Babylonians and Assyrians. The ability to draw up deeds and write letters
seems at first sight to have been widely diffused. In the times of the
First Dynasty of Babylon almost every tablet seems to have a fresh
_tupšar_, or scribe. Many show the handiwork of women scribes.(364) But
most of the persons concerned in these documents were of the priestly
rank. There is no evidence that the shepherds or workpeople could write.
In the Assyrian times the scribe was a professional man. We find _aba_ or
_tupšar_ used as a title. So, too, in later Babylonian times. The
witnesses to a document can only be said to sign their names in so far as
that they impressed their seals. This was done, at any rate, in early
times. In the Assyrian period the only parties who sealed were the owners
of the property transferred to a new owner. The whole of a tablet shows
the same handwriting throughout. Anyone who reads carefully through the
facsimile copies in _Cuneiform Texts_ can readily see this. Different
scribes, especially in early times, wrote differently, but this was still
the case in Assyrian days. Yet no change of hand can be noted anywhere in
one document, save where, as in the forecast tablets, a date or note was
added by a different person, often in Assyrian script, to a text written
in Babylonian. The only safe statement to make is that from the earliest
times a very large number of persons existed, at any rate in the larger
towns, who could write and draw up documents.
(M386) The use of Sumerian terms and phrases in the body of a document
written in Semitic Babylonian might be ascribed to a mere tradition. But
they were no meaningless formulæ. The many variations, including the
substitution of completely different though synonymous words, show that
these Sumerian phrases were sufficiently understood to be intelligently
used. In later times they either disappear altogether, or are used with
little variation. They had become stereotyped and were conventional signs,
doubtless read as Semitic, though written as Sumerian. Our own retention
of Latin words is a close parallel. The First Dynasty of Babylon was
bilingual at any rate in its legal documents, though the letters are all
pure Semitic. The earlier documents show few signs of Semitic origin,
though its influence can be traced as far back as we can go.
(M387) The discovery at Sippara of a school dating from the First Dynasty
of Babylon is very fully worked out by Professor Scheil in _Une Saison de
fouilles à Sippara_, pp. 30-54. Professor Hilprecht gives further details
in _Explorations in Bible Lands_, pp. 522-28 and _passim_.
The methods of learning to write and the lessons in Sumerian are well
described by these authors, and illustrated by numerous extant examples of
practice-tablets. The subjects were very numerous and included arithmetic,
mensuration, history, geography, and literature. As Dr. Pinches has shown
by his edition of some of these practice-tablets,(365) these contain very
valuable fragments of otherwise lost or imperfectly known texts.
(M388) Slaves were often bound as apprentices to learn a trade or
handicraft. A man might adopt a child to teach him his trade, and his duty
to him was sufficiently discharged by doing so.
(M389) We do not yet know in any authoritative way, when or with what
ceremonies children were named. In the case of slaves we have a boy, still
at the breast,(366) or a girl of three months, not named.(367) On the
other hand, a girl still at the breast is named. Hence Meissner concludes,
that at the end of one year, at latest, the child was given a name.(368)
But the usage with respect to slaves is hardly a rule, and, as appears
from the above, they were not consistently named.
(M390) A child seems often to have been put out to nurse. From the
phrase-book we learn that a father might “give a child to a wet-nurse to
be suckled, and give the wet-nurse food and drink, oil for anointing, and
clothing for three years.”(369) That this was not only done with adopted
children is clear from the Code;(370) where we find a severe penalty laid
on a wet-nurse, who substitutes another child for the one intrusted to
her, without the parents’ consent.
(M391) It will hardly do to interpret the phrase-book(371) as meaning that
all children were made to learn writing. But that this was commonly done
is evident from the number, both of men and women, who could act as
scribes.(372)
XV. Adoption
(M392) Adoption primarily means a process by which parents could admit to
the privileges of sonship children born of other parents. There were many
reasons which might impel them to such a course. If they were childless, a
natural desire for an heir might operate. But under the Babylonian law a
man might take a second wife, or a maid, if his wife were childless, to
bear him children. A more operative cause was that children were a source
of profit to their parents while they remained with them. But it seems
that men married early. Hence this alone does not seem sufficient to
account for the great frequency of adoption. Besides, in that case, what
induced a parent to part with his child for adoption? It seems that the
real cause most often was that the adopting parents had lost by marriage
all their own children and were left with no child to look after them.
