to be freed ipso facto, there were two other ways of manumission, by adoption and by purchase. In the first case, the declaration of freedom was revocable; in the latter, irrevocable. The motive 'Cf. Scheil RA, vol. XII, pp. 1-13, and Dougherty SHBD, p. 28. The fact that the father was a shirku and that the son, after having been freed from servitude, was handed over by the judges to the temple does not disprove the assertion that children given as pledges were not released on the fourth year. Ina-silli-babi must not have been a slave. The shirku order included among its members also free-born Babylonians who possessed property and even slaves of their own. Cf. ibid. pp.
71, 89.
for adopting a slave was the same as that for adopting a free-born child or adult: a desire to secure a faithful and obedient worker whose duty it would be not only to contribute his labor to the household, but also to provide for his foster parents as long as they lived.8 Only after the death of the adopter did such an adopted slave
actually become free: ... (A-di)Arish-ti-(ilu) Aja um-
ma-sha ba-al-ta-at it-ta-na-ash-shi-shi ishtu Erish-ti(ilu)A]a SAL. Me (ilu)Shamashum-ma-shai-lu-shaikte-ru-shi e-li-it sha ra-ma-ni-sha shi-i ma-la li-ib-bi-sha ma-si-a-at, "as long as her mother Erishti-Aja lives, she (the adopted one) shall support her. If the Shamash priestess Erishti-Aja, her mother, is called away by her god (i. e., if she dies), she shall be clean. She shall be independent.! All her desires she has reached."" Should the adopted slave refuse to maintain his foster parents, i. e., violate the terms of the adoption contract,
he was again reduced to slavery: ... Zu-ga-gu-um a-na
(ilu)Sin-a-bu-shu a-bi-shu u-la a-bi at-ta i-ga-bi-ma a-raan ma-ru a-wi-li i-mi-du-shu, "when Zugagum to Sinabushu, his father, 'you are not my father' says, the punishment of the free they shall inflict upon him."' In Neo-Babylonian times an adoption document was declared void because the slave, after having been duly adopted, ran away and refused to provide for his adopter. The foster father broke the tablet of adop'Cf. Schorr U, nos. 23, 24, 27, 29; HG, vol. III, nos. 25, 27, vol. IV, nos. 785, 1089-90, vol. VI, no. 1427; for NeoBabylonian, cf. Clay LCT, no. 2, p. 17.
11
"Literally, "she belongs to herself."
Ranke BLBD, BE, vol. VI, p. 28; see also HG, vol. III,
nos. 27, 28; Schorr U, no. 23.
tion Aduppa amilu mar-banu-u-tu sha Riman-ni-Bil u-pa-as-si-ma, ("the adoption tablet of Rimani-Bil he has broken,") and assigned him as a slave to his daughters." Adoption of a female slave presented two alternatives: adoption proper, i. e. she was declared the daughter of the adopter under obligation to support him as long as he lived; and adoption accompanied by giving her into marriage. In the latter course, two procedures were possible: either the adopter received from the groom the betrothal-gift (tirhatum) and relinquished his right to be provided for; or, in lack of the tirhatum, the adopted married slave, and sometimes her free husband as well, undertook jointly the obligation of maintaining the adopter as long as he lived. Thus, Buzazum and his wife Lamazatum adopted their female slave Ishtar-ummi, and at the same time gave her in marriage to Warab-Sin, receiving as her betrothal-gift (te-ir-ha-za) 40 shekels of silver and one male slave.' On the other hand, the adopted Ahhuaiabu whose husband Zukalija failed to pay the tirkatum was obliged to maintain her former mistress Innabatum as long as she lived.' That manumission need not necessarily be achieved through the medium of adoption is proved by two documents from South Babylonia, according to which slaves were freed without entering into any family relationship with their former masters. In one case, a female slave was freed under the obliga6 tion of providing for her former master,' and in an"Cf. Peiser TJG, KB, vol. IV, p. 245 f.; see also KohlerPeiser BR, vol. IV, p. 13 (Cyrus 339). 'Schorr U, no. 32. 'Ibid. no. 33; see also ibid. no. 35.
"HG, vol. VI, no. 1427.
other case the freed slave, without being adopted, was to participate in the business of his former master on an equal footing with the other children.' While adoption was revocable should the adopted slave fail to carry out his obligations, redemption was final. To the latter category of manumission belong those cases in which the husband paid the betrothal price in full to his wife's former master, and those in which the slave, either by his peculium or by securing money from some other source,' redeemed himself for a given price. Thus, "Dushubtum, the priestless (?) of Shuzianna, the daughter of Dugga, has manumitted Ishtar-rabiat, her maid-slave; her forehead she
has cleansed; the .... of her slavedom she has
pronounced; a document on her cleansing she has given her. Ishtar-rabiat has brought in to Dushubtum, her mistress, ten shekels of silver. In future shall Ibi-Enlil and Amertum, his sister, the heirs of Nannarzimu and Dushubtum, make no claim against Ishtar-rabiat. By the name of the king they both have sworn."' In a document of Dilbat, dated in the second year of Hammurabi, a female slave was adopted in gratitude for having paid a debt for her master amounting to 20 shekels of silver. Although she was formally adopted, her dom was unconditional and irrevocable. "' freeUn-
"Ibid. no. 1428. "See p. 61. Poebel BLBD, BE, vol. VI, p. 2, no. 8, p. 38. "9See p. 61. " Dedication of a slave to a deity was, in a general sense not manumission but substitution of ownership. (cf. Schorr U,
no. 24, lines 11-14, and the section on the Temple Slaves, p. 57.)
