Children in the Ancient Near Eastern Household 9781575068954

Citation preview

Children in the Ancient Near Eastern Household

A ncient

E xplo rations in N ear E astern C ivilizations Series Editors

Grant Frame

Brent A. Strawn

Niek Veldhuis

University of Pennsylvania

Emory University

University of California, Berkeley

1. Of Courtiers and Kings: The Biblical Daniel Narratives and Ancient StoryCollections, by Tawny L. Holm 2. The Sacrificial Economy: Assessors, Contractors, and Thieves in the Management of Sacrificial Sheep at the Eanna Temple of Uruk (ca. 625–520 b.c.), by Michael Kozuh 3. Children in the Ancient Near Eastern Household, by Kristine Henriksen Garroway

Children in the Ancient Near Eastern Household

Kristine Henriksen Garroway

Winona Lake, Indiana E isenbrauns 2014

© 2014 by Eisenbrauns Inc. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America. www.eisenbrauns.com

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Garroway, Kristine Henriksen.

Children in the ancient Near Eastern household / Kristine Henriksen Garroway.   pages  cm. — (Explorations in ancient Near Eastern civilizations) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-1-57506-295-2 (alkaline paper) 1.  Children—Middle East—History—To 1500.  2.  Children—Middle East—Social conditions.  3.  Households—Middle East—History—To 1500.  4.  Social archaeology—Middle East.  5.  Household archaeology— Middle East.  6.  Middle East—Antiquities.  7.  Middle East—History—To 622.  8.  Middle East—Social conditions.  I.  Title. DS56.G37 2014 305.2309394—dc23 2014031228

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of the American National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI Z39.48-1984.♾™

Contents Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  vii List of Tables and Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  ix Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  xi Maps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  xvi Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   1 Chapter 1.  Foundations: Theory and Childhood . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16 Chapter 2.  Adoption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  48 Chapter 3.  Orphans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  92 Chapter 4.  Children as Debt-Slaves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 Chapter 5.  The Slave and Hired Child . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141 Chapter 6.  Children in Biblical Israel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159 Chapter 7.  Child Sacrifice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178 Chapter 8.  Child Burials: An Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198 Chapter 9.  Child Burials in Canaan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218 Chapter 10.  Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245 Appendix A.  Cuneiform Texts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 254 Appendix B.  Archaeological Data for Burials in Canaan . . . . . . . . . . 281 Appendix C.  Catalog of Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 299 Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 317 Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 321 Index of Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 361 Index of Scripture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 369 Index of Ancient Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 372

v

Acknowledgments My interest in ancient Near Eastern children began more than a decade ago as I was flipping through a museum catalog and came across a set of inscribed footprints from Emar. The inscription stated that the father was selling his four children to pay a debt. Each imprint included the name of a child. As I tried to learn more about children in the ancient Near East, it quickly became apparent that little had been written on the subject. In the following years, I took this topic on as a dissertation project, and many of the data for the present book stem from my dissertation. Therefore, many thanks go first and foremost to my mentors, Nili Fox and Samuel Greengus, for the countless hours they spent reading drafts and offering suggestions. With his comments and queries pushing me to “dig” further, David Ilan was instrumental in helping me compose the archaeology section. Numerous texts and archaeological data, some not yet published, were made available to me by many scholars who selflessly and readily gave me their findings and input: Raymond Westbrook z′′l, Anthony Cagel, Amir Golani, Raphael Greenberg, Aren Maeir, and Joe Zias. I am grateful to Emmanuel Eisenberg, Jill Baker, and Sarit Paz for the time spent going over their archaeological finds with me and to Levana Tzfania for opening doors and making connections for me in Jerusalem. Finally, thanks go to Bruce Zuckerman, who helped me get the book off the ground with his encouragement and editorial skills. In addition to the people who aided me in my project are the libraries and institutions whose collections were invaluable in my research: HUC–Cincinnati, HUC–Jerusalem, HUC–Los Angeles, University of Southern California, Fuller Theological Seminary, Yale’s Sterling Memorial Library, the Yale Babylonian Collection, and the Rockefeller Archaeology Museum in Jerusalem. I am also indebted to the Memorial Foundation for Jewish Culture for the generous fellowship I was granted and to Richard Scheuer for the funds to complete my research in Israel. To my colleagues at HUC and Yale, much gratitude is due. Thanks to Angie, my longtime academic “chevrutah” partner, for her expertise in the publishing world and endless help with this project: ‫ברזל בברזל יחד ואיש יחד פני־רעהו‬ (Prov 27:17). I extend my heartfelt thanks to my loving family. To my three boys who made my research come alive: Cyrus, Leo, and Abner. And to Josh for your humor, love, and support: ‫( אני לדודי ודודי לי‬Song 6:3). vii

List of Tables and Figures The numbering of tables and figures in Appendix B is not continuous with the tables and figures in rest of the volume. Appendix B combines new tables and figures with previously referenced material, for the reader’s convenience, allowing all the data to be viewed in one place.

Tables Main Text   1.  Number of Sites Containing Children according to Burial Method and Time Period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2.  Number of Jar Burials by Period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3.  Number of Individual Children Buried by Relative Age and Burial Method . . . . . .   4.  Child Burials by Location, Number Interred, and Time Period . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5.  Sixteen MB II Sites from Northern Canaan: Relationship between Age, Burial Style, and Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6.  Number of Child Burials according to Burial Location and Method . . . . . . . . . .   7.  Correlation between Total Number of Child Burials Including Both Children and Adults, and Burial Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8.  Number of Burials Where Children Were Buried with One Adult: Correlation between Sex of Adult and Age of the Child . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9.  Jericho Tomb G73 (MBII) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.  Jericho Tomb P17 (MB II) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.  Jericho Tomb H6 (MB II) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.  Jericho Tomb H18 (MB II) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.  Number of Child Burials with Personal Grave Goods: Relationship between Time Period and Relative Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.  Number of Nonceramic Grave Goods per Child . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

219 219 221 222 225 226 226 227 230 231 231 232 236 237

Appendix B   1. Number of Sites Containing Children according to Burial Method and Time Period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2. Number of Jar Burials by Period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3. Number of Individual Children buried by Relative Age and Burial Method . . . . . .   4. Correlation between Burial Method and Specific Ages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5. Percentages of (Aged) Children per Burial Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6. Cremation Burials with Children . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7. Cave Burials with Children . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8. Coffin Burials with Children . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9. Tomb Burials with Children . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10. Cist Burials with Children . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11. Pit Burials with Children . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12. Jar Burials with Children . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13. Child Burials by Location, Number Interred, and Time Period . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14. Percentages of Child Burials by Location, Number Interred, and Time Period . . . . . 15. Mass Burials: Number of Children Inside a Settlement by Time Period . . . . . . . . .

ix

281 281 282 282 283 283 284 284 285 286 287 287 288 288 289

x

List of Tables and Figures

16. Mass Burials: Number of Children outside a Settlement by Time Period . . . . . . . . 17. Individual Burials: Number of Children inside a Settlement by Time Period . . . . . . 18. Individual Burials: Number of Children outside a Settlement by Time Period . . . . . 19. Correlation between Burial Location and Number of Burials Including Children and Adults . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20. Sixteen MB II Sites from Northern Canaan: Relationship between Age, Burial Style, and Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21. MB II Sites with Burials of Children in the Northern Levant: Correlation between Location, Age, and Burial Style . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22. Number of Child Burials according to Burial Location and Method . . . . . . . . . . 23. Correlation between Total Number of Child Burials Including Both Children and Adults, and Burial Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24. Number of Burials Where Children were Buried with One Adult: Correlation between Sex of Adult and Age of Child . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25. Burials Containing Children and One Adult by Site and Period . . . . . . . . . . . . 26. Jericho Tomb G 73 (MB II) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27. Jericho Tomb P 17 (MBII) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28. Jericho Tomb H 6 (MBII) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29. Jericho Tomb H 18 (MBII) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30. Number of Child Burials with Personal Grave Goods: Relationship between Time Period and Relative Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31. Number of Child Burials with Ceramic Grave Goods: Relationship between Time Period and Relative Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32. Grave Goods: Ceramic Items Found in Burials with Children . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33. Grave Goods: Personal Items Found in Burials with Children . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34. Grave Goods: Combination of Jars, Bowls, and Juglets in Child Burials . . . . . . . . 35. Number of Nonceramic Grave Goods per Child . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

289 289 290 290 290 291 291 292 292 293 293 293 294 294 295 295 296 296 296 297

Figures Main Text   1.  Number of Child Burials with Ceramic Grave Goods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2.  Number of Child Burials with Personal Grave Goods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3.  Basic Life Cycle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4.  Formally Adopted Child . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5. God-Parentage Adoption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6.  Adopted Child: Reclaimed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7.  Adopted Child: Foundling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8.  Debt-Slave or Pledge Child . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9. Hired Child . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.  Slave Child . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11. Half-Sibling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.  Sacrificed Child . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

233 234 249 250 250 250 250 252 252 252 253 253

Appendix B   1. Number of Child Burials with Ceramic Grave Goods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2. Number of Ceramic Grave Goods Found in Child Burials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3. Number of Child Burials with Personal Grave Goods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4. Number of Personal Grave Goods Found in Child Burials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

297 297 298 298

Abbreviations General ARM AJS BC BIN BM CH CBS

sigla for Archives royales de Mari Akkadian tablets in the Hirayama Collection Book of the Covenant Babylonian inscriptions in the collection of J. B. Nies sigla for texts in the British Museum Code of Hammurapi siglum of the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology CH Codex Hammurapi CT cuneiform texts from Babylonian tablets in the British Museum, London EA El-Amarna tablets DC deuteronomic law code HL Hittite Laws IM museum siglum of the Iraq Museum in Baghdad JPS Jewish Publication Society LE Laws of Eshnunna MAH tablets in the collection of the Musée d’ Art et d’Histoire, Geneva MAL Middle Assyrian Laws MB Middle Babylonian MK Middle Kingdom MNI minimum number of individuals nasb New American Standard Bible NB Neo-Babylonain Ni tablets excavated at Nippur, in the collections of the Archaeological Museum of Istanbul NK New Kingdom OB Old Babylonian OK Old Kingdom PA processual archaeology PPA post-processual archaeology PN personal name YBC tablets in the Babylonian Collection, Yale University Library

Reference Works 2 NT

A. L. Oppenheim. “‘Seige Documents’ from Nippur.” Iraq 17 (1955) 69–89 (family archive of Ninurta-uballiṭ 656–617 b.c.e.)

