Introduction
Almost all the documents from Nuzi and the Kingdom of Arrapḫe are now being made available in first editions.Footnote 2 The two major collections, deriving from legal excavations, Harvard and Chicago, have largely already been published.Footnote 3 The third most relevant collection is located in London, where the British Museum holds about 360 documents from the Kingdom of Arrapḫe. A large number of Arrapḫe documents currently kept in London comes from casual finds made in the city of Kirkūk at the end of the nineteenth and the beginning of the twentieth century.Footnote 4 Another set of documents comes from Nuzi (modern Yorġān Tepe) and corresponds to a part of the family archive of Teḫip-Tilla. A complete catalogue of these unpublished documents from London, including a brief summary, was provided by Maidman (Reference Maidman1986). Today, the list has changed significantly, since most of these texts have since been published, either by Maidman himself or by Grosz, Millard, Müller or Fincke. Fincke (Reference Fincke2009: 239–48) has recently listed the documents still unpublished, numbering about forty texts,Footnote 5 and Maidman (Reference Maidman2014: 1 n. 2) has added three more. These unpublished documents include the text BM 102353Footnote 6 , which is edited here in full, together with comments on its legal content, and on the role of children in the transaction.
Edition of BM 102353
The content of BM 102353 was summarized by Maidman (Reference Maidman1986: 283). At least two other scholars (Fincke and Müller) have examined the text and provided additional information (see which below). The text is an antichretic contract in which Nai-šeri, slave of Zike, gives a young girl to Tae and Ipša-ḫalu, sons of Eḫli-Teššup; in return, Tae enters Nai-šeri's household as tidennu for a period of two years. The document measures 113 × 71 × [29] mm. The reverse is quite fragmentary, while the lower part of the obverse is damaged.
1–3Declaration of Tae and Ipša-ḫalu sons of Eḫli-Teššup before these witnesses. 4Thus they said:
5–8“We have taken a fine, outstanding girl of two cubits and one elbow, from the land of Nullue, from Nai-šeri, the slave of Zike. 9–11And Tae—in lieu of the girl—shall stay as tidennu for two years [in the household] of Nai-šeri. 11–16Whe[n] the two years have elapsed, we Tae and Ipša-ḫalu shall give a/the fine, outstanding girl of two cubits and one elbow, from the land of Nullue, back to Nai-šeri; 16–18and Tae shall leave the household of Nai-[š]eri.”
19–23⌈If⌉ [T]ae neglec[ts]! for a single day ⌈the work of Nai⌉-[še]ri, [Tae and] ⌈Ipša⌉-[ḫ]a[l]u shall [as c]om[pe]nsati[on] pa[y one mina of coppe]r t[o] ⌈Nai-šeri⌉. 24–25Whoever am[ong t]hem sta[ys] shall do [agai]n? the work of N[ai-še]ri.
26–28(This) tablet [was writt]en after the proclamation in the month of Impurta[nnu], at the Gate of the ci[ty of Zizza].
29Witness: Al-Tešš[up son of …].
30Witness: Šukri-Te[ššup son of …].
31Witness: Šel[luni son of …].
32Witness: Šu[kriya son of …].
33Witness: In[ziya son of …].
34Witness: Pai[kku son of …].
35Witness: Bēl-/En[… son of …].
36(By) the hand of A[…].
37Seal of Bēl-/En[…].
38Seal of Al-Te[ššup].
39Seal of Inziya.
40⌈Seal of the scr⌉[ibe]?.
41Seal of Šukriya, the gatekeeper.
42[Se]al of Šukri-Teššup.
43Seal of Šelluni. Seal of Paikku.
6: Note the extra horizontal wedge of the sign la (in l. 13 the same sign is correctly written).
7, 14: síg5-ga na-ás-qú: for this expression used in reference to female slaves, see CAD N/2 31a.
10: [i + na é-it], restoration according to l. 17. The number “2” is written over an erasure.
11–12: immatimê 2 šanāti imtalū, on the precise grammatical meaning see Lacheman Reference Lacheman and Eichler1976: 311.