fortunately, neither the Assyrian Law Code nor the Nineveh documents have much to say about adoption or release of slaves. We may, however, assume that, as in early and late Babylonia, the Assyrian slave could be adopted or redeemed by purchase. Unlike the Sumerian and Babylonian codes, the Biblical laws of release are primarily concerned with the fate of the Hebrew slave who was handed over to the creditor to work off his debt, and with the Hebrew maiden who was sold as a slave or concubine by her father. The non-Hebrew slave, i. e., prisoners of war, subjugated natives, or those bought in the open market, were of small interest to the legislator. They were counted together with the cattle and asses ;' they constituted the inalienable property of their master; ' and they and their children remained in slavery forever.' The fact that the foreign slave was circumcised and took part in religious observences? does not prove that his social position was higher or that he was better treated than the slave in Babylonia and Assyria. He had to take part in religious performances of his master whether he wished to or not. Being the property of his master he was at the same time the property of his master's god, and, as such, lived under the latter's 'Gen. 17:12, 23, 27; Lev. 25:44. 'Gen. 12:16, 24:35, 30:43. 'Ex. 20:17; Dt. 5:18. " Lev. 25:44-46. ' Gen. 17:12-14, 23, 27; Ex. 12:44; Dt. 12:12, 18, 16:11, 14. It is different, however, when the slave was either adopted or manumitted. In such cases the dedication clause merely meant that the freed slave was placed under the protection of a deity to safeguard him from unjust claim relating to his release. (cf. Schorr no. 25, and HG, vol. V, 1089). 68
protection. As for rest on the Sabbath, the law demanded the same also for the animals.' Biblical slave legislation recognized four ways by which a slave could obtain his freedom: (1.) in the seventh year according to Ex. and Dt., and in the year of the jubilee according to Lev; (2.) a female slave with whom the master cohabited but later refused to take her as a concubine; (3.) by purchase; and (4.) by injury. The first three possibilities concerned only the Hebrew slave; the latter the non-Hebrew as well. Although the Bible demanded unconditional release of the Hebrew slave after a fixed period, the law both of Ex. and of Dt. rendered it possible for him to remain in perpetual servitude, in which case his children also would be slaves. These provisions, leaving the choice either of freedom or of perpetual and hereditary servitude to the Hebrew slave himself, are set forth as follows : Ex. 21:4-6. "If his master give him a wife, and she bear him sons or daughters; the wife and children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself. But if the slave shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free: then his master shall bring him unto the god (judges), and shall bring him to the door, or to the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an awl; and he shall serve him for ever." Dt. 15:16-17. "And it shall be, if he say unto thee, I will not go out from you; because he loveth thee and thine house, because he is well with thee; then thou shalt take an awl, and "Ex. 20:10, 23:12; Dt. 5:14. See p. 52f.
thrust it through his ear and the door, and he shall be your slave forever: And also unto thy maidservant thou shalt do likewise. The early principle of Ex., according to which the Hebrew slave, if he so desired, was to be released in the seventh year," was also maintained in the later law of Dt.," with the addition that the Hebrew female slave was no longer regarded as a potential concubine of her master, invested with special privileges, but was equalized in status with the male slave: she was to be released in the seventh year," and in case she chose to stay, her ear was bored through as in the case of the male slave, and she remained in slavery forever. Contrary both to Ex. and to Dt., the law of Lev. prolonged the period of servitude to the fiftieth year." The slave, together with his family and his former possessions, was to be freed in the year of the jubilee when the general release came around. Since his estate was returned to him, the fromer slave was able to regain economic independence, thus obviating the possibility of remaining in voluntary servitude through lack of means. That the slave could regain his freedom by paying to the master a given sum of money may be taken for granted, although there was no law demanding such a course should the master refuse to do so. In one situation, however, the owner could be forced to comply with the wish of his slave if compensation was offered, "Ex. 21:2.
2Dt.
"'See p. 52f. Dt. 15:12. Lev. 25:39-42.
15:12.
although this provision was operative only in cases of Hebrew slaves belonging to non-Hebrew masters. The relatives and kinsfolk of such a slave were urged to redeem him by paying to his master the money equivalent for his service until the year of the jubilee. Should, however, a redeemer not be forthcoming, the slave must be released in the year of the jubilee, even though his master was not a Hebrew." Like the ordinance of Dt. 23:15-16, which forbade delivering a runaway slave to his former master, the provision of Ex. 21:26-27 seems to stand contrary to and in no relation with the general view of slavery in the Bible: "And if a man smite the eye of his slave, or the eye of his female slave, and destroy it; he shall let him go free for his eye's sake. And if he smite his slave's tooth, or his female slave's tooth; he shall let him go for his tooth's sake." It is difficult to see how this law of mutilation is to be reconciled then with verses 20 and 21 of the same chapter in Exodus: "And if a man smite his male or female slave with a staff, and he die under his hand, he shall surely be punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue (to live) a day or two, he shall not be punished, for he is his money." Surely the breaking of a tooth would be less dangerous to the health of a slave than a very severe beating which might ultimately result in death. Furthermore, did this law apply to every slave, Hebrew and non-Hebrew alike? To interpret this law of mutilation as being applicable only to non-Hebrew slaves would be to do violence to
'Lev. 25:47-54; see also Code of Hammurabi 119, where a master is urged to redeem his concubine who had born him children; and cf. Schorr U, no. 52.
the whole Biblical conception of slavery, for in this case the non-Hebrew slave, who was viewed as a chattel and beast of burden, would be placed on a higher status than the Hebrew slave who, if mutilated, would continue to remain in slavery. Whatever be the explanation of this "pious wish," it re-affirms the view that the slave was regarded in the Bible as a human being, but of inferior status; if killed, his murderer was punished, and if maimed, he was to be released.
Publications of the Institute of French Studies, Inc.