xi

xii AASOR AASOR 10

Abbreviations

Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research E. A. Speiser, “The New Kirkuk Documents Relating to Family Laws.” Pp. 1–73 in Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research 10. New Haven, CT: American Schools of Oriental Research, 1928–29 AASOR 16 R. H. Pfeiffer and E. A. Speiser, “One Hundred New Selected Nuzi Texs.” Pp. 1–168 in Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research 16. New Haven, CT: American Schools of Oriental Research, 1935–36 AB Anchor Bible ABD D. N. Freedman, editor. The Anchor Bible Dictionary. 6 vols. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1992 ADAJ Annual of the Department of Antiquities in Jordan AEM Archives épistolaires de Mari AfO Archiv für Orientforschung AfOB Archiv Für Orientforschung AJPA American Journal of Physical Anthropology Amarna N. de G.Davies, The Rock Tombs of El-Amarna. 6 vols. London : The Egypt Exploration Fund, 1908 AnOr Analecta Orientalia ARC Archaeological Review from Cambridge ArchOd Archaeology Odyssey ARN M. Cig, H. Kizilyay, and F. R. Kraus. Altbabylonische Rechtsurkunden aus Nippur. Istanbul: Millî Eğitim Basımevi, 1952 ArOr Archiv Orientální ASAE Annales du Service des Antiquites de l’Egypt BaghM Baghdader Mitteilungen BAR Biblical Archaeology Review BASOR Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research BDB F. Brown, S. R. Driver, and C. A. Briggs. Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament. Oxford: Clarendon, 1907 BE Babylonian Expedition of the University of Pennsylvania, Series A: Cuneiform Texts BM Bibliotheca Mesopotamica BMAP E. G. Kraeling. The Brooklyn Museum Aramaic Papyri: New Documents of the Fifth Century b.c. from the Jewish Colony at Elephantine. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1953 Borger, Asar. R. Borger. Die Inschriften Asarhaddons: Königs von Assyrien. AfOBeiheft 9. Osnabruck: Biblio-Verlag, 1967 CAD A. L. Oppenheim, et al., editors. The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. 21 vols. (A–Z). Chicago: Oriental Institute, 1956–2011 Cairo 20001 H. O. Lang, M. al-Athar, and H. Schäfer. Grab- und Denksteine des Mittleren Reichs im Museum von Kairo. 4 vols. Berlin: Reichsdruckerei, 1902 Cairo 42155 G. Legrain. Statues et statuettes de rois et de particuliers. 3 vols. Le Caire: Imprimerie de l’Inst. Français d’Archéologie Orientale, 1906–25 Camb. J. N. Strassmaier. Inschriften von Cambyses, König von Babylon (529–521 v.Chr.). Babylonische Texte 8–9. Leipzig: Pfeiffer, 1890

Abbreviations CANE COS Cyr Dar DI EMAR 6 ESI GCCI HALOT HG Hirayama HSS 5 HSS 9 HSS 13 HSS 19 IDB ITT JANES JAOS JCS JEN JENu JJP JMA JNES JPOS JSOT

xiii

J. Sasson, editor. Civilizations of the Ancient Near East. 4 vols. New York: Scribners, 1995 W. W. Hallo and K. L. Younger Jr., editors. The Context of Scripture. 3 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1997–2003 J. N. Strassmaier, Inschriften von Cyrus, Köing von Babylon. Babylonische Texte 7. Leipzig: Pfeiffer, 1890 J. N. Strassmaier. Inschriften von Darius, König von Babylon. Babylonische Texte 10–12. Leipzig: Pfeiffer, 1892–97 Dine Israel D. Arnaud. Textes sumériens et accadiens. 3 vols. Paris: Éditions Recherche sur les Civilisations, 1985–86 Excavations and Surveys in Israel R. P. Dougherty. Goucher College Cuneiform Inscriptions. 2 vols. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1923–33 L. Koehler and W. Baumgartner. Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Leiden: Brill, 1999 J. Kohler and A. Ungnad. Hammurabi’s Gesetz. 6 vols. Leipzig: Pfeiffer, 1904–23. A. Tsukimoto, “Akkadian Tablets in the Hirayama Collection,” Acta Sumerologica 12 (1990): 177–227; 13 (1991): 275–333; 14 (1992): 289–310 E. Chiera. Excavations at Nuzi, vol. 1: Texts of Varied Contents. Harvard Semitic Series 5. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1929 R. H. Pfeiffer. Excavations at Nuzi, vol. 2: The Archives of Shilwateshub, Son of the King. Harvard Semitic Series 9. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1932 R. H. Pfeiffer and E. R. Lacheman. Excavations at Nuzi, vol. 4: Miscellaneous Texts from Nuzi, part 1. Harvard Semitic Series 13. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1942 E. R. Lacheman. Excavations at Nuzi, vol. 8: Family Law Documents. Harvard Semitic Series 19. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1962 G. A. Buttrick, editor. Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. 4 vols. Nashville: Abingdon, 1962 H. de Genouillac. Inventaire des tablettes de Tello conservées au Musée impérial ottoman. Paris: Leroux, 1910– Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society of Columbia University Journal of the American Oriental Society Journal of Cuneiform Studies E. Chiera et al. Joint Expedition with the Iraq Museum at Nuzi. 6 vols. Paris: Geuthner, 1927–34. Unpublished Nuzi Tablets Excavated by the Iraq Museum and ASOR in 1926 and at present housed in the Oriental Institute at the University of Chicago Journal of Juristic Papyrology Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology Journal of Near Eastern Studies Journal of the Palestine Oriental Society Journal for the Study of the Old Testament

xiv JSOTSup Kahun LE LEM

Abbreviations

Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplements F. Griffith. Hieratic Papyri from Kahun and Gurob. London: Quaritch, 1898 Laws of Eshnunna A. H. Gardiner. Late-Egyptian Miscellanies. London: Oxford University Press, 1954 MDP V. Scheil. Actes juridiques susiens: Suite: no. 166 à no. 327. Mémoires de la délégation en Perse 23. Paris: Leroux, 1932 Med. Habu J. A. Wilson and W. F. Edgerton, editors. Historical Records of Ramses III: The Texts in Medinet Habu. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1936 Moldenke A. B. Moldenke. Cuneiform Texts in the Metropolitan Museum of Art. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1893 Nbk. J. N. Strassmaier. Inschriften von Nabuchodonosor, König von Babylon (604– 561 v. Chr.). Leipzig: Pfeiffer, 1889 Nbn. J. N. Strassmaier. Inschriften von Nabonidus, König von Babylon (555–538 v. Chr.). Leipzig: Pfeiffer, 1889 NKRA P. Koschaker. Neue Keilschriftliche Rechtsurkunden aus der el-Amarna-Zeit Leipzig: Hirzel, 1928 NRVU M. San Nicolò and A. Ungnad. Neubabylonische Rechts- und Verwaltungsurkunden, vol. 1: Glossar. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1937 OIP Oriental Institute Publications OLA Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta P. BM 10624 H. Thompson, “Two Demotic Self-dedications,” in Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 26 (1940) 68–78 P. Cairo A. H. Gardiner, “A Lawsuit Arising from the Purchase of Two Slaves.” Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 21 (1935) 140ff. P. Rylands F. L. Griffith. Catalogue of the Demotic Papyri in the John Rylands Library. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1909 PBS Publications of the Babylonian Section, University Museum, University of Pennsylvania PEFQS Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statement PEQ Palestinian Exploration Quarterly Prima dell ‘alfabeto  F. M. Fales, ed. Prima dell ‘alfabeto: La storia della scrittura attraverso testi cuneiformi inediti. Venice: Erizzo, 1989 PSD Babylonian Section of the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Anthropology and Archaeology. Pennsylvania Sumerian Dictionary. On-line: http:// PSD.museum.upenn.edu R H. Rawlinson et al. The Cuneiform Inscriptions of Western Asia. 5 vols. London: Bowler, 1861–84 RA Revue d’assyriologie et d’archéologie orientale RE G. Beckman. Texts from the Vicinity of Emar in the Collection of Jonathan Rosen. Padova: Sargon, 1996 REN R. P. Dougherty, Records from Erech, Time of Nabonidus (555–538 b.c.) Yale Oriental Series 6. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1920 RLA Ebeling, E., et al., editors. Reallexikon der Assyriologie. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1928–

Abbreviations RPNS RV SAAS TAD TCL THAT TIM TJDB TS UAZP VAB VAS VT VTSup WA Warka YBT YOS ZA ZAR ZAW ZVRW

xv

S. Birch and A. H. Sayce, editors. Records of the Past: Being English Translations of the Assyrian and Egyptian Monuments. London: Bagster. 1889–93 A. Pohl. Rechts- und Verwaltungsurkunden der III Dynastie von Ur. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1937 State Archives of Assyria Studies S. Langdon. Tablets from the Archives of Drehem, with a Complete Account of the Origin of the Sumerian Calendar. Paris: Geuthner, 1911 Textes cunéiformes du Louvre. Paris: Geuthner, 1910– Jenni, E., and Westermann, C., editors. Theologisches Handwörterbuch zum Alten Testament. 2 vols. Munich: Kaiser / Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1971–76 Texts in the Iraqi Museum E. Szlechter. Tablettes juridiques de la 1re dynastie de Babylone conservées au Musée d’art et d’histoire de Genève. Paris: Sirey, 1958 C. F. Jean. Tell Sifr textes cunéiformes conservés au British Museum. Paris: Geuthner, 1931 M. Schorr, Urkunden des altbabylonischen Zivil-und Prozessrechts. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1913 Vorderasiatische Bibliothek Vorderasiatische Schriftdenkmäler der Königlichen Museen zu Berlin. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1907– Vetus Testamentum Vetus Testamentum Supplements World Archaeology J. N. Strassmaier. Die altbabylonischen Verträge von Warka. Berlin: Weidmannische, 1882 Yale Babylonian Texts Yale Oriental Series Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und vorderasiastische Archaeologie, Berlin Zeitschrift für Altorientalische und Biblische Rechtsgeschichte Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Rechtswissenschaft

     

