Tous les articles par masamuwa

Because She is a Daughter of Emar

Because She is a Daughter of Emar

Masamichi Yamada

(REFEMA 2nd Workshop: Jun 24-25, 2013, Tokyo)

ABSTRACT

Among the Emar texts, RE 61, a marriage contract of the Syrian type, is noteworthy for two unique expressions concerning women. The first is kīma mārāt Emarki, “according to (the custom for) the daughters of Emar” (l. 11), which shows that there was customary law for female citizens in Emar and that it regulated their marriages. The second is kīma mārat (uru.ki)Emarki šīt, “because she is a daughter of Emar” (ll. 17f., 21f.). An analysis of the text reveals that this clause is parallel to the almattu-azibtu formula attested in the texts of the Syro-Hittite type: its intention is to protect the legal status of free women who are in a socio-economically inferior position. In short, both forbid treating these women as slaves.

 I. Introduction

In several Late Bronze Age Akkadian texts from the great bend area of the Middle Euphrates, we find the phrase kīma āli, literally, “as the city.” This is a technical phrase meaning, “according to the indigenous, customary law of the city.” In the texts from Emar of the thirteenth and the early twelfth centuries B.C., this phrase is attested in a total of eleven texts, six of the Syrian type and five of the Syro-Hittite type. The phrase kīma āli is found also in a text from Ekalte of the fourteenth century B.C., and a variant, uruEkal[t]eki, “according to (the custom of) Ekalte,” is found in another text.

Kīma āli is probably an abbreviated form of kīma paraṣ āli, “according to the custom of the city,” as suggested by an Alalaḫ text from the fifteenth century B.C., AT 17. According to this text, a certain Šaduwe, a man of (the city of) Luba, asked for the daughter of Apra as his daughter-in-law. At that time Šaduwe brought a gift to Apra, kīma paraṣ uruḪalabki, “according to the custom of Aleppo.” We are not sure why there is a reference to Aleppo in a text from Alalaḫ, but perhaps Alalaḫ followed the customs of Aleppo, or perhaps Abra was a citizen of Aleppo living in Alalaḫ

Among the occurrences of kīma āli in the Emar and Ekalte texts, one occurs in a debt contract from Emar, ASJ 13-T 34. The text states that when Šamaš-abu borrows 20 shekels of silver from Ya’ṣi-belu, the interest will be added “according to (the custom of) the city,” without specifying the rate, most probably because the custom of the city was very clear about the rate. All the other cases are found in texts relating to inheritance, in which the sons divide their father’s estate among themselves “according to (the custom of) the city.” In my opinion, this means that the eldest son receives a larger portion than his brothers, probably a double portion. Although the phrase kīma āli is not attested elsewhere, there is no doubt that the customary law of Emar covered also other areas in the social life of the Emarites, such as marriage, as we saw in the above case of Alalaḫ.

Concerning marriages in Emar, at the previous REFEMA workshop, I took up the almattu-azibtu formula, which says that a certain woman “is a widow with widows, (and) a divorcée with divorcées.” I concluded as follows: “(This) formula is concerned with married, free women who are in a socio-economically inferior position. It prescribes directly that they are to be treated like other normal widows and divorcées when they become widows or divorcées. However, its intention is more general, to insure they are treated as free women, not as slaves. In short, it says, they cannot be enslaved.”

The almattu-azibtu formula is attested only in texts of the Syro-Hittite type. But how did the Syrian-type texts intend that those women should be treated? This is the problem I will discuss below, using the Emar text RE 61, a marriage contract.

 

II. Text: RE 61

In the handout, I provide the transliteration and translation of the main part of the document, omitting the list of witnesses. When reading this text, it should be noted that ll. 16f. are problematic. In view of his handcopy, parts of G. Beckman’s readings of ⸢e?-ru-ub in l. 16 and of u-ta!-ar-ši in l. 17 are difficult to accept, and they do not seem to make good sense in the context. Neither do J.-M. Durand’s recent proposals seem very satisfactory to me. Instead, I suggest reading a-na UGU-[ḫi-ši] 16 lík-ru-ub ú-ul ú⸣-[na]- 17 :ga-ar-ši, “he ought to bless [her] (and shall) not b[la]me her.”

As for the first verb likrub (karābu G prec. 3.m.sg.), I admit that CVC signs are used only occasionally in the Syrian-type texts, and that the phonetic value lík for the ŠID sign, i.e., lak, is late and rare. However, when CVC signs are used, we sometimes find alteration of the central vowel, for example, tàm for tim in Emar VI 185, and ṣár for ṣur in Emar VI 138.

My reading of the second verb as unaggar (nagāru D pres. 3.m.sg.) is more hypothetical. But in the support of this, I would note the following points. Firstly, we would hardly expect any word between the negation ul and the verb in l. 17. Secondly, the third person prefix of the D stem /u-/, is usually not written with u, but with ú. Thirdly, although a Glossenkeil usually consists of double oblique wedges, we find it as a single oblique wedge or Winkelhaken in Emar VI 156 and RE 20, though with an indent, unlike here.

Although the above proposals for the readings are admittedly tentative, it seems likely to me that these lines prescribe that the husband be kind to his wife. In other words, a tyrant was never regarded as the ideal husband, even in the male-centered society of Emar.

 

III. Discussion

The text RE 61 records two marriages, in which brides are exchanged between two families. Dagan-milki gives her daughter Aḫlamitu to Aḫi-ḫamiṣ as his wife, and in turn, Aḫi-ḫamiṣ gives his daughter Na’mi-šada to Dagan-milki as the future wife of her son Yaḫanni-ili. It is interesting to note that the phrase kīma mārāt Emarki, “according to (the custom for) the daughters of Emar,” is used in l. 11 in reference to the latter marriage, though it probably refers to both marriages in actuality. In any case, this phrase, a variant of kīma āli, indicates that in Emar there was customary law for female as well as male citizens, and that it regulated their marriages.

Although both Aḫlamitu and Na’mi-šada are called “daughters of Emar,” in this text there is found no reference to the “bridewealth” (terḫatu), usually paid by the groom’s side to the bride’s side in marriages between citizens. This is probably because the payment by one side was simply balanced by that of the other. So, it seems reasonable to think that the two families were more or less at the same economic level.

Of the two marriages, that of Na’mi-šada with Yaḫanni-ili is assumed to be in the future. At present, she is given into the hands of his mother Dagan-milki as (her) “daughter-in-law and daughter.” The pair of abstract nouns used here, kallūtu u mārtūtu, indicates that it was a matrimonial adoption. Probably either Yaḫanni-ili or Na’mi-šada or both were still too young for marriage at the time. In my opinion, the text states that when both become mature, if Yaḫanni-ili marries Na’mi-šada, he shall be gentle with her. Then one may ask, if he does not marry her? There is no doubt that Dagan-milki will marry her to someone else, as is usual in matrimonial adoptions. The omission of this stipulation here is probably because their parents thought their marriage was virtually certain.

As observed above, both Aḫlamitu and Na’mi-šada were female citizens of Emar. But if they were normal citizens, one may wonder why it was necessary to designate each one as a “daughter of Emar.” In this respect, it is worth noting that the families of daughters given in matrimonial adoptions were usually in an economically poor position, as it is well attested in the Nuzi texts, our main source of matrimonial adoption contracts. This seems to be true for the Emar texts, too, particularly when we compare Emar VI 216 and 217 as we did at the first workshop. If this is correct, then the family of Na’mi-šada was in a low economic position in society, and since the two families were on about the same economic level, the family of Aḫlamitu was probably in a low economic position as well.

This point may be further supported by the very PN of Aḫlamītu, which means “a female Aḫlamaean.” The Aḫlamaeans are well known as nomads or pastoralists who had a close connection with the Aramaeans, whether or not they were identical with them. So, it is obvious that “Aḫlamitu” is an inappropriate name for a normal, female citizen of Emar. However, her deceased father was undoubtedly an Emarite citizen, since she is designated as a “daughter of Emar.” Is she an adopted Aḫlamaean girl, or was her father from an Aḫlamaean family which had been living in Emar for long time? In any case, it does not seem strange that the family of Aḫlamitu was in a low socio-economic position in Emar.

Now, let us consider the meaning of the clause kīma mārat (uru.ki)Emarki šīt, “because she is a daughter of Emar,” in ll. 17f. and 21f., in light of this understanding concerning the two families. In both cases, it can be understood that the clause is used to protect the legal status of a free woman in a low socio-economic position, when her husband marries or divorces her. The latter case is particularly noteworthy: if Aḫi-ḫamiṣ should divorce Aḫlamitu, he will divorce her, no doubt using due process according to (the custom for) the daughters of Emar. In other words, he has to treat her as other normal divorcées. This immediately reminds us of the meaning of the almattu-azibtu formula in the Syro-Hittite-type texts. If the meaning is the same, is not the intention also? The answer must be positive. In my opinion, the phrase means that she is to be treated as a free woman, not as a slave. This point is supported by a matrimonial adoption contract from Nuzi, AASOR XVI 42.

