The children of slaves in early Mesopotamian laws and edicts

John Nicholas Reid

doi:10.3917/assy.111.0009

Revue d’assyriologie et d’archéologie orientale 2017/1 Vol. 111

Journal article

The children of slaves in early Mesopotamian laws and edicts

By John Nicholas Reid

Pages 9 to 23

REID, John Nicholas,

2017. The children of slaves in early Mesopotamian laws and edicts. Revue d’assyriologie et d’archéologie orientale, 2017/1 Vol. 111, p.9-23. DOI : 10.3917/assy.111.0009. URL : https://shs.cairn.info/journal-revue-d-assyriologie-2017-1-page-9?lang=en.

Reid, John Nicholas.

« The children of slaves in early Mesopotamian laws and edicts ». Revue d’assyriologie et d’archéologie orientale, 2017/1 Vol. 111, 2017. p.9-23. CAIRN.INFO, shs.cairn.info/journal-revue-d-assyriologie-2017-1-page-9?lang=en.

Reid, J.-N.

(2017). The Children of Slaves in Early Mesopotamian Laws and Edicts. Revue d’assyriologie et d’archéologie orientale, . 111(1), 9-23. https://doi.org/10.3917/assy.111.0009.

https://doi.org/10.3917/assy.111.0009

Notes

[1]
Abbreviations follow the conventions catalogued at http://cdli.ox.ac.uk/wiki/abbreviations_for_assyriology. Line divisions of texts are marked by a backslash (/), while double backlash (//) represents a change to another side of the tablet. I am grateful to the Institute for the Study of the Ancient World, New York University and to my current institution for supporting my research. I delivered an earlier version of this article in two venues. First, at the Ancient Near Eastern Seminar, Columbia University and later at the Annual Society of Biblical Literature Meeting in the Slavery, Resistance and Freedom Program Unit. I would also like to thank in alphabetic order Jacob Dahl, Bertrand Lafont, and Frances Reynolds for important feedback to my research. I also wish to thank the reviewers for their helpful references. Finally, I am grateful to Dominique Charpin, whose work has greatly shaped my understanding of the broader context of this topic, for accepting my article to this journal and to Lionel Marti, who helped to facilitate its publication. I remain responsible for any errors that remain.
[2]
Although “early Mesopotamia” is not ideal as a descriptor, it is employed here in the same way as Postgate (1992: xxi-xxiii). The term is used to refer to Southern Mesopotamia from Late Uruk until the first fall of Babylon, or circa 3200-1595 B.C. For a recent contribution to the topic of slavery and freedom, see Robert Mc. Adams (2010).
[3]
To avoid unnecessary circumlocution, “slavery” and “freedom” are used at various points in this article. But these terms hardly account for the social complexity attested in early Mesopotamian slavery. The notion of “freedom” as a criterion for defining slavery has been frequently rejected in scholarship as insufficient (See Gelb 1979: 284; Westermann 1944: 213-214; Finley 1964: 247-249.). The use of “unfree” and “free” as the two main categories lacks nuance to deal with overlap in status and degrees of bondage. Even terms such as “unfree” are fraught with difficulties, and must be defined in relation to other key, but difficult to define, terms, like the word “free” (Gelb 1967: 4).
[4]
For an introduction to the historian’s task in relation to law and the overlap with politics and religion, see Charpin (2010: 3-5). Legal-historical data is somewhat limited when it comes to reconstructing social history, since theory does not always translate into practice (Hezser 2005: 20), and the purposes behind the laws of the ancient Near East remain contested. Typically, the “law codes” are understood in two main ways: juridical and academic. Proponents of the juridical view maintain that the laws serve as actual legislation to be referred to in legal cases, perhaps the codification of past judgments (see Haase 1965: 22ff). If the laws are academic or literary, the texts likely represent a scholarly, scribal practice, which is not binding on actual legal cases. In fact, these laws are more closely identifiable with royal or commemorative inscriptions (Finkelstein 1961, and more recently Charpin 2004: 50-51). While internal evidence from the prologue and epilogue of the “Code of Ḫammurabi,” for example, supports the juridical view, the greatest difficulty is the want of references being made to these laws in documents of practice or legal decisions. For a diachronic view of the laws of the ancient Near East, see Lafont (1994: 91-118). For an extensive treatment of law from a synchronic perspective, see Westbrook (2003: 1-90). Westbrook tends to view the extant laws of the ancient Near East to be part of ancient Near Eastern common law, in order to explain the overlap from one code to another. Edzard (1974), in particular, raised the question of reality versus the literary for these social reforms. On the interface between the laws and the edicts, see Veenhof (1997-2000: 49-83), who argues that the laws were verdicts that
related to the ideology of the justice of the king, whereas the edicts were more concrete examples of that justice. The situation related to the edicts is more easily assessed. See Charpin (1990a: 13-24) and more recently Charpin (2010: 83-96), who used legal texts to demonstrate that the edicts were enforced and not just literary exercises.
[5]
For a theoretical discussion and summary of what is meant by the words “child” and “childhood,” see in particular Garroway (2014: 1-20).
[6]
This section is inspired by the life-course approach to social history. The life-course approach is a theory applied in the social sciences to determine how key transitional moments in a person’s life in relation to environment contribute to the overall social life of a person. Downward social movement in early Mesopotamia was caused by a complex set of social and economic factors. This theoretical approach, which focuses on detailed aspects of the lives of individuals and groups of individuals, can only be appropriated with modifications, since the evidence from early Mesopotamia does not provide the type of detail sought in most life-course studies. Even when using prosopography to study individuals through texts, the desired level of detail is often absent in relation to the lower stratum. Despite the limitations of the evidence, the attested life events that created downward social movement for children in early Mesopotamia inform the broader social context of children living life at the bottom. Culbertson (2011: 35) applied the life-course to children and unmarried slaves of the Third Dynasty of Ur to “highlight the varieties of slavery, leaving a bit more room to notice the mutable aspects as well as the permanent.” Culbertson sought to overcome the limitations of the evidence by relying on “textual synthesis, survey, and description.” By looking at the life-course, Culbertson was able to view slaving as a process with gradations of impairments, highlighting aspects of slavery that can be lost through definitional approaches.
[7]
See her excellent diagramming of social movement as it relates to various life situations (Garroway 2014: 245-253).
[8]
Garroway (2014: 7).
[9]
For a more expansive look at the events that created downward social movement in relation to women in the ancient Near East, see Stol (2016: 311-338). Prisoners of war could be added to the above list, but that is a unique event that reflects more about the victorious community than the conquered community. Indeed, anyone in early Mesopotamia could become a prisoner of war, and when this event occurred, the life-course could take a number of trajectories. Early texts discuss large numbers of prisoners of war (see for example Steinkeller 2013a). Some prisoners were clearly assimilated into the victorious community. For the Ur III period, Steinkeller (2013b: 354, 357) writes: “The land was situated in the rural settlement of Lullubu(na) (in the province of Girsu/Lagaš), which, as its name indicates, must have been settled with the prisoners-of-war from Lullubum. […] While a majority of these individuals seem to have come from Northern Babylonia, a very significant number of them were foreigners, quite often prisoners-of-war. Such undoubtedly was the background of the settlements of Lullubu(na), Ebih, Eduru-Elamene, and Šimurrum, all in the province of Girsu/Lagaš.” There were also workhouses in which prisoners were worked during the Old Babylonian period (Seri 2013). Some prisoners of war were sold, while others were ransomed (see for example “Code of Ḫammurabi” §32 and Kraus 1981, AbB 9: 32). Gelb’s 1973 article on prisoners of war remains a useful survey of the material.
[10]
Patterson utilized the concept of social death in his famous definition of slavery. See Patterson (1982 and 2008). Social death leads to resocialization or social rebirth as a slave. For a life-course approach to slavery in African contexts using the concept of social death, see Manning (1990: 113-118). For a critique of Patterson’s approach, see Miller (2008: 70-102).
[11]
See edition by Sollberger (1972: 107).
[12]
See edition by Pomponio (2006: 206). The Sumerian word gaba (“chest” or “breast”) likely refers to a “suckling” or “semi-weaned child” in this instance. The term (dumu-)gaba is often considered “suckling infant” (see Steinkeller 1995: 55; Brinkman 1982: 2-4; Tenney 2011: 13). I have not found any examples of dumu-gaba in the Old Akkadian period, which does not necessarily preclude a connection, since the term can be written either “dumu-gaba” or “gaba.” On the meaning of gaba in relation to sheep and goats, see Steinkeller (1995: 54-55). Steinkeller, following Landsberger (MSL 8:1, 55-56), argues that gaba and gub have the same meaning (contra Heimpel 1995: 122, 125) and should be understood as “semi-weaned,” since the terms are not used together, but appear in the same context. Furthermore, the gaba are older than the ga “suckling”, but not fully grown. Finally, Steinkeller (1995: 55) states, concerning the term in relation to animals: “those classified as gaba and gub are never qualified as niga, “barley-fed,” or u₂, “grass-fed,” which suggests that milk was still the primary source of their nutrition.” Another term associated with nursing infants is dumu-ga (“child of milk”).
[13]
Waetzoldt (1988: 40).
[14]