17–18: i + na é-it ša PN: note that the normal Akkadian expression is either ina bīt PN or ina bīti ša PN. The form here is found in other documents from Nuzi, see e.g. AASOR 16 33: 21–22 or, in the same context as in BM 102353, HSS 5 40: 7–8 (a-na ti-de 4 -en-nu-ti i + na é-meš-it/ša PN).
19: ⌈ kin?- šu ša ?⌉; maybe ⌈ ši-ip-rù ? ša ⌉? as used in the same context in EN 9/1 154: 13, or ⌈ ši-<pí>-ir ? -šu ša ⌉?, the spelling attested in l. 25, or even ⌈ ši-ip ? -ri ?-šu ša ?⌉. For possible restorations of ll. 19–23 see the discussion on p. 136 below.
20: Note the use of the permansive plural form ezbū instead of the 3cs present izzib.
21: On the Hurrian term uriḫullu, translated as “compensation,” see Eichler Reference Eichler1973: 22–24, and recently Richter Reference Richter2012: 497, CAD U/W 225—new references are to be found in EN 10/3 196: 7′, JEN 972: 19, IM 70795: 22, IM 70972: 12, IM 73215: 21.
23: umalla in sg., as usual in Nuzi texts; the correct form here would be umallû (3mp).
24–25: For possible interpretations and comments see the discussion on p. 136 below.
26: tuppu and not ṭuppu according to Streck Reference Streck and Roth2009: 137–139.
27: On the month name Impurtannu/i see esp. Oppenheim Reference Oppenheim1936: 294–297 and Gordon/Lacheman Reference Gordon and Lacheman1938: 56, as well as the comments of Wilhelm Reference Wilhelm1980: 28. No significant, comprehensive study on the Nuzi calendar has been produced since (on this specific month see briefly Cohen Reference Cohen1993: 368).
28: Restoration of the place name Zizza seems acceptable because of the presence of the gatekeeper Šukriya (l. 41), who acted as witness in HSS 19 98, a document written in Zizza (see Fincke Reference Fincke1993: 356, 358, 361; Müller Reference Müller1994: 158); in fact, no gatekeeper named Šukriya is known in the town of Nuzi (Negri-Scafa Reference Negri-Scafa1998). Note that the seal impression on HSS 19 98 has not been published and therefore one cannot identify both Šukriyas with certainty.
29, 38: This Al-Teššup cannot be the son of Šummiya (and father of Enna-mati?), well attested in the documents from Teḫip-Tilla's house (Lacheman, no date, A 288/4), since he lived during the second generation of the family i.e. by the time of Teḫip-Tilla son of Puḫi-šenni. The same problem concerns the Al-Teššup son of Naiš-kelpe attested in JEN 275: 26.
30, 42: A large number of individuals named Šukri-Teššup is attested in the kingdom of Arrapḫe. The person named here could perhaps be identified with the Šukri-Teššup son of Šeḫliya, who is mentioned in JEN 147 along with Tarmi-Tilla son of Šurki-Tilla, the brother of Zike). Another possible candidate would be the Šukri-Teššup son of Arrumti, of JEN 941: 15, a broken document also coming from Teḫip-Tilla's house (T 16), which preserves no mention of Teḫip-Tilla's family. Note that in JEN 659+: 46—a deed concerning Šurki-Tilla (see Wilhelm Reference Wilhelm1995)—a Šukri-Teššup son of Ḫaip-šarri is mentioned, but his seal impression (listed by Porada Reference Porada1947, pl. xxiv as no. 480) is not the same as that used in BM 102353.
31: Restoration of the personal name according to l. 43. I am unable to propose any filiations for this Šelluni.
33: Restoration of the personal name according to l. 33. Only two further Inziyas are attested (HSS 14 40: 10, HSS 15 19: 89).