Map 1.  Referenced Sites of Child Burials in Canaan





Map 2.  Referenced Sites of Child Burials in the ANE

Introduction Children are an important part of the ancient Near Eastern household. This sentence seems rather straightforward. However, it can be read on many levels. A simple reading could understand the sentence as saying that children are necessary for the perpetuation of a household. A more inquisitive reading calls attention to the fact that the definition of child and member of the household are not static identities but, rather, each term may be defined in multiple ways. In this book, I explore the multiple definitions of child and the ways that a child fit within an ancient household. I examine what membership in the household looked like for various children and the factors that contributed to this membership. For example, was a baby a member of the household to the same extent as a seven-year-old? Did a slave girl belong to the household in the same manner as her master’s biological son? A study addressing not only how a child was defined but how a child’s gender and social status affected her place in the household is vital to a proper understanding of the ancient Near Eastern household. Despite their importance, children have long been marginalized in discussions of ancient societies. For example, laws and texts have been studied primarily for philological purposes or have been translated as part of a series of editiones principes. Even when children were the subject of texts, they were mentioned only in relation to the particular text in question. If an adoption text mentioned a son, there was no emphasis placed on determining whether or not the son in question was a minor or an adult. An approach of this sort resulted in two things: (1) children were lumped together as a group, all with essentially the same status; and (2) scholars tended to study each text in isolation, so that children of similar statuses were not carefully compared with each other. Only recently has this trend begun to change in biblical and ancient Near Eastern scholarship. 1 The first wave of studies to focus on children 2 in the ancient Near East offered either 1. D. Bolger, Gender in Ancient Cyprus: Narratives of Social Change on a Mediterranean Island (Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira, 2003), 126. 2.  For studies focusing on one legal element relating to children, see A. Brenner, “Regulating Sons and Daughters in Torah and Proverbs,” JHS 5 (2004–5): n.p. [accessed June 9, 2014]. On-line: www.jhsonline.org/articles/article_40.pdf; J. Fleishman, “Legal Innovation in Deuteronomy,” VT 53 (2003): 3113–27; idem, “Did a Child’s Legal Status in Biblical Israel Depend upon His Being Acknowledged? ” ZAW 121 (2009): 350–68; idem, Father-Daughter Relations in Biblical Law (Bethesda, MD: CDL, 2011); T. Frymer-Kensky, “Patriarchal Family Relationships and Near Eastern Law,” BA 44 (1981): 209–14; more general references to children include S. Olyan and J. Bodel, Household and Family Religion in Antiquity (Oxford: Blackwell,

1

2

Introduction

general, cursory examinations of children or sought to expound on a particular legal element related to children. A more recent wave of studies, especially with relation to the Hebrew Bible, has begun to address children specifically. 3 In light of the current state of scholarship on children, the purpose of this book is threefold. First, it will continue to fill out the picture of the child in the ancient Near East by compiling a database of child-centric texts and archaeological realia. In analyzing these materials, I also survey the relationship between children and ancient Near Eastern society by examining the extent to which structuring forces in a community such as social status and gender contributed to the process of a child’s becoming a member of the household and society en large. I recognize that a child’s social experience was fluid; therefore, I focus on the children in the data pool, not the general content of the texts and burials. 4 I compare and contrast children of similar statuses and comment on how this comparison relates to a child’s importance in the household. The way in which distinctions in social status affected a child’s placement in the household becomes evident through the interpretation of the individual texts and burials. The recognition and identification of this range of statuses adds to our understanding not only of how a child entered the household but how the child was treated while in the household and by what means s/he left the household. Finally, the information collected and analyzed provides a base for future research, such as a cross-cultural study of children in the ancient Near East with the children of Classical Antiquity.

Moving Forward: Children in the Ancient Near Eastern Household In order to discuss a household, one must first define what constitutes a household. In simple terms, the household encompasses society at its most basic level. 5 Thus, the relationship between the household and society is not as abstract as it may first seem. The household is in effect a microcosm of the society in which it exists. The organizational patterns, the social structure, the economic 2008); K. van der Toorn, Family Religion in Babylonia, Syria, and Israel: Continuity and Change in the Forms of Religious Life (Leiden: Brill, 1997). 3. M. Bunge, The Child in the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2008); J. Faith Parker, “Suffer the Little Children”: A Child-Centered Exploration of the Elijah Cycle (Ph.D. diss., Yale University, 2009); L. Koepf, “Give Me Children or I Shall Die”: Children and Communal Survival in Biblical Literature (Ph.D. diss., Union Theological Seminary, 2012); N. Steinberg, The World of the Child in the Hebrew Bible (Hebrew Bible Monograph 51; Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2013); J. Parker, Valuable and Vulnerable Children in the Hebrew Bible, Especially the Elisha Cycle (Brown Judaic Studies 355; Providence, RI: Brown University Press, 2013). 4.  Following L. Meskell, The Archaeologies of Social Life: Age, Sex, Class et cetera in Ancient Egypt (Oxford: Blackwell, 1999). 5.  R. R. Wilk and W. Ashemore, eds., Household and Community in the Mesomerican Past (Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1988), 1.

Introduction

3

patterns—all of these correlate to the larger society. 6 Because of the important role the household played in creating social structure, archaeology has dedicated a whole field to the study of the household, examining various aspects and addressing things such as gender, production, status, the archaeology of the family, social organization, and the household cult. 7 Following the precedent set out by those working in New World archaeology, and the current trend for those in ancient Near Eastern archaeology, this study takes into consideration a multidimensional approach for gathering data on the various aspects of the household. 8 This is done in order to obtain the most comprehensive picture with respect to children as part of the household social unit in the ancient Near East. As such, the study presented here fits into the spectrum of household archaeology. While the name of the field, “household archaeology” may at the outset suggest that archaeology alone will suffice as a means to study the household, this is not entirely accurate. Archaeology is not equipped to address all aspects of the household equally, for one cannot excavate a live household. Archaeology can best provide data for the tangible items, the material remains. Other kinds of evidence are needed to broaden the data pool and speak to the elements making up the household. Thus, a wide net must be cast in order to gather data archaeology cannot provide, such as texts, art and ethnographic studies. 9 In order to address the degree to which a child was considered a member in his or her household and society, a set of data must also be established. This study relies on two primary groups of materials, texts and realia. While often investigated as separate entities, the combination of both corpuses yields a more comprehensive picture of the child; the more areas of data one can explore, the 6. J. Deetz, “Households: A Structural Key to Archaeological Explanation,” American Behavioral Scientist 25 (1982): 724; R. Trigham, “Households with Faces: The Challenge of Gender in Prehistoric Architectural Remains,” in Engendering Archaeology: Women and Prehistory (ed. J. M. Gero and M. W. Conkey; Oxford: Blackwell, 1991), 101. 7.  For a review of the literature, see A. Yasur-Landau, J. Ebeling, and L. Mazow, “Introduction: The Past and Present of Household Archaeology in Israel,” in Household Archaeology in Ancient Israel and Beyond (ed. A. Yasur-Landau, J. Ebeling, and L. Mazow; Leiden: Brill, 2011), 8; J. Hardin, “Understanding Houses, Households and the Levantine Archaeological Record,” in ibid., 9–25. 8. P. Allison, The Archaeology of Household Activities (London: Routledge, 1999); A.  Yasur-­Landau, J.  Ebeling, and L. Mazow, eds., Household Archaeology in Ancient Israel and Beyond (Leiden: Brill, 2011); J. Holladay, “House, Israelite,” ABD (ed. D. N. Freedman et al.; New York: Doubleday, 1992), 3.308–18; L. Stager, “The Archaeology of the Family in Ancient Israel,” BASOR 260 (1985): 1–35. 9.  Hardin, “Understanding,” 14; R. Shahack-Gross, “Household Archaeology in Israel: Looking into the Microscopic Record,” in Household Archaeology in Ancient Israel and Beyond, A. Yasur-Landau, J. Ebeling, and L. Mazow, eds. (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 27; Allison, “The Household,” 16; ibid., “Introduction,” in The Archaeology of Household Activities, P. Allison, ed. (London: Routledge, 1999); M. Beaudry, “Archaeology and the Historical Household,” Man in the Northeast 28 (1984), 27–38.

4

Introduction

more comprehensive an understanding of children and their relationship to society is developed. 10 The best way to present the data involved in such a survey of children is to utilize different fields of scholarship and engage in their theories. Particularly pertinent to the study of children in the ancient Near East are the fields of anthropology/ethnography, archaeology, the sociology of childhood, gender studies and legal studies. Combining individual theories set forth concerning children, gender, and membership in the household (e.g., Ariès, Arden, Baxter, Bodel and Olyan, Conkey and Gero, Flemming, van Gennep, Harris, Lewis, Moore and Scott, Parker Pearson, Scott, Voss and others), this study is able to combine text and archaeology successfully and offers new insights into the status of children in the ancient Near Eastern society.  11 The methodology adopted here starts where prior scholarship left off. Former studies have drawn attention to the texts and archaeological materials where children appear, but no study has yet combined and fully and systematically assessed these references in order to formulate a coherent picture. For example, individual archaeological reports may identify the presence of a child’s corpse in a jar, placed under a house floor, and even go so far as to discuss this 10.  Studies, such as those undertaken by R. Janssen, J. Janssen, C. Meyers, J. Blenkinsopp, and L. Stager, have attempted to push forward and combine text and archaeology. However, they do so in the confines of the family sphere, seeking to relate what life for the family was like in the ANE and how the family functioned. J. Blenkinsopp, “The Family in First Temple Israel,” in Families in Ancient Israel (ed. L. Perdue; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1997); R. Janssen and J. Janssen, Growing Up and Getting Old in Ancient Egypt (Norfolk: Golden House, 2007); C. Meyers, “The Family in Early Israel,” in Families in Ancient Israel (ed. L. Perdue; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1997); L. Stager and P. King, Life in Biblical Israel (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001). Erika Feucht’s anthology represents one outstanding book in the field, but it is dedicated to the children in ancient Egypt (E. Feucht, Das Kind im Alten Ägypten: Die Stellung des Kindes in Familie und Gesellschaft nach altägyptischen Texten und Darstellungen (Frankfurt: Campus, 1995). 11. P. Ariès, Centuries of Childhood (New York: Cape, 1962); T. Arden, The Social Experience of Childhood in Ancient Mesopotamia (Boulder: University of Colorado Press, 2006); J. Baxter, The Archaeology of Childhood: Children, Gender and Material Culture (Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira, 2005); J. Bodel and S. Olyan, eds., Household and Family Religion in Antiquity (Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2008); M. W. Conkey and J. M. Gero, eds., Engendering Archaeology: Women and Prehistory (Oxford: Blackwell, 1991); P. Flemming, Family and Household in Medieval England (New York: Palgrave, 2001); A. van Gennep, Rites of Passage (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1960); R. Harris, Gender and Aging in Mesopotamia (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 2000); M. Lewis, The Bioarchaeology of Children: Perspectives from Biological and Forensic Anthropology (Cambridge: Cambridge Univeristy Press, 2007); J. Moore and E. Scott, eds., Invisible People and Processes: Writing Gender and Childhood into European Archaeology (London: Leicester University Press, 1997); M. Parker Pearson, The Archaeology of Death and Burial (College Station: Texas A&M University Press, 2000); E. Scott, The Archaeology of Infancy and Infant Death (Bar International Series 819; Oxford: Archeopress, 1999); see B. Voss, “Sexuality in Archaeology,” in Handbook of Gender in Archaeology (ed. S. Milledge Nelson; Lanham, MD: AltaMira, 2006); S. Crawley, L. Foley, and C. Shehan, Gendering Bodies (Plymouth, UK: Rowman & Littlefield, 2008).

