Part XIX

The manumission of slaves is also placed under the legal aspect of an adoption by the owner, though in time the adoption became a mere form — a kind of legal fiction, in order to give a definite status to the freedman or freedwoman, for a slave as such is never designated as the son or daughter of any one but merely by his or her name. The theory of manumission as an adoption is carried out to the extent that if such a freed slave rebels against the authority of his adopted father, he is punished as a son would be, not as a slave.

The ceremony of manumission consists in removing the brand mark of the slave from the forehead, though both the branding and the cleansing from the brand may have come in the course of time to have been a formality — perhaps only symbolically carried out. In the case of a female slave, the manumission is often accompanied by the dedication of the woman to the service of some deity ; she becomes a votary, in which case the temple as such adopts her, though the assumption is that her foster parents have presented her to the temple. The general form of such a document of manumission reads as follows: ^[1]

"A certain Zugagum by name ^[2] is (acknowledged as) the son of Sin-abushu ^[3] and of Ummi-tabat. Sin-abushu his father has cleansed his forehead. ^[4] As long as his father Sin-abushu lives, Zugagum, his son will support him. For all times, as regards Zugagum, son of Sin-abushu, Nutubtum, the priestess of Shamash and Nabi-Sin, her brother, the children of Sin-abushu, will not have any claim on Zugagum, their brother.

In the name of Shamash, Marduk and the King Sumu-la-ilu, their father, Sinabushu has sworn. If Zugagum should say to his father, Sinabushu 'thou art not my father,' the punishment as in the case of a son shall be imposed upon him. ^[5] According to the laws of Sumu-la-ilu, they have destroyed the documents." ^[6]

The reference to the laws of Sum-la-ilu, the second member of the first dynasty of Babylon (c. 2211-2176 B.C.), points to reforms instituted by that ruler who, it is reasonable to conjecture, compiled a code as did Hammurapi half a century later. That code must have provided that the formal breaking of the clay documents represented the termination of the agreement recorded therein. Accordingly, we find the ceremony of the destruction of a document frequently referred to either as an order of the court, or as a statement of fact to indicate the termination of a contract, or a revocation or the cancelling of a debt or other obligation.

The manumission of a female slave by adoption and who is then presented to the temple is recorded as follows: ^[7]

"The female slave ^[8] Amat-Ishtar is the daughter of Kunutum. Kunutum and Mukhadi have cleansed her. To Shamash and A they have presented her. [As long as Kunutum, her mother lives, she (i.e., Amat-Ishtar) is to provide for her support. When her god calls Kunutum to him, ^[9] no one is to have any claim on Amat-Islitar.} ^[10] Of the children of Shamash-idinnam, ^[11] male and female, none will have any claim on Amat-Ishtar.

In the name of Shamash, Marduk and Sin-muballit, ^[12] they have sworn."

The inner document without further specific date — bears the names of nine witnesses, among them four women, while the case or envelope has no less than thirteen witnesses, of whom eight are women. The remains of seal impressions of four of the witnesses also appear on the envelope — all, as the added titles show, connected with the temple of Shamash at Sippar where the document was drawn up.

The children thus adopted took upon themselves the obligation to provide for the support of their foster parents, but the phrase was probably introduced merely to specify the duty devolving upon the adopted son or daughter in case of necessity. The children as a survival of an earlier stage of society owed service to the father or mother, and in lieu of their eventual share in the property would be obliged to look after the parents in case the latter became incapacitated. Sons were obliged to care for their widowed mothers according to the Hammurapi code, but it does not appear that the parents were under ordinary circumstances actually maintained by the children.

On the other hand, to ensure themselves against want, it is frequently stipulated in the case of gifts made by a father or mother to one of their children that in return, the support of the parent devolves upon the child so favored. Such phrases must, therefore, be taken as legal formulse, introduced to provide for contingencies that might arise.

The laws of inheritance as set forth in the code of Hammurapi are illustrated by numerous documents from the period of the first dynasty. The practice varies, however, to some extent in different localities. So, e.g., in Nippur and in Uruk and apparently, also, in Assyria, the oldest son received an additional share, though this appears to have been optional. In the same way the father could also make a special gift to any of his children, though the code takes precautions against his doing so to the serious detriment of the other children.

Daughters inherit on equal terms with sons, and the mother, as we have seen, takes charge of the estate ^[13] (in case she survives her husband) until the children reach their majority. She is not, however, under ordinary circumstances the heir of her husband.

