Slavery during the third dynasty of Ur / [Bernard Joseph Siegel].

  • Bernard J. Siegel
Date:
1947
Catalogue details

Licence: In copyright

Credit: Slavery during the third dynasty of Ur / [Bernard Joseph Siegel]. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    47/60 page 45
    him to his (i.e., the merchant’s) own country, whereupon the slave is recog¬ nized by a former owner from whom the slave had fled or was stolen. The for¬ mer owner can then claim the slave, and by proving his right and weighing out the money the merchant had paid, can redeem the slave. Paragraph 280, line 83, to paragraph 281, line 88, introduces a number of inconsistencies into these enactments.66 They can best be understood, according to Koschaker’s interpretation, by the assumption of an interpolation in which the scribe(s) wished to make clear that inland slaves67 who were sold in a foreign country were automatically freed upon re-entering their native land68 From this rather extended consideration of conditions during the time of Hammurabi we have gained a basis for interpreting the Ur III texts. The facts of de Genouillac, 1910-21, II, 936 can now be reconstructed in the following manner: (1) A young girl was (a) robbed or sold into slavery outside of her native land or (b) was purchased by a foreign merchant and brought outside the country. (2) She was later repurchased by a palace official of some sort, brought back into her native land and released. (3) The cost of her release was borne by the state (palace) by reimbursing the official who redeemed her. Essentially the process of redemption in southern Babylonia during the Third Dynasty of Ur and in northern Babylonia some two hundred and fifty years later was the same. The case materials from these periods broadly con¬ firm Schorr’s hypothesis that native Babylonians sold or abducted into slavery in a foreign country were freed upon re-entry into Babylonia. Enactments paragraphs 280 and 281 are misleading in this respect, for it appears at first sight that the merchant who bought such a slave suffered the loss of his pur- 66 Pars. 280 and 281 enact that (72) “if a man (awelum) (73) in the land (74) of the enemy (i.e., in a foreign country) (75) the slave or slave girl of (another) man (awelum) (76) has bought (77) and then (78) after he into the land (i.e., inland, native land) (79) has returned (80) the owner of the slave or slave girl (81) his slave or slave girl (82) recognizes (83) if this slave or slave girl (84) (are) children of the land (i.e., are natives of Babylonia) (85) then without money (86) their freedom (87) shall be established. (88) If (they are) children of another land (i.e., natives of a foreign country) (89) then after the purchaser (90) before a god (91) the money which he has weighed out (92) has declared, (93) the owner of the slave or slave girl (94) after the money which the merchant weighed out, to the merchant (95) he has given (96) he will have redeemed his slave or slave girl.” 57 Babylonians who fell into servitude for some reason or another. See Koschaker, 1917, p. 101, note i, for the distinction between subjects of Ausland and Inland. 58 Koschaker, 1917, pp. 101-10. Schorr, 1913, p. 62, note 2, also believes pars. 280-81 imply that the sale of an Inland slave or free person abroad was forbidden by law. In this connection see Schorr 37 (CT VI, 29 [91-5-i, 14]). Here a Babylonian slave has been sold by his owner (son sold by his father?). After serving as a slave for five years he succeeded in fleeing to Babylon. There he received his freedom under the custody of two officials who assigned him to soldier’s duty. The freed man protested and, apparently on the grounds that he had inherited a portion of his father’s estate, was relieved from that duty. The important point is that after the man who had been sold as a slave in a foreign territory had returned to Babylon he received his freedom.
    digitised image 1
    digitised image 2
    digitised image 3