Introduction

5

as a common practice in the Middle Bronze Age (1900–1550 b.c.e.). However, these reports do not compare this type of burial to other child burials, nor do they address the significance of this sort of burial as it relates to the child’s place in society. Combining references means not combining only textual or archaeological records but combining the two corpora together. When studying historical periods, in which both documents and material remains exist, investigating the relationship between the remains and documentary evidence gives us a full body of data from which to work. 12 In addition to bringing together in a comprehensive manner the raw data, one must further consider theoretical methodology. Most modern studies referencing children have taken one theoretical approach. 13 Furthermore, the individual theoretical models created are rarely applied to children in the ancient Near East. To determine a child’s place or status in the household, the data must be understood with a multifaceted theoretical model—a model that applies different kinds of theory at different points to the different pieces of data. This study therefore combines various discrete theories (for example, those that involve sociological, gender, anthropological and archaeological issues) that relate to children in an effort to define what exactly a child was in the ANE and how that child fit into the social realm of the household. This volume not only offers a multidimensional theoretical approach for studying children in general but applies this approach to a hitherto unstudied subject, ANE children, in particular. This study applies a methodology that expands the focus from individual studies to a combination of these individual studies, thus providing a broader perspective from which to understand the status of children in the ANE, and, by extension, children and their social status across the board.

The Anticomparative Ethos The term ancient Near East may seem quite broad; it covers not only a large geographical scope but a lengthy period of time as well. Naturally, the question arises as to how a survey can offer such an investigation of children with integrity. Are not the places, time periods, and people too disparate to compare? Do not comparisons of this sort lead to a phenomenon like the parallelomania that sprung up with the comparisons between the biblical and Assyriological texts? 14 12.  Allison, “Household,” 16; M. Beaudry, “Archaeology and the Historical Household,” Man in the Northeast 28 (1984): 27–38. 13.  Koepf also suggests an interdisciplinary approach, which she calls “the coffee house,” a model that draws on different fields of study and encourages cross-fertilization between them (Koepf, “Give Me Children,” 21). This “coffeehouse” theory is in actuality similar to the Postprocessual archeological theory employed in this work and described further on p. 28. 14. S. Sandmel, “Parallelomania,” JBL (1962): 1–13; J. Van Seters, Abraham in History and Tradition (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1975); T. Thompson, “The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives,” BZAW (1974): 133.

6

Introduction

These questions belong to the mindset of Landsberger and his concept of Eigenbegrifflichkeit, a concept that ignores the fact that conceptual autonomy does not equal cultural isolation. 15 Studying two, three, or four different cultures at once does not mean the data gleaned from each culture necessarily equals the data of another society in a different time and place. A contextual approach to the materials, one that neither ignores nor concentrates solely on the similarities between the various sets of data, offers a solid middle ground. The desired outcome of such a comparison derives from a desire to define a child’s place within society, which is in turn related to the exercise of identifying various social statuses and gender perceptions placed on the child. 16 To this end, this book heeds the exhortation of A. Yentsch that “whenever one does good historical archaeology, synthesizing written documents with the material remains, a range of people inescapably come into view.” 17 Extrapolating even further, we can state that a combination of text and material remains will result in a variety of children coming to the fore. This cautions against immediately grouping “children” together as a single social entity without examining the individual texts and archaeological remains first. Hence, by necessity children will be defined and classified in various ways. As S. Stowers notes, when one defines and classifies, one also compares, and comparison is “a requirement for anyone who aims at explanation.” 18 An anti­ comparative ethos resists combining various academic fields and categories of data in order to keep a tight, narrow focus on the field of study. While this approach may have its time and place, a comparative approach, such as the present book takes, allows us to develop a broader picture of children, their social status, their membership in ancient households and by extension, their society.

Scope and Limitations The data covered in this study include biblical and ANE materials that relate specifically to children. In order to offer a representative sampling of legal and nonlegal texts concerning children, the time period and geographical region concentrates on biblical Israel and the greater Assyria-Babylonia region. Legal texts concerning children, who are actually children according to social age, con15. W. Hallo, “Sumer and the Bible: A Matter of Proportion,” Context of Scripture (3 vols.; Leiden]: Brill, 2002), 3:liii. 16.  On the relationship between individuality and difference to key social factors (age, gender, sex, and so on), see L. Meskell, Archaeologies of Social Life (Oxford: Blackwell, 1999), 1. 17. A. Yentsch, A Chesapeake Family and Their Slaves: A Study in Historical Archaeology (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 313. See also Beaudry, “Archaeology,” 27–38; Allison, “Household,” 16–29. 18. S. Stowers, “Theorizing Ancient Household Religion,” in Household and Family Religion in Antiquity (ed. J. Bodel and S. Olyan; Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2008), 7, 16.

Introduction

7

sist mostly of texts describing the entrance and exit of children within the household: adoption contracts, debt-slave and hiring contracts, slave-sale records, and documents describing orphans, foundlings, and so forth. The narratives focus on the child with half-siblings and the sacrificed child. The legal texts focus mostly on the Mesopotamian documents, while the nonlegal texts focus more on the biblical narratives. The split focus has to do with the availability of textual data and the desire to look as broadly as possible at children in the ANE household. Mesopotamian legal documents are plentiful, while extant legal documents from biblical Israel—except for the biblical law codes— have not been recovered. Narrative material is available from both Mesopotamia and biblical Israel. The place of children in the corpus of Mesopotamian epic and narrative texts has already garnered some attention. 19 Less attention has been paid to the biblical narratives and the status of the child. Therefore, a brief survey of some biblical texts broadens the lens, allowing us to see additional categories of children and how they fit into the ANE household. Taking into consideration that the household is a microcosm of society, and that the goal of the study is to look broadly at a child’s membership within ANE society, a survey of both legal and nonlegal texts helps to round out the picture of children in the ANE. The time for the texts in question ranges from 1750 b.c.e. (the Code of Hammurabi) to ca. 539 b.c.e., that is, the end of the Neo-Babylonian period. The archaeological data focus on child burials and are broken up by geographical regions. Burials in Mesopotamia, Transjordan, Syria, and Egypt are presented first, followed by a case study of Canaanite burials. 20 Burials in the lands surrounding Cannan provide an overview that identifies overarching burial patterns and situates the burial patterns of Canaan within a larger cultural context. The overview highlights when and where certain burial practices are popular and whether or not any continuity in burial practices exists throughout the centuries. The inclusion of a case study on Canaanite MBA burials aligns with the practice of data collection currently followed by household archaeologists. The theory is that one should take a relatively large sampling of data from a specific area that overlaps in certain contexts to gain a picture that may be indicative of larger patterns. 21 Examining numerous burials within a concentrated geographical­area 19.  See R. Harris, Gender and Aging in Mesopotamia (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 2000). 20.  For the most part, pertinent excavations in these latter cultures took place at a time when ANE archaeology was still in its infancy, and as a result the reports are often not detailed in the same way as the burial reports from Canaan. Further excavations in Mesopotamia have been hampered by both the rising water table and the volatile political climate. It is also important to note that the identification and division of the regions adjacent to, and in interrelationship with Canaan is a purely geographical one. It is not meant to depict or suggest cultural divisions. In fact, some cultures, especially those of Transjordan, appear very similar to those found in Canaan. 21.  Allison, “Households,” 19–20; Shahack-Gross, “Household Archaeology,” 28.

8

Introduction

allows for a more comprehensive study of a single region throughout many time periods. In addition, the burials in Canaan span a wide range of social classes, meaning that the data offer a representational sampling of the population. While one could choose any period or geographical region in which to conduct a case study, MBA Canaanite child burials yield important information because of their time and place. Certain burial practices identified in the general overview of ANE burials are found in high concentration during this time period and at this location. The importance of Canaanite burials, as opposed to Mesopotamian burials, lies in the fact that they offer a fruitful case study for the general population.  22 A study in Canaanite MBA burials in particular is important from a different perspective; the engagement with this time period in household archaeology is limited. Due to the influence of biblical archaeology, historical interest in MBA Levantine household archaeology was placed on ethnicity and determining if a site was Philistine or “Israelite.” This means that the majority of work has been done on the Iron Age I household. Much work is yet to be done on the Bronze Age household, which will lead to information about Canaanite society. 23 22.  Many of the published burials excavated outside Canaan belong to royal or elite families and do not depict the “average” child. We can attribute seemingly selective publication to many different factors. For example, cemeteries with large tombs are easier to locate than the poorer shaft or pit graves. In addition, larger tombs were more interesting to excavators, for they offered the possibility of a burial laden with wealth and grave goods. Furthermore, the publication of sites was often selective, meaning that impressive burials took precedence over “common” graves in the excavation reports. And finally, some common cemetery grounds may have been off limits to nonelite portions of society. These factors do not appear to affect the discovery and/or publication of the burials in Canaan in the same way as they do in the surrounding areas (L. Meskell, “Dying Young: The Experience of Death at Deir el Medina,” Archaeological Review from Cambridge 13/2 [1994]: 37; J. Richards, Mortuary Variability and Social Differentiation in Middle Kingdom Egypt [Ph.D. diss., University of Pennsylvania, 1992], 66). This trend is turning around, as archaeologists have begun to recognize that smaller sites offer a more representational view of the population. Various survey projects such as the Baqʾah Valley Project, the Southern Samaria Survey, the Survey of the Hill Country of Benjamin, Tell Kabri Regional Survey, the Moab Archaeological Research Survey, and various regional surveys in Egypt, Iran, and Iraq are evidence of this new trend. Unfortunately, some of these projects are limited by the current political unrest. 23. A. Yasur-Landau, J. Ebeling, L. Mazow, introduction to Household Archaeology in Ancient Israel and Beyond (ed. A. Yasur-Landau, J. Ebeling, and L. Mazow; Leiden: Brill, 2011), 2–4; Y. Shiloh, “The Four-Room House: Its Situation and Function in the Israelite City,” IEJ 20 (1970): 180–90; V. Fritz, The City in Ancient Israel (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995); W. Dever, “Ceramics, Ethnicity, and the Question of Israel’s Origins,” BA 58 (1995): 200–13; I. Finkelstein, “Ethnicity and Origin of the Iron I Settlers in the Highlands of Canaan: Can the Real Israel Stand Up? ” BA 59 (1996): 198–212; idem, “Pots and People Revisited: Ethnic Boundaries in the Iron Age,” in The Archaeology of Israel: Constructing the Past Interpreting the Present (ed. N. Silberman and D. Small; JSOTSup 237; Sheffield: Sheffield University Press, 1997), 261–37; B. Hesse and P. Wapnish, “Can Pig Remains Be Used for Ethnic Diagnosis in the Ancient Near East? ” in The Archaeology of Israel: Constructing the Past Interpreting the Present (ed. N. Silberman and D. Smal; JSOTSup 237; Sheffield: Sheffield University Press, 1997),