In this text, Ḫanate, a female slave of (the lady) Tulpun-naya, takes Ḫalb-abuša as her “daughter and daughter-in-law,” so that Ḫanate may marry Ḫalb-abuša to whomever she wishes. However, this contract adds the stipulations as cited in the handout, saying, positively, that Ḫanate will treat Ḫalb-abuša as a female citizen of Arrapḫa, and negatively, that she will not make her a slave. That is, even though Ḫalb-abuša is put under control of the slave Ḫanate, she cannot be enslaved, because she is “a daughter of (the land of) Arrapḫa.” That there was a clear distinction between a female citizen and a slave is evident here.

 

IV. Conclusion

On the basis of the above considerations, we may conclude that both the clause kīma mārat (uru.ki)Emarki šīt and the parallel almattu-azibtu formula are meant to protect the legal status of free women who are in a low socio-economic position. In short, both forbid treating these women as slaves. Thus, although different expressions are used in texts of the Syrian type and of the Syro-Hittite type, the idea that such women should be protected was a general one in Emarite society.

 

 

<Handout>

I. Introduction

1. kīma āli, “according to (the custom of) the city”

a) Syrian type: Emar VI 184: 11’; ASJ 13-T 23: 23; 34: 3; RE 8: 38; 28: 33; 30: 22

Ekalte II 92 (= RE 69): 21; cf. also 25: 6 ( uruEkal[t]eki)

b) Syro-Hittite type: Emar VI 112: 10; 177: 27’; 201: 50; 203: 4’; TS 46: 9[1]

cf. ki-ma pa-ra-aṣ URU.Ḫa-la-ab.KI, “according to the custom of Aleppo” (AT 17: 5)

2. almattu-azibtu formula (Syro-Hittite type)

Protection of the legal status of free women in a socio-economically inferior position (vs. slaves)

→ Then, what about those women in the Syrian-type texts?

 

II. Text: RE 61 (Syrian type)

1 fdda-gan-mi-il-ki DUMU⸣.MÍ dKUR-ta-ri-iḫ ŠEŠ.ḪÁ ši-bu-titu-še-ši-iba-nu-um-mafa-ḫa(sic)-la-mi-t[a] DUMU.MÍ-ši a-naa-ḫi-ḫa-mi-iṣ DUMU EN-lu-ka a-na DAM-⸢ut-ti⸣ [Ø] ta-an-din a-nu-um-ma <m>a-ḫi-ḫa-mi-iṣ DUMU EN-lu-ka DUMU.MÍ-šu fna-aḫ-mi-KUR a-na dda-gan-mi-il-ki DUMU.MÍ dda-gan-ta-ri-iḫ 10 a-na É.GI.A u DUMU.MÍ-ti 11 ki-ma DUMU.MÍ.MEŠ e-mar.KI 12 id-di-in-ši šum-ma 13 mia-ḫa-ni-DINGIR DUMU ri-x x […][2] 14 fna-aḫ-mi-⸢KUR⸣ DUMU.MÍ [a-ḫi-ḫa-mi-iṣ] 15 i-ḫu-uz a-na UGU-[ḫi-ši] 16 lík-ru-ub ú-ul ú⸣-[na]- 17 :ga-ar-ši[3] ki-ma DUMU.MÍ [Ø] 18 URU.KI.e-mar.KI ši-it šum-m[a] 19 ma-ḫi-ḫa-mi-iṣ DUMU EN-l[u-ka] 20 faḫ-la-mi-ta DAM->šú<-š[u] 21 iz-zi-ib-ši ki-ma DUMU.MÍ e-mar.KI 22 ši-it iz-zi-ib-ši

Dagan-milki, daughter of Dagan-tari’, caused (her) ‘brothers’ to be seated as witnesses. Now she has given her daughter Aḫlamit[u] to Aḫi-ḫamiṣ, son of Belu-ka, as (his) wife. Now Aḫi-ḫamiṣ, son of Belu-ka, has given his daughter Na’mi-šada to Dagan-milki, daughter of Dagan-tari’, as (her) daughter-in-law and daughter according to (the custom for) the daughters of Emar. If Yaḫanni-ili, son of Ri…[…], marries Na’mi-šada, daughter of [Aḫi-ḫamiṣ], he ought to bless [her][4] (and shall) not b[la]me her, because she is a daughter of Emar. If Aḫi-ḫamiṣ, son of Bel[u-ka], should divorce hi[s] wife Aḫlamitu, he will divorce her (using due process), because she is a daughter of Emar.

Notes on ll. 16f.:

・⸢lík-ru-ub — ŠID (= lak) for lík: late (NA, NB, LB) and rare; but cf. ša-ni-tàm(DIM/tim)-ma (Emar VI 185: 22’); ṣár(ZUR/ṣur)-pí (e.g., Emar VI 138: 10)

・⸢ú⸣-[na]-:ga-ar — (1) ul X (not erasure) vb.?; (2) u- as a prefix of the D-stem (cf. ú-)?; (3) a single oblique wedge or Winkelhaken for a Glossenkeil with an indent (Emar VI 156: 8; RE 20: 5a, 19a)

 

III. Discussion

1. kīma mārāt Emarki (l. 11): customary law for the female citizens of Emar

2. The marriages

a) Two Emarite women are exchanged

・Aḫlamitu and Na’mi-šada: “daughter of Emar” (ll. 17f., 21f.)

cf. bridewealth (terḫatu)

b) Na’mi-šada: in the kallūtu u mārtūtu of Dagan-milki = matrimonial adoption

・If Yaḫanni-ili marries her → to be gentle with her

・(If he does not marry her → Dagan-milki will marry her to someone else!)

3. The two families

a) Emphasis on the “daughter of Emar” → Why?

b) Remarks

・Na’mi-šada: given in matrimonial adoption (cf., e.g., Emar VI 216-217)

・Aḫlamitu: Aḫlamītu, (lit.) “a female Aḫlamaean”

∴ Both families were in a low socio-economic position

4. kīma mārat (uru.ki)Emarki šīt

esp. if Aḫi-ḫamiṣ should divorce Aḫlamitu (by due process)

cf. 1 almattu-azibtu formula

cf. 2 AASOR XVI 42 (Nuzi):      matrimonial adoption of Ḫalb-abuša by Ḫanate, a female slave of (the lady) Tulpun-naya

20 ù fḫa-na-te fḫal-bá-bu-ša 21 ša ki-i mārat [a]r-ra-áp-ḫe i-p[u]-ša-aš-ši 22 a-na amtiti la ú-ta-ar-ši

Ḫanate will tr[e]at Ḫalb-abuša as a daughter of (the land of) [A]rrapḫa. She shall not turn her into a slave.

 

IV. Conclusion

The intention of kīma mārat (uru.ki)Emarki (Syrian type):

parallel to that of the almattu-azibtu formula (Syro-Hittite type)

 

Bibliography

Arnaud, D. 1985-86: Recherches au pays d’Aštata. Emar VI/1-3, Paris (= Emar VI).

— 1991: Textes syriens de l’âge du Bronze récent (AuOrS 1), Sabadell (= TS).

Beckman, G. 1996: Texts from the Vicinity of Emar in the Collection of Jonathan Rosen (HANE/M II), Padova (= RE).

Ben-Barak, Z. 2006: Inheritance by Daughters in Israel and the Ancient Near East: A Social, Legal and Ideological Revolution, Jaffa.

Durand, J.-M. 2013: “Quelques textes sur le statut de la femme à Émar d’après des collations nouvelles,” Semitica 55, 25-60.

Grosz, K. 1987: “On Some Aspects of the Adoption of Women at Nuzi,” in: D. I. Owen & M. A. Morrison (eds.), General Studies and Excavations at Nuzi 9/1 (SCCNH 2), Winona Lake, Ind., 131-152.

Justel, J. J. 2008: “L’adoption matrimoniale à Emar (Syrie, XIIIe s. av. J.-C.),” RHD 86, 1-19.

Mayer, W. 2001: Tall Munbāqa – Ekalte II. Die Texte (WVDOG 102), Saarbrücken (= Ekalte II).

Pfeiffer, R. H., and E. A. Speiser 1936: One Hundred New Selected Nuzi Texts (AASOR XVI), New Haven (= AASOR XVI).

Sigrist, M. 1993: “Seven Emar Tablets,” in: A. F. Rainey (ed.), kinattūtu ša dārâti (= Gs. Kutscher), Tel Aviv, 165-187, Pls. II-VIII (= GsK-T).