They then adopted a child whose parents would be glad to see him provided
for, to look after them until they died, leaving him the property they had
left after portioning their own children.
(M393) The Code admits all kinds of adoption, but regulates the custom. A
man might adopt an illegitimate son, or the child of a votary or
palace-warder, who had no right to children, or the child of living
parents. In the latter case alone was the parents’ consent necessary. We
have examples of cases of adoption of relatives, of entirely unrelated
persons, of a slave even.(373) We learn from the series _ana ittišu_(374)
that a man might take a young child, put it out to nurse, provide the
nurse with food, oil for anointing, and clothing, for a space of three
years; and then have it taught a trade or profession, such as that of
scribe.(375)
(M394) Adoption was effected by a deed, drawn up and sealed by the
adoptive parents, duly sworn to and witnessed. Such contracts definitely
state the relationship, which was in all respects the same as that of a
son born in matrimony. But it laid down the obligations of the son, while
it stipulated what was the inheritance to which he might expect to
succeed. It brought responsibilities to both parties and fixed them. The
son was bound to do that which a son would naturally have done,
explicitly, to maintain his parents while they lived. The parents were
bound, not only to leave him property, but to treat him as a son. But, as
a rule, all was matter of contract and carefully set down. If such a
contract was not drawn up, although the adoptive parents had brought him
up, the child must return to his father’s house.(376) Only, for an
artisan, it was sufficient to have taught the child his trade.(377)
So far as our examples go, some color might be given to the suggestion
that adoption was always merely for the convenience of old people who
wanted to be taken care of. But we know that children were adopted on
other grounds. That they were children and not always grown-up men and
women is clear from the above. This we may regard as adoption pure and
simple. Other cases are a legal method of making provision for old age, or
for other purposes for which an heir as legal representative was
desirable. In the case of no legal heir, the property went back to the
next of kin.
(M395) That such a process did take place in Babylonia is made clear by
the Code.(378) But few examples are known where a father takes into his
family an additional child. The case, in which the son is not only adopted
by parents who have a family living, but is ranked as their eldest son,
deserves reproducing in full.(379)
Ubar-Shamash, son of Sin-idinnam, from Sin-idinnam, his father,
and Bititum, his mother, have Beltum-abi and Taram-ulmash taken to
sonship, and let him be the son of Beltum-abi and Taram-ulmash.
Ubar-Shamash shall be their eldest son. The day that Beltum-abi,
his father, and Taram-ulmash, his mother, say to Ubar-Shamash,
their son, “You are not our son,” he shall leave house and
furniture. The day that Ubar-Shamash shall say to Beltum-abi, his
father, or Taram-ulmash, his mother, “You are not my father or my
mother,” one shall brand him, put fetters upon him, and sell him.
Both parents of the adopted son were living. That the son is to be
reckoned eldest implies that the adopting parents had other children. This
is made clear in one case where the adoptive parents are expressly said to
have five children.(380) In another case where a child is adopted a
certain person is expressly said to be his brother.(381)
(M396) The existing members of the family had a real interest in the
proceeding. For, as inheriting with them, the addition of another son
could not but affect their prospects. We may wonder what influenced them
to consent. That they did consent is clear from the often-occurring
covenant by which they bound themselves not to object. One explanation may
be that they had grown up and left home and were anxious for the welfare
of their parents, but could not arrange to look after them themselves.
Hence for their parents’ sake they were willing to forego their share, or
submit to a stranger taking precedence of them, or in some cases to give
up all claim to the property in their parents’ possession in return for
being relieved of the responsibility of looking after them. Of course,
when the adopted son was only taken in as one, even the eldest, among
several, he would only have a share at the parents’ death. But it even
seems that the children might of their own motion adopt a brother to be
son to their parents.(382)
(M397) The clause which implies disinheritance in case the parents
repudiate the son, or he repudiates them, could only be enforced by a
law-court.(383) But it was nevertheless most regularly inserted in the
contract. In one case the document merely consists of it,(384) leaving us
to infer that an adopted son was concerned. But this is not absolutely
certain. The son might have been rebellious to his mother, who was
therefore minded to cut him off, and this may be the result of her
bringing her son before the judge. The judge was bound to try and
conciliate the parties.(385) Hence, not infrequently the son was bound
over not to repeat the offence on pain of disinheritance, while the mother
retained her right to disinherit. There was no mention of his being sold
for a slave, or branded, as was usual when a son was adopted and then
repudiated his parents.
