by Eckart Frahm
The most substantial and durable form of trade partnership – in fact, of investment association – centered around the commercial capital, called naruqqum (lit. “the money‐bag”), with which a trader (tamkārum) was supplied by a set of individuals (Larsen 1999). Shares of the naruqqum were bought in gold (2 lbs. or multiples thereof) according to an artificial rate of exchange (4 lbs. silver = 1 lb. gold) and entrusted to the merchant for some nine to twelve years for the pure and simple aim of “conducting trade”; the tamkārum himself was one of the investors. Private records often list the amount given over by individual investors to the naruqqum‐venture; but in any case a main register of the entire association of investors with their single shares, also including deadlines, existed. Profits for the trader were usually one‐third of the entire enterprise, whereas individual investors were guaranteed their minimal “one third.” Premature withdrawal of the invested sums was possible, but with no ensuing profit; steadfast investors were bound to receive their sums back at an 8:1 rate in addition to profits. Shares in long‐term naruqqus (important families/traders had more than one venture going at the same time) could be resold or inherited.
Finally, penal offences occurring in the exercise of OA trade may be exemplified by a series of court cases implying the two communities of Assyrians and Anatolians. Appeals to the local rulers could be made in case of homicide of Assyrian merchants in their territories, with requests for punishment and/or monetary compensation (“blood money”); but the opposite could apply if the victim was an Anatolian, with blood money to be paid by the kārum. Assault or robbery against the traders by Anatolians was to be compensated by local rulers, with obligatory extradition of the culprits for execution on the part of the kārum authorities. On a less severe scale, if Assyrians were caught smuggling, trading in restricted goods, and cooperating with enemies of the local rulers, long‐term imprisonment faced them; and only “presents” or outright ransom offered by the culprits’ friends or by the kārum might ensure their freedom.
Middle Assyrian Legal Practices
Context and sources
No actual MA law‐code has come down to us. However, a unique collection of legal provisions is represented by the so‐called “Middle Assyrian laws” (MAL). Discovered in various findspots at Ashur, this group of fourteen partly fragmentary tablets (numbered A–O) is in the main formed by 11th‐century copies of originals going back some 300 years (very few later duplicates are known). Vaster original codifications have been surmised to be behind the MAL; however, their prior format and even their unitary origin in time are highly uncertain. The contents (Roth 1997: 153–94) present groupings by broad subject‐matters: thus tablet A (the largest, with fifty‐nine provisions) deals in general with women, and specifically treats theft, blasphemy, bodily harm and assault, sexual offenses, homicide, false accusations, inheritance, marriage and property, veiling, witchcraft, pledges and debts, and abortion. MAL B, with twenty provisions, deals with inheritance, as well as agriculture and irrigation; MAL C + G, with eleven provisions, regards pledges and deposits; the remaining tablets are less complete and significant. The provisions of the MAL have a casuistic (“if … then”) form, similarly to many Babylonian law‐codes, with each “law” being set apart by horizontal rulings.
A second source of MA law is represented by the so‐called “Harem Edicts” (HE), a collection of twenty‐three provisions on nine fragmentary tablets; assembled during the time of Tiglath‐pileser I (1114–1076), this collection lists the decrees (riksu) of nine kings over three centuries, concerning the internal activities of the Palace and the harem (Roth 1997: 195–209). A bird’s‐eye view of some of the main professions within the Palace (priests, medical specialists, heralds, major‐domos, bakers, gate guards) may be gained from these texts; the attestation of eunuchs guarding the women of the harem represents a forerunner to the use of eunuchs at all levels of society in the NA period. The Queen (Parpola 2012) presided over the activities of the other women of the royal harem, who were not totally cloistered and could even travel, albeit under strict supervision; they could also mingle with the court under the responsibility of the palace manager (rab ekalli). Breach of the harem rules could entail severe punishments, even the death penalty.
The remaining sources on MA law are legal documents and administrative or epistolary texts from private/public archives from excavated sites, either in the Tigris catchment area (Ashur itself, Šibaniba, Qaṭṭara, Atmanu) or in the Jezirah, such as Ḫarbe, Dur‐Katlimmu, and Tell Sabi Abyad and Tell Fekheriyeh (ancient names unknown/uncertain). These texts concern in part the royal administration, and in part the dealings of the leading families of the MA state in their rural holdings. The tablets of legal documents usually bore a cylinder seal impression of the party ceding a right (e.g. selling land) or acknowledging liability placed at the top of the obverse, and seal impressions of some or all of the witnesses rolled out in the spaces left over by the texts.
Organs of legislation
The king himself, as source of all political, executive, and judiciary power on the basis of divine ordainment, was the supreme judge of the land and could intervene in court cases affecting the Assyrian state and involving governors and urban communities. According to the MAL, he could even be called to hear cases involving common crimes, especially if jeopardy for the public interests was foreseen (witchcraft, thefts, forgeries), and rule accordingly. Legal appeals to the king do not seem to have followed the decisions of a lower court, as was the case in OA times, but rather came directly from (one of) the litigating parties – thus prefiguring the custom of “invoking the king’s judgment” which was to become fairly widespread in the NA period.