Naturally in a complicated form of society, many disputes arose in regard to estates, and some of the documents setting forth the settlement of property bequeathed by a father to his children are very elaborate. A final attest to a division is formally recorded in the following terms. ^[14]

"Nur-Shamash, Ili-ma-akha, Palatum and Khumurum have divided all the possessions of their father. From straw to gold, ^[15] brother will not have any claim against brother. In the name of Shamash, A, Marduk and Hammurapi, they have sworn. Before Ibik-Shamash, Ilu-nishtama, Sin-idinnam and Ibni-Shamash in the year of the Hammurapi canal." ^[16]

A more specific inventory is, however, the rule and generally the document is drawn up to settle the share of some one member of the family, as in the following instance: ^[17]

"Two Sar improved property at the side of the house of Sineribam, son of Warad-ilishu, its front facing the street, 2 Gar on the long side, 1 Gar on the front; item, one slave Warad-Erua, item, one slave Lumur-gamil-Shamash, who has escaped; ^[18] item, one female slave Taribum; item, one female slave Ashratum-ummi-is the share of Lipit-Ishtar, son of Bunini, which (at the division of the paternal estate) with Sinmagir, and Ibi-Sin, the sous of Bunini, with Sin-idinam and Rish-Shamash, the children of Ilushu-ibishu, [his brother], ^[19] he received. Also the share of Lamazi, the priestess of Shamash, reverts to the brothers between them. ^[20]

They have divided everything from straw to gold, brother has no claim against brother. In the name of Shamash, A, Marduk and Hammurapi ^[21] they have sworn."

Where in a deed of settlement, merely the share of one of the heirs is set forth, we must assume that similar documents setting forth the share of each of the others were drawn up, so that each heir would have documentary evidence in his possession, which would again become the basis for the division of his estate after his death.

We have, however, plenty of instances in which in one document the share of each of the heirs is detailed, as, e.g., in one dated on the 17th of the 1st month in the llth year of Samsu-iluna, corresponding to c. 2069 B.C., which reads as follows: ^[22]

"Eleven (?) ^[23] Gin of improved property, adjoining the house of Lugal-Amaru, (with) one zaggula dish, ^[24] as a special possession because of his status as first-born, 1/3 Sar improved property, by the side of the house as a special possession, the share of Apil-Amurru, the eldest son; one-third of a Sar, six Gin improved property by the side of the house of Apil-Amurru, his brother, the share of Lipit-Enlil, his brother; [one-third Sar six] ^[25] Gin improved property [at the side of the house] of Lipit-Enlil, his brother, the share of Lipit-Amurru, son of Apil-Shamash.

[One-third Sar, six] Gin improved property [by side of the house of] Ea-idinnam, the falconer (?), ^[26] son of Ea-tukulti, the share of Amurru-Malik. As heirs of Erisumatum they have divided the estate according to agreement. In the future, one will make no claim against the other.

In the name of the King they have sworn." ^[27]

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

Gun. Texts, iv, PL 42.

[2]:

This form designates the individual as a slave.

[3]:

Signifying "the god Sin is his father."

[4]:

I.e., has removed the slave brand.

[5]:

According to the old Sumerian law (V. Rawlinson, PI. 25, col. ii, 23-28), such a rebellious son is branded as a slave and sold for silver.

[6]:

I.e., the documents recording the former sale of the slave.

[7]:

Thureau-Dangin, Lettres et Contrats de I'epoque de la premiere Dynastie Babylonienne (Paris, 1910). Nos. 68-69 (case tablet).

[8]:

Preceding the names of the slaves is an indication of the number as "one head," "two heads" and the like, as we still say one head of cattle, etc.

[9]:

I.e., on the death of Kunutum. Mukhadi, who is mentioned with Kunutum, may be the latter 's daughter, who, as the heir agrees to the manumission of the slave.

[10]:

These two sentences on the outside tablet only.

[11]:

The deceased husband of Kunutum.

[12]:

Sin-muballit, the immediate predecessor of Hammurapi, ruled from c. 2144 to 2124 B.C.

[13]:

Above, p. 305.

[14]:

Meissner, Beitrage zum altbdbylonischen Privatrecht, No. 106.

[15]:

A phrase of frequent occurrence to indicate everything of value. See above, p. 355.

[16]:

I.e., when Hammurapi dug a canal, called after him = the 9th year, corresponding to e. 2114 B.C.

[17]:

Thureau-Dangin, I.e., No. 98-99 (case tablet).

[18]:

Counted in on the assumption that he will be caught and returned.

[19]:

So on the outer tablet. These are the nephews of LipitIshtar whose father is dead, and who therefore receive the father's share.

[20]:

The priestess received her share during her lifetime, but it reTerted to her brothers on her death. See above, p. 308.

[21]:

Dated in the 37thi year corresponding to c. 2086 B.C.

[22]:

Poebel, l.c., No. 32.

[23]:

The number is not clear.

[24]:

Often mentioned in Nippur texts as a special possession of the first-born.

[25]:

Text defective. The restoration is made on the assumption that the share of the remaining brothers is equal.

[26]:

So Poebel's explanation.

[27]:

The document is written in Sumerian, which remained in use as the official language for a longer period than elsewhere in such strong Sumerian centres like Nippur.