“Corvée” service could be work performed or military service (see Steinkeller 2013b: 348). While there is little evidence about “corvée labour” for the Ur III period, Steinkeller has written on the subject with particular emphasis on duties performed for the crown in exchange for plots of land, and work projects in service to the palace or temples (Steinkeller 2013b). In the Ur III period, conscription was one way by which the requisite labor and military demands of the crown were met. The Old Babylonian administrations also utilized labor of the native population through the ilku and tupšikkum (for other terminology relating to “corvée” during the Old Babylonian period, see Stol 1995a). This service was also performed in exchange for fields and houses. Stol (1995a: 299) has established that the normal period of service for tupšikkum work was one month. In the event that a person failed to perform the requisite functions, the penalty involved the loss of the related benefits. For this period, it is clear that there were a number of ways a person could have someone else perform their service duties, such as hiring someone, supplying a slave, or a family member (Stol 1995a: 298-300). Richardson (2015) advances a different perspective by discussing the concepts of forced or consensual community-building projects.
[15]
See edition, together with extensive bibliography, in Edzard (1997: 30-38). These lines boast that no one was hit and the mothers did not beat their children. Rather than looking for the “historical kernel”, the interesting aspect of this claim, from an historical perspective, is the question of why the author chose to make such a claim. In this way, the literary text itself is a source of knowledge. Utilizing literary texts as sources of knowledge was proposed by Mario Liverani, who in rejection of the historical “kernel” approach, argued that we should consider the reasons behind the production of literary texts, rather than search them for a “kernel” of truth or ignore them. See Liverani (1973: 178-194 and 1993: 42-52). See also Van De Mieroop (1997a: 298).
[16]
Studevent-Hickman (2006: 137, 161ff).
[17]
See Frayne’s edition and bibliography (Frayne 2008: 229-231).
[18]
See the edition and bibliography in Frayne (2008: text 1.9.9.1). See also the important article of Steinkeller (1991).
[19]
See full edition in Çig, Kizilyay and Falkenstein (1959: 83-85).
[20]
For an example dealing with debt see Molina (2010: 203-204, 2 – unclear provenance; Amar-Suen year 5; BM 106470) = Sallaberger (2008: 167-168). On deficits owed to administrations, see, for example, Grégoire (1981: 155 – unclear provenance; Šulgi year 32; BV 20) = Englund (1990: 42-48; 1991: 268); Maekawa (1996: 146, text no. 70).
[21]
See, for example, Harris (1955: 61, texts 2, 3, 5 pages 60-61).
[22]
Numerous studies have been written about debt-slavery in the ancient Near East. For a multi-authored volume on debt in the ancient Near East, see Hudson and Van De Mieroop (2002). See also Westbrook (1995: 1637-1638, 1643-1645) and Westbrook and Jasnow (2001) for a study of the various types of debt-slavery. For the Ur III period, see Siegel (1947) and more recently the important study of Neumann (2011). For the Old Babylonian period, an excellent summary can be found in Stol (2004: 911-913). In particular, the “manumission laws” of the Hebrew Bible have been discussed extensively in relation to ancient Near Eastern debt-slavery and releases. For a work that interacts extensively with debt-slavery outside of the Biblical text, see Cardellini (1981), and more recently Chirichigno (1993). The topic of release in the “Code of Ḫammurabi” has been referenced when comparing the “oriental versus classical” view of slavery, which attempts to draw a sharp distinction between slavery in the ancient orient and classical forms of slavery (see Driver and Miles 1952-1955: vol. 1, 222-223). Dandamaev (2009: 67-80) offers a critique of such a strong dichotomy between these historical manifestations of slavery.
[23]
See edition in Roth (1997: 71-142).
[24]
ITT 2, 2789 (Girsu; ND; Ist L 2789) = Lafont & F. Yildiz (1996: 2789); Falkenstein (1956 NG 2, 41); Lafont (2000: no. 26).
[25]
See, for example, the Ur III text, Keiser (1919: 6 – Nippur^?, Ibbi-Suen year 1, month 1, YBC 1107). For the Old Babylonian period, see Pinches (1899: 22 – Sippar, Samsu-iluna year 19, month 2, day 3; Bu 1891-05-09, 374), which discusses the purchase of a girl to be the second wife of a man and the slave of the first wife. A few aspects of this agreement set it apart from the more common texts that arrange marriages. Unlike other texts that involve a dowry and a “brideprice,” the father does not give anything other than his daughter to the purchaser. The statement of crossing the pestle (bukānu) is typically used to complete sale documents particularly relating to slaves or real estate. See CAD B: 308-309; Van Koppen (2004: 10). The best explanation of the bukānu is found in Edzard (1970) and Malul (1985). Further, the text states that the girl is to be the “slave girl” (amat) of the first wife. Finally, the clause of delinquency for the girl in CT 8, 22 mentions shaving and resale rather than the more extreme clauses found in marriage agreements, which state that the bride is to be tied up and thrown into the river, should she deny her marriage to her husband (see Dalley 1980) or the financial penalty involving the dowry (Westbrook 1989: 114-115 and commentary in Van De Mieroop 1997b: 9-12). See also concise discussion in Stol (1995b: 130-131). For these reasons, the agreement in CT 8, 22 should be viewed as a simple sale, since the details of the situation that caused the sale remain unknown. Harris (1977: 48 nos. 6, 16) considers Šamaš-nūrī to be a former slave who was adopted, and subsequently sold by her adoptive father. This view, however, cannot be substantiated on the basis of the available evidence. On the legal absurdity of calling a woman “wife” who is also a slave to the first wife, see Westbrook (1998: 224-238). See also Stol (2016: 205).
[26]
See the helpful study on this topic more broadly in Valk (2016), which rebuts the common argument that high mortality rates resulted in a degree of detachment between parents and their children.
[27]
Socio-economic documents were written when certain conditions gave rise to the need to document transactions that could be contested. See Van De Mieroop (1997b: 7-18) and more summarily in Van De Mieroop (1997a: 301-302). See also Steinkeller (2004: 95-96) and, more recently, Garfinkle (2015). These particular conditions had a direct impact on the content included in the documents themselves.
[28]
Culbertson (2011: 40).
[29]
See, in particular, Civil (2011).
[30]
Contra Yildiz (1981: 96). This translation follows Yaron (1985), who argues that the subject of the apodosis is the wife, not the husband. See also Westbrook (1998: 224).
[31]
The term lugal appears three times in in §5. The first two occurrences are often translated as “master,” while the final occurrence is sometimes translated as “king.” See Wilcke (2014: 495-498, 535-536). Viewing the final occurrence as the king is preferred, since the first to instances refer to “his lugal,” denoting his master, while the last just makes reference to the “lugal” without a possessive suffix, referring to the king. See also Civil (2011: 237, 246.) See also Stol (2016: 205). Contra Westbrook (1998: 225 no. 25), who reads it as “master.”
[32]
Roth (1997: 17) – “If a male slave marries a native woman, he/she shall place one male child in the service of his master; the child who is placed in the service of his master, his paternal estate… the wall, the house, […] (any other) child of the native woman will not be owned by the master, nor will he be pressed into slavery.” Yildiz (1981: 96) also views the latter clause as dealing with any future children from the marriage.
[33]
Westbrook (1998: 225 and no. 25) argues that the child supplied is not a slave, but a worker placed at the disposal of the owner. After the death of the master, the child is to inherit half of the estate. See also Stol (2016: 205).
[34]
See edition in Roth (1997: 23-35).
[35]
Stol (2016: 205).
[36]
See edition in Roth (1997: 57-70).
[37]
See edition in Roth (1997: 71-142).
[38]
See edition in Roth (1997: 71-142).
[39]
For an assessment of “Code of Ḫammurabi” §175 in relation to other texts, see in particular Stol (2016: 205-206).
[40]
Garroway observes that, since maternity rather than paternity was more easily proven in the ancient world, it makes sense that status and ownership follows the mother (Garroway 2014: 151).
[41]
Van Koppen (2004: 12).
[42]
Van Koppen (2004: 11).
[43]
See Kraus (1984: 280-284). The key term andurārum has been explained by Charpin (1990a) as retour à l’origine. Viewing the edicts as returning people to original status explains the exclusion of houseborn slaves. Their original status as slaves prevents them from partaking more fully in such releases. See also Stol (2004: 865-867). For Mari, see also Charpin (1990b: 253-270). See the useful summary by Hallo (1995: 88-89), who also adds lexical evidence to the discussion in Kraus.
[44]
See Kraus (1984: 180).
[45]
Kraus (1984: 280-284). See also Hallo (1995: 88-89).
[46]
Charpin has presented a compelling case that the edict, which is nearly verbatim, minus some additions, to the edict from Samsu-iluna, actually originates during Ḫammurabi’s reign, when the cities specifically mentioned remained under Babylonian control. See recently Charpin (2010: 94-96).
[47]
For studies which also highlight the coercive aspects of manumission, see Hopkins (1978: 118) and his discussion of Roman slavery. See also Hezser (2005: 304-317) for Jewish slavery. See also Garroway (2014: 151), who argues that the provision which allows a master to choose whether or not to recognize a child could be viewed as a coercive measure to have these children on their best behavior.
[48]
“Code of Ur-Namma” (cited after Civil 2011):
§6: tukum-bi dam guruš-a e₂ nu-gi₄-a nig₂ -a₂ -gar-še₃ lu₂ in-ak e₂ bi₂ -in-gi₄ nita-bi i₃-gaz-e
Translation: If a man seduces with guile a betrothed woman not yet married and takes her into (his) household, this man will be killed.
§8: tukum-bi geme₂ lu₂ e₂ nu-gi₄-a nig₂ -a₂ -gar-še₃ lu₂ i₃-ak e₂ bi₂ -gi₄ lu₂ -bi 5(diš) gin₂ ku₃ i₃-la₂ -e
Translation: If a man seduces with guile an unmarried (literally: not included in a household) slave and takes her into (his) household, this man will pay five shekels of silver.

Cite this article

Reid, J.-N.

(2017). The Children of Slaves in Early Mesopotamian Laws and Edicts. Revue d’assyriologie et d’archéologie orientale, . 111(1), 9-23. https://doi.org/10.3917/assy.111.0009.

Reid, John Nicholas.

« The children of slaves in early Mesopotamian laws and edicts ». Revue d’assyriologie et d’archéologie orientale, 2017/1 Vol. 111, 2017. p.9-23. CAIRN.INFO, shs.cairn.info/journal-revue-d-assyriologie-2017-1-page-9?lang=en.