EDITOR
PROFESSOR G. L. VAN ROOSBROECK
HONORARY COMMITTEE G. Ascoli, Professor at the Sorbonne F. Baldensperger, Professor at the Sorbonne; Editor of the Revue de Littdrature Comparde Joseph Bddier, Professor at the College de France; Member of the French Academy E. Brugger, Author, Davos, Switzerland C. Cestre, Professor at the Sorbonne; Director of the Revue Anglo-A m~ricaine H. Chamard, Professor at the Sorbonne F. Coykendall, Director of the Columbia University Press Archibald Douglas, Trustee of Columbia University S. P. Duggan, Director of the Institute of International Education J. C. Egbert, Director of University Extension and School of Business, Columbia University E. Faral, Professor at the Collbge de France; Editor of the Revue Critique Arturo Farinelli, University of Turin; Member of the Royal Italian Academy B. Fajr, Professor at the College de France F. Gaiffe, Professor at the University of Paris H. E. Hawkes, Dean of Columbia College Paul Hazard, Professor at the Collbge de France; Editor of the Revue de Littdrature Comparge J. J. Jusserand, Honorary French Ambassador to the United States
HeinOnline -- 1 Isaac Mendelsohn, Legal Aspects of Slavery in Babylonia, Assyria and Palestine: A Comparative Study (3000-500 B.C.) [i] 1932
H. L. McBain, Dean of the Graduate School, Columbia University Daniel Mornet, Professor at the Sorbonne; Director of the Revue d'Histoire littgraire F. D. Pavey, President of the Federation of the "Alliances Frangaises" Frederick B. Robinson, President of the College of the City of New York Fortunat Strowski, Professor at the Sorbonne; Member of the Institut DELEGATES OF THE ADVISORY BOARD Professor J. L. Gerig, Bert Hamburger, Counselor at Law, Mr. W. J. Goedeke SECRETARY-TREASURER Miss C. Matulka
BIBLIOGRAPHY R. M. Merrill-American Doctoral Dissertations in the Romance Field (1876-1926) .............. $1.00 M. M. Barr-A Bibliographyof Writings on Voltaire (1825-1925) ........................... $1.25 A. E. Terry-Jeanne dArc in PeriodicalLiterature (1894-1929) ........................... $1.50 L. F. Strong-Bibliography of Franco-SpanishLiterary Relations (Until the Nineteenth Century) .................................. $1.00 J. L. Gerig and G. L. van Roosbroeck-Bibliography of Pierre Bayle .................. In preparation G. L. van Roosbroeck-Bibliography of 18th Century Dramatic Parody ............ In preparation GENERAL R. Caulfeild-The French Literature of Louisiana $1.50 G. L. van Roosbroeck-The Reincarnation of H. L. M encken ............................... $ .50 B. Matulka-The Meaning of Romanticism In preparation
HeinOnline -- 1 Isaac Mendelsohn, Legal Aspects of Slavery in Babylonia, Assyria and Palestine: A Comparative Study (3000-500 B.C.) [ii] 1932
COMPARATIVE LITERATURE SERIES N. C. Shields-Italian Translations in America .... $4.00 H. J. Garnand-The Influence of Walter Scott on the Works of Balzac ................ Out of print H. D. MacPherson-R. L. Stevenson. A Study in French Influence (Illustrated) Paper $1.00; Bound in Cloth $1.50 B. Matulka-The Novels of Juan de Flores and Their European Diffusion. A Study in Com$4.00 parative Literature ....................... J. Rossi-The A bb6 Galiani in France ......... $1.00 B. Matulka-The Cid as a Courtly Hero: From the Amadis to Corneille ...................... $ .75 R. A. Soto-Un olvidado Precursordel Modernismo $ .25 Frances:Della Rocca De Vergalo ........... A. H. Krappe-Balorwith the Evil Eye. Studies in $2.25 Celtic and French Literature ............... R. D. Scott-The Thumb of Knowledge in Legends of Finn, Sigurd, and Taliesin. Studies in Celtic and French Literature .................... $2.25 B. Matulka-An Anti-feminist Treatise of Fifteenth Century Spain: Luis de Lucena's Repetici6n $ .50 de Amores .............................. A. Iacuzzi-Favarts European Vogue and the Diffusion of the Opdra-Comique.... In preparation B. Matulka-The "Last of the Abencerrajes" in France in 1599 .................. In preparation LINGUISTICS E. Cross-Syncope and Kindred Phenomena in Latin Inscriptions from the Parts of the Roman World where Romance Speech Developed .... $1.25 H. L. Humphreys-A Study of Case Reduction in In preparation the Old French Pronoun .......... OLD FRENCH V. L. Dedeck-Hry-The Life of Saint Alexis. An Old French Poem of the Eleventh Century. With an Introduction and a special Glossary. .$1.00
HeinOnline -- 1 Isaac Mendelsohn, Legal Aspects of Slavery in Babylonia, Assyria and Palestine: A Comparative Study (3000-500 B.C.) [iii] 1932
E. Brugger-The Illuminated Tree in Two Arthurian Romances ....................... $1.00 E. M. Grimes-The Lays of Desirg, Graelent and Melion: Edition of the Texts with an Introduction ........ .................... $1.25 H. E. Manning-La Vie de Saint Thibaut. An Old French Poem of the Thirteenth Century ..... $1.25 J. Harris-Mariede France: The Lays Gugemar, Lanval and a fragment of Yonec. With a study of the life and work of the author .......... $1.50 A. W. Thompson-The Elucidation, A Prologue to the Conte del Graal ..................... $1.25 STUDIES IN THE RENAISSANCE
J. L. Gerig-Antoine Arlier and the Renaissance