According to the contracts entered into by the parties, parents could
repudiate adopted sons. This was contrary to the law by which the consent
of the judge was needed for disinheritance. It seems to be an attempt to
contract without the support of the law. The son was then to take a son’s
share and go away.(386)
(M398) The word _aplûtu_, abstract of _aplu_, “son,” and therefore
literally “sonship,” being also used to denote the relation of a daughter
to a parent, came to denote the “share” which a son or daughter received.
If a man adopted a son, he granted him an _aplûtu_, or “sonship,” and this
carried with it a material property. But the father, while still living,
might grant the son his _aplûtu_ and stipulate for maintenance during the
rest of his life. Such a grant begins with _aplûtu ša_ B, where B is the
son. But it by no means follows that B is an adopted son. The question is
only decided for us when the parentage of B is given. If he is said to be
the “son of C,” then we know that A giving him “sonship” must mean that A
adopted him. But if B is merely indicated as the son of A, we cannot tell
whether he was born to A, or only adopted by A.
(M399) So when the property given to B is in his power to dispose of later
as he may choose, this privilege is expressed by the words, “he may give
his sonship to whom he chooses.” The choice is sometimes expressed as
“that which is good to his heart,” or “in his eyes,” or “whom he loves.” A
modified choice is often mentioned, as when it is said that a votary may
leave her “sonship” after her to whom she likes “among her brothers.”
(M400) We have a large number of documents which make reference to the
_aplûtu_ of a certain person, which we can render here by “heritage.”
These are especially common on the part of votaries. As we have seen, they
were not supposed to have children of their own, but possessed the right
to nominate their heir within limits. In return for exercising this right
in favor of a certain person, they usually stipulated that such person
shall maintain them as long as they live and otherwise care for them. Even
outside actual deeds of heritage, we find references to property derived
from votaries subject to certain duties. Such dispositions of property are
closely related to a will or testament, but anticipate the death of the
testator. They are really settlements for the future, which exactly
answers to the title given them by the Babylonian scribes, _ridit
warkati_.
The following example makes these details clear:(387)
The heritage of Eli-eriṣa, votary of Shamash, daughter of
Shamash-ilu. Belisunu, votary of Shamash, daughter of Nakarum, is
the caretaker of her future life. One-third _GAN_ of unreclaimed
land in Karnamkarum, next the field of Issurîa, one _SAR_ house in
Ḥalḫalla, next the house of Nakarum, one-third _SAR_ four _GIN_ in
Gagim, one maid Shala-beltum, price ten shekels of silver, all
this for the future in its entirety, what Eli-eriṣa, votary of
Shamash, daughter of Shamash-ilu, has or shall acquire, she gives
to Belisunu, votary of Shamash, daughter of Nakarum. Every year
Belisunu shall give to Eli-eriṣa three _GUR_ of corn, ten minas of
bronze, and twelve _ḲA_ of oil.
(M401) The _aplûtu_ thus given was in many cases an alienation of property
on which some relative had claims. Even where their consent was not
necessary it was desirable that they should not involve the heir in legal
processes. Hence, such relatives are called up to covenant that they will
raise no objection to the heir’s peaceable succession.(388)
(M402) The obligation to support the adoptive parent is emphasized. The
amount of sustenance varies much. Another list of yearly allowances reads
one shekel of silver, woollen yarn, six _ḲA_ of oil, four _išinni
Shamašh_, ten _ḲA_ of fat, one side, two _GUR_ of corn. Many others could
be instanced, but they make no great addition to our knowledge.