REID, John Nicholas,

2017. The children of slaves in early Mesopotamian laws and edicts. Revue d’assyriologie et d’archéologie orientale, 2017/1 Vol. 111, p.9-23. DOI : 10.3917/assy.111.0009. URL : https://shs.cairn.info/journal-revue-d-assyriologie-2017-1-page-9?lang=en.

https://doi.org/10.3917/assy.111.0009

Notes

[1]
Abbreviations follow the conventions catalogued at http://cdli.ox.ac.uk/wiki/abbreviations_for_assyriology. Line divisions of texts are marked by a backslash (/), while double backlash (//) represents a change to another side of the tablet. I am grateful to the Institute for the Study of the Ancient World, New York University and to my current institution for supporting my research. I delivered an earlier version of this article in two venues. First, at the Ancient Near Eastern Seminar, Columbia University and later at the Annual Society of Biblical Literature Meeting in the Slavery, Resistance and Freedom Program Unit. I would also like to thank in alphabetic order Jacob Dahl, Bertrand Lafont, and Frances Reynolds for important feedback to my research. I also wish to thank the reviewers for their helpful references. Finally, I am grateful to Dominique Charpin, whose work has greatly shaped my understanding of the broader context of this topic, for accepting my article to this journal and to Lionel Marti, who helped to facilitate its publication. I remain responsible for any errors that remain.
[2]
Although “early Mesopotamia” is not ideal as a descriptor, it is employed here in the same way as Postgate (1992: xxi-xxiii). The term is used to refer to Southern Mesopotamia from Late Uruk until the first fall of Babylon, or circa 3200-1595 B.C. For a recent contribution to the topic of slavery and freedom, see Robert Mc. Adams (2010).
[3]
To avoid unnecessary circumlocution, “slavery” and “freedom” are used at various points in this article. But these terms hardly account for the social complexity attested in early Mesopotamian slavery. The notion of “freedom” as a criterion for defining slavery has been frequently rejected in scholarship as insufficient (See Gelb 1979: 284; Westermann 1944: 213-214; Finley 1964: 247-249.). The use of “unfree” and “free” as the two main categories lacks nuance to deal with overlap in status and degrees of bondage. Even terms such as “unfree” are fraught with difficulties, and must be defined in relation to other key, but difficult to define, terms, like the word “free” (Gelb 1967: 4).
[4]
For an introduction to the historian’s task in relation to law and the overlap with politics and religion, see Charpin (2010: 3-5). Legal-historical data is somewhat limited when it comes to reconstructing social history, since theory does not always translate into practice (Hezser 2005: 20), and the purposes behind the laws of the ancient Near East remain contested. Typically, the “law codes” are understood in two main ways: juridical and academic. Proponents of the juridical view maintain that the laws serve as actual legislation to be referred to in legal cases, perhaps the codification of past judgments (see Haase 1965: 22ff). If the laws are academic or literary, the texts likely represent a scholarly, scribal practice, which is not binding on actual legal cases. In fact, these laws are more closely identifiable with royal or commemorative inscriptions (Finkelstein 1961, and more recently Charpin 2004: 50-51). While internal evidence from the prologue and epilogue of the “Code of Ḫammurabi,” for example, supports the juridical view, the greatest difficulty is the want of references being made to these laws in documents of practice or legal decisions. For a diachronic view of the laws of the ancient Near East, see Lafont (1994: 91-118). For an extensive treatment of law from a synchronic perspective, see Westbrook (2003: 1-90). Westbrook tends to view the extant laws of the ancient Near East to be part of ancient Near Eastern common law, in order to explain the overlap from one code to another. Edzard (1974), in particular, raised the question of reality versus the literary for these social reforms. On the interface between the laws and the edicts, see Veenhof (1997-2000: 49-83), who argues that the laws were verdicts that
related to the ideology of the justice of the king, whereas the edicts were more concrete examples of that justice. The situation related to the edicts is more easily assessed. See Charpin (1990a: 13-24) and more recently Charpin (2010: 83-96), who used legal texts to demonstrate that the edicts were enforced and not just literary exercises.
[5]
For a theoretical discussion and summary of what is meant by the words “child” and “childhood,” see in particular Garroway (2014: 1-20).
[6]
This section is inspired by the life-course approach to social history. The life-course approach is a theory applied in the social sciences to determine how key transitional moments in a person’s life in relation to environment contribute to the overall social life of a person. Downward social movement in early Mesopotamia was caused by a complex set of social and economic factors. This theoretical approach, which focuses on detailed aspects of the lives of individuals and groups of individuals, can only be appropriated with modifications, since the evidence from early Mesopotamia does not provide the type of detail sought in most life-course studies. Even when using prosopography to study individuals through texts, the desired level of detail is often absent in relation to the lower stratum. Despite the limitations of the evidence, the attested life events that created downward social movement for children in early Mesopotamia inform the broader social context of children living life at the bottom. Culbertson (2011: 35) applied the life-course to children and unmarried slaves of the Third Dynasty of Ur to “highlight the varieties of slavery, leaving a bit more room to notice the mutable aspects as well as the permanent.” Culbertson sought to overcome the limitations of the evidence by relying on “textual synthesis, survey, and description.” By looking at the life-course, Culbertson was able to view slaving as a process with gradations of impairments, highlighting aspects of slavery that can be lost through definitional approaches.
[7]
See her excellent diagramming of social movement as it relates to various life situations (Garroway 2014: 245-253).
[8]
Garroway (2014: 7).
[9]
For a more expansive look at the events that created downward social movement in relation to women in the ancient Near East, see Stol (2016: 311-338). Prisoners of war could be added to the above list, but that is a unique event that reflects more about the victorious community than the conquered community. Indeed, anyone in early Mesopotamia could become a prisoner of war, and when this event occurred, the life-course could take a number of trajectories. Early texts discuss large numbers of prisoners of war (see for example Steinkeller 2013a). Some prisoners were clearly assimilated into the victorious community. For the Ur III period, Steinkeller (2013b: 354, 357) writes: “The land was situated in the rural settlement of Lullubu(na) (in the province of Girsu/Lagaš), which, as its name indicates, must have been settled with the prisoners-of-war from Lullubum. […] While a majority of these individuals seem to have come from Northern Babylonia, a very significant number of them were foreigners, quite often prisoners-of-war. Such undoubtedly was the background of the settlements of Lullubu(na), Ebih, Eduru-Elamene, and Šimurrum, all in the province of Girsu/Lagaš.” There were also workhouses in which prisoners were worked during the Old Babylonian period (Seri 2013). Some prisoners of war were sold, while others were ransomed (see for example “Code of Ḫammurabi” §32 and Kraus 1981, AbB 9: 32). Gelb’s 1973 article on prisoners of war remains a useful survey of the material.
[10]
Patterson utilized the concept of social death in his famous definition of slavery. See Patterson (1982 and 2008). Social death leads to resocialization or social rebirth as a slave. For a life-course approach to slavery in African contexts using the concept of social death, see Manning (1990: 113-118). For a critique of Patterson’s approach, see Miller (2008: 70-102).
[11]
See edition by Sollberger (1972: 107).
[12]
See edition by Pomponio (2006: 206). The Sumerian word gaba (“chest” or “breast”) likely refers to a “suckling” or “semi-weaned child” in this instance. The term (dumu-)gaba is often considered “suckling infant” (see Steinkeller 1995: 55; Brinkman 1982: 2-4; Tenney 2011: 13). I have not found any examples of dumu-gaba in the Old Akkadian period, which does not necessarily preclude a connection, since the term can be written either “dumu-gaba” or “gaba.” On the meaning of gaba in relation to sheep and goats, see Steinkeller (1995: 54-55). Steinkeller, following Landsberger (MSL 8:1, 55-56), argues that gaba and gub have the same meaning (contra Heimpel 1995: 122, 125) and should be understood as “semi-weaned,” since the terms are not used together, but appear in the same context. Furthermore, the gaba are older than the ga “suckling”, but not fully grown. Finally, Steinkeller (1995: 55) states, concerning the term in relation to animals: “those classified as gaba and gub are never qualified as niga, “barley-fed,” or u₂, “grass-fed,” which suggests that milk was still the primary source of their nutrition.” Another term associated with nursing infants is dumu-ga (“child of milk”).
[13]
Waetzoldt (1988: 40).
[14]
“Corvée” service could be work performed or military service (see Steinkeller 2013b: 348). While there is little evidence about “corvée labour” for the Ur III period, Steinkeller has written on the subject with particular emphasis on duties performed for the crown in exchange for plots of land, and work projects in service to the palace or temples (Steinkeller 2013b). In the Ur III period, conscription was one way by which the requisite labor and military demands of the crown were met. The Old Babylonian administrations also utilized labor of the native population through the ilku and tupšikkum (for other terminology relating to “corvée” during the Old Babylonian period, see Stol 1995a). This service was also performed in exchange for fields and houses. Stol (1995a: 299) has established that the normal period of service for tupšikkum work was one month. In the event that a person failed to perform the requisite functions, the penalty involved the loss of the related benefits. For this period, it is clear that there were a number of ways a person could have someone else perform their service duties, such as hiring someone, supplying a slave, or a family member (Stol 1995a: 298-300). Richardson (2015) advances a different perspective by discussing the concepts of forced or consensual community-building projects.
[15]
See edition, together with extensive bibliography, in Edzard (1997: 30-38). These lines boast that no one was hit and the mothers did not beat their children. Rather than looking for the “historical kernel”, the interesting aspect of this claim, from an historical perspective, is the question of why the author chose to make such a claim. In this way, the literary text itself is a source of knowledge. Utilizing literary texts as sources of knowledge was proposed by Mario Liverani, who in rejection of the historical “kernel” approach, argued that we should consider the reasons behind the production of literary texts, rather than search them for a “kernel” of truth or ignore them. See Liverani (1973: 178-194 and 1993: 42-52). See also Van De Mieroop (1997a: 298).
[16]
Studevent-Hickman (2006: 137, 161ff).
[17]
See Frayne’s edition and bibliography (Frayne 2008: 229-231).
[18]
See the edition and bibliography in Frayne (2008: text 1.9.9.1). See also the important article of Steinkeller (1991).
[19]
See full edition in Çig, Kizilyay and Falkenstein (1959: 83-85).
[20]
For an example dealing with debt see Molina (2010: 203-204, 2 – unclear provenance; Amar-Suen year 5; BM 106470) = Sallaberger (2008: 167-168). On deficits owed to administrations, see, for example, Grégoire (1981: 155 – unclear provenance; Šulgi year 32; BV 20) = Englund (1990: 42-48; 1991: 268); Maekawa (1996: 146, text no. 70).
[21]
See, for example, Harris (1955: 61, texts 2, 3, 5 pages 60-61).
[22]
Numerous studies have been written about debt-slavery in the ancient Near East. For a multi-authored volume on debt in the ancient Near East, see Hudson and Van De Mieroop (2002). See also Westbrook (1995: 1637-1638, 1643-1645) and Westbrook and Jasnow (2001) for a study of the various types of debt-slavery. For the Ur III period, see Siegel (1947) and more recently the important study of Neumann (2011). For the Old Babylonian period, an excellent summary can be found in Stol (2004: 911-913). In particular, the “manumission laws” of the Hebrew Bible have been discussed extensively in relation to ancient Near Eastern debt-slavery and releases. For a work that interacts extensively with debt-slavery outside of the Biblical text, see Cardellini (1981), and more recently Chirichigno (1993). The topic of release in the “Code of Ḫammurabi” has been referenced when comparing the “oriental versus classical” view of slavery, which attempts to draw a sharp distinction between slavery in the ancient orient and classical forms of slavery (see Driver and Miles 1952-1955: vol. 1, 222-223). Dandamaev (2009: 67-80) offers a critique of such a strong dichotomy between these historical manifestations of slavery.
[23]
See edition in Roth (1997: 71-142).
[24]
ITT 2, 2789 (Girsu; ND; Ist L 2789) = Lafont & F. Yildiz (1996: 2789); Falkenstein (1956 NG 2, 41); Lafont (2000: no. 26).
[25]
See, for example, the Ur III text, Keiser (1919: 6 – Nippur^?, Ibbi-Suen year 1, month 1, YBC 1107). For the Old Babylonian period, see Pinches (1899: 22 – Sippar, Samsu-iluna year 19, month 2, day 3; Bu 1891-05-09, 374), which discusses the purchase of a girl to be the second wife of a man and the slave of the first wife. A few aspects of this agreement set it apart from the more common texts that arrange marriages. Unlike other texts that involve a dowry and a “brideprice,” the father does not give anything other than his daughter to the purchaser. The statement of crossing the pestle (bukānu) is typically used to complete sale documents particularly relating to slaves or real estate. See CAD B: 308-309; Van Koppen (2004: 10). The best explanation of the bukānu is found in Edzard (1970) and Malul (1985). Further, the text states that the girl is to be the “slave girl” (amat) of the first wife. Finally, the clause of delinquency for the girl in CT 8, 22 mentions shaving and resale rather than the more extreme clauses found in marriage agreements, which state that the bride is to be tied up and thrown into the river, should she deny her marriage to her husband (see Dalley 1980) or the financial penalty involving the dowry (Westbrook 1989: 114-115 and commentary in Van De Mieroop 1997b: 9-12). See also concise discussion in Stol (1995b: 130-131). For these reasons, the agreement in CT 8, 22 should be viewed as a simple sale, since the details of the situation that caused the sale remain unknown. Harris (1977: 48 nos. 6, 16) considers Šamaš-nūrī to be a former slave who was adopted, and subsequently sold by her adoptive father. This view, however, cannot be substantiated on the basis of the available evidence. On the legal absurdity of calling a woman “wife” who is also a slave to the first wife, see Westbrook (1998: 224-238). See also Stol (2016: 205).
[26]
See the helpful study on this topic more broadly in Valk (2016), which rebuts the common argument that high mortality rates resulted in a degree of detachment between parents and their children.
[27]
Socio-economic documents were written when certain conditions gave rise to the need to document transactions that could be contested. See Van De Mieroop (1997b: 7-18) and more summarily in Van De Mieroop (1997a: 301-302). See also Steinkeller (2004: 95-96) and, more recently, Garfinkle (2015). These particular conditions had a direct impact on the content included in the documents themselves.
[28]
Culbertson (2011: 40).
[29]
See, in particular, Civil (2011).
[30]
Contra Yildiz (1981: 96). This translation follows Yaron (1985), who argues that the subject of the apodosis is the wife, not the husband. See also Westbrook (1998: 224).
[31]
The term lugal appears three times in in §5. The first two occurrences are often translated as “master,” while the final occurrence is sometimes translated as “king.” See Wilcke (2014: 495-498, 535-536). Viewing the final occurrence as the king is preferred, since the first to instances refer to “his lugal,” denoting his master, while the last just makes reference to the “lugal” without a possessive suffix, referring to the king. See also Civil (2011: 237, 246.) See also Stol (2016: 205). Contra Westbrook (1998: 225 no. 25), who reads it as “master.”
[32]
Roth (1997: 17) – “If a male slave marries a native woman, he/she shall place one male child in the service of his master; the child who is placed in the service of his master, his paternal estate… the wall, the house, […] (any other) child of the native woman will not be owned by the master, nor will he be pressed into slavery.” Yildiz (1981: 96) also views the latter clause as dealing with any future children from the marriage.
[33]
Westbrook (1998: 225 and no. 25) argues that the child supplied is not a slave, but a worker placed at the disposal of the owner. After the death of the master, the child is to inherit half of the estate. See also Stol (2016: 205).
[34]
See edition in Roth (1997: 23-35).
[35]
Stol (2016: 205).
[36]
See edition in Roth (1997: 57-70).
[37]
See edition in Roth (1997: 71-142).
[38]
See edition in Roth (1997: 71-142).
[39]
For an assessment of “Code of Ḫammurabi” §175 in relation to other texts, see in particular Stol (2016: 205-206).
[40]
Garroway observes that, since maternity rather than paternity was more easily proven in the ancient world, it makes sense that status and ownership follows the mother (Garroway 2014: 151).
[41]
Van Koppen (2004: 12).
[42]
Van Koppen (2004: 11).
[43]
See Kraus (1984: 280-284). The key term andurārum has been explained by Charpin (1990a) as retour à l’origine. Viewing the edicts as returning people to original status explains the exclusion of houseborn slaves. Their original status as slaves prevents them from partaking more fully in such releases. See also Stol (2004: 865-867). For Mari, see also Charpin (1990b: 253-270). See the useful summary by Hallo (1995: 88-89), who also adds lexical evidence to the discussion in Kraus.
[44]
See Kraus (1984: 180).
[45]
Kraus (1984: 280-284). See also Hallo (1995: 88-89).
[46]
Charpin has presented a compelling case that the edict, which is nearly verbatim, minus some additions, to the edict from Samsu-iluna, actually originates during Ḫammurabi’s reign, when the cities specifically mentioned remained under Babylonian control. See recently Charpin (2010: 94-96).
[47]
For studies which also highlight the coercive aspects of manumission, see Hopkins (1978: 118) and his discussion of Roman slavery. See also Hezser (2005: 304-317) for Jewish slavery. See also Garroway (2014: 151), who argues that the provision which allows a master to choose whether or not to recognize a child could be viewed as a coercive measure to have these children on their best behavior.
[48]
“Code of Ur-Namma” (cited after Civil 2011):
§6: tukum-bi dam guruš-a e₂ nu-gi₄-a nig₂ -a₂ -gar-še₃ lu₂ in-ak e₂ bi₂ -in-gi₄ nita-bi i₃-gaz-e
Translation: If a man seduces with guile a betrothed woman not yet married and takes her into (his) household, this man will be killed.
§8: tukum-bi geme₂ lu₂ e₂ nu-gi₄-a nig₂ -a₂ -gar-še₃ lu₂ i₃-ak e₂ bi₂ -gi₄ lu₂ -bi 5(diš) gin₂ ku₃ i₃-la₂ -e
Translation: If a man seduces with guile an unmarried (literally: not included in a household) slave and takes her into (his) household, this man will pay five shekels of silver.