34, 43: Among all the known bearers of the personal name, this Paikku might correspond to Paikku, son of Kanaya, attested in JEN 61: 35 and 37, a document written in the time of Tarmi-Tilla, son of Šurki-Tilla, and therefore contemporary with Zike; and in JEN 996: 5, found in Teḫip-Tilla's house (T 16), but which contains no reference to any member of Teḫip-Tilla's family. No doubt, he is also to be identified with the same Paikku entering as tidennu in JEN 829 (see the comments of Maidman Reference Maidman2003: 184), despite the fact that the text was recovered from the house of Tarmi-Tilla (T 13).
The archival context
As stated above, the texts from the Kingdom of Arrapḫe currently kept in the British Museum belong to different archival groups. In the present case, it appears that BM 102353 was probably drafted in the town of Zizza (l. 28, broken; see the comments on this line). Since the witness list is mostly illegible and some names are uncertain, one should focus on the main participants. Tae and Ipsa-ḫalu, Eḫli-Teššup's sons (ll. 1–2), do not appear as such in other documents from the Kingdom of Arrapḫe. However, one can find the shortened patronymic Eḫliya (<Eḫli-Teššup). A Tae son of Eḫliya appears in RA 23 62: 21, written in Nuzi and probably belonging to the archive of Teḫip-Tilla, son of Puḫi-šenni. An Ipša-ḫalu, son of Eḫliya (and brother of Ariḫ-ḫarpa), appears in HSS 5 75: 24, a text found in the room A 34 of Nuzi and—according to Dosch (Reference Dosch1976: 4)—belonging to the archive of Akap-šenni and fPekušḫe.
Nai-šeri, slave of Zike (ll. 7–8), is mentioned in RA 23 54: 4–5, a document of unknown provenance. Similarly, a Nai-šeri appears in BM 95529: 10, which—according to the editor—would be the same person as in BM 102353 (Müller Reference Müller1994: 266).
It is likely that most of the documents mentioned—certainly BM 95529 and 23 54,Footnote 7 and therefore also BM 102353—come from the personal archive of Zike, son Šurki-Tilla, and consequently from the fourth generation of Teḫip-Tilla's family. Most sources pertaining to this Zike have been published and treated by Müller (Reference Müller1998: 21). BM 102353 would have been found in the irregular excavations of Zike's house in Nuzi—which has not yet been locatedFootnote 8 —and written ca. 1385–1360 b.c. Note that Zike would have kept some deeds contracted by his staff and slaves, a fact attested in other important archives from Nuzi, such as those of Šilwa-TeššupFootnote 9 or fTulpun-Naya.Footnote 10
The legal context: loans and pledge
Legal nature
Formally, BM 102353 is an antichretic pledge arrangement. This procedure is otherwise well-known in the kingdom of Arrapḫe, mostly related to loans—a topic extensively attested in the historiography. In his unpublished dissertation Owen (Reference Owen1969) brought together all the loan contracts then known. The subject of loans has been revisited and studied in detail, including by Zaccagnini (Reference Zaccagnini and Khalidi1984a, Reference Zaccagnini1984b, Reference Zaccagnini and Archi1984c, Reference Zaccagnini, Hudson and van de Mieroop2002), Wilhelm (Reference Wilhelm1992: 9–23) and Negri-Scafa (Reference Negri-Scafa, Negri-Scafa and Gentili2000). Eichler (Reference Eichler1973) studied the antichretic contracts under which a person was assigned for the life of the loan. In an unpublished dissertation, Jordan (Reference Jordan1986) focused on the antichretic contracts in which a field and its yields were transferred.Footnote 11 Zaccagnini has summarized the legal phenomena concerning loans and antichretic pledges in two contributions.Footnote 12
In fact, the documentation from the Kingdom of Arrapḫe is particularly sensitive to the phenomenon of antichresis. The main source for studying this legal phenomenon is the corpus of antichretic contracts (referred to as tuppi tidennūti or similar expressions, on which see below), in which a person borrowing money or commodities from another hands over his property to the creditor, allowing its use and occupation in return for the interest on the property lent. Previous works could make use of 54 contracts of personal antichresis (Eichler Reference Eichler1973) and 92 hypothecary (Jordan Reference Jordan1990). More than 160 deeds pertaining to the phenomenon of antichresis can now be added,Footnote 13 for a corpus of more than 300 contracts.