Tsukimoto, A. 1991: “Akkadian Tablets in the Hirayama Collection (II),” ASJ 13, 275-333 (= ASJ 13-T).

Werner, P. 2004: Tall Munbāqa – Ekalte III. Die Glyptik (WVDOG 108), Saarbrücken.

Wiseman, D. J. 1953: The Alalakh Tablets, London (= AT).

Yamada, M. 1997: “Kīma āli: On the Customary Law of Emar,” Bulletin of the Society for Near Eastern Studies in Japan (= BSNESJ) 40/2, pp. 18-33 (in Japanese with English summary; see https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/browse/jorient).

— 2013: “The Chronology of the Emar Texts Reassessed,” Orient. Reports of the Society for Near Eastern Studies in Japan 48, 125-156.

— forthcoming: “Widows and Divorcées as Free Women in Emar: A Study of the almattu-azibtu Formula,” BSNESJ 56/2 (in Japanese with English summary).


        [1]   Not Emar VI 29: 9; GsK-T 2: 7 (ki-i-ma URU-lè-e is to be read as ki-i ma-ṣi-me-e, “as many as”).

        [2]   Probably the deceased husband of Dagan-milki (Beckman). Durand suggests reading: dumu hu-ta⸣-⸢ri.⸣

        [3]   Cf. Beckman: a-na ugu-[ḫi-ši] 16 e?-ru-ub ú-ul x [   ] 17 u-ta!-ar-ši …, (If Yaḫanni-ilī takes Na’mī-šada as his wife) “and goes in to [her], he will not […] (Rather), he will return her according to (the custom for) a daughter of the city of Emar”; also Durand: a-na muh-[hi-ši] 16 e-ru-ub ú-ul {X X} 17 u-ga-ar-ši …, (Si, Yahannel ayant épousé Na’mi-šada) “entre la retrouver, il ne la traitera plus en étrangère: elle est/sera assimilée à une citoyenne d’Émâr.”

        [4]   Otherwise, “to invoke blessings upon [her]” or “to pay homage to [her].”

On amīltūtu in Emar

On amīltūtu in Emar

Masamichi Yamada

(REFEMA 3rd Workshop: Sep. 3-4, 2013, Carqueiranne)

ABSTRACT

The recently published Emar text, Subartu 17-T, is significant for its attestation of the term amīltūtu, the female counterpart of amīlūtu. An analysis of the amīlūtu contracts, a kind of debt contract, shows that this term indicates a debtor owing silver who himself enters into the household of the creditor as possessory (antichretic) pledge; at the same time another security (hypothecary pledge) is set. Subartu 17-T, which deals with the renewal of an amīltūtu contract, confirms the features of amīlūtu contracts, but is a case in which a surety instead of a hypothecary pledge is set at the time of making that contract.

 

I. Introduction

In 1981 Prof. Daniel Arnaud described the Akkadian word amīlūtu attested in the Emar texts as a technical term meaning personal “antichretic pledge,” thus neither “mankind, status of (free) man” as is usual in Akkadian, nor “retainer, slave” as is well known in MB and NB, as well as rarely in Nuzi. However, I am of the opinion that its meaning is actually more restricted than just an antichretic pledge. It is interesting to note that its female counterpart amīltūtu is attested in a new Emar text published in Subartu 17, the Festschrift for Prof. Jean-Claude Margueron, the leading excavator of Emar (Meskene-Qadime). I will call this text Subartu 17-T below. Before analyzing the contents of this specific text, however, it is necessary to clarify who the people called amīlūtus in Emar were. So, let us start with making general remarks on the term amīlūtu, as well as on amīltūtu.

II. General Remarks

To my knowledge, the term amīlūtu is attested in ten Emar texts and probably can be restored also in another, ASJ 13-T 38. All of them are of the Syro-Hittite type. As shown in the handout, this term is always written using the unique logogram LÚ.Ú.LU with a phonetic complement; no use of the usual LÚ or LÚ.U18/19.LU for this term has been attested. As MEŠ is put between LÚ and Ú in the plural forms, LÚ seems to have been taken as the determinative. Subartu 17-T is also a text of the Syro-Hittite type, and the term amīltūtu is written using the logogram MÍ.Ú.LU, with MÍ instead of LÚ. The phonetic complement added to it, -tù-ut-ti, indicates that this term cannot be read as sinnišūtu, the abstract noun of sinništu.

Most of the above twelve texts fall into two groups. Firstly, three are amīlūtu contracts, which we will treat in the next section. Secondly, six are contracts of caring, in which an amīlūtu, usually in return for having all his debt remitted, accepts the obligation to take care of his creditor and a family member (mostly the wife) during their lives, to be released after their deaths. Of the other texts, Emar VI 279 is a ration list of barley in Temple M1, in which Abi-Šaggar, an amīlūtu of Awiru, receives 26 parīsus, and RE 39 is a testament of a certain Igmu-X, whose PN is partly broken. In my opinion, in this text, he gives a certain amount of silver, i.e., the right to the debt owed by three amīlūtus, to his wife. However, though Subartu 17-T concerns an amīltūtu contract, it cannot be exactly classified in the first group.

I would note here that, except for the amīlūtu in the ration list, all the amīlūtus are clearly stated to be debtors owing silver, who came under the control of their creditors as possessory pledges of the debts. Though the text does not specifically say so, the amīltūtu in Subartu 17-T seems to be no exception. The amounts of the debts are listed in the handout (§ II.4). Although the debts listed range from 25 to 140 shekels, it seems that around 40 shekels was the norm.

III. The amīlūtu Contracts

To clarify the essence of the amīlūtu in Emar, let us look at the three amīlūtu contracts. I would first take the well preserved RA 77-T 5. According to this text, Itur-Dagan, one of the creditors of Yašur-Dagan, paid off all his debts to other creditors and became his single creditor. As cited in the handout, he then took Yašur-Dagan as his amīlūtu. The fact that at this time Yašur-Dagan’s family and house are set as pledges, indicates that this is a kind of debt contract. The reason why he could avoid being taken as a debt slave as in Emar VI 215 must have been that the value of the pledges was estimated to be at least as much as the amount of his debt. Here, the following two points are noteworthy. Firstly, although the debt is stated to be 47 shekels of silver, there is no reference to the date of repayment or the rate of interest, which are essential elements in ordinary debt contracts. Secondly, actually, two kinds of pledges are set. Since Yašur-Dagan himself is no doubt a possessory pledge, as we shall see on ASJ 10-T A below, his family and house are to be understood as hypothecary pledges. In a contract which lacks concrete conditions for repayment, what does this exact setting of twofold pledges mean? One may well ask also, if the debtor himself is held by the creditor, how does he repay the debt? Keeping these questions in mind, let us look at the other amīlūtu contracts.

Similarly in Emar VI 77, Dagan-kabar became the single creditor of Muḫra-aḫi for 140 shekels of silver, and took him as his amīlūtu. As in the case of RA 77-T 5, no date of repayment and no rate of interest are given, and, besides the debtor himself, his house and son are set as hypothecary pledges. We learn some more about the conditions from ll. 4b-6. Firstly, this is a debt contract with indefinite term, as the text states simply, “on the day when he pays his silver.” Secondly, the “silver” in l. 5 which Muḫra-aḫi is to repay, apparently points to the above-mentioned “140 shekels,” i.e., the capital only.

These points are well confirmed in ASJ 10-T A. Accurately speaking, this document is the renewal of an amīlūtu contract. In the first contract, when Dudu borrowed 105 shekels and 40 grains of silver, he and his two sons entered into the household of the creditor Šei-Dagan as amīlūtus. Now, Dudu has paid 40 shekels and released himself, so he has to pay 65 shekels and 40 grains of silver some day in the future in order to release his sons. This clearly shows that the term is indefinite and that the debtor repays only the capital. No payment of interest is required, since in its stead the amīlūtus undertake to work (šiprī ṣabātu) in the household of the creditor, as ll. 18-20 indicate. Therefore, there is no doubt that these three were antichretic pledges.

As for the wife and daughters of the debtor Dudu mentioned in the defective sentence of ll. 10b-11, in view of RA 77-T 5 and Emar VI 77, it seems reasonable that they were hypothecary pledges in both the first and the second contracts. Although I would not exclude the possibility that they were possessory pledges, it seems less likely, since in that case no one could take care of Dudu’s house and field, though he may have been too poor to own property. Furthermore, it cannot be overlooked that there is no stipulation for the release of Dudu’s wife and daughters in this text.