English

1 The status of a child growing up in early Mesopotamia often reflected the status of her/his parents, but this position was not fixed. [2] There were several potential life events by which children who were not born into slavery could experience downward social mobility. [3] These potential life trajectories for children, which can only be sketched here, form the broader context in which the lives of the children of slaves may be understood. After surveying the primary attested events that resulted in movement towards life at the bottom, this article discusses the children of slaves and their social position(s) as reflected primarily in early Mesopotamian laws and edicts. While life at the bottom was not reserved for children who were born into that station, the social elites who produced the laws and edicts of early Mesopotamia contemplated various scenarios that related specifically to the children of slaves. Even if the laws cannot be taken to be normative, they highlight conceptual differentiation that existed in early Mesopotamia. [4]

2 By studying the children of slaves, the assumption is not that there were special social categories that were merely applicable to children. [5] There does not appear to have been any differentiation placed among slaves based on age. Instead, all of these were slaves, some of whom happened to be children and others who were not. Likewise, all children belonged to the broader social category of dependent members of households and many of the life events that resulted in downward movement for children could also occur for other dependents. In fact, many of the questions asked and observations made about children in early Mesopotamia from a legal perspective have far-reaching implications, not restricted by age, but dealing with inherited social positions, some of which were fluid and others that were more fixed. In particular, many of the laws of early Mesopotamia deal with the social complexity created by marriages between people of different statuses and issues of ownership. While some of these laws highlight potential opportunities for upward social movement, other texts seek to prevent certain types of upward social mobility for the children of slaves, leaving most upward movement to the discretion of a master.

Attested downward social mobility for children in early Mesopotamia

3 In this section, I sketch some of the events that resulted in downward social mobility for children growing up in early Mesopotamia. [6] While a more exhaustive discussion is beyond the scope of this article, this section complements Kristine Garroway’s work, Children in the Ancient Near Eastern Household, where she explores more extensively the status of children in the ancient Near East, particularly highlighting different types of social movement. [7] Garroway’s work, while broader geographically and chronologically than the one attempted here, does not consider the evidence prior to the 18th century B.C., making the present discussion an additional contribution. [8] What will be demonstrated here is that, like other dependents, children were:

worked from very early ages
handed over to creditors as distraints or guarantees for loans
seized like other property because of crimes or defaulted debts
sold outright. [9]

4 The first observation relates to the age at which children could enter the workforce. Once children enter the workforce in some capacity, they can become commoditized more easily. Each of the other transitional events resulted in a social death and rebirth to forms of slavery if broadly conceived. [10] Yet, as will be seen in the discussion below, these events did not result in a permanent detachment from their original social position, in so far as it was conceived of in the edicts of the Old Babylonian period. In the later sale documents from the same period, original social position also came to factor into the life-course more prominently.