In the majority of known cases, however, lawsuits – both civil and criminal – were tried before one or more judges (dayyānum) who could be members of the palace bureaucracy or of the social elite. No curricula of specific training for this office, and no court buildings for the judgments are evidenced by the texts; summonses for trials with fixed formularies could be sent out by the judges in the form of letters, although other proceedings were initiated by claims of one of the parties, by third parties, or by “informers” alerting the authorities. The judge initiated trials with an interrogation of the parties, with each version of the events being heard; if no settlement was possible, the defendant was summoned with his witnesses, while the plaintiff was bound to bring evidence for his claims (Lafont 2003: 526–30). If rational proof was lacking, oath and ordeal were required; in practice, if the accused could not prove his/her innocence through the testimony of witnesses, the decision was remanded to the gods. The MAL prescribe oaths sworn before the gods in case of theft, with a wife as defendant, and in witchcraft (thus tallying with the Laws of Hammurabi). Recourse to the river ordeal was made in the absence of witnesses and to establish someone’s good faith; it was prescribed by the judge, with all parties present. However, further details on this procedure – such as may be pieced together from the Mari letters, and from Middle Babylonian and Nuzi texts (Westbrook 2003b: 376; Slanski 2003: 494; Zaccagnini 2003: 575–6) – are neither given in the MA nor in the later NA documentation (Radner 2003: 891). At the end, the judges were obliged to impose statutory penalties or those demanded by the plaintiff, at least according to the MAL (Lafont 2003: 529).
Similarly to the case of Nuzi (Zaccagnini 2003: 570), the limits of the judges’ autonomy vis‐à‐vis the ruler are not made clear by the texts. Despite the increasing importance of the temple of Assur in the overall structure of the MA state, there is scarce evidence for priestly functions in legal matters; an oracular procedure is prescribed in MAL A §1, and oath and ordeal were overseen by priests, but secular judges had the ultimate responsibility for procedures and verdicts.
Case study: Family law and its implications
Family law shows noticeable differences between the MAL and the few relevant legal documents of the time (Lafont 2003: 533–41). While in the “official” laws the woman i
s presented as being fully under the authority of a husband or father, various deeds show that women had the capacity to be parties to contracts in the name of their absent spouses, to grant or request loans, to make šulmānu‐agreements, to adopt, and to purchase. As a case in point, the MAL specify that a wife could not dispose freely of her property; at most, she had a usufruct during her lifetime. Contemporaneous deeds, on the other hand, show that she could, for example, lend silver under a pledge agreement whereby she acquired ownership of the pledge on default (Lafont 2003: 542). This status of MA women thus seems closer to the one visible in OA law, where men and women had equal status in marriage law and divorce, in business practice, including the right to sue, and in testamentary and inheritance law (Veenhof 2003: 448–60).
Alongside the main wife (designated aššatu as in all Assyrian law), who had the right/obligation to wear a veil, concubines (esirtu) could also be married through a solemn declaration by the groom and the donning of the veil (MAL A §41). Slave women were to be at all times unveiled; and unlawful veiling entailed dire corporal punishments (MAL A, §40). A mārat a’īle, “daughter of a free man” is also attested, but her social status is uncertain (Lafont 2003: 533–4); perhaps the term referred to all non‐married women in the household, who went bare‐headed, from spinsters to widows to unmarried priestesses (qadiltu). The status of the equally unveiled ḫarimtu, as a prostitute or not, is still open to discussion (Assante 2007), but she was in any case protected by the law (cf. MAL A, §52, prescribing lex talionis – death through beating – for a man who has procured abortion of a ḫarimtu by striking her).
Marriage was negotiated between the families: while the role, and the consent, of the bride’s father is pre‐eminent in the MAL, two deeds describe the possibility for a parentless man and woman to conclude marriage on their own. Betrothal was sanctioned by marital gifts, which comprised terḫatu (the so‐called “bridal payment,” absent in OA law: Veenhof 2003: 452), i.e. a fixed share in non‐consumables, such as metals, owed to the father of the bride; biblu (the part in consumables, such as barley or sheep); and a discretional gift for the husband, meant to be acquired by the widow upon the husband’s death (nudunnû, which in later NA times will also mean “dowry”: Radner 2003, 900). Accompanying rites and a betrothal meal are specified in the MAL (A, §§42–3). Cohabitation was not mandatory: the bride could still reside in her father’s house, if so agreed. Unilateral divorce by the husband, with no compensation for the wife, is indicated by the MAL; another law of the collection states that terḫatu was kept by the wife if she was divorced without fault, but went back to the husband’s family if she predeceased him with no offspring, whereas additional gifts of jewelry were given back to the man or his heirs (but went to the widow if he died). On the other hand, marriage contracts from this age prescribe equal rights to divorce, as shown by the formula “he/she is no more my husband/wife,” with ensuing payments to the divorced spouse.