If amīlūtus were antichretic pledges for paying interest, how did they repay their debts? If the basic means were sales of the surplus production of their fields, which their family members cultivated, it would not have been easy for them to repay, particularly when the debt was heavy. So I suspect that some, if not most, of the amīlūtus did not expect to repay the debt from the beginning. However, ASJ 10-T A provides us with a case in which an amīlūtu did succeed in repaying at least a part of his debt. This text seems to state that Dudu was allowed to work somewhere outside the creditor’s house for nine months and earned 40 shekels of silver. It is possible that the amīlūtu Abi-Šaggar, who was on the ration list of Temple M1 as referred to in Emar VI 279: 4, was on such a temporal work release, but such cases must have been rather exceptional. Because, if there was only one amīlūtu for a debt, it would be meaningless to hold him as a possessory pledge. In this respect, note that Dudu’s two sons remained in the creditor’s household.

To summarize the above analyses, we may recognize the following as features of an amīlūtu contract. It is a debt contract of silver of the Syro-Hittite type, in which the debtor himself enters into the household of the creditor as a possessory pledge. At the same time, another security, i.e., a hypothecary pledge, is set, always including a member of the debtor’s family. Although the above three contracts are all concerned with married men, it is not clear if this feature holds when the amīlūtu was a single man, as was the case in the caring contracts. To this point we will return later. In any case, in these three contracts, the debtor repays only the capital, but instead of paying interest, he is obliged to work for the creditor, probably like a slave of his household, until the debt is paid off. Finally, the term of the contract is indefinite.

If so, what was the merit of the amīlūtu contracts for the debtor? As the term itself indicates, each amīlūtu most probably kept his legal status as a free man, although his substantial position in the creditor’s household must have been more or less the same as a slave. In view of the indefinite term of the contract, however, it is difficult to find here any actual merit for the amīlūtu. On the other hand, we can easily point out the merit for the creditor, the presence of the second security attested as hypothecary pledges in the three amīlūtu contracts treated above. Unlike in a simple slave contract, the creditor was to be compensated for the loss when the amīlūtu died, fled, or became unable to work. The advantage to the protected creditor is obvious.

The above features indicate that amīlūtu does not mean an antichretic pledge in general, but a specific type. To clarify this point, for comparison let us look at other debt contracts of the Syro-Hittite type from Emar, which involve a personal pledge. Of the four such texts, TS 25 is a debt contract of barley — so may be fairly excluded — but the other three are those of silver. Although all of them can be regarded as contracts of indefinite term and with an antichretic pledge in lieu of interest, there is no reference to an amīlūtu. I think, this is because they lack the double securities involving the debtor that we find as in the amīlūtu contracts. To be sure, double securities appear in Emar VI 209, if my reading of the text is correct. But the līṭu, “hostage,” thus a possessory pledge, is a third person, not the debtor himself, and this man is responsible for the debtor’s surety. In TS 34, the debtor becomes a possessory pledge, replacing his family members held as such by the creditor. So, this is not the case of double securities. To be sure, in the second contract in the above ASJ 10-T A, the sons of Dudu are possessory pledges, while he himself is the debtor. However, it should be noted that his sons also were already recognized as amīlūtus in the first contract.

When compared with the well-known tidennūtu, the antichretic pledge in general in Nuzi, the restricted character of the amīlūtu as a personal, antichretic pledge is obvious. Even when we confine ourselves to personal tidennūtu contracts, the variety is astonishing. The objects of debt include silver and other metals, several kinds of livestock, barley and other agricultural products, and slaves. The tidennūtu assigned to the creditor can be the debtor himself, his son or other member of his family, or a slave in his household. As for the term of contract, we see both definite type, the terms for which range from the next harvest time to fifty years and to the lifetime of the tidennūtu, and indefinite type. If the above four comparative Emar texts were from Nuzi, there is no doubt that the pledges mentioned in them would be called tidennūtus.

On the basis of the above discussion, we may conclude that the amīlūtu in Emar is a specific type of antichretic pledge with the above-mentioned features, or conditions. Keeping this in mind, now let us turn to Subartu 17-T, in which the term amīltūtu is attested.

IV. amīltūtu in Subartu 17-T

When A. Cavigneaux and D. Beyer published Subartu 17-T, they read the term as munusú-lu-du-ut-ti for ulūduttu or ulluduttu, meaning “nubilité” rather than “grossesse.” However, it is obvious that their reading does not make sense here. S. Démare-Lafont and I pointed out that it must be taken as MÍ.Ú.LU-tù-ut-ti for amīltūtu, i.e., the female counterpart of amīlūtu. The main text is cited in the handout.

At first glance, one might take Matiya to be the debtor and Al-ummi to be the possessory, thus antichretic, pledge of his debt. However, this interpretation should be rejected in light of the above discussion on the amīlūtu. Rather, we have to regard Al-ummi as both the debtor and the possessory pledge. This is our starting point. Then, how can this text be rationally understood?

The creditor is Belu-malik. Although the amount of her debt is not specified, Al-ummi was taken as his amīltūtu. As observed above, an amīlūtu contract requires another security at the same time. As she was apparently a single woman in this case, this role was performed by a surety, ša qātātiši ilqû, literally “one who took her hands.” Here, the problem is the use of yānu, literally “there is/was not,” in l. 5. Since it seems that amīlūtu contracts required another security as we saw above, Al-ummi must have had a surety at the time she made her amīltūtu contract, but now he was gone because of his death, flight or some other reason.

When the terms of Al-ummi’s contract were not being completely fulfilled, the creditor Belu-malik took her into the presence of the men of authority. As shown in l. 21, Kapi-Dagan was a son of the well-known diviner Zu-Ba‘la. Although it is not certain that “the ‘great (men)’ of Emar” were the same as the city elders, they urged a certain Matiya to repay the debt of Al-ummi. Who was this Matiya? The use of the verb in the imperative tēr, “pay back!” in l. 10 seems to indicate that he was the debtor. However, if Al-ummi was an amīltūtu, it seems from the above discussion that the debt was hers. In this respect, Emar VI 205 is noteworthy.

If my reading of this text is correct, a certain Madi-Dagan borrowed 25 shekels of silver from Ibni-Dagan, another son of the above-mentioned Zu-Ba‘la, giving his two children to the creditor as possessory pledges. But thereafter he died without repaying the debt. Then Ibni-Dagan took the children left with him into the presence of the Hittite dignitary Mudri-Tešub and the city elders as well as the brothers of the debtor Madi-Dagan. The words of Ibni-Dagan to those brothers and the resultant situation are cited in the handout. The brothers are urged to “pay back” the debt of Madi-Dagan, although apparently they were not his co-debtors. This means that the verb turru can be used for other persons than the debtor himself, in this case his brothers, i.e., his closest relatives. Since they refused to pay the money and voluntarily agreed to assign the children to Ibni-Dagan as his slaves, it was legally established that “dead (or) alive, they are slaves of Ibni-[Dag]an.” Thus, Emar VI 205 provides us with a case in which the creditor gives relatives a chance to redeem personal pledges before their enslavement due to the default on a debt contract. After Madi-Dagan’s brothers formally abandoned their right of redemption, it is stipulated in ll. 17-23 that if they later want to redeem the children, they shall give two persons for each of them, i.e., pay double.

In my opinion, a similar situation is to be assumed in Subartu 17-T. Since the amīltūtu Al-ummi no longer had a surety, the men of authority urged Matiya, her closest relative, to pay back her debt and redeem her. But he refused and voluntarily, thus formally, agreed that she should become the slave of the creditor Belu-malik.

However, at this moment Lad-Dagan intervened in the affair by undertaking to be her new surety. He may have been a son of the above Kapi-Dagan, son of the diviner Zu-Ba‘la, although this cannot be proved. In any case, why would he do this? I think, because he was her private creditor. According to ll. 19f., Lad-Dagan once took care of her in the year of famine and war, no doubt out of good will, apparently without making a debt contract. One may say easily that his behavior was natural as a human, and all the more so if he was a man of sacred profession. He probably considered that he had spent 30 shekels on this charity, the amount of silver mentioned in l. 18. Probably, because Lad-Dagan’s expenditure was not legally recognized as a formal loan, he could not prevent her from becoming Belu-malik’s amīltūtu. But money is money, and 30 shekels is not small amount of silver. If Al-ummi were enslaved by Belu-malik, Lad-Dagan would lose any hope of recovering his ‘loan.’ This must be the reason why he stood surety for her so she could keep the amīltūtu contract. Although it is not written in the text, there is no doubt that in the future someone who wants to take her would have to pay the amount of her debt to the creditor Belu-malik. However, Lad-Dagan now adds one condition: such a person should also pay 30 shekels of silver to him. This extrapayment was probably made possible by the formal abandonment of the redemption right by Matiya.

On the basis of the above discussion, Subartu 17-T can reasonably be taken as the renewal of an amīltūtu contract with modification, issued for Lad-Dagan, the new surety. Also, the amīltūtu Al-ummi can well be understood as the female counterpart of an amīlūtu.