Children in the Administrations of Early Mesopotamia

5 Children appear in the administrative records from early ages. The Old Akkadian text, CT 50: 107 from Girsu, for example, counts various dead (uš₂) workers at Ambar (or the marshes), five of whom are semi-weaned children (dumu gaba). [11] Another Old Akkadian text, TCBI 1: 206 from Adab, also counts workers who died at Agade, two of whom are described as sucklings (dumu-munus-ga). [12] While it is doubtful that very small children, such as those described as semi-weaned and sucklings, were capable of being productive, the transition from non-productive to productive occurred at an early age. During the Ur III period, for example, it is thought that children were employed at full capacity by the ages five or six. [13] As such children were frequently utilized in the various administrations, receiving reduced rations and often employed in relation to textiles, enabling children to contribute in contexts where they worked alongside their mothers and other family members. The nature of their work, however, was also situational, as tasks were likely assigned on a needs basis. Community building projects, [14] like the temple-building project described in “Gudea B” from the Lagash II period, indicate that children were sometimes worked alongside their mothers, even highlighting some of the adverse conditions, such as beatings, that were commonly associated with such projects (RIME 3/1.1.7.StB iv 10-12). [15]

6 That children were worked in early Mesopotamia is seen further in Benjamin Studevent-Hickman’s observation that slave children and other children worked side by side in Umma during the Ur III period. [16] Since children were worked from early ages, it lowered the age of potential exploitation and threats of downward mobility, as their production became a commodity that could be leveraged in a variety of contexts.

Debt-Slavery, Deficits, Penalties, and Purchase

7 The commoditization of children in early Mesopotamia is seen in the ways that children (and other dependents) were used as collateral for access to credit; seized because of defaulted loans; seized because of the failure of family members to meet certain requirements placed upon them as part of administrative responsibilities; seized because of crimes family members committed; and sold outright.

8 That early Mesopotamian children were used to secure loans and seized because of defaults is well attested. It is clear that from the Early Dynastic period, children were separated from families because of debt. Enmetena claims to have offered remission of debts in Lagaš, reuniting children with their mothers (RIME 1.95.26 Col. v: 2-8). [17] Similarly, UruKAgina (xii: 12) states that he set prisoners free and those living in debt. [18]

9 An Ur III text points to how such arrangements were sometimes made. The Ur III text from Girsu, written during the 47th regnal year of Šulgi, ZA 53: 83, 22, includes the threat that the heir of the debtor was to be taken into slavery in the event that the debt was not repaid on time. [19] These threats were realized, as other texts mention children being seized because of debts, or even a deficit caused by a failure to meet performance expectations. [20]

10 In the Old Babylonian period, children could also form an integral part of debt negotiations, since the creditor benefited from the work performed by the distraint or guaranty while waiting for repayment. [21] Such arrangements are contemplated in the “Code of Ḫammurabi” § 117. [22]

11

“Code of Ḫammurabi” §117 [23]
šum-ma a-wi-lam / e-ḫi-il-tum / iṣ-ba-su ₂ -ma / dam-su ₂ dumu-šu u ₃ dumu.munus-su ₂ / a-na ku₃.babbar id-di-in / u ₃ lu a-na ki-iš-ša-a-tim / it-ta-an-di-in / mu.3(diš).kam / e₂ ša-a-a-ma-ni-šu-nu / u ₃ ka-ši-ši-šu-nu / ip-pe ₂ -šu i-na re-bu-tim / ša-at-tim / an-du-ra-ar-šu-nu iš-ša-ak-ka-an
If an obligation is outstanding against a man and he sells his wife, his son, or his daughter or gives (them) into debt service, they shall perform service in the house of their buyer or the one who holds them in debt service for three years; their release shall be secured in the fourth year.

12 Children and other family members were also seized because of crimes committed by family members. One such example is ITT 2: 2789, where family members are taken into slavery because of murder. [24] Other texts indicate that other children were sold outright as well. [25]

13 While change and development occurred in relation to various forms of slavery throughout early Mesopotamia, these texts indicate that many of the common social problems facing children growing up in early Mesopotamia continued in one form or another throughout the period. This evidence does not mean that children were necessarily undervalued, or that people generally did not care for them. [26] Instead, this survey is meant to show that children were susceptible to a number of attested fates that could result in either temporary or permanent downward movement into forms of bonded labor or slavery. Rather than charging the people in early Mesopotamia with failing to care for their children, a more satisfying way to approach these downward movements is in the broader context of the complex interface of choices and environment as well as the the social, economic, and political complexity surrounding these events. But the limited nature of our sources often prevents us from seeing this greater complexity, since that story is not the primary reason for writing the preserved texts. [27]

Children of slaves in the “law codes” and edicts of early Mesopotamia

14 Numerous slave sales from early Mesopotamia involved the sale of a slave woman and her children, demonstrating that the offspring of a slave was normally viewed as property that could be bought and sold. Just as the offspring of cattle belonged to the owner, so also when a female slave reproduced, the offspring was considered the property of the slave woman’s owner. The issue, however, becomes more complicated when people of differing statuses had a child together. This can be seen in “legal” discussions dealing with matters related to marriage across status and their offspring.

15 While the sources do not always make it clear who fathered the child of a slave woman, Ur III court cases in which slaves contested their status indicate that, in many instances, the owner fathered the child. [28] The “Code of Ur-Namma” treats the issue of marriages between slaves and marriages that occurred across social status and the related issues with two different paragraphs.

16

“Code of Ur-Namma” [29]
§4 - tukum-bi arad₂-de₃ geme₂ a₂-aš₂-a-ni in-tuku arad₂-bi ama-ar-gi₄-ni i₃-ga₂-ga₂ e₂-ta nu-ub-ta-e₃
Translation: If a slave marries a slave woman of his choosing, (and) this slave is set free, (the slave woman) will not leave the household. [30]

17

§5: tukum-bi arad₂-de₃ dumu-gi₇ in-tuku ibila 1(diš)-am₃ lugal-a-ni-ir in-na-gub-bu dumu lugal-a-niir in-na-ab^?-gub-bu-da nig₂-gur₁₁ e₂ ad-da-na […] 1/2-bi e₂-gar₈ e₂ ad-da-na [i₃-ba-e] dumu dumu-gi₇ lugal-da nu-me-a nam-arad₂-^┌da^┐-[ni-še₃] la-ba-an-ku₄-re
Translation: If a male slave marries a freed woman, and presents his master with one heir, the son who is to be presented to his master [will share] one-half of the goods of his father’s house (and) his father’s building. No son of a freed woman will become a slave without the acquiescence of the king. [31]

18 The first of these paragraphs seeks to ensure that the female slave belonged to her master, and her status was not bound to that of her husband’s. In other words, the transfer of authority that occurred when a girl left the household of her parents and joined another household did not take place when a slave woman married another slave. Instead, she remained the property of her owner. More specifically, if the husband became a freedman, the slave woman’s status did not change. While the first part seems straightforward, the summary statement of the “Code of Ur-Namma” §5 is more open to interpretation. It is possible that §5 deals with the owner’s right to have one offspring supplied from the marriage of his slave to a freed woman. In which case, the summary statement served to restrict the rights of the owner to just one offspring and no others from the marriage. This seems to be the way Roth has understood this paragraph. [32] However, the paragraph likely deals with the practice of supplying a child from the marriage to replace the male slave. [33] The child could be taken to share in the inheritance of the master and any attempts to turn the child into a slave had to be approved by the king. Irrespective of how one views these two paragraphs, the complexity of marriage across boundaries of status gave rise to some complex social issues, since matters of rights and ownership had to be addressed.

19 The “Code of Lipit-Ištar” goes further in its discussion of the relationship between a man and his slave woman, also taking into consideration the children produced from such affairs.

20

“Code of Lipit-Ištar” [34]
§25 – tukum-bi lu₂-u₃ dam in-du₁₂ dumu in-ši-in-tu-ud dumu-bi i₃-ti u₃ geme₂ lugal-a-ni-ir dumu inši-in-tu-ud ad-da-a geme₂ u₃ dumu-ne-ne ama-ar-gi₄-bi in-gar dumu geme₂-ke₄ dumu lugal-a-na-ra e₂ nu-un-da-ba-e
Translation: If a man marries a wife, and she bears him a child and the child lives and a slave woman also bears a child to her master, the father shall free the slave woman and her children; the children of the slave woman will not divide the estate with the children of the master.

21

§26 – ^┌tukum^┐-bi [dam]-nitadam-a-ni [ba]-ug₇ ^┌egir^┐ dam-a-na-ta [geme₂]-ni nam-dam-še₃ [ba]-^┌an^┐-du₁₂-du₁₂ [dumu] dam-^┌nitadam^┐-[a-na] ^┌ibila^┐-[a-ni i₃-me-en] dumu geme₂ lugal-a-ni-[ir] in-ši-in-tuud dumu dumu-gi₇-gin₇-nam e₂-a-ni ib₂-dug₃-^┌ge^┐
Translation: If his first-ranking wife dies and after his wife’s death he marries the slave woman (who had borne him children), the child of his first-ranking wife shall be his heir; the child whom the slave woman bore to her master is considered equal to a native freeborn (or: the child of a freedman) and they shall make good his (share of the) estate.

22 According to §25 of the “Code of Lipit-Ištar,” the slave woman and her child were to be set free, but the child was not to share in the inheritance. [35] The law in one sense recognized the child, enabling the child and her/his mother to go free, but the child did not have the rights given to the offspring belonging to the man’s first wife. §26, however, deals with a situation that could legitimize the child’s status even further. If the first wife died, and the master married his slave woman, the child shared in the inheritance of the father but was not the primary heir.

23 The “Code of Ešnunna” focuses on different issues relating to the offspring of slaves.

24

“Code of Ešnunna” [36]
§33: šumma amtum usarrirma mārāša ana mārat awīlim ittadin inūma irtabû bēlšu immaršu iṣabbassūma itarrūšu
Translation: If a female slave deceives and gives her child to a daughter of a man (awīlim), when he has matured, his lord shall find him. He shall seize him. He shall lead him away.