at Nimes ............................... $ .75 J. L. Gerig-BarthilimyAneau. A Study in Humanism ....................... In preparation B. Matulka-The Earliest Work of Maurice Sc6ve: La Deplourable Fin de Flamete, Elegante invention de Jehan de Flores espaignol (1535) In preparation F. Blankner-L'Influenza di Dante e del 'dolce stil nuovo' sulle Opere di Lorenzo de' Medici il Magnifico (The Influence of Dante and of the Dolce stil nuovo on the Works of Lorenzo de' Medici iI Magnifico) .............. In preparation M. T. Brunetti-Franpoisde Billon and Sixteenth Century Feminism ................ In preparation 17th CENTURY H. D. MacPherson-Censorshipunder Louis XIV (1661-1715). Some Aspects of its Influence. .$1.50 G. L. van Roosbroeck-Boileau, Racine, Furetiire, etc.: Chapelain Dicoiff . A Battle of Parodies $1.00 I. Leavenworth-The Physics of Pascal ......... $1.50 G. L. van Roosbroeck-The Unpublished Poems of the Marquis de la Fare (1644-1712) ......... $ .75 G. L. van Roosbroeck-The Genesis of Corneille's "M dlite" . .............................. $ .75
HeinOnline -- 1 Isaac Mendelsohn, Legal Aspects of Slavery in Babylonia, Assyria and Palestine: A Comparative Study (3000-500 B.C.) [iv] 1932
G. L. van Roosbroeck-Studies on Corneille (Two volumes) . ...................... In preparation T. Morris-J. Corbin, A prtcieux Novelist of the Seventeenth Century. Le Martyre d'Amour, Republished with an Introduction .... In preparation EDITIONS OF RARE 17th CENTURY PLAYS H. L. Cook-Georges de Scuddry, La Mort de Cisar,Republished with an Introduction ..... $1.00 B. Matulka-Georges de Scudtry, Le Prince Dgguisg, Republished with an Introduction ... $1.00 E. H. Polinger-Claude Billard's Tragedy Gaston de Foix, Republished with an Introduction... $1.00 M. A. White-The Earliest French Play About America: Acoubar ou la LoyautJ trahie .... $1.00 G. L. van Roosbroeck-Saint-Evremond, La Comddie des Acadimistes (Text of the MS. of 1638), Published with an Introduction ...... $1.00 Melvin H. Kelly-A Defense of Richelieu's Politics: Europe by Desmarets de Saint-Sorlin. .$1.00 B. Gallinger-Jean Claveret, L'Esprit Fort, Republished with an Introduction ........ In preparation A. C. Lund-Antoine Mareschal, Le Railleur ou La Satyre du Temps, Republished with an Introduction ........................ In preparation F. W. Lindsay-Georges de Scudtry, Axiane, a Tragi-comedy in prose (1644). Republished with an Introduction ............... In preparation 18th CENTURY David Eugene Smith-d'Alembert, Discours sur la Philosophie, facsimile reproduction of the original manuscript ......................... $1.00 G. L. van Roosbroeck-Alziretie: An Unpublished Parody of Voltaire's Alzire ................ $1.00 G. L. van Roosbroeck-L'Empirique: An Unpub$1.00 lished Parody of Voltaire's Mahomet ........ G. L. van Roosbroeck and A. Constans-Polichinelle, Comte de Paonfier: An Unpublished Parody of the Glorieux of Destouches (1732) $ .75
HeinOnline -- 1 Isaac Mendelsohn, Legal Aspects of Slavery in Babylonia, Assyria and Palestine: A Comparative Study (3000-500 B.C.) [v] 1932