 

V. Final Remarks

Thus, Subartu 17-T confirms our understanding of the amīlūtu in Emar, providing a unique female case. Both the amīlūtu and the amīltūtu are to be regarded as at once debtors and possessory, thus antichretic, pledges. Furthermore, concerning the required additional security, Subartu 17-T provides us with a case of a surety, instead of the hypothecary pledges attested in the three amīlūtu contracts made by married men. This is reasonable, particularly since a single person cannot offer a wife or child as a hypothecary pledge. So, though above I stated that in amīlūtu contracts a hypothecary pledge had to be set, this text indicates that this condition (feature 3) should be modified to: at the same time, another security, either a hypothecary pledge or a surety, is set. Although it was probably as difficult to find a surety as it is today, the existence of one would enable a debtor without enough property for hypothecary pledge to make an amīlūtu contract, as in the case of Al-ummi.

Before closing this study, it may be worth considering the relationship of Al-ummi with her lost surety and Matiya, her closest living relative. The main point we have to consider is whether the woman Al-ummi was independent of or subordinate to a man in her family. In the former case, she would presumably be the single inheritress of her family estate. In Emar a daughter was frequently nominated as the inheritress when her father had no son, but such a woman could be seriously impoverished, as attested in Emar VI 213 and TS 74. If she was an impoverished inheritress, the first candidate for Matiya’s relationship would be her uncle or cousin, though we have no idea of who needed to stand surety for her.

On the other hand, if she was subordinate to a man in her family, it was likely to her father, her brother, or perhaps her husband. Let us take the father as the most likely candidate. If her father was still alive at the time of the first contract, he was most probably her surety. This would mean that he was the substantial debtor who had Al-ummi, his daughter, borrow silver as his substitute. Then the first candidate for Matiya would be her brother. Although this interpretation may be simple, the following problems remain to be answered. Firstly, why did Lad-Dagan, no doubt an outsider to her family, take care of Al-ummi alone? Note that Subartu 17-T does not refer to any other members of her family. Secondly, why did Belu-malik risk taking her as an amīltūtu? If he had lent silver to her father and taken her as possessory pledge, the result would have been the same for him. Then, does the fact that he did not take her father as amīlūtu indicate that for him female labor was more important than the male labor? Lastly and most basically, could a woman subordinate to her father, or other male member of her family, borrow money? To the best of my knowledge, no such case is clearly attested, at least in the Emar texts.

Although the arguments are admittedly indecisive, I would support the interpretation that she was independent, in view of the number of difficulties in the interpretation that she was not. In any case, in view of the above observations, one may reasonably conclude that amīltūtu contract(s), i.e., amīlūtu contracts involving women, must have been rare cases.

 

<Handout>

I. Introduction

amīlūtu in Emar: “antichretic pledge”[1] (Arnaud); cf. “retainer, slave” (MB, NB, also Nuzi)

amīltūtu: its female counterpart (Subartu 17-T)

 

II. General Remarks

 1. Tablet type: Syro-Hittite type only

2. Orthography

amīlūtu: <sg.> LÚ.Ú.LU-ti-ia (Emar VI 16: 2; 117: 3; TS 39: 3; 40: 2); LÚ.Ú.LU-tù (Emar VI 77: 2; 279: 4; QVO 5-T 2: 1); LÚ!.Ú.LU-ut-ti (RA 77-T 5: 4); broken (ASJ 13-T 38: 3);

<pl.> LÚ.MEŠ.Ú.LU-te-i[a] (RE 39: 13); LÚ.MEŠ.Ú.LU-ti4 (ASJ 10-T A: 2)

amīltūtu: <sg.> MÍ.Ú.LU-tù-ut-ti (Subartu 17-T: 3).

cf. LÚ.U18/19.LU = amīlu; freq. LÚ.MEŠ = amīlūtu (Borger, MesZL2, 357 [no. 514])

3. Document types

1) amīlūtu contracts: Emar VI 77, ASJ 10-T A, RA 77-T 5

2) Contracts of caring by an amīlūtu: Emar VI 16, 117; ASJ 13-T 38!; QVO 5-T 2; TS 39, 40

3) Others: Emar VI 279, RE 39, Subartu 17-T

4. Amount of debt (shekels of silver)

         Emar VI 16            41                                      QVO 5-T 2            40

         Emar VI 77            140                                    RA 77-T 5              47

         Emar VI 117          40                                      RE 39                     [?] (3 persons)!

         Emar VI 279          not stated                          Subartu 17-T         not stated

         ASJ 10-T A            105 2/9 (3 persons)           TS 39                     25

         ASJ 13-T 38           56                                      TS 40                     30

 

III. The amīlūtu Contracts

 1. Texts

1) RA 77-T 5 (= ASJ 13-T 35)

(As for) Yašur-Dagan, son of Bada, 2-4 I, Itur-Dagan, son of Iddilli, have taken him (altaqe-šu) as amīlūtu for 47 shekels of silver. 5-6 He has placed his wife Na’ittu with her son, and his house, as (hypothecary) pledges.

2) Emar VI 77

1-3a Muḫra-aḫi, son of Kutta, son of Zadamma, s[on of x]-za, is the amīlūtu for 140 shekels of silver of Dagan-kabar, son of Ḫima. 3b-4a His (hypothecary) pledges are his house and his s[on] Add[a]. 4b-6 On the day when he pays his silver to Dagan-kabar, son of Ḫima, he b[rea]ks his document.

3) ASJ 10-T A

1-4a Dudu, son of Mašru, (and) also (lit. “with”) his sons, Kiri-Dagan and Abdi-ili, were staying (ašbū) as amīlūtus of Še’i-Dagan for 105 shekels (and) 40 (grains) of silver. 4b-6 Now, Dudu has paid back to Še’i-Dagan [4]0 shekels of silver from that silver. 7-10a (Since) Dudu has made himself (able to) leave, Kiri-Dagan and Abdi-ili will stay in the house of Še’i-Dagan for 65 (shekels and) 40 (grains) of silver. 10b-11 Their mo[th]er Ṣariptu (and) their sisters <  >.[2] 12-14 On the day when Dudu pays their silver, he breaks their document.

15-17 When Dudu was staying in the house of Še’i-Dagan, he was released and went away (for) nine months. 18-20a So, on <the day> when Dud[u] pays his [s]ilver, he gives his one son [t]o Še’i-Dagan, 20b so that he (the son shall) take on work (for) nine months.

 2. Features

0)    Text is of the Syro-Hittite type.

1)    The debt contracted is of silver.

2)    The debtor himself enters into the household of the creditor as a possessory pledge.

3)    At the same time, a hypothecary pledge, always including a member of the debtor’s family, is set (but cf. § IV.2.3 below).

4)    The debtor repays only the capital.

5)    But instead of paying interest, he is obliged to work at the house of the creditor until the debt is paid.

6)    The term of the contract is indefinite.

 3. Comparison

1) Other debt contracts in Emar (Syro-Hittite type), involving a personal pledge

Text

Debtor

F. member

Others

Note

Emar VI 205

poss. pledge

Emar VI 209

surety

līṭu for the surety
TS 25

poss. pledge

debt in barley
TS 34

poss. pledge

poss. pledge

・No case of setting double securities (pledges) involving the debtor himself

2) tidennūtu in Nuzi: antichretic pledge in general

∴ amīlūtu: a specific type of antichretic pledge = a debtor owing silver

 

IV. amīltūtu in Subartu 17-T

 1. Text

1 ⸢fal-um-mi DUMU.MÍ mzu-ba-la 2 DUMU ḪAR-da a-na le-et mEN-ma-lik DUMU NIR-dKUR a-na MÍ.Ú.LU-tù-ut-ti[3] aš-ba-at ù ša qa-ta-ti-ši il-qu i-ia-nu ù mEN– ma-lik fal-um-mi a-na pa-ni mka-pí-dKUR ù [G]AL.MEŠ URU.e-mar ul-te-li ù GAL.MEŠ URU.e-mar a-na mma-ti-ia i-dáb-bu-bu ma-a KÙ.BABBAR-šú! ša mEN– ma-lik 10 te-er-mi um-ma mma-ti-ia-ma 11 [ma-a] KÙ.BABBAR-šú la-a a-na-din-mi 12 [ma]amal-um-mi-ma li-iṣ-bat-mi 13 [ù] mla-ad-dKUR DUMU ka-pí-dKUR! 14 [(x)] qa- ta-ti-ši il-qè 15 i[n]a EGIR-ki u4-mi šum-ma mma-ti-ia 16 i-ia-nu-mi-eša-nu-um-ma il-la-ak 17 ù fal-um-mi i-la-aq-qè 18 30 GÍN KÙ.BABBAR.MEŠ a-na mla-ad-dKUR li-din 19 fal-um-mi lil-qè i-na MU.KAM dan-na-ti 20 ù i-na MU.KAM ša nu-ku-[r]a-ti ub-tal- <li>-iṭ-ši  /

Al-ummi, daughter of Zu-Ba‘la, son of ḪARda, was staying with Belu-malik, son of Matkali-Dagan, as (his) amīltūtu, but the one who had stood surety for her was gone.[4]

So, Belu-malik brought Al-ummi up into the presence of Kapi-Dagan and the ‘great (men)’ of Emar. The ‘great (men)’ of Emar said to Matiya: “Pay back the silver of Belu-malik!” (But) thus Matiya: “I will not pay his silver. Let him seize Al-ummi (as his slave).”