25

§34: šumma amat ekallim mārāša lu mārassa ana muškēnim ana tarbītim ittadin māram lu mārtam ša iddinu ekallum itabbal
Translation: If a female slave of the palace should give her son or her daughter to a muškēnum for upbringing, the palace shall take away the son or daughter whom she gave.
§35: u lēqû ša mār amat ekallim ilqû meḫeršu ana ekallim iriab
Translation: But the foster parent who takes the child of a female slave of the palace shall restore to the palace his equivalent.

26 The “Code of Ešnunna” §§33-35 deal with appropriate and inappropriate ways to remove a child from slavery. From the outset, the basic assumption was that the owner of the slave was the owner of any offspring the slave produced. Any attempt to pass the child off as someone else’s or to give the child away did not negate the owner’s right to the child of the slave. Instead, the child was liable to seizure by the owner in such instances. The legitimate way to change the status of a child of a slave of the palace was for the child to be taken into adoption and the value of the child paid to the palace.

27 Matters only get more nuanced and indeed complicated in the “Code of Ḫammurabi”, where the status of the children born to a master and his slave woman was largely based upon the recognition of the father.

28

“Code of Ḫammurabi” [37]
§170 - šum-ma a-wi-lum / ḫi-ir-ta-šu / dumu.meš u ₂ -li-sum ₂ / u ₃ geme₂-su ₂ / dumu.meš u ₂ -li-sum ₂ / abu-um / i-na bu-ul-ṭi ₂ -šu / a-na dumu.meš ša geme₂ ul-du-šum / dumu.meš-u ₂ -a iq-ta-bi / it-ti dumu.meš ḫi-ir-tim / im-ta-nu-šu-nu-ti / wa-ar-ka a-bu-um / a-na ši-im-tim / it-ta-al-ku / i-na nig₂.ga e₂ a.ba / dumu.meš ḫi-ir-tim / u ₃ dumu.meš geme₂ / mi-it-ḫa-ri-iš / i-zu-uz-zu / ibila dumu ḫi-ir-tim / ina zi-it-tim / i-na-sa ₃ -aq-ma / i-le-qe ₂
Translation: If a man’s first-ranking wife bears him children and his slave woman bears him children, and the father during his lifetime then declares to [or concerning] the children whom the slave woman bore to him, “My children,” and he reckons them with the children of the first-ranking wife, after the father goes to his fate, the children of the first-ranking wife and the children of the slave woman shall equally divide the property of the paternal estate; the preferred heir is the son of the firstranking wife, he shall select and take a share first.

29

§171 - u ₃ šum-ma a-bu-um / i-na bu-ul-ṭi ₃ -šu / a-na dumu.meš ša geme₂ ul-du-šum / dumu-u ₂ -a la iqta-bi / wa-ar-ka a-bu-um / a-na ši-im-tim / it-ta-al-ku / i-na nig₂.ga e₂ a.ba / dumu.meš geme₂ / it-ti dumu.meš ḫi-ir-tim / u ₂ -ul i-zu-uz-zu / an-du-ra-ar / geme₂ u ₃ dumu.meš-ša / iš-ša ^! -ak-ka-an / dumu.meš ḫi-ir-tim / a-na dumu.meš geme₂ / a-na wa-ar-du-tim / u ₂ -ul i-ra-ag-gu-mu / ḫi-ir-tum / šeri-ik-ta-ša / u ₃ nu-du-na-am / ša mu-sa ₃ / id-di-nu-ši-im / i-na ṭup-pi ₂ -im / iš-ṭu ₂ -ru-ši-im / i-le-qe ₂ -ma / i-na šu-ba-at / mu-ti-ša uš-ša-ab / a-di ba-al-ṭa-at i-ik-ka-al / a-na ku₃.babbar / u ₂ -ul i-na-ad-di-in / wa-ar-ka-sa ₃ / ša dumu.meš-ša-ma
Translation: But if the father during his lifetime should not declare to [or concerning] the children whom the slave woman bore to him, “My children,” after the father goes to his fate, the children of the slave woman will not divide the property of the paternal estate with the children of the firstranking wife. The release of the slave woman and of her children shall be secured; the children of the first-ranking wife will not make claims of slavery against the children of the slave woman. The firstranking wife shall take her dowry and the marriage settlement which her husband awarded to her in writing, and she shall continue to reside in her husband’s dwelling; as long as she is alive she shall enjoy the use of it, but she may not sell it; her own estate shall belong (as inheritance) only to her own children.

30 There are a number of aspects about these two paragraphs that provide insight into the nature of slavery during the Old Babylonian period, at least from the viewpoint of the “law codes.” First, the “Code of Ḫammurabi” assumed that a male master had sexual rights to his female slave. The master was then faced with the decision of recognizing any child produced from such an affair as an heir (§170), or the child could remain illegitimate and unable to share in the inheritance of the father. In this case, “Code of Ḫammurabi” §171 applied, where the child and the slave woman were set free when the master died but were not able to share in the inheritance of the father/owner’s estate.

31 The offspring produced from the marriage of a male slave to a free woman, however, was treated differently in the “Code of Ḫammurabi.”

32

“Code of Ḫammurabi” [38]
§175 - šum-ma lu arad e₂.gal / u ₃ lu arad / maš.en.gag / dumu.mi₂ a-wi-lim / i-ḫu-uz-ma / dumu.meš / it-ta-la-ad / be-el arad / a-na dumu.meš / dumu.mi₂ a-wi-lim / a-na wa-ar-du-tim / u ₂ -ul i-ra-ag-guum
Translation: If a slave of the palace or a slave of a muškēnim marries a daughter of a man (awīlim) and she then bears children, the owner of the slave will have no claims of slavery against the children of the daughter of the man (awīlim). [39]

33 The owner of the male slave did not have rights over the child, since the child was with the free mother. In this way, ownership of the child was passed through the mother of the child rather than the father. If the mother was free, so was the child. If the mother was a slave, so was the child. [40]

34 As shown by the previous discussion about the early Mesopotamian “law codes,” the issue of children born to female slaves and their owners was complex. Not every child born to a slave woman, however, was the child of the master or at least recognized as such. In these cases, the child was likely treated as any other slave and automatically considered the property of the owner of the child’s mother.

35 When it comes to determining the status of the children of slaves outside of the law collections, the most frequent information from early Mesopotamia is found in the exchanges that involved the sale of children together with other family members. The information provided in these documents became most nuanced during the late Old Babylonian period, as slave sales began to document the origin of slaves. From the reign of Abi-ešuḫ onwards, slaves were derived from two categories of origin: 1. houseborn slaves; 2. slaves of foreign origin. [41] This has led to the theory that, around the reign of Samsu-iluna or his successor Abi-ešuḫ, measures were implemented to prevent the sale of native Babylonians, meaning that, toward the end of the Old Babylonian period, the offspring of slaves became the only group of people born in Babylonia who could be sold permanently into slavery. [42] “The Edict of Ammiṣaduqa” made a similar differentiation by not releasing the houseborn slave (wilid bītim). [43]

36

“The Edict of Ammiṣaduqa” [44]
V 25. [šum-ma] ^┌dumu^┐ nu-um-ḫi-a dumu e-mu-ut-ba- ^┌ lum ^┐[ki] / [dumu i-da]-ma-ra-az ^ki dumu unu^ki / [dumu i₃.si].^┌in^┐.na^ki dumu ki.sur.ra^ki / [dumu murgu]^┌ki┐ i-il-tum i-il-šu-ma / [pa-ga]-^┌ ar ^┐ -šu aš-ša-assu ₂ / [u ₂ -lu x x] x a-na ku₃.babbar a-na ^┌ ki ^┐-[iš]-^┌ ša ^┐ -tim / [u ₂ -lu a-na ma-an ^?]-^┌ za ^┐ -za-ni / [x x aš-šum šar-rum] ^┌ mi ^┐ -ša-ra-am / [a-na ma-tim iš]-^┌ ku ^┐ -nu / [uš-šu]-ur an- ^┌ du ^┐-[ra]-^┌ ar ^┐ -šu / [ša]-ki- ^┌ in ^┐ / [šumma] geme arad wi-li-id e₂ / [dumu nu]-^┌ um ^┐ -ḫi dumu e-mu-ut-ba-lum ^┌ki┐ / [dumu i]-^┌ da ^┐-ma-ra-az ^ki dumu unu^ki / [dumu i₃].si.in.na^ki dumu ki.sur.ra^ki // VI. dumu murgu^┌ki┐ […] / ša ši-im x […] / [a-na] ^┌ku₃ ^┐.^┌babbar^┐ in- ^┌ na ^┐-[di-in] / u ₂ -lu a- ^┌ na ^{┐ ┌} ki ^┐ -iš-ša-tim / ^┌ ik ^┐-^┌ ka ^┐ -ši-iš / [u ₂]-^┌ lu ^┐ a-na ^┌ ma ^┐-[an ^?]-zaza-ni / ^┌ in ^┐ -ne- ^┌ zi ^┐ -ib / [an]-du-ra-ar- ^┌ šu ^┐ / [u ₂]-ul iš-ša- ^┌ ak-ka ^┐ -an
Translation: If a son of Numḫia, a son of Emut-balum, a son of Ida-maraz, a son of Uruk, a son of Isin, a son of Kisura, a son of Malgum, has assumed a debt obligation, and [has sold] for silver himself, his wife, [or his children] into debt service [or as a] pledge –[because the king] has established justice [for the land], he is released, his freedom is restored. If a houseborn male or female slave [a child of] Numḫia, a son of Emut-balum, a son of Ida-maraz, a son of Uruk, a son of Isin, a son of Kisura, a son of Malgum […] has been sold [for] silver (and) has either been delivered in debt service or left as a pledge his freedom shall not be established.