BM 102353 belongs to the category of personal antichretic contracts. The legal nature and formulary of these deeds was investigated by Eichler (Reference Eichler1973), a study which I follow here—including the terminology.Footnote 14 Since Eichler's work,Footnote 15 eleven further personal antichretic contracts have been published:
-
– Five from Nuzi:Footnote 16 EN 10/3 196 (Fincke Reference Fincke2002: 177, 229), JEN 844 (Lacheman/Maidman Reference Lacheman and Maidman1989: 40, 267), JEN 939 (Maidman Reference Maidman2003: 101–03), JEN 972 (Maidman Reference Maidman2003: 148–50), JEN 996 (Maidman Reference Maidman2003: 184). The first two documents and JEN 996 are poorly preserved.
-
– Six from Tell al-Faḫḫār: IM 70342 (Ismail/Müller, no date, no. 30), IM 70795 (Al-Rawi Reference Al-Rawi1977: 186–91, 449–50), IM 70972 (Fadhil Reference Fadhil1972: 93–94), IM 73215 (Al-Rawi Reference Al-Rawi1977: 224–29, 465), IM 73264 (Ismail/Müller, no date, no. 32), and TF1 384 (Al-Rawi Reference Al-Rawi1977: 230–32, 492).
Title and contracting parties
In most of these contracts the title is tuppi tidennūti. However, a small number bears other introductory formulae, as the common declaration scheme in the Kingdom of Arrapḫe, lišānšu ša PN, “declaration of PN” or umma PN, “thus (has said) PN.” According to Eichler (Reference Eichler1973: 11), the latter formulations appear in eight documents,Footnote 17 to which must be added the present BM 102353—as well as other documents published since Eichler's work (IM 70342, IM 70972, IM 73265, and JEN 996).
In all personal antichretic contracts the creditor (Party C) is a single person (Eichler Reference Eichler1973: 13). This is, in fact, the case of BM 102353, where this part is represented by Nai-šeri. The debtor (Party D) is usually one person too, but one can also find cases of two persons (or three as in JEN 972), whose relation varies (Eichler Reference Eichler1973: 14): they could be mother and son (EN 9/2 156, HSS 13 418) or brothers (EN 9/1 155, EN 9/2 152, IM 70795). This latter circumstance is that of BM 102353, Party D being represented by Tae and Ipša-ḫalu, sons of Eḫli-Teššup.
Property given by Party C
According to Eichler (Reference Eichler1973: 14–18), 48 contracts of personal antichresis indicate which property was given as loan, to which the well-preserved contracts listed above should be added. In general, the property consisted of a quantity of metal (gold, tin, etc.), bronze, barley, or animals. In eight cases, the creditor lent one or more slaves, either women or men.Footnote 18 In BM 102353 the property lent was a young girl, probably a female slave (ṣuḫārtu; see below), who measured two cubits and one elbow. This situation is also attested in JEN 312, where a ṣuḫāru and a ṣuḫārtu were lent, and in HSS 9 3, where it was a ṣuḫāru of two cubits.
Terminologically (Eichler Reference Eichler1973: 18), contracts of personal antichresis generally indicate that Party C delivers (nadānu) the property to Party D, who receives it (leqû), sometimes as tidennu (ana tidennūti). In the case of BM 102353, it is simply stated that two persons (Party D) took (nilteqû) the property (ll. 5–8).
Property given by Party D
In transactions involving personal tidennūtu, the property given away by Party D consists of one or more persons. In half of these cases, Party D hands over himself as tidennu, in some others he gives one of his children, while in a few cases he hands over a sibling (brother or sister), another relative, or a slave. In the case of BM 102353, one of the debtors entered Party C's household as tidennu. In this regard, the situation is similar to EN 9/2 152 or IM 70795, in which Party D includes two brothers, only one of whom stays as tidennu.