(M403) The obligation might be service; as when a lady adopts a maid to
serve her for life and inherit a certain house.(389) In another case a
lady adopts a son to bring up her daughter and give her to a husband. “If
he vexes his adoptive mother, she will cut him off. He shall not have
claim on any of the goods of his adoptive mother, but shall inherit her
field and garden.”(390) Evidently the mother intended her personal effects
to be her daughter’s and to form her marriage-portion. The obligation did
not always last long. Thus we find that Lautum, who was adopted by a
votary and was herself a votary, two years later was in a position to
adopt as her daughter another votary.(391) She handed on the same
property, indicating that her adoptive mother was dead.
The adoption of a child by a lady of fortune was evidently a good
settlement for the child, and usually the real parents raised no
objection. We even find the father of a girl adopted by a lady, making an
addition to her heritage in the form of a gift to the adopting mother on
her effecting the deed of adoption. He gave them two male and two female
slaves. Here also the girl covenanted to support the adoptive mother.(392)
(M404) Occasionally the adopted child did not carry out his duties. This
was good ground for disinheriting him. But disinheritance was not to be
inflicted without the sanction of the judges.(393) Hence we find that when
a lady had adopted a daughter who failed to give her food and drink, the
judges summoned them to the great temple of Shamash in Sippara, there cut
off the daughter from her heritage, took away the tablet of adoption
granted her, and destroyed it.(394)
(M405) A curious case is where A, the daughter of B and C, endows D to
take care of B and C. As long as D lives A covenants to allow her so much.
When she dies A will herself perform the duties.(395) Here A evidently
expected her parents would not live long, but also D must have been aged,
or infirm, as A contemplates the chance of her parents outliving D. This
is not a case of adoption, but is so similar in purpose to those above as
to deserve a place here.
(M406) Occasionally, however, the adopting parent reserved the usufruct of
the property for life only, fixing by deed the rightful heir.(396) This
was, in effect, a will or testament, since the inheritance did not take
effect until after the death of the testator.
XVI. Rights Of Inheritance
(M407) The division of property among the children invariably followed the
death of the father. We have a very large number of contracts bearing on
this custom. The contract sets forth the particulars of the division and
includes a sworn declaration on the part of the recipients to make no
further claim. There were certain reservations to be made in the case of
minors, for whom a portion had to be set aside to provide for their making
the proper gifts to the parents of their brides on marriage.
(M408) The Code deals at length with the laws of inheritance, which are
best treated under the head of marriage. The actual examples occurring in
the documents of the period serve to illustrate the practical working of
these laws, but hardly add to our knowledge. They are usually occupied
with the division of property among brothers. Sometimes we have some light
on the reservations made in favor of other members of the family. Thus two
brothers divide the property of their “father’s house” and of their
sister, a votary. The sister did not take her property, but the brothers
were trustees for her enjoyment of it during her life, when it reverted to
them in full.(397) The document merely states the amount of one brother’s
share and the other’s agreement to be content with the division. In
another case, where four brothers share the property of their “father’s
house,” no details of their shares are given, but only their agreement to
abide by the division made.(398) In another case the eldest brother allots
to each of two younger brothers a share and takes a woman slave and her
children as his portion. He is said to do this of his “own power,” _ina
emur ḳamanišu_, and to have given them this of his “own graciousness,”
_ina tûbâtišu_. The brothers swear to make no further claim on the
“grant,” _maršîtu_, of their father. Either the property to which they
were legally entitled had already been allotted them, or possibly they had
no legal claim on any. The eldest brother is a high official, a _pa-pa_,
and perhaps had succeeded his father in office. The father’s property
would then be the endowment of his office, a grant from the king, and as
such inalienable from the office to which the eldest son had succeeded.