37 The edict clearly distinguished between children born in certain cities as non-slaves and houseborn slaves. As such, irrespective of their place of birth, houseborn slaves did not enjoy the same rights as the native population. The wilid bītim have been identified by Kraus as a distinctive group of slaves who could not gain freedom, except at the discretion of the master. While native citizens had a variety of avenues by which to move in and out of forms of bonded labor and slavery, the wilid bītim were specifically excluded from royal edicts that secured the release of those of the native population who had lost freedom during the life-course. [45] Although these edicts represent a development in early Mesopotamia, and are not normative for the period, during the Old Babylonian period, inherited status, although not fixed, appears to have factored significantly into the life-courses of children. [46]

Conclusions

38 The early Mesopotamian laws deal with issues related to ownership, attempts to remove children from slavery, and the status of children when a master has a child with a slave. These “laws,” together with slave sales and the edicts of release, provide what is likely reliable evidence of a widespread practice related to slavery. While it may be assumed that the owners of slave women had sexual rights to their slaves, a practice well known in other periods, these laws give clear indication that such sexual encounters were expected between a master and his slaves. This aspect of early Mesopotamian slavery highlights the vulnerability of these female slaves and the likely scenario that many entered into non-consensual sexual relationships with their masters. Although it is possible to view these alleged opportunities for freedom in a positive light, there is also in such measures implicit leverage for coercing the cooperation of slave girls with their masters. [47] If the “Code of Ḫammurabi” §§170-171 are taken into consideration, the master could use the possibility of having a child with his slave and the potential freedom and opportunity to share in his estate, as in §170, to secure full cooperation from his slave girl. However, the master could renege and not recognize the child during his lifetime. In such cases where the child is not recognized by the master/father, §171 applies, offering freedom to the slave and her child upon the death of the master, but without a share of the inheritance. While there would not have been a single way in which these relationships were carried out, the vulnerability of the female slave is highlighted in the legal complexity surrounding slave women and their children, especially when the master fathered the child. The peril facing female slaves can also be seen in the comparative leniency for seducing a slave girl versus the consequences for the same act with a woman of different status in the “Code of Ur-Namma,” with the former resulting in a penalty of five shekels, and the latter resulting a death sentence for the culprit. [48] While these laws may not be taken as normative, they indicate the sexual vulnerability of female slaves in early Mesopotamia.

39 The children born to slaves in early Mesopotamia were another commodity that could be bought and sold. The sales of these children indicate that mothers could be purchased together with their children or separated from them by purchase, suggesting that such outcomes were based on the whim of the master. As for the children themselves, irrespective of their place of birth, they were left with fewer opportunities to secure freedom than the native population during the Old Babylonian period, and by the end of this period, the children of slaves and foreigners were the two remaining sources of slaves as reflected in the documents relating to sales. Whereas the native population could move in and out of forms of slavery because of debt or other factors, the houseborn slave was excluded from such edicts, which required the release of the native population. So while we may say that growing up in early Mesopotamia could be very difficult, growing up as the child of a slave was even worse.