Regarding the terminology (Eichler Reference Eichler1973: 19), most of the contracts use an expression containing the verb “to give” (nadānu); in thirteen other cases it is stated that the person “enters” Party C's household (ina bīt C erēbu);Footnote 19 finally in another eighteen references it is said that the person “stays” in Party C's household (ina bīt C wašābu),Footnote 20 a group to which BM 102353 (ll. 9–11) should now be added. Moreover, in BM 102353 the person entering Party C's household is referred to with the expression ana tidennūti, “as tidennu;” the use of this concrete terminology is attested in another seven cases among those which use the wašābu formula.Footnote 21
In BM 102353 it is also established that the tidennu should stay in Party C's household for two years (l. 10) from the moment of the transaction, or at least two years, since “the definite duration clause indicates the minimum number of years” (Eichler Reference Eichler1973: 38). In most of the remaining contracts this situation is fixed in the following clauses (see below); the exceptions are IM 70972 and IM 73215 (unknown to Eichler), which also contain this clause in the same section as BM 102353.
Other clauses
BM 102353 also contains the so-called “definite duration clause” (Eichler Reference Eichler1973: 20–21), attested in a further 28 personal antichretic contracts.Footnote 22 This clause expresses the return of the loan and therefore the restitution of the tidennu. In BM 102353 this formula is (ll. 11–16): immatimē 2 šanāti imtalū P (=property) D ana C nutār. This two-year period is also set in EN 9/1 149 and IM 70795 (the latter not known to Eichler). After this period, the tidennu could leave Party C's household, which in BM 102353 is expressed (ll. 17–18) as PN (=tidennu) ištu bīti ša C uṣṣi. This formula (or similar ones) appears in 8 documents;Footnote 23 in other occurrences the expressions use the verbs alāku or leqû.
BM 102353 does not indicate the type of service the tidennu was obliged to in Party C's household, which in other cases is expressed (Eichler Reference Eichler1973: 19). This seems to be referred to later, in a type of clause which Eichler (Reference Eichler1973: 21–25) labels the “delinquency clause.” Essentially, it should consist of a formula containing several of the following parts:Footnote 24 šumma ina 1 ūmi šipiršu ša PN2 PN3 izzib 1 manâ erî uriḫulšu ša ūmi u ūmi PN ana PN2 umalla, translated as: “If PN3 neglects the work of PN2 for a single day, PN shall pay to PN2 one mina of copper, his daily uriḫul.” This formula seems to be found in the damaged ll. 19–23, for which a possible restoration has been suggested, based upon the remaining personal tidennūtu contracts (see comments to ll. 24–25 for another possibility).
Ll. 24–25 seem to contain a previously unattested formula, mannumê ina bērišunu ašbu šipiršu ša Nai-šeri utār, the beginning corresponding to the usual penalty clause covering breach of contract—absent in BM 102353. The concrete meaning remains obscure: it would seem that other persons could stay as tidennu, and in that case they should work for Nai-šeri—târu D “do again, repeat.”Footnote 25 Who could these people be? A possible (but unlikely) explanation would be to reinterpret ll. 19–23 following the delinquency clause of JEN 305: 7–10, where a slave is mentioned instead of the usual mina of copper.Footnote 26 If that was the case, a possible restoration of ll. 19–23 might be: 19⌈ šum-ma kin?- šu ša ?⌉ [I]⌈ na-i ⌉-[še]-ri 20[I t]⌈ a-e i-na u 4-mi e ⌉-ez-⌈ bu ⌉? 21[××] ⌈ ù ⌉? [ú]-ri !-[ḫ]u[l-šu ša] 22[1 lú-ìr ù] I⌈ ip-šá ⌉-[ḫ]a-[l]⌈ u ⌉ 23⌈ a ⌉-[na] I⌈ na-i-še-ri ⌉ ú-ma-al-l[a].