Introduction

9

This case study therefore adds not only to the picture of children in Canaan, but also to the larger picture of the social unit within the MBA household. The archaeological materials cover a slightly longer time span than the texts, but concentrate on the time periods related to the textual corpus. Archaeological materials come from the Early Bronze (EB), Middle Bronze (MB) and Late Bronze (LB) periods, and end with the Iron Age (IA). The time periods will be further broken up into EB I (3300–3050 b.c.e.), EB II–III (3050–2300 b.c.e.), EB IV/MB I (2300–2000 b.c.e.), MB IIA (2000–1800 b.c.e.), and MB IIB/C (1800–1550 b.c.e.), LB (1550–1200 b.c.e.), IA I (1200–1000 b.c.e.), and IA II (1000–539 b.c.e.). In addition to the geographical and textual limitations, both the textual and archaeological corpuses are limited by the serendipity of discovery. Fortunately, a large portion of the major Mesopotamian legal materials discovered so far has been published. Unfortunately, there are no extant law codes from Egypt, nor is it known whether they ever existed. Moreover, outside the biblical text, we lack legal materials from Canaan. Therefore, the corpus of legal information from Egypt and Canaan is far from complete. In short, the legal materials that are covered in this text are limited to the biblical and ANE law codes and other legal documents from Assyria-Babylonia and Nuzi. The archaeological corpus is limited not only to the burials that have been discovered, but by the nature of their preservation and the accuracy of their publication. The burials that have been found are not always in pristine condition. Many have been subject to harsh environmental conditions and grave robbing. Even in the best-case scenario, the bones of infants and children are often fragmentary. Because these bones are extremely delicate, teeth are often the only biological remains. 24 Additionally, archaeologists of the 19th to mid-20th centuries were concerned with different theoretical issues that did not involve children. This means that they did not always record child burials or record them in a 238–64; S. Bunimovitz and A. Yasur-Landau, “Philistine and Israelite Pottery: A Comparative Approach to the Question of Pots and People,” TA 23 (1996): 88–101; A. Killebrew, “Pottery Kilns from Deir el-Balah and Tel Miqne-Ekron,” in Retrieving the Past: Essays on Archaeological Research and Methodology in Honor of Gus W. Van Beek (ed. J. Seger; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1996), 131–59; idem, “Ceramic Typology and Technology of Late Bronze II and Iron I Assemblages from Tel Miqne-Ekron: The Transition from Canaanite to Philistine Culture,” in Mediterranean Peoples in Transition: Thirteenth to Early Tenth Centuries b.c.e. (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1998), 379–405; L. Stager et al., Ashkelon I: Introduction and Overview (1985–2006) (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2008). 24. L. Steel, “Differential Burial Practices in Cyprus at the Beginning of the Iron Age,” in The Archaeology of Death in the Ancient Near East (ed. S. Campbell and A. Green; Oxbow Monograph 51; Oxford: Oxbow, 1995), 200; M. Ibrahim, “The Archaeological Excavations at Sahab, 1972,” ADAJ 17 (1972): 27; N. Lovell and I. Whyte, “Patterns of Dental Enamel Defects at Ancient Mendes, Egypt,” AJPA 110 (1999): 72; J. N. Tubb, Excavations at The Early Bronze Age Cemetery of Tiwal esh-Sharqi (London: British Museum Press, 1990), 101.

10

Introduction

uniform manner. 25 Factors such as dental striations and bone length, age, sex, and body position were often overlooked. Moreover, without modern technology many of the methods now used to identify age and sex of a child could not be applied. As though this were not limiting enough, archaeology is the “science of destruction”; once something is excavated, it is removed and taken from its sitz im Leben. The present survey is thus limited by both the quality and quantity of the available records. While it is impossible to know the location of every burial or the contents of every legal document ever written, the extant corpus is large enough to make progress on the assumption that the known texts and burials are representative of the unknown.

Progression of the Book Chapter 1 opens by defining who counts as a “child” in the ancient Near East. Most studies on children use the terms children or child without taking time to clarify to whom exactly these terms refer. If a study does take the time to differentiate between types of children, it is often through the use of more undefined terms, such as “little boy” or “toddler.” Instead of using vague terminology to refer to children, this study defines children as those who are in the process of becoming fully engendered as adults. This category may seem broad, but it encompasses all children, from birth to marriage (the time at which the ancient Near Eastern society considers a person an adult), while still allowing for subdivisions within the term. These subdivisions come by way of social, not chronological age. Rivkah Harris and others have pointed out that ancient societies calculated age not with respect to numbers (chronology) but rather with respect to one’s ability to contribute to the household. As such, the use of social ages corresponds better with the goal of the book, to determine the social status of children in the household and also to the tenor of ancient society in general. The first chapter lays out these social ages, equipping the reader with the correct terminology with which to read the following study. After defining who shall be examined, the chapter presents the theories used to examine the text and archaeological data. The bulk of chapter 1 presents an overview of the individual theories that will be utilized in the examination of children in the ANE. It moves through a description of the sociology of childhood, as well as archeological, anthropological, and gender theories. Chapter 2 addresses children who were adopted. The investigation of adoption texts examines tablets from Nuzi (15th century b.c.e.) and Old Babylonia (1894–1595 b.c.e.). It explores the different terminology for “child” and “adopted child” within adoption contracts and the Code of Hammurapi, including: ṣehrum, tarbītum, DUMU.GAB, and the institutions of adopting for sonship (ṭuppi mārūtu), daughtership (tuppi mārtūtu) and daughter-in-law-ship (ṭuppi mārtūtu u 25. J. Richards, Mortuary Variability.

Introduction

11

kallūtu). While technically covering the same legal category of “adopted child,” each of the examples attests to the multiplicity of statuses afforded to the adopted child and the way that status was affected by gender. 26 Status, and thus the way the child was incorporated into their new family. ranged from little more than a servant, to security for old age, to replacement for a child lost or desired. Thus far, situations have been addressed in which a child moves between households through the normative adoption process. Chapter 3 turns to a discussion of children whose natal parents are, for whatever reason, not in the picture anymore. Children of this sort are addressed in the Code of Hammurapi, and other texts from Old Bablyonia, Neo-Babylonia, Emar, and the Hebrew Bible. Children in this situation are defined as orphans. Just as children in each of the previous chapters did not all adhere to a single social status within a given category, children defined as orphans also experienced a range of social positions. This section explores those children that should be classified as orphans, those without a mother and/or father. These children include those born though cesarean section or whose parent(s) have died. A second type of orphan can be classified as children who have been given up by their parents. Under this classification one can include exposed children, who then become foundlings. For both kinds of orphans, one finds documents recording their social mobility. The movement of the child from a natal family to another family, however, does not follow the same pattern as that of the adopted child discussed in chapter­ 2. Again, household archaeology offers insights as it calls us to look for how the entire household operated not merely to identify the presence of children in the house. 27 The orphaned child does not move seamlessly from one life station to another, but always carries the mark of “orphan-ness.” Again, this kind of conclusion is unique, for it can only be made when analyzing a group of texts referencing a child in the same life-situation and focusing on the child’s resulting status, something that has not been previously done. At times, adult members of the free class could not make ends meet. Chapter­ 4 addresses these instances, in which all members of the family capable of work could be called on to help the family move out of their current distressed situation. Children were either lent out as debt-slaves or put up for hire. In examining these children, an archaeological approach that focuses on gender, social life, and households is instructive. For example, we can see how gender played a crucial role in the way children were understood by their society and how a 26. M. Wyke, Gender and the Body in the Ancient Mediterranean (Oxford: Blackwell, 1998); M. Baxter, Archaeology of Childhood: Children, Gender, and Material Culture (Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira, 2005). 27.  For examples of a holistic approach to the household, see Robin, “Outside”; A. Malan, “The Material World of Family and Household,” in Our Gendered Past; Archaeological Studies of Gender in Southern Africa (ed. L. Wadley; Johannesburg: Witwatersrand University Press, 1997), 273–301. See also Baxter, Archaeology of Childhood.

12

Introduction

contemporary Western view of the household cannot inform our understanding of working children. Texts discussing debt-slaves relate, in economic terms, the plight of the child used as an indentured servant. The child moves out of his/her natal household and into the household of someone else, meaning that the household was not a private/domestic sphere belonging simply to the women. The household was part of the larger public social economy. 28 Not only this, but children could participate in the economy of the household. From a gendered perspective, there are some cases, such as within the biblical text, in which the children are categorized together, almost as a single group. Despite this, the Bible does not hold a single static view of debt-slaves but demonstrates a development in the way in which the child is perceived (Exod 21:2–5; and Lev 25:39–41, 44–45). Other texts, for example, the Old Babylonian (OB) laws and documents and the Middle Assyrian (MA) laws, concern themselves specifically with the status of the young female debt-slave and address who is able to marry the girl off: the father or the male that is distraining her. Previous studies have focused on figuring out the legal limitations of who was able to give the girl away and not the girl herself. Shifting the focus to the daughter presents a picture of a girl with value and a variable status who is an active participant in society. Regardless of her status, however, she is a pawn, subject to the decisions made, not just by her father, but potentially by a man less emotionally attached to her. By assigning the girl agency, one can better understand how the OB and MA texts highlight the economic value of the girl within society, while at the same time downplaying her social value. Chapter 5 discusses another group of children, those who are contributing to an outside household economic system, either as free children, or as enslaved children. The chapter first addresses slave children and the way in which the slave sale contract portrays a child’s status. Like adoption contracts, the slave sale contracts have a set format and include clauses concerning the possibility of reclaiming the child. However, unlike adoption contracts, slave sale contracts make it clear that the person involved was chattel. Hence, slave sale contracts closely resemble sale contracts for property and other goods during the OB and NB periods. A study of the way slave names are written in the contracts highlights their chattel status. Slave children are not given patronyms in the same way that free children are. In some cases an epithet identifying the child as a slave is also attached to the child’s name. Finally, many of the documents regarding young children record their sale along with their mother and in most of these cases the nursing child was not even named. Chapter 5 also includes children from a mixed-status marriage where one parent is free and the other a slave. This section looks at the intersection of 28.  See C. Robin, “Outside of Houses: The Practices of Everyday Life at Chan Nòohol, Belize,” Journal of Social Archaeology 2 (2002): 245–68.