Wifehood was by and large geared toward the bearing of offspring, but at the same time the MAL attempted to avert the danger of leaving women homeless and destitute, thus showing similarities to other ancient Near Eastern law collections. Specifically, in case of absence of the husband for commercial endeavors or warfare, the wife was to wait for him for a specific period, after which – were she devoid of means of subsistence – she could remarry. Similar choices applied to widowhood, although the markings of a fully patriarchal society were present in the levirate institution, which allowed all male in‐laws to marry the widow, even in succession; however, in case there was no one to maintain her, the widow (almattu) could leave her marital and parental home and freely remarry. Bigamy (already known in the OA period, cf. §1b) was acceptable, either as a voluntary measure or as a consequence of levirate; but a division in status and treatment of the two women is marked in the MAL by terms for “main” (pānītu) and “secondary” (urkittu) wife. The children of marriage by levirate were considered as the deceased’s offspring.
Children born of adulterous unions in the husband’s absence were assigned to him upon his return. It was the duty of children of all marriages of the deceased father to support the widowed mother or stepmother. Adoption – as a strategy mainly intended to supply the adopter with descendants/heirs and to ensure his support in old age – was widespread; thus even foundlings could be raised as adoptees. If the adoptee was still under the authority of his father, the latter had to forfeit his rights with a contract in favor of the adopter; a contract of adoption was also prescribed to the posthumous son of a remarried widow in favor of the new stepfather. Adoptees of independent status could, instead, give themselves over into adoption – with a contract underscoring the voluntary nature of the move. A further particular case regards an adopted girl, whom the adopter promises to treat “like his own daughter, an Assyrian woman” – i.e. to guarantee her status as a free person, to the extent that the evidence of a similar formula from Nuzi (Zaccagnini 2003: 578) may be invoked. Whether natural or adopted, legitimate sons inherited from their father and received the dowry and other gifts from their deceased mother (MAL B, §1; MAL A, §29) – but also had to pay their parents’ liabilities.
In intestate succession, the sons had the foremost rank, followed by the brothers of the deceased – indivision being a frequent state of affairs. Heirs could resort to arbitration to determine the content of each share, even if a formal division had not been carried out. Upon commonly agreed division, the eldest brother was entitled to a double share (MAL B, §1.3). The formal redaction of MA testaments followed different models, but the accent was consistently placed on the benefits that one or more of the heirs received, and not so much on the precise and full division of property: thus, these testaments essentially resemble deeds of specific gifts inter vivos, with the remainder of the property being split up in equal parts (Lafont 2003: 542). Some of these family laws were passed down to the NA period; however, in contrast to MA legislation, in NA times each son, regardless of his age, received an equally large share of the inheritance (Radner 2003: 900).
Neo‐Assyrian Legal Practices
Context and sources
Information on NA law derives from a variety of different sources. Royal grants and decrees from the ninth century to the very end of the empire record allocations of land or tax‐exemptions for individuals or temples, other benefits for the sanctuaries, and appointments of officials; most of them bear the royal seal. Some of them present the wording “copied verbatim from an original deed (dannatu) with the seal of the gods Assur and Ninurta”: this formula implies reference to a prior deed, of which the gods themselves would have been parties and guarantors. However, since the gods’ seals are not reproduced (differently from at least one treaty‐document, see the case study below), the expression could have represented an ideological stratagem to legitimize the king’s action.
The approximately 3500 letters from this period offer (albeit at random) numerous insights into the legal procedures of this age, including the mechanisms of foreign policy and the function of covenantal documents (adê; see case study). As for material culture, cylinder or stamp seals and/or their impressions on tablets provide information on day‐to‐day administrative and legal procedures; especially the multiplicity of royal seals distributed to high‐level officials points to an innovative practice of delegation of royal power far and wide (Radner 2008).
NA legal documents – broadly split between documents of sale and of credit of many different types – have come down to us from excavations carried out in northern Iraq and adjacent regions from the mid‐19th century onwards; these archaeological findings show that storage of legal tablets in secure environments (e.g. in sealed jars within private houses) was a common custom – in contrast to other types of contemporaneous documents, which were often discarded (e.g. letters). As of now, some twenty‐five sites have yielded almost 2000 texts of juridical content, as part and parcel of private or public administrative tablet archives (Radner 1997: 4–18;
2011: 395, map). The main bodies of documents come, befittingly, from cities which had the successive function of imperial capital: the earliest political and religious center of Ashur, then Kalḫu (875[?]–706/5), and finally Nineveh (704–612). A temple archive is the origin of the legal documents found in Imgur‐Ellil. West of the Tigris, sites bearing archives of provincial officials lie on the tributaries of the Upper Euphrates, the Khabur (Dur‐Katlimmu), and the Baliḫ (Guzana), while fully private “business” archives come from Ma’allanate (an unidentified site between the two), and from the Euphrates riverbank (Burmarina, Til‐Barsip). Legal documents are a spin‐off of a multi‐disciplinary library at Ḫuzirina on the Baliḫ. Beyond the Euphrates, random legal documents come from excavated sites in Southern Turkey and present‐day Israel, whereas no such materials have been hitherto found in the eastern sector of the empire.