B. Levy-The Unpublished Plays of Carolet: A New Chapter on the Thiatre de la Foire ..... $2.00 E. H. Polinger-Pierre-Charles Roy, Playwright $2.00 and Satirist (1683-1764) .................. V. B. Grannis-A Study of Dramatic Parody in Eighteenth Century France ................ $2.75 G. L. van Roosbroeck-Persian Letters before Montesquieu ........................... $1.50 B. Levy-A Precursor of Figaro: L'lntrigue Inutile by Carolet (1736) ............... In preparation B. Levy-A Prototype of Favart: L'Amour Paysan by Carolet (1737) ................ In preparation G. L. van Roosbroeck-A Parody Against J.-J. Rousseau: Le Sauvage Hors de Condition In preparation C. F. Morris-Esthetic Theories in France from 1715 to 1749 .................... In preparation R. Lee-La Mettrie, L'Homme-Plante, Republished with an Introduction ........... In preparation MODERN LITERATURE S. A. Rhodes-The Cult of Beauty in Charles Baudelaire (Two volumes) ............... $3.50 G. L. van Roosbroeck-The Legend of the Decadents .................................. $1.50 I. Brown-Leconte de Lisle. A Study on the Man and his Poetry ........................... $1.50 Jules Laforgue-Hamlet or the Consequences of Filial Piety, Translated, with a Preliminary Study, by G. L. van Roosbroeck (Illustrated by Jan Matulka) ................ In preparation S. A. Rhodes-Stdphane Mallarm6 and La derniare Mode, republished with an Introduction and Notes ........................ In preparation W. T. Bandy-Baudelaire Before Contemporary French Criticism ............... In preparation J. A. Owen-The Last of the Dandies: Robert de Montesquiou-Fezensac .......... In preparation
HeinOnline -- 1 Isaac Mendelsohn, Legal Aspects of Slavery in Babylonia, Assyria and Palestine: A Comparative Study (3000-500 B.C.) [vi] 1932
A. P. Moore-CasimirDelavigne, Dramatist (17931843) ........................ In preparation G. M. Spring-The Vitalism of Count de Gobineau $2.50 ORIGINAL WORKS E. M. Lebert-Le Masque de la Vie (Podsies) ... $ .75 G. L. van Roosbroeck-Grotesques (Illustrated).. $1.50 In special binding $2.50 RUMANIAN SERIES L. Feraru-The Development of Rumanian Poetry $1.50
The Publicationsof the Institute of French Studies, Inc., is a cooperative and an inter-university organization, which aims at encouraging and facilitating the publication of literary and scholarly studies, criticisms, reprints of rare texts, bibliographies, studies on art, as well as original works. It is a non-commercial undertaking, designed for the service of scholarship in the broad sense of the word. It issues at the lowest possible cost the works entrusted to its care, advertises them free of charge, and brings them to the attention of the public or other agencies interested in them. Manuscripts and inquiries should be addressed to the Editor. Associate Members will receive seven dollars worth of books for the payment of five dollars yearly. They are to select, from the list, books amounting to five dollars, and two dollars worth will be sent to them free of charge. Members will receive fourteen dollars worth of books for the payment of ten dollars yearly. They are to select, from the list, books amounting to ten dollars, and four dollars worth will be sent to them free of charge. Libraries, educational institutions or associations may become Institutional Members. Those subscribing
HeinOnline -- 1 Isaac Mendelsohn, Legal Aspects of Slavery in Babylonia, Assyria and Palestine: A Comparative Study (3000-500 B.C.) [vii] 1932