Introduction

13

statuses and how a society granted legal status to a child born without a clear legal status. The varying status of the mixed-marriage child segues into a discussion of the hired child. Like the debt-slave child of chapter 4, the hired child of chapter 5 also left the natal household. However, they did so not to pay off a debt but to help their struggling family before a debt situation arose (PBS 8/2 111; Cyr 278; VAS 5/15, 5/17, 6/92; BE 8/47, VAS 5/125). Scholars who first treated these texts did so with respect to how child labor compared to adult labor contracts. Hired children enjoyed the protection that came with being a freeborn child, and, as such, they remained in their father’s legal care throughout their indentureship. In addition, they are able to gain compensation for their work, compensation that goes to help the natal family. An examination of slave sale documents and hiring contracts from the OB and NB periods demonstrates that there is a need not only to identify children as part of the labor force but to identify the temporality of their experiences and how status affected their labor contracts. Thus, by studying a group of economic texts and applying the theories of a social archaeology, one can understand these contracts differently from those who first examined the texts. This chapter again attests to the fact that social experience changed over the course of the child’s life. It reveals that the ability of the child to help financially was directly related to her or his achieved status and relative social age, both of which are fluid and not static entities. It appears, too, that in some cases gender played a role in the child’s labor contract. The combination then, of status, social age and gender affects the extent to which a child could contribute to his family. This in turn has ramifications for the degree to which s/he was considered a member of the family. While the texts all describe a different family in financial straits, all of the texts point to the fact that children played an important part of the family household’s economic system. At this point in this study, it is well established that the social status and place of the child within the ANE household is quite fluid. However, the information from legal codes and documents, economic texts and the like only give brief glimpses of the child in ancient Israel. This is because there are no extant legal or economic documents discussing children in ancient Israel. Other sources, such as the narratives of the Hebrew Bible and the archaeological record can be instructive in rounding out the picture of the ancient Israelite child. And it is to these sources that the remaining chapters turn. Chapter 6 focuses on half-siblings in the Abraham and Jacob narratives. While previous scholars have treated these narratives, most focus on the adults and the social institutions recorded in the stories. Chapter 6 begins by identifying how a child’s place in the Israelite household varies with respect to the kind of marriage his/her parents have—polygynous, monogamous, serial monogamy, and so on. The type of marriage regulates the way in which the children in the family inherit. Inheritance operates in one of two ways. In a vertical system,

14

Introduction

inheritance­is passed through one chosen heir. In a horizontal system, the firstborn child receives a special portion and subsequent children receive lesser portions. Inheritance, in turn, affects a child’s status in the household and to what degree s/he is seen as a member of the household. For example, while both are firstborn children, the firstborn son of a secondary wife is not equal to his half-brother who is the firstborn child of a primary wife. Notably, the social mobility and social status afforded to the child at adulthood varies according to their inheritance share or birthright, which is established during childhood. In studying the ways membership is displayed in these narratives, this chapter also considers circumcision and marriage as markers of entrance into the Israelite household. The way in which these institutions act as markers of ethnicity and indicators of gender is also considered. Chapter 7 acts as a transition between the narratives and the archaeological materials. It starts to investigate the most permanent form of leaving the household—death. Specifically, this chapter looks at child sacrifice and the three different kinds of sacrifice described in the biblical text: sacrifice as religious ritual, as adherence to a test or vow, and as a means to expunge evil. The types have one thing in common; sacrificed children are a means through which the sacrificer hopes to gain the attention of the divine. Because of the implications child sacrifice has for Israelite religion, the practice has garnered much attention. Chapter 7 summarizes some of the previous scholarship on the subject and then analyzes how child sacrifice can add to the understanding of a child’s place as a member of the Israelite household. Like with previous categories of children, gender becomes a pivotal factor in determining which of the three sacrifices should be made. An analysis of gender also displays a progression in the way Israelite society viewed sacrifice and who was the most appropriate victim for a sacrifice. Chapters 8 and 9 also address dead children, but from an archaeological perspective. In doing so, they add yet another angle from which to view the child in the ANE, through an investigation of how children were present “on the ground,” versus “on paper.” Throughout both chapters, it is apparent that relative age plays an important factor in the creation of social status and membership in a community. With respect to membership, an investigation of burials allows for engagement in socioarchaeology, as well as an anthropology and ethnography. By examining things such as burial location, burial method, and grave goods, one may develop a picture wherein the more invested a child becomes in his or her community, the more likely the child, when afforded a burial, has been given a burial like the adults of the community. 29 Ethnographical data encourages one to understand the “why” behind the means of burial and how burials were imbued with meaning. By taking a multifaceted approach to child burials, one can begin to understand how important children were in the household and to reassign them agency in the historical narrative. 29. C. Lévi-Strauss, Structural Anthropology (New York: Basic Books, 1963).

Introduction

15

Chapter 10 brings together the archaeological and textual data examined in the previous chapters. The examination of the social status of children in the ancient household results in two different yet interrelated outcomes. First, it generates an investigation into the definition of the term child and the concept of membership in the household. It pushes us toward an explanation of who counts as a child. Second, it opens up the question of how a child enters the household. This entrance, in turn, becomes paramount in the way in which the child is perceived to be part of the household. Various means of entry into the household require various kinds of social status. More often than not, gender acts as a regulating factor in this movement. In the most basic of terms, one might say a child is either a natural member or an introduced member of the household. However, even these terms are not entirely accurate markers of social status, for the terms are binary and static. Such a division is insensitive to the point that social status exists on a sliding scale. If social status can fluctuate, then one may also ask the degree to which membership in a household can shift. The various social statuses defined in the textual data speak to the many ways in which a child could enter a household. However, texts cannot definitively link age categories with social status or membership. If the textual materials are vague on issues of age and membership, burials make it clear that relative age played a part in the family’s and society’s perception of a child’s membership within the household. A methodology combining not only two distinct corpuses of data, but combining individually studied pieces of the data within each corpus supports the conclusion that a child’s membership in the household depends on both the achieved and ascribed social status of the child. Furthermore, while each child has a social status distinct to her own personal situation, the common denominators between various categories of children allow one to speak of various social positions (for example, orphan, adoptee, debt-slave) as groups, and to identify the relationship between each social status and the degree to which the child was included in the family structure. As the groupings of texts and burials allude, membership in the household becomes an important framework through which the data about children can be understood. The framework both unifies the two corpuses of data and allows the two to flesh out the place of children within ancient Near Eastern societies. This said, one must note that membership is not directly linked to age, so that “the older a child becomes the more he or she is treated like an adult”; is not an accurate statement. While relative age can be a prime factor in the treatment of the child, this study demonstrates that it is not the only factor. We can therefore conclude that both textual material and the archaeological realia reflect a world view wherein the more integrated a child becomes into the social network of the household and the community, the more the treatment of the child mirrors the treatment of adults within their same social situation.

C

h a p t e r

O

n e

Foundations: Theory and Childhood The Study of Children in the Household: Problems in Definition To study children in antiquity, one must first identify what is meant by child and childhood. J. Sofaer Derevenski states that “the term ‘child’ implies membership in a particular social category.” 1 As for the term childhood, stages of life were categorized not by chronological age in antiquity but by age categories, which themselves are cultural constructs. 2 Children do not simply go from being “nonadults” one day to “adults” the next. This transition is “a gradual process of ‘growing up.’” 3 Scholarship has used terms such as infant, toddler, youth, adolescent, juvenile, and so on to describe the stages or categories a child passes through on 1.  J. Soafer Derevenski, “Perspectives on Children and Childhood,” ARC 13/2 (1994): 2. 2.  Even though, according to P. Ariès, the notion of childhood is a modern invention created during the industrial revolution when people began taking an interest in educating children, I will argue here that one can indeed talk of an archaeology of childhood in pre-Modern times (P. Ariès, Centuries of Childhood [New York: Cape,1962]; see also J. Baxter, The Archaeology of Childhood: Children, Gender and Material Culture [Walnut Creek: AltaMira, 2005]). For more on life stages as cultural constructs and life stages as age categories, see R. Harris, Gender and Aging in Mesopotamia: The Gilgamesh Epic and Other Ancient Literature (Norman: University of Oklahoma, 2000), 66–67; C. Wilcke, “Familiengründung im Alten Babylonien,” in Geschlechtsreife und Legitimiation zur Zeugung (ed. E. Müller [Munich: Alber, 1985], 215–19; E. Scott, The Archaeology of Infancy and Infant Death (Bar International Series 819; Oxford: Archeopress, 1999), 2; A. van Gennep, Rites of Passage (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1960). A. Tropper defines marriage as the first marker of the “adult” social category, and everything previous to marriage as stages of childhood. “Though many individuals would have married sufficiently late that one would no longer consider them to have been children, marriage nonetheless signified the final transition into adulthood and hence serves as a helpful (if not exactly accurate) dividing line between childhood (broadly defined) and adulthood” (A. Tropper, “The Economics of Jewish Childhood in Late Antiquity,” Hebrew Union College Annual [2005]: 227). D. Marcus states, “a minor, for all intents and purposes, was one who was living in his or her parent’s house,” that is, one who was not married (D. Marcus, “Juvenile Delinquency in the Bible and the Ancient Near East,” Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Studies 13 [1981]: 32); J. Parker, Valuable and Vulnerable Children in the Hebrew Bible, Especially the Elisha Cycle (Brown Judaic Studies 355; Providence, RI: Brown University Press, 2013), 21–39. 3. Sofaer Derevenski, “Where Are All the Children,” 13.