Bibliography

Adams, Robert McCormick, 2010 “Slavery and Freedom in the Third Dynasty of Ur: Implications of the Garshana Archives.” Cuneiform Digital Library Journal 2010:2. http://www.cdli.ucla.edu/pubs/cdlj/2010/cdlj2010_002.html.
Brinkman, J. A., 1982 “Sex, Age, and Physical Condition Designations for Servile Laborers in the Middle Babylonian Period.” In Zikir Šumin: Assyriological Studies Presented to F. R. Kraus, G. van Driel, T. J. H. Krispijn, M. Stol and K. R. Veenhof (eds), 1-8. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten.
Cardellini, I., 1981 Die biblischen ‘Sklaven’-Gesetze im Lichte des keilschriftlichen Sklavenrechts: Ein Beitrag zur Tradition, Überlieferung und Redaktion der alttestamentlichen Rechtstexte, BBB 55. Bonn: Hanstein.
Charpin, Dominique, 1990a “Les édits de ‘restauration’ des rois babyloniens et leur application.” In Du pouvoir dans L’Antiquité: mots et réalités, Hautes études du monde Gréco-Romain vol. 16, C. Nicolet (ed.), 13-24. Genève: Droz.
Charpin, Dominique, 1990b “L’andurārum à Mari.” MARI 6: 253-270.
Charpin, Dominique, 2004 “Histoire politique du Proche-Orient amorrite (2002-1595).” In Mesopotamien: Die altbabylonische Zeit, P. Attinger, W. Sallaberger, M. Wäfler (eds), 25-480. Fribourg: Academic Press/Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Charpin, Dominique, 2010 Writing, Law, and Kingship in Old Babylonian Mesopotamia. Translated by Jane Marie Todd. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.
Chirichigno, Gregory, 1993 Debt-Slavery in Israel and the Ancient Near East, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series vol. 141. Sheffield: JSOT Press.
Çig, Muazzez, Hatice Kizilyay and Adam Falkenstein, 1959 “Neue Rechts- und Gerichtsurkunden der Ur III-Zeit aus Lagaš aus den Sammlungen der Istanbuler Archäologischen Museen.” Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archäologie 53(1): 27-50.
Civil, M., 2011 “The Law Collection of Ur-Namma.” In Cuneiform Royal Inscriptions and Related Texts in the Schøyen Collection, Andrew George (ed.), 221-286. Bethesda, MD: CDL Press.
Culbertson, Laura, 2011 “A Life-Course Approach to Household Slaves in the Late Third Millennium B.C.” In Slaves and Households in the Near East, Oriental Institute Seminars vol. 7, Laura Culbertson (ed.), 33-48. Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago.
Dalley, Stephanie, 1980 “Old Babylonian Dowries.” Iraq 42(1): 53-74.
Dandamaev, Muhammad A., 2009 Slavery in Babylonia: from Nabopolassar to Alexander the Great (626-331 BC), Marvin A. Powell (ed.). Translated by Victoria A. Powell. DeKalb, IL: Northern Illinois University Press.
Driver, G. R. & J. C. Miles, 1952-1955 The Babylonian laws. 2 vol. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Edzard, Dietz Otto, 1970 “Die bukānum-Formel der altbabylonischen Kaufverträge und ihre sumerische Entsprechung.” Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archäologie 60: 8-53.
Edzard, Dietz Otto, 1974 “‘Soziale Reformen’ in Zweistromland bis ca. 1600 v. Chr.: Realität oder literarischer Topos?” Acta Antiqua Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 22: 145-156.
Edzard, Dietz Otto, 1997 Gudea and His Dynasty, Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia Early Periods vol. 3/1. Toronto, Buffalo, London: University of Toronto Press.
Englund, Robert K., 1990 Organisation and Verwaltung der Ur III-Fischerei, Berliner Beiträge zum Vorderen Orient vol. 10. Berlin: Reimer.
Englund, Robert K., 1991 “Hard Work – Where Will It Get You? Labor Management in Ur III Mesopotamia.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 50(4): 255-280.
Falkenstein, Adam, 1956 Die neusumerischen Gerichtsurkunden: Einleitung und systematische Darstellung, 3 vol. Munich: Verlag der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.
Finkelstein, J. J., 1961 “Ammiṣaduqa’s Edict and the Babylonian Law Codes.” Journal of Cuneiform Studies 15(3): 91-104.
Finley, Moses I., 1964 “Between Slavery and Freedom.” Comparative Studies in Society and History 6(3): 223-249.
Frayne, Douglas R., 2008 Presargonic Period (2700-2350 BC), Royal inscriptions of Mesopotamia vol. 1. Toronto, Buffalo, London: University of Toronto Press.
Garfinkle, Steven J., 2015 “Ur III Administrative Text: Building Blocks of State Community.” In Texts and Contexts: the circulation and transmission of cuneiform texts in social space, Studies in Ancient Near Eastern Records 9, Paul Delnero and Jacob Lauinger (eds), 143-165. Boston/Berlin: De Gruyter.
Garroway, Kristine Henriksen, 2014 Children in the Ancient Near Eastern Household. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.
Gelb, Ignace J., 1967 “Approaches to the Study of Ancient Society.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 87(1): 1-8.
Gelb, Ignace J., 1973 “Prisoners of War in Early Mesopotamia.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies, 32(1/2): 70-98.
Gelb, Ignace J., 1979 “Definition and Discussion of the Slavery and Serfdom.” Ugarit-Forschungen 11: 283-297.
Grégoire, Jean-Pierre, 1981 Inscriptions et archives administratives cunéiformes, Materiali per il vocabulario neosumerico vol. 10. Roma: Multigrafica.
Haase, R., 1965 Einführung in das Studium keilschriftlicher Rechtsquellen. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Hallo, William W., 1995 “Slave Release in the Biblical World in Light of a New Text.” In Solving Riddles and Untying Knots: Biblical, Epigraphic and Semitic Studies in Honor of Jonas C. Greenfield, Z. Zevit, S. Gitin, and M. Sokoloff (eds), 79-93. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.
Harris, Rivkah, 1955 “The Archive of the Sin Temple in Khafajah (Tutub) (Continued).” Journal of Cuneiform Studies 9(3): 59-88.
Harris, Rivkah, 1977 “Notes on the Slave-Names of Old Babylonian Sippar.” Journal of Cuneiform Studies 29(1): 46-51.
Heimpel, Wolfgang, 1995 “Plow and Animal Inspection Records from Ur III Girsu and Umma.” Bulletin of Sumerian Agriculture 8: 71-171.
Hezser, Catherine, 2005 Jewish Slavery in Antiquity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hopkins, Keith, 1978 Conquerors and Slaves, Sociological studies in Roman History 1. Cambridge.
Hudson, Michael and Marc Van De Mieroop (eds), 2002 Debt and economic renewal in the ancient Near East, International Scholars Conference on Ancient Near Eastern Economies 3. Baltimore: CDL Press.
Keiser, Clarence Elwood, 1919 Selected temple documents of the Ur dynasty, Yale Oriental Series: Babylonian Texts vol. 4. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Kraus, Frans R., 1981 Letters from Yale, Altbabylonische Briefe in Umschrift und Übersetzung vol. 9. Leiden: Brill.
Kraus, Frans R., 1984 Königliche Verfügungen in altbabylonischer Zeit. Leiden: Brill.
Lafont, Bertrand, 2000 “Les textes judiciaires sumériens.” In Rendre la justice en Mésopotamie: archives judiciaires du Proche-Orient ancien (III ^e -I ^er millénaires avant J.-C.). F. Joannès (ed.), 35-68. Paris: Presses Universitaires de Vincennes.
Lafont, B. and F. Yildiz, 1996 Tablettes cunéiformes de Tello au Musée d’Istanbul, tome II, PIHANS 77. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten - Institut néerlandais du Proche-Orient.
Lafont, S., 1994 “Ancient Near Eastern Laws: Continuity and Pluralism.” In Theory and method in biblical and cuneiform law: revision, interpolation and development, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series vol. 181, Bernard M. Levinson (ed.), 91-118. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.
Landsberger, Benno, 1960 Materialien zum sumerischen Lexikon, vol. 8(1). Roma: Pontificium Institutum Biblicum.
Liverani, M., 1973 “Memorandum on the Approach to Historiographic Texts” Orientalia 42: 178-194.
Liverani, M., 1993 “Model and Actualization: The Kings of Akkad in the Historical Tradition.” In The First World Empire, M. Liverani (ed.), 41-67. Padova: Sargon.
Maekawa, Kazuya, 1996 “Confiscation of Private Properties in the Ur III Period.” ASJ 18: 103-168.
Malul, M., 1985 “The bukannum-Clause: Relinquishment of Rights by Previous Right Holders.” Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archäologie 75: 66-77.
Manning, Patrick, 1990 Slavery and African life: occidental, oriental, and African slaves trades, African studies series 67. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Miller, Joseph, 2008 “Slaving as Historical Process: Examples from the Ancient Mediterranean and the Modern Atlantic.” In Slave systems: ancient and modern, Enrico Dal Lago and Constantina Katsari (eds), 70-102. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Molina, Manuel, 2010 “Court Records from Umma.” In Why should someone who knows something conceal it?, Alexandra Kleinerman and Jack M. Sasson (eds), 201-218. Bethesda: CDL Press.
Neumann, H., 2011 “Slavery in Private Households Toward the End of the Third Millennium B.C.” In Slaves and Households in the Near East, OIS 7, L. Culbertson (ed.), 21-32. Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago.
Patterson, Orlando, 1982 Slavery and social death: a comparative study. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Patterson, Orlando, 2008 “Slavery, Gender, and Work in the Pre-Modern World and Early Greece: A Cross-Cultural Analysis”. In Slave systems: ancient and modern, Enrico Dal Lago and Constantina Katsari (eds), 32-69. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pinches, Theophilus G., 1899 Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets, &c., in the British Museum. London: The Trustees of the British Museum.
Pomponio, Francesco, 2006 Tavolette cuneiformi di Adab delle collezioni della Banca d’Italia. Rome: Centro Stampa della Banca d’Italia.
Postgate, J. N., 1992 Early Mesopotamia: Society and Economy at the Dawn of History. London; New York: Routledge.
Richardson, Seth, 2015 “Building Larsa: Labor-Value, Scale and Scope-of-Economy in Ancient Mesopotamia.” In Labor in the Ancient World, The International Scholars Conference on Ancient Near Eastern Economies V, Piotr Steinkeller and Michael Hudson (eds), 237-328. Dresden: ISLET-Verlag.
Roth, Martha T., 1997 Law Collections from Mesopotamia and Asia Minor, 2nd Edition; Writings from the Ancient World Series 6, Piotr Michalowski (ed.). Atlanta: Scholars Press.
Sallaberger, Walther, 2008 “Der Eid im Gerichtsverfahren im Neusumerischen Umma.” In On the Third Dynasty of Ur: studies in honor of Marcel Sigrist, Journal of cuneiform studies: Supplemental series 1, Piotr Michalowski (ed.), 159-176. Boston: American Schools of Oriental Research.
Seri, A., 2013 The house of prisoners: slavery and state in Uruk during the revolt against Samsu-iluna, Studies in Ancient Near Eastern Records 2. Boston; Berlin: De Gruyter.
Siegel, B. J., 1947 Slavery During the Third Dynasty of Ur, American Anthropological Association Memoirs 66. Chicago: Chicago University.
Sollberger, Edmund, 1972 Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum. Part L. Presargonic and Sargonic Economic Texts. London: The Trustees of the British Museum.
Steinkeller, Piotr, 1991 “The Reforms of UruKAgina and An Early Sumerian Term for ‘Prison’.” In Velles Paraules, Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Honor of Miguel Civil, Aula Orientalis 9, P. Michalowski, P. Steinkeller, E. C. Stone and R. L. Zettler (eds), 227-233. Sabadell: Editorial AUSA.
Steinkeller, Piotr, 1995 “Sheep and Goat Terminology in Ur III Sources from Drehem.” Bulletin of Sumerian Agriculture 8(2): 49-70.
Steinkeller, Piotr, 2004 “Toward a Definition of Private Economic Activity in Third Millennium Babylonia.” In Commerce and monetary systems in the ancient world: means of transmission and cultural interaction: proceedings of the Fifth Annual Symposium of the Assyrian and Babylonian Intellectual Heritage Project, held in Innsbruck, Austria, October 3rd-8th 2002, R. Rollinger, C. Ulf, and K. Schnegg (eds), 91-111. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag.
Steinkeller, Piotr, 2013a “An Archaic ‘Prisoner Plaque’ From Kiš.” Revue d’assyriologie et d’archéologie orientale 107: 131-157.
Steinkeller, Piotr, 2013b “Corvée Labor in Ur III Times.” In From the 21st century B.C. to the 21st century A.D.: proceedings of the International Conference on Neo-Sumerian Studies Held in Madrid 22-24 July 2010, S. Garfinkle and M. Molina (eds), 347-424. Wionna Lake: Eisenbrauns.
Stol, Marten, 1995a “Old Babylonian Corvée (tupšikkum).” Pages 293-309 in Studio Historiae Ardens: Ancient Near Eastern Studies Presented to Philo H. J. Houwink ten Cate on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday. Edited by T. P. J. van de Hout and J. de Roos. Leiden: Nederlands.
Stol, Marten, 1995b “Women in Mesopotamia.” Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 38: 123-144.
Stol, Marten, 2004 “Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft in Altbabylonischer Zeit”. In Mesopotamien: Die altbabylonische Zeit, Annäherungen 4, P. Attinger, W. Sallaberger, M. Wäfler (eds), 643-975. Fribourg: Academic Press/Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Stol, Marten, 2016 Women in the Ancient Near East. Translated by Helen and Mervyn Richardson. Boston/Berlin: De Gruyter.
Studevent-Hickman, Benjamin, 2006 The Organization of Manual Labor in Ur III Babylonia. Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University.
Tenney, Jonathan S., 2011 Life at the bottom of Babylonian society: servile laborers at Nippur in the 14th and 13th centuries, B.C. Leiden; Boston: Brill.
Valk, Jonathan, 2016 “‘They Enjoy Syrup and Ghee at Tables of Silver and Gold’: Infant Loss in Ancient Mesopotamia.” Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 59(5): 695-749.
Van De Mieroop, M., 1997a “On Writing a History of the Ancient Near East.” Biblioteca Orientalis 54(3/4); 285-305.
Van De Mieroop, M., 1997b “Why Did They Write on Clay?” KLIO 79: 7-18.
Van Koppen, F., 2004 “The Geography of the Slave Trade and Northern Mesopotamia in the Late Old Babylonian Period.” In Mesopotamian dark age revisited: proceedings of an international conference of SCIEM 2000 (Vienna 8th - 9th November 2002), H. H. Hunger and R. Pruzsinszky (eds), 9-33. Wien: Verlag der Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften.
Veenhof, Klaas R., 1997-2000 “The Relation Between Royal Decrees and ‘Law Codes’ in the Old Babylonian period”, Jaarbericht van het vooraziatisch-egyptisch genootschap Ex Oriente Lux 35-36: 49-83.
Waetzoldt, H., 1988 “Die Situation der Frauen und Kinder anhand ihrer Einkommensverhältnisse zur Zeit der III. Dynastie von Ur.” Altorientalische Forschungen 15: 30-44.
Westermann, William L., 1944 “Between Slavery and Freedom [Presidential Address].” American Historical Review 50(2): 213-227.
Westbrook, Raymond, 1989 Old Babylonian Marriage Law, AfO Beiheft 23. Horn: Berger.
Westbrook, Raymond, 1995 “Slave and Master in Ancient Near Eastern Law.” Chicago-Kent Law Review 70: 1631-1676.
Westbrook, Raymond, 1998 “The Female Slave.” In Gender and law in the Hebrew Bible and the ancient Near East, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 262, Victor H. Matthews, Bernard M. Levinson, and Tikva Frymer-Kensky (eds), 214-238. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.
Westbrook, Raymond, 2003 “The Character of Ancient Near Eastern Law.” In A History of Ancient Near Eastern Law, Handbook of Oriental Studies 72(1), Raymond Westbrook (ed.), 1-90. Leiden, Boston: Brill.
Westbrook, Raymond, and Richard Jasnow (eds), 2001 Security for debt in ancient Near Eastern law. Leiden, Boston: Brill.
Wilcke, Claus, 2014 “Gesetze in sumerischer Sprache.” In Studies in Sumerian Language and Literature: Festschrift für Joachim Krecher, Babel and Bibel 8, N. Koslova, E. Vizirova, and G. Zólyomi (eds), 455-612. Winona Lake (IN): Eisenbrauns.
Yaron, Reuven, 1985 “Quelques remarques sur les nouveaux fragments des Lois d’Ur-Nammu.” Revue historique de droit français et étranger 63(2): 131-142.
Yildiz, F., 1981 “A Tablet of Codex Ur-Nammu from Sippar.” Orientalia 50(1): 87-97.

Uploaded: 12/27/2017

https://doi.org/10.3917/assy.111.0009

Personal account

The children of slaves in early Mesopotamian laws and edicts

Notes

Cite this article

Notes

Attested downward social mobility for children in early Mesopotamia

Children in the Administrations of Early Mesopotamia

Debt-Slavery, Deficits, Penalties, and Purchase

Children of slaves in the “law codes” and edicts of early Mesopotamia

Conclusions

Bibliography

Institution Login

All institutions