BM 102353 does not appear to contain any further clauses related to the tidennu's death, his possible flight, the clear title clause, etc. which are attested in other contracts (Eichler Reference Eichler1973: 25–32).
šudūtu-clause
This is also a common clause in the legal documents from the Kingdom of Arrapḫe, appearing in eleven other personal antichretic contracts (Eichler Reference Eichler1973: 32 n. 100). It is generally expressed: tuppi ina arki šūdûti ina abulli ša āli GN šatir, “(This) document was written after the proclamation before the gate of the city of GN.” In BM 102353: 26–28 this clause even mentions the month in which the contract was written (Impurtannu/i), probably in order to specify the exact starting moment for the two years of service.
Some comments on children in the kingdom of Arrapḫe (by Daniel Justel) Footnote 27
Introduction
Some characteristics of the transferred girl in BM 102353, such as her size or quality, lead us to think that she is a child. Documentation concerning children is frequently of a legal nature in the kingdom of Arrapḫe. Its archives (Nuzi, Arrapḫe/Āl-ilāni or Tell al-Faḫḫār) show infant adoption contracts, sales of children or court cases concerning children. The study of these legal topics contributes to a better understanding of the general state of minors in this Late Bronze Age area.
BM 102353 sheds light on some aspects of legal practices involving children in the kingdom of Arrapḫe. As already stated, it is the only contract of personal antichresis from Nuzi in which the property given by the Party C is a simple ṣuḫārtu. This Akkadian term means “young woman,” “female child,” although it also can refer to a “working woman” or to a “slave.”Footnote 28 In this specific case, it is indicated that the young girl comes from the land of the Lullubians (ll. 6, 14), a typical place of origin of slaves in the kingdom of Arrapḫe.Footnote 29 It seems therefore that the maid was actually a slave, a circumstance which fits some textual references. Additional hints of this status, pursued further in the following paragraphs, include the lack of mention of the name of the ṣuḫārtu, her size, and her quality.
Sources from Arrapḫe dealing with children
Children are attested in a wide range of legal situations. In some cases, it is obvious that the underage child was a slave, as in infant sales.Footnote 30 In RA 23 52, for example, it is stated that a man sold his daughter, fḪawurnišḫe, to a certain Urḫi-Tešup for 30 minas of lead, 7 imēru of barley, and five sheep. A further example is HSS 19 125, in which Ilaya bought a slave-girl (gemé) from Tiwirra. In these sales of infants, as in BM 102353, the name of the child is never mentioned.
There are also references to children among the rosters of servile population of Arrapḫe. We know some lists of this kind of personnel in the archives of Šilwa-TeššubFootnote 31 and in those of the Palace. In relation to the first lists of large households, Wilhelm (Reference Wilhelm1980) showed that both the ṣuḫārū and the ṣuḫārātu received lower rations than the adults. Regarding the Palace archives, the distribution of grain to servile personnel, including children,Footnote 32 is also attested.
In other documents, children were adopted.Footnote 33 Although in this case children do not participate actively, as in the aforementioned sale agreements, both cases do not express the same legal situation. In all these adoption texts the name of the adopted child is mentioned. Some of these contracts furthermore raise the possibility of a future breaking of the agreement by the adoptee, with consequent forfeiture.Footnote 34
A parallel phenomenon, but with different connotations, is provided by the so-called matrimonial adoptions. These represent a legal mechanism by which a woman enters another family, which later on could give her in marriage to a third party.Footnote 35 In some documents, this woman was undoubtedly an underage girl. The most evident cases are HSS 19 86/HSS 19 134, by which Utḫap-Tae adopted a girl (named fNūru-mātu) from her biological parents, and contracted her biological mother for nursing her.Footnote 36 Additionally, adoption contracts of sons could contain marriage clauses.Footnote 37
Another text group from Arrapḫe which provides indirect evidence about children—with parallels throughout ancient Near Eastern literature—are the payments (Akk. tēniqu or tarbītu) received by professional wet nurses (Akk. mušēniqtu). This salary, generally measured in barley, clothes, wool, or oil, was frequently intended for the wet nurses themselves.Footnote 38 However, these goods could also be assigned for the care of babies, with cereal for complementing the wet nurse's milk, clothes for the children, oil as food or for skin cares, etc.Footnote 39
Finally, antichretic contracts inform us about childhood in Arrapḫe as well. These documents concern a loan in which the debtor pledges real estate or persons to the creditor, allowing the use of them in lieu of interest. When contract involves personal antichresis, the persons could be either adults or children. The latter case is that of BM 102353.