Legal Aspects of Slavery in Babylonia

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Legal Aspects of Slavery in Babylonia

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

LEGAL ASPECTS OF SLAVERY

BABYLONIA, ASSYRIA AND PALESTINE

ISAAC MENDELSOHN, PH.D.

THE BAYARD PRESS

Copyright, 1932, by The Bayard Press

Selling of W ives ....................................... Self-Sale ...................-----------------------.----------

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

*Text in Delitzsch AL p. 115. 4

"Cf. David-Ebeling AR p. 102.

the business activities of the merchant Ubar-Shamash

8'Ibid. p. 33, no. 4.

Kohler-Ungnad AR, nos. 246, 291, 319, 314.

that in those cases where an exorbitant interest rate was

Kohler-Ungnad AR, no. 656.

SELLING OF CHILDREN (A) INFANTS

Schorr U no. 78 (dated 27th year (?) of Hammurabi).

" HG vol. III, no. 435.

Dynastie d'Our, Babyloniaca 3, 1910, no. VI, p. 103.

. Erech, the 28th of Adar,

Kohler-Ungnad AR no. 43.

CHAPTER II THE LEGAL STATUS OF THE SLAVE I. THE SLAVE AS A CHATTEL

"But see the section on Temple Slaves, p. 57 ff. 30

and the brandings upon the hand of H., the female

similar documents cf. Pinches PBSA, 1883, p. 103, 1884, p.

forcible cutting of one's hair was an act of punishment and

Semiten" WZKM 19, 1905, pp. 91-138. The same punishment

lowed by actual and more lasting punishment, that of being

sold into slavery, is evident from the following adoption-

H. Jastrow, "An Assyrian Law Code," no. 4, p. 4,

ku' sha amelu-tu . . . na-shu-u, "that the slaves will

THE SALE OF SLAVES

and freedom"' Shamash-uballit and Ubartum stand surety"

Gen. 16:1-9. f 146. f 147. f 171.

Moldenke CT, no. 11.

nos. 70, 208.

'Barton RISA, p. 125.

116), p. 59 (YBT, vol. VII, 60).

8:20. 'Ibid. 2:58.

'O Ibid. no. 52.

Schorr U, no. 26.

"Ibid. no. 53, see also no. 51.

It is interesting to note that the clause against recla-

nos 8, 29, 35.

"Literally, "she belongs to herself."

nos. 27, 28; Schorr U, no. 23.

"HG, vol. VI, no. 1427.

"'See p. 52f. Dt. 15:12. Lev. 25:39-42.

Publications of the Institute of French Studies, Inc.

PROFESSOR G. L. VAN ROOSBROECK

J. L. Gerig-Antoine Arlier and the Renaissance

You might also like