[Then] Lad-Dagan, son of Kapi-Dagan, stood surety for her. I[n] the future, if Matiya or someone else (should) come[5] and take Al-ummi, he shall pay 30 shekels of silver to Lad-Dagan, so that he may take Al-ummi. (For) he (Lad-Dagan) kept her provided with food in the year of distress (i.e., famine) and in the year of hostility (i.e., war).

 2. Discussion on the people in the text

1) Al-ummi: the amīltūtu

・The debtor and possessory pledge, who had lost her surety

not a case of Matiya = the debtor vs. Al-ummi = the possessory pledge

2) Belu-malik: the creditor, the amount of whose loan is unknown

3) The lost surety (ša qātātiši ilqû)

・The other required security: cf. the (hypothecary) pledges in the amīlūtu contracts

yānu (l. 5), “there (was, but now) is not”: double securities required

4) Matiya and tēr (l. 10)

・The closest relative of Al-ummi, probably not the debtor

cf. Emar VI 205: When Madi-Dagan (debtor) died and his children (possessory pledges) were left with Ibni-Dagan (creditor), Ibni-Dagan took them into the presence of the men of authority and said to the brothers of Madi-Dagan:

9b-11a “If [you would take] the two children of [your] br[other], pay back (terrā) my 25 shekels of silver! 11b-12 [Otherwise], give the[se] two children of your brother into my slavery of you[r own accord]!” 13-14a Then, the brother[s of their father did not a]gree to pay the 25 shekels of silver of Ibni-[Dagan], 14b-16a and (gave in a) sealed (document) the two children of their brother into the slavery [of] Ibni-Dagan of their [o]wn accord. 16b Dead (or) alive, they are slaves of Ibni-[Dag]an.

・He formally abandoned his right to redeem Al-ummi.

5) Lad-Dagan: Al-ummi’s private creditor → her new surety

・Son of Kapi-Dagan (l. 13): cf. Kapi-Dagan in ll. 6, 21 (son of Zu-Ba‘la, the diviner)

・30 shekels: expenditure for taking care of her in the year of famine and war

・No legal debt contract?: so debt ignored when Belu-malik took Al-ummi as his amīltūtu

→ no chance to recover his 30 shekels if Al-ummi is enslaved by Belu-malik

∴1 Subartu 17-T: renewal of the amīltūtu contract with modification, issued for Lad-Dagan

He stood surety for Al-ummi, adding one condition: the one who takes Al-ummi shall pay 30 shekels to Lad-Dagan (besides the amount of the debt to Belu-malik).

∴2 amīltūtu: can be well understood as the female counterpart of amīlūtu

 

V. Final Remarks

 1. amīlūtus and amīltūtu(s): debtors and possessory (= antichretic) pledges

・Additional security required (feature 3’): hypothecary pledge or surety

 2. Al-ummi

・If independent: single inheritress of her family estate (cf. Emar VI 213, TS 74)

→ surety = ?, Matiya = probably her uncle or cousin

・If subordinate: substitute for a dominant man (esp. father) in her family

→ surety = her father (= substantial debtor!), Matiya = most likely her brother

∴ amīltūtu contract(s): rare

 

Bibliography

Arnaud, D. 1981: “Humbles et superbes à Emar (Syrie) à la fin de l’âge du Bronze récent,” in: A. Caquot & M. Delcor (eds.), Mélanges bibliques et orientaux en l’honneur de M. Henri Cazelles (AOAT 212), Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1-14.

— 1985-86: Recherches au pays d’Aštata. Emar VI/1-3, Paris (= Emar VI).

— 1991: Textes syriens de l’âge du Bronze récent (AuOrS 1), Sabadell (= TS).

Beckman, G. 1996: Texts from the Vicinity of Emar in the Collection of Jonathan Rosen (HANE/M II), Padova (= RE).

Cavigneaux, A. & D. Beyer 2006: “Une orpheline d’Emar,” in: P. Butterlin, et.al. (eds.), Les espaces syro-mésopotamiens (Subartu 17 = Fs. Margueron), Turnhout, 497-503 (= Subartu 17-T).

Démare-Lafont, S. 2010: “Éléments pour une diplomatique juridique des textes d’Émar,” in: S. Démare-Lafont & A. Lemaire (eds.), Trois millénaires de formulaires juridiques (HEO 48), Paris, 43-84.

Di Filippo, F. 2010: “Two Tablets from the Vicinity of Emar,” in M. G. Biga & M. Liverani (eds.), ana turri gimilli (Quaderni di Vicino Oriente V = Fs. Mayer), Roma, 105-115 (= QVO 5-T).

Eichler, B. 1973: Indenture at Nuzi: The Personal Tidennūtu Contract and its Mesopotamian Analogues (YNER 5), New Haven.

Huehnergard, J. 1983 “Five Tablets from the Vicinity of Emar,” RA 77, 11-43 (= RA 77-T).

Tsukimoto, A. 1988: “Sieben spätbronzezeitliche Urkunden aus Syrien,” ASJ 10, 153-189 (= ASJ 10-T).

— 1991: “Akkadian Tablets in the Hirayama Collection (II),” ASJ 13, 275-333 (= ASJ 13-T).

Westbrook, R. 2001:”Introduction” and “Conclusions,” in: R. Westbrook & R. Jasnow (eds.), Security for Debt in Ancient Near Eastern Law, Leiden, 2001, 1-3, 327-339.

Yamada, M. 2010: “On amīlūtu in Emar: As a Type of Antichretic Pledge,” Bulletin of the Society for Near Eastern Studies in Japan (= BSNESJ) 53/2, 55-73 (in Japanese with English summary).

— 2011a: “Notes on amīltūtu and qātātu in Emar,” BSNESJ 54/1, 139-157 (in Japanese with English summary).

— 2011b: “On QVO 5-T 2, a Recently Published Emar Text,” BSNESJ 54/2, 119-122 (in Japanese).

— 2012: “The Contracts of Caring by amīlūtus in Emar: In Comparison with Slaves, Adopted Sons and Creditors,” BSNESJ 55/1, 2-21 (in Japanese with English summary).


[1] Security: (1) pledge – property that the debtor gives or assigns to the creditor by way of security; 1a) possessory, if actually handed over; 1b) hypothecary, if only assigned; (2) surety (guarantor) – a person who assumed liability instead of the debtor in case of default. Possessory pledge was for the most part antichretic, i.e., the income from the pledge was taken by the creditor in lieu of interest, leaving the capital to be repaid in its entirety in order to redeem the pledge (Westbrook 2001, 3, 329).

[2] Probably, they are (hypothecary) pledges as in the first contract. Cf. “(So auch) Ṣāriptu, ihre Mutter, <und> ihre Schwestern” (Tsukimoto). If so, this would mean they are (possessory) pledges.

[3] Cf. munusú-lu-du-ut-ti, “(Mille Al-ummī … est désormais) nubile,” taken as ulūduttu/ulluduttu, “nubilité” (plutôt que “grossesse”), from *wld (Cavigneaux & Beyer).

[4] Lit. “there was no one who stood surety for her.”

[5] Cf. “if Matiya should disappear (and then) someone comes” (Yamada).

The almattu-azibtu Formula in the Emar Texts

The almattu-azibtu Formula in the Emar Texts

Masamichi YAMADA

ABSTRACT
This study deals with the almattu-azibtu formula, the enigmatic expression that a certain woman is almattu itti almanāti azibtu itti azbāti, « a widow with widows (and) a divorcée with divorcées, » which is attested in six Emar texts of Syro-Hittite type. Through an analysis of these texts, the following three features are particularly noteworthy: (1) the women concerned are free women; (2) but they are in a socio-economically inferior position; also (3) the above formula is stated in the context of the premise of (or, in five texts, at the time of) their marriage. From the last point, we may conclude that the meaning of the almattu-azibtu formula is that after the marriage ends, either by the death of the husband or divorce, the woman is to be treated like other normal widows or divorcées. Furthermore, we should note that this formula is used substantially to prescribe the release of a former slave in Emar VI 16. In another text, a free woman married to a slave (QVO 5-T 1) was, after his death, adopted by his owner, who presumably wanted to keep her under his control (QVO 5-T 2). From these points, we may understand the intention of the formula as prescribing that because they are free women, though in an inferior position, they shall not be treated as slaves.