16

Foundations: Theory and Childhood

17

the journey to adulthood. 4 But the use of these terms has been criticized, for they are often arbitrary and reflect no standardized correlation to chronological age groups. 5 A lack of correlation between stages and chronological age leads to confusion, especially in archaeological reports, where physical anthropologists differ on what ages should be assigned to each stage. 6 Some anthropologists avoid the term child by using the term subadult or nonadult. 7 However, subadult carries negative connotations, for sub- means “below,” which is problematic if trying to engage in a theory that is not ageist. The term nonadult, as defined by M. Lewis, is anyone under the age of 17. 8 This term is a little better because it acknowledges that “child” can refer to a broad, chronological age range. Even so, the term nonadult is also awkward, for it implies a binary view of society in which a person is either an adult or not an adult. Furthermore, nonadult, like the term subadult, suggests that there is only one age and social age group involved. Amid the anthropological studies lumping all biologically immature persons together are studies, such as The Osteology of Infants and Children, that do try to identify variations in the bones not belonging to adults. In that study, B. Baker, T. Dupras, and M. Tocheri give a detailed description of the development of the human bone structure and of the labels that correspond to the different developmental stages, such as neonate, infant, and child. 9 By demonstrating­ 4.  For example, Scott discusses the transition from babyhood to childhood and gives some modern examples to show how even in recent times (1980s–1990s) our own ideas of what it means to move from baby to toddler has changed (Scott, Archaeology of Infancy, 2). 5. K. Kamp, “Where Have All the Children Gone? The Archaeology of Childhood,” Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 8/1 (2001): 8; J. Sofaer Derevenski, “Engendering Children, Engendering Archaeology,” in Invisible People and Processes: Writing Gender and Childhood into European Archaeology (ed. J. Moore and E. Scott; London: Leicester, 1997), 193. 6.  See also Naomi Steinberg, The World of the Child in the Hebrew Bible (Hebrew Bible Monographs 51; Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2013), 11–25. For a discussion of terms for children in the Hebrew Bible, see, Steinberg, The World of the Child, 26–41, and the volume’s bibliography. 7.  Baxter discusses how the terms child and sub-adult are problematic and do not necessarily correlate (Baxter, Archaeology of Childhood, 97). See also S. Lucy, “Children in Early Medieval Cemeteries,” Archaeological Review from Cambridge 13/2 (1994): 21–34; and N. Roth­ schild, introduction to Children in Prehistoric Puebloan Southwest (ed. K. Kamp; Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 2002), 1–13. 8. M. Lewis, The Bioarchaeology of Children: Perspectives from Biological and Forensic Anthropology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 5. 9.  They use the following terms to describe the developing human fetus: a skeleton less than full term; perinatal: a skeleton in the time just before or after birth; neonate: a newborn in the first month of life; infant: a person aged birth to 1 year; child: a person 1+ years to puberty; juvenile: an older child in whom permanent dentation has begun to erupt. A person’s life has four more stages: young childhood (1–6 years old), older childhood (7–12 years old), puberty (the onset of which is around 10 years for females and 12 years for males), and adolescence (the period of growth ending around 14 years for females and 16 years for males) (B. Baker,

18

Chapter One

the precision­with which one can label bones, the study calls attention to the lack of sophistication in final archaeological reports and touches on the issues mentioned above. 10 While their study points out that one can responsibly label­ bones with terms that correlate to specific chronological ages, it leaves out the social age factor—the acknowledgment that, while people may biologically move through chronological ages/stages in a reliable manner, socially, people may reach different stages at different ages. In an effort to acknowledge that there is no single definition of child and to speak of children with some sophistication, the present study very specifically understands childhood to encompass the life of a person from the moment of his/her birth to the time of his/her marriage. 11 “Children” will be used to talk about individuals from birth to 12 years old (based on the onset of puberty). At times, it will be necessary to talk specifically about babies; “baby” will refer to those persons birth–2 years old (which is when they begin to be treated differently in textual and archaeological contexts). While the term child is not a new term, or particularly descriptive in and of itself, defining to whom exactly the term refers should help to alleviate such difficulties in distinction as mentioned above. 12 It is also important to note here, that the term child (and baby for that matter) has cultural baggage for the contemporary reader. When used in this study, “child” and “baby” specifically to refer social age categories, devoid of any modern cultural associations. Defined as broad age categories, the term child then functions as umbrella category, into which different social-age categories can be placed. Social ages are important in the following study first and foremost because it is a study in sociology, gender, and membership, not biology. In addition, the use of social age categories trumps that of chronological age categories for two additional reasons. First, the study’s data comes from legal texts and excavation reports. Both textual and archaeological materials often refer to the minor by a social category: infant, toddler, young man, and so on, instead of giving the chronological age. For the ancient author, this choice may have been made for many different reasons, the chief of which seems to be that ancient societies did not emphasize chronological age. 13 The anthropologist’s/archaeologist’s preferT. Dupras, and M. Tocheri, The Osteology of Infants and Children [College Station: Texas A&M Press, 2005], 10). 10.  The authors suggest the problem with most excavations is that the archaeologists writing up final excavation reports are trained in adult (and not infant/child) osteology and therefore label bones not belonging to adults as a single group (Baker, Dupras, and Tocheri, Osteology, 3–10). 11.  Tropper, “Economics,” 227. 12.  The alternative to using known terms, such as baby and child, is to create a new term. This new term may be something along the lines of a “not-yet-adult” (see R. Janssen and J. Janssen, Growing Up in Ancient Egypt [London: Rubicon, 1990], 163). 13.  Harris, Gender, 3–7. Various Mesopotamian texts divide humanity up based on relative age: J. Cooper, The Curse of Agade (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univeristy Press, 1983),

Foundations: Theory and Childhood

19

ence for assigning social over chronological categories is often a practical solution to the fact that it is not possible to determine the chronological age of the child. 14 The choice to use social categories is not only practical but is done for a second reason, namely, a category is not necessarily comprised of people all the same age, nor do people transition from one social category to another at precisely the same time. 15 While this book concentrates on social categories for the reasons stated above, at times it is possible and even necessary to refer to the exact age of a minor. 16 When this is the case, the ages and terms used will follow the parameters: birth to 2 years = infant, 3–12 years = child, 13–15 years = juvenile, and more than 15 years = an adult. As with the definition of children, the definition of household is not static but depends on many different factors. P. Allison suggests that the household includes the “people living in the house, the maintenance of the establishment, and the goods and furniture in it.” 17 Households in turn are places where people live in and use material remains. Wilk and Rathje suggest that it is the “most common social component of subsistence, the smallest and most abundant activity group.” 18 A household is composed of three basic units, the social, material and behavioral. 19 The social unit refers to the “who”; it addresses the demographics­ 53.1:29–33; G. Farber-Flügge, Der Mythos “Inanna und Enki” unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Liste der me (Studia Pohl 10; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1973), 50.33–36; S. N. Kramer, “BM: 96927: A Prime Example of Ancient Scribal Redaction,” 260 r. 2 106–10; Gelb, “The Ancient Mesopotamian Ration System,” JNES 24 (1965): 238–41; J. Brinkman, “Sex, Age, and Physical Condition Designations for Servile Laborers in the Middle Babylonian Period: A Preliminary Survey,” in Zikir Šumim: Assyriological Studies Presented to F. R. Kraus (ed. G. van Driel et al.; Leiden: Brill, 1982), 1–8; J. Brinkman, “Forced Laborers in the Middle Babylonian Period,” JCS 32 (1980): 18. 14.  Data are limited not only by the preservation and the accuracy of archaeological publications but by the condition of the burials. Burials are not always in pristine condition; many have been subject to harsh environmental conditions and grave robbing. Even in the bestcase scenario, the bones of infants and children are often fragmentary, for they are extremely delicate, meaning teeth are often the only biological remains. See L. Steel, “Differential Burial Practices in Cyprus at the Beginning of the Iron Age,” in The Archaeology of Death in the Ancient Near East (ed. S. Campbell and A. Green; Oxbow Monograph 51; Oxford: Oxbow, 1995), 200; M. Ibrahim, “The Archaeological Excavations at Sahab, 1972,” Annual of the Department of Antiquities in Jordan 17 (1972): 27; N. Lovell and I. Whyte, “Patterns of Dental Enamel Defects at Ancient Mendes, Egypt,” American Journal of Physical Anthropology 110 (1999): 72; J. N. Tubb, Excavations at The Early Bronze Age Cemetery of Tiwal esh-Sharqi (London: British Museum, 1990), 101; Scott, Archaeology of Infancy, 4. 15.  For example, one sister may get married at the age of 13 and another at 14. 16.  See idem, Archaeology of Infancy, 4. 17. P. Allison, “The Household in Historical Archaeology,” Australian Historical Archaeology 16 (1998): 16. 18.  R. R. Wilk and W. L. Rathje, “Household Archaeology,” American Behavioral Scientist 25 (1982): 618. 19. J. Hardin, “Understanding Houses, Households, and the Levantine Archaeological Record,” in Household Archaeology in the Levant and Beyond (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 14.

20

Chapter One

of the group. A household includes the biological family: nuclear, extended, or kinship group. It can also include servants, slaves, adopted members, temporary members, day workers, and so forth—anyone within the bounds of the domestic space. 20 The material unit refers to the material the aspects, where the people live and are active. 21 Finally, the behavioral unit addresses what the people do, the household economy. 22 This study focuses on the social aspect, the “who.” It examines in specific children within the household and how children relate to other members of their household. From this perspective, the household is not simply a unit but a complex system of memberships. 23 Within this system, socialization into the group occurs. 24 The household provides the place for children both to practice and observe the group’s behavior and thus gain formative elements of their identity. 25

Where Are the Children? While seemingly a basic question, the answer to “Where are the children? ” forces one to consider where children left their mark in the historical record. Logically, one may assume that, where there are males and females, there are children. However, the lack of attention children have garnered in previous scholarship would have one think that they were either not major actors in society or did not leave a definitive mark on history. Both of these assumptions, however, are false. For example, any scholar of the biblical text can tell you that parents could stone their obstreperous child provided he did not respond to the cor20. C. Kramer, “Ethnographic Households and Anthropological Interpretation: A Case Study from Iranian Kurdistan,” American Behavioral Scientist 25 (1982): 666; R. M. Netting, “Some Home Truths on Household Size and Wealth,” in Archaeology of the Household: Building a Prehistory of Domestic Life (ed. R. R. Wilk and W. L. Rathje; American Behavioral Scientist 25/6; Beverly Hills: Sage, 1982), 42–43. 21.  Hardin, “Understanding,” 14. 22. R. Wilk and R. Netting, “Households: Changing Forms and Functions,” in Households: Comparative and Historical Studies of the Domestic Group (ed. R. Netting, R. Wilk, and E. Arnould; Berkley: Univeristy of California Press, 1984), 5. 23.  G. vom Bruck, “A House Turned Inside Out,” Journal of Material Culture 2 (1997): 139–72. D. Scholen in particular has argued this point with respect to the bet ʾav, “the house of the father.” He posits this was the basic household unit from the Bronze Age through the Iron Age in the Mediterranean rim. Scholen identifies this unit as patriarchal, patrilocal, and extended. The bet ʾav is simultaneously domestic, political, economic, and religious place (D. Scholen, The House of the Father as Fact and Symbol: Patrimonialism in Ugarit and the Ancient Near East [Studies in the Archaeology and History of the Levant 2; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2001]). 24.  Hardin, “Understanding,” 10; W. Rathje and R. McGuire, “Rich Men . . . Poor Men,” in Archaeology of the Household: Building a Prehistory of Domestic Life (ed. R. R. Wilk and W. L. Rathje; American Behavioral Scientist 25/6; Beverly Hills: Sage, 1982), 707. 25. A. Yasur-Landau, J. Ebeling, L. Mazow, introduction to Household Archaeology in Ancient Israel and Beyond (ed. A. Yasur-Landau, J. Ebeling, L. Mazow; Leiden: Brill, 2011), 1.

