Part XVIII

Despite the advance marked by the Hammurapi period, it is full of survivals of an earlier age when the father exercised absolute control over his children. Thus a father could still sell his daughter to become a concubine and practically a slave in the household to which she was transferred, though she could not be again resold except for good reasons. We have such a case in a document from the 12th year of Hainmurapi, ^[1] i.e., c. 2111 B.C.

"Shamash-nuri, the daughter of Ibi-Sha-a-an, has been bought from Ibi-Sha-a-an, her father, by Bunene-abi and Belizunu. ^[2]

For Bunene-abi, she is a wife, for Belizunu, a maid. At any time that Shamash-nuri says to Belizunu, her mistress, "Thou art not my mistress", she is branded ^[3] and sold for silver. The full price of five shekels has been weighed out. The staff (bukanu) has been handed over. The transaction is consummated. His heart (sc. of the seller) has been satisfied. For all times no claim can be made by the one party against the other.

In the name of Shamash, A, Marduk and Hammurapi they have sworn."

A mother could sell her child. It appears not to have been uncommon for women to pass on their children to a nurse who is frequently a votary ^[4] for a term of years at a stipulated sum. In case the mother is unable to pay the amount, the child is sold to the nurse, who sometimes pays a certain sum in addition for the child which is hers to do with what she pleases. In a document, likewise from the reign of Hammurapi (-27th year, c. 2096 B.C.) we read as follows: ^[5]

"A certain Zukhuntum, wife of Ilu-kinum, has given her child to be nursed to the Iltani, the votary. The price of nursing for three years including food, oil and clothing, ^[6] she has not given to Iltani. 'Take the little one, let it be thy child,' Zukhiuntum said to Iltani, the votary. Since she has so said, apart from the price of nursing for three years which she (i.e., Iltani) has not received, Iltani has handed over three shekels of silver to Zukhuntum.

For all times neither party will have a claim against the other. In the name of Ib ^[7] and Hammurapi they have sworn."

The point of view in such documents is still that of the period when children were regarded as an asset of fixed monetary value because of the services that they could render after they had reached a certain age, just as the wife was an asset to her husband through her own services and through the children that she would bear. Hence the nurse who rears a child entrusted to her would feel compensated by the possession of the child in return for the pay which she would otherwise receive, though we have seen that the evaluation of the child might also entail upon her to pay an extra sum over and above the compensation due her.

The adoption carried with it a full share in the estate; and this stipulation prevailed in Assyria as well, as is expressly set forth in a document dating from the middle of the 7th century B.C., which reads in part as follows: ^[8]

"Seal of Nabu-naid, the owner of his son, legally transferred. Ashur-sabatshu-ikbi, a small child, son of Nabu-naid, has been adopted as their son by Sin-ki-Ishtar and (his wife) Ramtu. Should there be seven ^[9] children to Sin-ki-Ishtar and Bamtu, Ashur-sabatshu-ikbi remains the oldest son. ^[10]

Whenever at any time be it Nabu-naid, be it his brother, be it a governor, be it a relative should bring suit against Sin-ki-Ishtar, or his children, he will pay (a fine of) 1 mina silver and 1 mina of gold to the goddess Nin-lil, ^[11] 2 white horses he shall lay at the feet of the god Ashur, his eldest son he shall burn at the khamru ^[12] of Adad.

Despite his suit he shall not obtain (sc. the child)."

The curious reference to an offering of horses as part of the fine is of frequent occurrence in Assyrian documents, ^[13] as is also the allusion to a free offering of children ^[14] which reminds one of the offering of children to Moloch in the pages of the Old Testament. Exactly how we are to understand this, whether literally or merely as a strong threat that was not actually carried out, is difficult to decide. Certainly on the face of it, the phrase suggests that at one time children were offered as sacrifices in the way indicated, though it is hard to believe that as late as the seventh century the practice still prevailed.

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

Cuneiform Texts, viii, No. 22 b .

[2]:

Man and wife.

[3]:

Literally "shorn", sc., of her hair, but which becomes the term for branding a person with some slave mark.

[4]:

Nu-Gig-Kadishtum. See above, p. 308.

[5]:

Vorderas. Schriftdenkmaelcr, Heft vii, Nos. 10-11 (case tablet with seals).

[6]:

Three standing terms for "support" also occurring in the Hammurapi Code, 178.

[7]:

Perhaps to be read Urash.

[8]:

Peiser in Oriental Litter aturzeitung, vi, Sp. 198.

[9]:

Here used as a large number, i.e., ever so many.

[10]:

It follows from this that the couple was childless at the time that they adopted the child.

[11]:

An exceedingly heavy fine to be paid to the temple of Ninlil or Ishtar.

[12]:

The altar or some section of the temple.

[13]:

E.g., Kohler-Ungnad, Assyrische Rechtsurkunden (Leipzig, 1913), No. 162, 164r-178. Two to four horses are named as fines, besides a very large money fine for an unwarranted suit.

[14]:

L.c., Nos. 158 (son or daughter to be offered in the fire to Belitrseri), 163 (son offered to Sin; daughter to Belit-seri).