I. Introduction
In the Emar texts from Late Bronze Age Syria, occasionally we find the enigmatic statement, that a certain woman is almattu itti almanāti azibtu itti azbāti, that is « a widow with widows, (and) a divorcée with divorcées. » We will call it the almattu-azibtu formula below. This formula is attested in the six texts of Syro-Hittite type listed in the handout. The texts marked with an asterisk use variant expressions: in QVO 5-T 1 the order of the two elements is reversed, and azibtu/azbāti is written in the Babylonian form as ezibtu/ezbēti; and in Semitica 46-T 1 and SMEA 30-T 13 the formula is partly omitted. This study seeks to clarify the meaning and intention of the formula.

II. Texts
Because of the limit of time, in this presentation I take three texts as samples for examination.

1.QVO5-T1
This is a short text stating that a certain Kuna’e marries a woman named Anna-kime to his slave Abi-SA-SI. The just-married Anna-kime is unhappily called a widow and divorcée. Although she herself seems to be a free woman, as she is referred to with her patronymic, she is made a wife of a slave. Probably she is a daughter handed over to Kuna’e by her father, who had failed to repay his debt. This point would be supported by the phraseology that Kuna’e « took » her.
From another text, QVO 5-T 2, it is known that Kuna’e later had Anna-kime marry Ḫizmiya, his amīlūtu, a specific type of debtor owing silver in Emar. This suggests that her first husband had died. It is interesting to note that this time she is called Kuna’e’s « daughter. » One may suppose some connection between this adoption and the almattu-azibtu formula. We will return to this point later.

2. Emar VI 216
This is a contract of the so-called matrimonial adoption (or marriage adoption). Here, the girl Ba‘la-bea is given to a woman named Anat-ummi as her daughter, (and also as her kallātu according to a related tablet). If Anat-ummi’s husband needs an heir, Anat-ummi will marry the girl to her husband, and she will be a widow with widows and a divorcée with divorcées. Else, Anat-ummi may marry her to someone in another family. The family of Ba‘la-bea is obviously in poverty, and this transaction seems to be actually her sale, as her bridewealth is called « the price of Ba‘la-bea » in the related tablet.
However, according to the related tablet, Emar VI 217, this matrimonial adoption was cancelled because Anat-ummi did not pay the promised price of 30 shekels of silver (ll. 13f.). It is interesting to note that in Emar VI 216 the amount of silver is not stated in l. 5, if my reading of the text on the basis of the handcopy is correct. In my opinion, Ku’e, the mother of Ba‘la-bea, received a part of the 30 shekels, so she could support her children in the year of famine, but not the full price. Emar VI 217 states that after canceling the adoption contract, Ba‘la-bea’s parents sold their sons and daughters, including Ba‘la-bea, as slaves to the diviner Adda-malik for 60 shekels of silver.
In view of the above texts, we can note the following common points about the almattu-azibtu formula: (1) the woman concerned is a member of a poor family; (2) the formula is stated on the occasion of her marriage. These points seem to be applicable also to RAI 47-T 2 and Semitica 46-T 1. Furthermore, SMEA 30-T 13, too, seems to be in a marriage context, although the woman concerned is a former slave as in the following text.

3. Emar VI 16
This is a care (palāḫu) contract, in which the creditor Ùaggar-abu cancels 20 out of 41 shekels of silver of the debt of his amīlūtu Bazila, and obliges Bazila to take care of himself and his wife as long as they live. Šaggar-abu also gives to Bazila as his wife, a certain Abi-qiri, who is probably his slave, as she is referred to without her patronymic. After finishing his obligation, Bazila may leave the house of Šaggar-abu together with his wife and sons, if he pays the rest of the debt, 21 shekels, to the sons of Šaggar-abu.
The part of the text cited in the handout is concerned with what happens if Bazila dies during the period of this obligation. Now, it is Abi-qiri, his wife, who accepts the obligation in his stead. Then, how is she treated after finishing it? She is a widow with widows and a divorcée with divorcées. (Here, it is interesting to note that even though she would clearly be a widow in this case, the formula mentions both widows and divorcées. This indicates that these two elements are considered as more or less equivalent).
Furthermore it is said, « the sons of Šaggar-abu shall not claim her. » The phrase, ana muḫḫi X lā iraggumū, « they shall not claim X, » is attested in three care contracts (Emar VI 177: 20′-22′; RE 27 [sg.], 66), in which a slave accepts the obligation to take care of family members of his or her owner until their deaths. For example, in Emar VI 177 the owner of Itti-beli, the slave, says that after finishing the obligation, « Itti-beli is released to the sun. My sons shall not claim him » (ll. 21′-22′). This means that Itti-beli is released from the status of slave, and those sons cannot claim the ownership of him; in other words, he may leave the house of his former owner as a freeman. Similarly, in the present text, the statement that the sons shall not claim her would confirm well the above identification of Abi-qiri as a female slave. Furthermore, we may take the almattu-azibtu formula as substantially the same as « Itti-beli is released to the sun, » indicating her release as a free woman.

III. Considerations

1. Features
On the basis of the above, the following common features are to be noted on all the women concerned:

  1. They are free women. The connection of the almattu-azibtu formula with this point is clearly shown in Emar VI 16.
  2. But they are in a socio-economically inferior position. Note that formerly they were either female slaves or members of poor families.
  3. They are married women. Particularly, in five out of the six texts, the almattu-azibtu formula is stated in the context of their marriage.

These points are significant when we consider the meaning and intention of the almattu-azibtu formula below.

2. Meaning of the formula
In the five texts in which the almattu-azibtu formula is stated in the context of marriage, its meaning is easily understood. Once a woman is married, in the future she will be either a wife, a widow, or a divorcée. The almattu-azibtu formula refers to « widows » and « divorcées » on the occasion of her marriage because it is concerned with her future. So, the formula can be understood as a general prescription that when she becomes a widow or divorcée, she will be treated like other (normal) widows and divorcées. Needless to say, the reference to « wife » is unnecessary here, since (it is taken for granted in the male centered society that) as long as the husband is alive, he will always treat his wife well and properly.
As for the remaining text, Emar VI 16, in which the formula is given not in the context of her marriage, but of her widowhood, the same meaning is applicable. To clarify this point, let us ask simply to where this former slave is going after her release. Since she is the widow of Bazila, it must be to his parents’ home. Then the formula is understood as prescribing that she will be treated like other widows there. Thus its close connection with marriage is obvious in this text.
In conclusion, we may take the almattu-azibtu formula as meaning that a certain free married woman in a socio-economically inferior position is to be treated like other normal widows and divorcées when her marriage ends.

3. Intention of the formula
However, widows and divorcées, as well as orphans, seem to have been the representatives of socially weak people. Then, does the almattu-azibtu formula indicate that they are to be treated as such? I do not think so. In my opinion, the point is that they are to be treated like other normal widows and divorcées, that is, as free women.
Now, let us recall Emar VI 16, in which the almattu-azibtu formula substantially prescribes the release of the former female slave Abi-qiri as a free woman. In this respect, it is worthy noting the destiny of Anna-kime, who was made to marry a slave in QVO 5-T 1. As noted above, QVO 5-T 2 shows that when she actually did become a widow, she was made an adopted daughter of Kuna’e, the owner of her dead husband. Why did Kuna’e adopt her? I think, because of the almattu-azibtu formula. He presumably wanted to keep her in his household, but because of this formula in the contract was obliged to treat her as a free woman. In this case, how could he secure his control over her? Threre was no way but to adopt her, since she was neither his slave nor his debtor. This case of Anna-kime shows how the almattu-azibtu formula was actually effective, involving the surrounding people.
Based on the above, we may conclude that the almattu-azibtu formula intends to insure that the women concerned are treated as free women, not as slaves, although they are socio-economically inferior.

IV. Final Remarks
The almattu-azibtu formula is concerned with married, free women who are in a socio-economically inferior position. It prescribes directly that they are to be treated like other normal widows and divorcées when they become widows or divorcées. However, its intention is more general, to insure they are treated as free women, not as slaves. In short, it says, they cannot be enslaved. Although widows and divorcées are socially weak, the formula means that at least they are free women. They are referred to as widows and divorcées only because they would have been formerly married.
In Emar, the barrier of social rank between freemen and slaves seems to have been relatively low, as we see frequently in the Emar texts that a debtor who cannot repay his debt becomes the slave of his creditor, while an owner sometimes releases a slave on his own initiative. However, the almattu-azibtu formula insists a clear distinction between them. Probably use of the formula reflects the mental threat of that fluidity of the social orders felt by the Emarites, particularly the freemen in an inferior position, who seriously tried to resist it.