The three slaves may have thus been all the private property of the father
which was available for division. But the context seems to suggest that
what the brothers received was a concession from the eldest brother on
which they had no claim. He may in consideration of his succeeding to his
father’s appointment have made this concession to his brothers as a
consolation.(399) In another case a mother gives certain sums to her three
sons. She had still left two sons and two daughters, and the first three
agree to make no claim on all that she and these four children have or
shall acquire.(400) It is noteworthy that one of the three receives ten
shekels as the _terḫatu_ of the wife he shall marry. He was evidently not
of marriageable age, or, at any rate, still unmarried. In such a case the
Code directed that on partition of the father’s property, a special sum
should be laid aside for this necessary present to the bride’s
father.(401) So we find two brothers giving a sister a share consisting of
one-third _SAR_ of a house, next her brother’s, one maid, a bed and a
chair, with the promise that on the day that she marries and enters her
husband’s house she shall receive further two-thirds _GAN_ of land and
slaves.(402) The list of property is often given, especially where
brothers give shares to their sisters. Sometimes the relationship is less
close. Thus a man shares with two sons of his father’s brother, _i.e._,
with two cousins, ten _SAR_ of unreclaimed land, taking three and a half
_SAR_ as his share.(403) Sometimes the property included the mother’s
marriage-portion. Thus three brothers divide their property and two of
them, as her sons, share their mother’s marriage-portion:(404)
(M409)
One _SAR_ of built land and granary, next the house of Ubarrîa and
next that of Bushum-Sin, two exits to the street, the property of
Urra-nâṣir, which he divided with Sin-ikisham and Ibni-Shamash.
From mouth (?) to gold the share is complete. Brother shall not
dispute with brother. By Shamash, Malkat, Marduk, and Sin-mubaliṭ
they swore. Nine witnesses. Thirteenth year of Sin-mubaliṭ.(405)
The property which fell to Urra-nâṣir was a house occupying one _SAR_ of
land. The text means not that the three men, Urra-nâṣir, Sin-ikisham, and
Ibni-Shamash, divided the house among them, but that at the division this
house was the share of the first named. What the two, Sin-ikisham and
Ibni-Shamash, had as their share we are not here told. But the three
agreed not to call in question the division of property, which probably
came to them from their father or mother. Fortunately we know in this case
what the others got. Thus we find:
One _SAR_ of built land, (and) granary, next the house of
Ibni-Shamash and next the street, its exit to the street, the
property of Sin-ikisham, which he divided with Ibni-Shamash and
Urra-nâṣir. From mouth (?) to gold the share is complete. Brother
shall not dispute with brother. By Shamash, Malkat, and
Sin-mubaliṭ they swore. Nine witnesses. Thirteenth year of
Sin-mubaliṭ.(406)
And again:
One _SAR_ of built land, (and) granary, next the house of
Sin-ikisham and next the house of Ishtar-Ummasha, two exits to the
street, the property of Ibni-Shamash, which he divided with
Sin-ikisham and Urra-nâṣir. From mouth (?) to gold the share [is
complete]. Brother shall not dispute with brother. By Shamash,
Malkat, Marduk, and Sin-mubaliṭ they swore. Nine witnesses.
Thirteenth year of Sin-mubaliṭ.(407)
Thus we see that each brother, if they were brothers, obtained exactly the
same share, one _SAR_ of land on which a house was built. Two of them,
Sin-ikisham and Ibni-Shamash, were next door to each other. Ibni-Shamash
had the street on the other side of him, in fact, occupied a corner house.
The third brother, Urra-nâṣir, had a house in another part of the town. We
therefore must understand the word “divided” in the sense “obtained on
division.” In the second and third case the word rendered share is
literally “all.” But the first text shows that “all is complete” means
“the share is complete.” The meaning of the expression, “from mouth (?) to
gold,” is still obscure. It is not certain that _bi-e_ really means
“mouth.” But as Meissner has shown,(408) it exchanges with the ideogram
for “mouth.” He therefore suggests that the whole phrase means “from the
first verbal discussion of the division to its consummation by payment the
partition of the property is now at an end.” That seems probable enough,
but we may yet find a different explanation. If this be correct, it is of
interest to note that while silver seems to have been the usual money,
this phrase seems to assume that gold would be used in payment. A curious
parallel is the fact that while in later times we always find the order
gold and silver, in Sumerian texts it is silver and gold. We must not
press this too far, but it really looks as if in early times silver was
more valued, or at any rate, less in use than gold.
It will be noted that the second text omits Marduk from the oath, while
the others name him. The third text omits _gamru_, “is complete.” The nine
witnesses and the date are the same for all three. In the first and last
the names of the witnesses only are given, but in the second the name of
the father is added to several of them.