Measuring children in Arrapḫe and other LBA archives
In some texts from Arrapḫe—and contemporary Babylonia—infants were described according to height, in cubits (Sum. kùš, Akk. ammatu), hands (ūtu), fingers (ubānu), or kinṣu/kišri (elbow), the last being attested only in Arrapḫe. Table 1 shows as an example the sales of children mentioning their sizes:
sales of children that include mention of their size.
The exact value for the length of the cubit in Late Bronze Age texts is not accurately known.Footnote 42 Although it slightly changes according to the period and area, a normal cubitFootnote 43 could be equal in this period to 30 fingers (thus approximately 40–50 cm).Footnote 44 The hand-measure could correspond to 20–25 cm,Footnote 45 while a finger could equal 1.3–1.5 cm. We do not know the value for the length of a kiṣru/kinṣu, although it could probably have been just short of 20 cm, similar to the hand. Accordingly, the two cubits and one kiṣri (2 ammati u mala kiṣri) given in BM 102353 could refer to a girl of 1–1.20 m of height, a child of perhaps 6–8 years old.
All cases in which the sizes of infants are attested correspond to the transfer of children. Apart from BM 102353, other examples from Arrapḫe include: EN 9/1 409, in which Ilaya paid Tatau the agreed amount of money for a slave girl (gemé), measuring two cubits and one kinṣu;Footnote 46 HSS 19 115, by which a man delivered his son as a slave and received in exchange another slave of two cubits; HSS 19 125, where one learns that a man bought a slave girl of two cubits and one kinṣu; or YBC 5143, where it is attested that a trader should hand over a slave (male or female) measuring two and a half cubits and four fingers.Footnote 47 This does not mean that sizes are mentioned in every transfer of children. Child adoptions, for example, never specify size. Therefore, and bearing in mind that there is a link between size/age and strength, the mention of size in the transfers of a child leads us to think that these children would be slaves, even if they are not explicitly designed as such (ìr or gemé).Footnote 48
Transfers of children “of good quality”
The quality of the underage child transferred is expressly recorded in some Late Bronze Age texts from Mesopotamia and Syria. In BM 102353: 7 and 14 the quality of the girl is expressed through the adjective sig5-ga, “good.” The same adjective is used regarding other slave girls from Arrapḫe: EN 9/1 409: 5, 18, AASOR 16 95: 6, HSS 9 17: 6, 8, EN 9/1 431: 21 (all from Nuzi), Fadhil Reference Fadhil1972 no. 5: 24, 27 (Tell al-Faḫḫār) and this text. This phenomenon occurs in Late Bronze Age Syrian documentation as well.Footnote 49 For example, in AuOr 5 11 (Emar) one learns that three slaves were sold, one of the clauses (ll. 9–10) pointing out that: “If someone in the future comes and wants to free them, this person shall give PN four women of good quality (munus-meš sig5 ), (and) shall take them.”Footnote 50
Every text mentioned above refers to slaves. In other documents in which the transferred children were not slaves, we do not find the same expressions. This is the case, for example, in adoption contract AuOr Supp. 1 77, also from Emar. The document points out that whoever claims the boy and girl adopted should provide two other people “of the same value” (malīššunu).Footnote 51 Therefore, the quality of the underage child transferred had probably only be noted in cases dealing with slaves.
It is possible that some contracts could have been considered invalid due to the insufficient quality of the slave child. This phenomenon is not so far attested in the documentation from Arrapḫe, but it is certainly proved for the Middle-Babylonian corpus.Footnote 52