The almattu-azibtu Formula in the Emar Texts

I. Introduction

  1. The formula: almattu itti almanāti azibtu itti azbāti
    Emar VI 16: 26f.; 216: 11f.; QVO 5-T 1: 5-7*; RAI 47-T 2: 5f.; Semitica 46-T 1: 6*; SMEA 30-T 13: 6f.* (all Syro-Hittite type)
  2. Problems: its meaning and intention

II. Texts (selected)

1.QVO5-T1
(1) mku-na-’-e DUMU ir-ri-g[e] (2) fan-na-ki-me DUMU.MÍ mx-ḫi-ir?-[x] (3) LÚ URU.ú-ri a-na DAM-ut-ti (4) ša ma-bi-SA-SI ÌR-šu (5) il-qe e-zi-ib-tu (6) it-ti ez-be-ti ù al-ma-tu (7) it-ti al-ma-na-ti /
Kuna’e, son of Irrig[e], took Anna-kime, daughter of X-ḫir(?)-x, man of Uru, as the wife of Abi-SA-SI, his slave. (She is) a divorcée with divorcées and a widow with widows.
Cf. daughter of Kuna’e (QVO 5-T 2: 3)

2. Emar VI 216
(1) fku-’-e DUMU.MÍ mzu-[…] (2) DAM mza-dam-ma [a-kán-na iq-bi] (3) ma-a LÚ.mu-ti4-ia il-t[a-bi-ir DUMU.MEŠ-ni] (4) ṣe-eḫ-ru ša ú-bal-la-aṭ-s[ú-nu NU.TUK] (5) ù fdNIN-be-a DUMU.MÍ-ia a-na KÙ.[BABBAR(.MEŠ)] [1] (6) a-na DUMU.MÍ-ša ša fa-nat-um-mi DAM mše-gal DUMU ik-ki (7) at-ta-din-ši DUMU.MEŠ ṣe-eḫ-ru-ti i-na MU dan-na-ti (8) ú-bal-li-iṭ šúm-ma fa-nat-um-mi DAM mše-gal (9) la! tu-la-ad fdNIN-be-a a-na DAM-šú ša <m>še-gal (10) LÚ.mu-ti4-ša ta-na-din-ši i-na EGIR u4-mi (11) fdNIN-be-a al-mat-tu4 it-ti al-ma-na-ti (12) ši-it a-zi-ib-tu it-ti az-ba-ti! ši-it (13) ù šúm-ma fa-nat-um-mi i-na mše-gal (14) LÚ.mu-ti4-ša tu-la-ad (15) mše-g[al] ù fa-nat-um-mi (16) [f]d[NIN-b]e-a DUMU.MÍ-šú-nu i-na É e-mi (17) li-d[in-nu]? KÙ.BABBAR.MEŠ NÌ.MÍ.ÚS.SÁ-ši (18) lil-[q]u?-ú
Ku’e, daughter of Zu-[…], wife of Zadamma, [said as follows]: « My husband has beco[me old (and) our children(!) are (still) young (but) [there is no] one who supports t[hem]. So, I gave Ba‘la-bea, my daughter, as a daughter of Anat-ummi, wife of Šegal, son of Ikki, for sil[ver]. (Then) I (could) support (our) young children(!) in the year of distress (i.e., famine). » If Anat-ummi, wife of Šegal, does not bear (a son), she will give Ba‘la-bea to Šegal, her husband, as his wife. Thereafter she is a widow with widows (and) she is a divorcée with divorcées. But if Anat-ummi bears (a son) for Šegal, her husband, Šeg[al] and Anat-ummi may m[arry] off [Ba‘la-b]ea, their daughter, to someone else and ta[k]e the silver of her bridewealth.

Cf. kallātu of Anat-ummi (Emar VI 217: 12); 30 shekels of silver (ll. 12, 13) Note: at the time of marriage (RAI 47-T 2, Semitica 46-T 1, also SMEA 30-T 13!)

[1] Cf. š[ám] (Arnaud); ma-ar-[tu-ti] (Durand & Marti); é.[gi.a ù] (Justel). Note KÙ.BABBAR in the handcopy: Emar VI 216: 5, 17, 20 (Msk. 731070 + 74333).

3. Emar VI 16
(22) šúm-ma i-na EGIR u4-mi mba-zi-la BA.ÚŠ fa-bi-qí-ri (23) DAM-šú u4-mi.MEŠ ša md30-a-bu ù DAM-šú bal-ṭu (24) i-pal-làḫ-šú-[n]u-ti ki-[i-me-e] i-p[al-là]ḫ-šú-nu-ti (25) EGIR ši-im-ti-šú-nu ub-bal-šú-nu-ti [a]-na EGIR u4-mi (26) fa-bi-qí-ri al-ma-tu4 it-ti a[l-m]a-[n]a-ti [a-zi]-ib-tu4 (27) it-ti az-ba-ti [D]UMU.MEŠ-šú š[a] md30-a-bi a-na muḫ-ḫi-ši (28) la-a i-ra-gu-mu š[ú]m-ma i-ra-gu-mu ṭup-pu an-nu-ú (29) i-la-’-e-šú-nu-ti /
If in the later days Bazila dies, Abi-qiri, his wife, shall serve Šaggar-abu and his wife as long as they live. When she serves them, she brings them after their destiny. Thereafter (she is) a widow with w[id]o[w]s (and) a [divo]rcée with divorcées. The sons o[f] Šaggar-abu shall not claim her. If they claim (her), this document overcomes them.
Cf. (e.g., PN [= slave] ana šamši muššur) ana muḫḫišu lā iraggumū (Emar VI 177: 22′; RE 66: 9f.; cf. also RE 27: 6f. [sg.])

III. Considerations
1. Features: the women concerned are

  • a) free women; esp. cf. Emar VI 16: release of a former slave
  • b) socio-economically inferior: former slaves or members of poor families c) married women: on the premise (or at the time) of marriage

2. Meaning of the formula
note: married woman –> wife, widow or divorcée
※ she will be treated like other (normal) widows and divorcées

3. Intention of the formula
note: the widows and divorcées = free women, not slaves (Emar VI 16, also QVO 5-T 2 [cf. no. 1])
※ she must be treated as a free woman, not as a slave

IV. Final Remarks

  1. Conclusions: meaning (III.2) and intention (III.3)
  2. Gap: interchangeability (freeman ⇄  slave) vs.distinction (freeman ⇔ slave)

Bibliography

  • Arnaud, D. 1985-86: Recherches au pays d’Aštata. Emar VI/1-3, Paris (= Emar VI).
  • —— 1992: « Tablettes de genres divers du moyen-Euphrate, » SMEA 30, pp. 195-245 (= SMEA 30-T).
  • —— 1996: « Mariage et remariage des femmes chez les Syriens du moyen-Euphrate, à l’âge du Bronze récent d’après deux nouveaux documents, » Semitica 46, pp. 7-16, Pl. 1 (= Semitica 46-T).
  • Di Filippo, F. 2010: « Two Tablets from the Vicinity of Emar, » in: M. G. Biga & M. Liverani (eds.), ana turri gimilli: studi dedicati al Padre Werner R. Mayer, S.J. da amici e allievi (Quaderni di Vicino Oriente V), Roma, pp. 105-115 (= QVO 5-T).
  • Durand, J.-M. & L. Marti 2003: « Chroniques du Moyen-Euphrate 2. Relecture de documents d’Ekalte, Émar et Tuttul, » RA 97, pp. 141-180.
  • Hallo, W. W. 2002: « Love and Marriage in Ashtata, » in: S. Parpola & R. M. Whiting (eds.), Sex and Gender in the Ancient Near East (RAI 47), Helsinki, pp. 203-216 (= RAI 47-T).
  • Justel, J. J. 2008: « L’adoption matrimoniale à Emar (Syrie, XIIIe s. av. J.-C.), » RHD 86, pp. 1-19.
  • Yamada, M. 2011: « On QVO 5-T 2, a Recently Published Emar Text, » Bulletin of the Society for Near Eastern Studies in Japan (= BSNESJ) 54/2, pp. 119-122 (in Japanese).
  • —— 2012: « The Contracts of Caring by amīlūtus in Emar: In Comparison with Slaves, Adopted Sons and Creditors, » BSNESJ 55/1, 2-21 (in Japanese with English summary).
  • —— submitted: « Widows and Divorcées as Free Women in Emar: A Study of the almattu-azibtu Formula, » BSNESJ 56 (in Japanese with English summary).