Foundations: Theory and Childhood

21

rective measures offered by the parents. 26 Such a law has made contemporary religiously observant persons uncomfortable and forced them to reconsider the binding nature of the biblical laws on modern society. While this is a rather extreme example, one can see glimpses of the importance placed on children based on the texts discussing the instruction of children. 27 Likewise, archaeologists find the presence of children in household and mortuary contexts. Each set of data, textual and archaeological, requires different tools for interpretation. These “tools” are actually different kinds of theories spanning the fields of text, archaeology, and social science. In the approach of this book, the data are filtered through many different theories in order to arrive at the best possible explanation for the piece in question. In order to understand the interpretation of the data, one must first understand the theories used in that interpretation.

Unpacking the Textual Data The texts in this study can be divided into three categories: law codes, legal documents, and narratives from the Hebrew Bible. With respect to the first category, one finds that law codes do not function as a guiding set of legal principles, nor do they have temporary or limited authority. 28 Instead, law codes are texts that are drawn up by a governing body or king, govern for the future, and are promulgated by public authority. Scholars have used two theories to explain how law codes functioned and developed in the ANE: the synchronic approach and the diachronic approach. A synchronic approach holds that texts are synchronic, coherent compositions, which are evidence of a single common ANE law. Redundancies and inconsistencies in the codes are not evidence of legal development or revision, but can be attributed to our lack of information concerning the sociocultural background to the laws. 29 Most scholars, however, assert that the biblical and ANE law codes developed diachronically, meaning that the texts show clear evidence of movement and development. 30 This latter position does 26.  Deut 21:18–21. 27.  Consider the biblical injunction to teach one’s child the correct path in the book of Proverbs. See also Deut 6:7 and the Egyptian, Akkadian, and Aramaic wisdom literatures (J.  Pritchard, ed., The Ancient Near East: An Anthology of Texts and Pictures [Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2011], 343–83). 28. S. Lafont, “ANE Laws: Continuity and Pluralism,” in Theory and Method in Biblical and Cuneiform Law (ed. B. Levinson; JSOTSup 181; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994), 91–118. 29. R. Westbrook, “What Is the Covenant Code? ” in Theory and Method in Biblical and Cuneiform Law (ed. B. Levinson; JSOTSup 181; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994), 15–36. For a critique of Westbrook’s synchronic approach, see S. Greengus, “Some Issues Relating to the Comparability of Laws and the Coherence of the Legal Tradition,” in Theory and Method in Biblical and Cuneiform Law (ed. B. Levinson; JSOTSup 181; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994), 71. 30.  Lafont, “ANE Laws”; Greengus, “Some Issues,” 60–87; W. Hallo, “New Moons and Shabaths: A Case-Study in the Contrastive Approach,” HUCA 48 (1977): 1–18; Hallo,

22

Chapter One

not deny that premodern societies were culturally conservative, or that change took place over a long period of time. For example, a comparison of the law codes relating to a given issue demonstrates a development in the way that ANE law codes handle various recurring situations. This suggests that none of the ancient codes was an original composition; various authors did not write new sets of laws but rather reworked and extended the existing laws. 31 Moreover, these existing law codes are incomplete codes, for laws governing actions such as arson, treason, theft of livestock, surety, barter, murder, sales, and manumission are notably absent. 32 ANE and biblical law codes are more accurately called law collections rather than law codes. The second category of texts, legal documents, attests to the dominance of oral law; most law codes did not dictate rulings in the courtroom. 33 Instead, written documents were used primarily to record instances in which a person purchased property or underwent a change in status, such as adoption or manumission. These documents then served as a proof against any future claims that these transactions did not take place. Because each document only recorded the information that the parties thought may be disputed at a later time, the content of the documents could vary. 34 For example, it was not necessary for every adoption tablet to include the same clauses. Because only the pertinent information was written down, the length of legal documents varied greatly; some contained as many as 60 lines (HSS 5:67) and others as few as 10 lines (Nbk. 439). Further “Sumer and the Bible: A Matter of Proportion,” COS 3:xlix–liv; B. Jackson, Studies in the Semiotics of Biblical Law (JSOTSup 314; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), 114–15; B. Levinson, introduction to Theory and Method in Biblical and Cuneiform Law (ed. B. Levinson (JSOTSup 181; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994), 1–14. 31. P. Koschaker, Rechtsvergleichende Studien zur Gesetzgebung Hammurapis (Leipzig: Viet, 1917), as explained in Greengus, “Some Issues,” 75. 32.  Of all the law codes, the Hittite Laws are the only code to mention some of these categories. However, most of the categories are only referenced tangentially (Greengus, “Some Issues, 77–78). The law codes may have served different purposes ranging from academic and didactic means to royal apologia (Greengus, “Some Issues,” 78–81; Jackson, Semiotics, 115; J.  Finkelstein, “Ammisaduqa’s Edict and the Babylonian Law Codes,” JCS 15 [1961]: 103; A.  Fitzpatrick-McKinley, The Transformation of Torah from Scribal Advice to Law [Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999], 143–44). 33. H. Figulla, “Lawsuit Concerning a Sacrilegious Theft at Erech,” Iraq 13 (1951): 95– 101; B. Levinson, “The Right Chorale: From the Poetics to the Hermeneutics of the Hebrew Bible,” in Not in Heaven: Coherence and Complexity in Biblical Narrative (ed. J. P. Rosenblatt and J. C. Sittersons; Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1991), 141–48; and J. Watts, Reading Law: The Rhetorical Shaping of the Pentateuch (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), 135. 34.  Greengus, “Some Issues,” 81; P. Obermark, Adoption in the Old Babylonian Period (Ph.D. diss., Hebrew Union College, 1991), 30–33. For example, the amount of money transacted, the place of the adoptee in the line of succession, or the punishment for breaking the adoption contract often varied between documents. C. J. Eyre notes that Egyptian family archives contained documents that were not official court records and in which the background of the transacting parties was well known; therefore, scribes “simply transacted the necessary detail” (C. Eyre, “The Adoption Papyrus in Social Context,” JEA 78 [1992]: 207).

Foundations: Theory and Childhood

23

evidence for the superiority of oral law can be found within the way legal documents refer to the verba solemnia. Such promises are uttered by one or both contracting parties and can be found in marriage, divorce, and adoption contracts, and even in OB treaties. 35 If the predominance of oral law means that not every legally binding action was recorded in writing and that written law did not set precedents, then on what were the ANE/biblical legal system and laws based? The oral laws most likely drew on principles, concepts, and societal values. 36 Even so, as Lafont points out, the laws and legal practice were not static but dynamic products of a dynamic society. 37 Like the legal texts, the third category of texts, narratives from the Hebrew Bible, also has its own baggage. Matters of history and historiography bring up issues of authenticity and ideological overlays. The texts that have been handed down were penned by men living in a specific time and place. They were also written with a specific function. 38 A good example of the problems surrounding narrative is the account of Saul and David found in the books of Samuel. Scholars have argued that these narratives represent everything from a simple political history of the Israelite monarchy, to a polemic against the tribe of Saul and a pro-Davidic apologia. Biblical narratives also have the added complication of being redacted. The way a text was first written may not be how it currently appears. Returning to the narratives of Saul and David, one could see how the Zadokites of the Second Temple period may have inserted themselves into the text, thus placing their roots at the court of the Messianic king David. This book focuses on the final form of the text, and then takes a sociohistorical approach to the biblical narratives. While there are three different kinds of textual data, the methodology used to assess them is the same. The book addresses the textual materials by a child’s social age. This allows for an assessment on two different levels. First, the categories of children are analyzed on a micro-level, focusing on the status described within each individual text, as indicated by specific terminology relating to the children and the social status given to them, as well as how the document as a whole describes a child. 39 After assessing the texts individually, the categories of children are then examined as a whole in order to determine whether any 35.  Ibid., 135; CH 170–171; D. Charpin, “Les représentants de Mari à Babylone,” AEM I/2, 156, ARM 26, 372:57–59 and 404:57–58; S. Greengus, “The Old Babylonian Marriage Contract,” JAOS 89 (1969): 514–24; Greengus, “Sisterhood Adoption at Nuzi and Genesis,” HUCA 46 (1975): 5–31, nn. 32, 38; Westbrook, Old Babylonian Marriage Law (Horn: Berger & Söhne, 1988), 31–32, 50, 69–70. 36.  Greengus, “Some Issues,” 85; J. Bottéro, “Le Code de Hammurapi,” Annali della Scuola normale superiore du Pisa 12 (1982): 438–43; D. Patrick, Old Testament Law (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1985), 190–204. 37.  Lafont, “ANE Laws,” 107. 38.  In this way, the interpretation of narratives and burials are similar. Both are created by adults and represent children from an adult’s perspective. 39.  The ancient world did not make a distinction between social and legal status in the

24

Chapter One

general comments about the status of a particular category of children can be made, or whether status within each category changes in accordance with different contexts. In this way, the treatment of the documents follows a two-step process. 40 First, a detailed examination of the text is presented, and then pertinent secondary literature is engaged. This two-step analysis allows the text to speak for itself, for only after a close reading of the primary text has been completed can secondary interpretations of the text be fully understood, and an assessment of the text rendered. A summary section follows this analysis, in which an overview of each category is given based on the integration of the initial observations with the secondary sources.

Unpacking the Archaeological Evidence Children are underrepresented in the archaeological record, which can make it difficult to uncover information about them. 41 While they may be under­ represented, this does not mean they were not present. 42 One of the best places to find them is within mortuary contexts. Burials offer a concrete set of data for examining the remains of children and the artifacts associated with them; therefor,e it should not come as a surprise that many studies have been undertaken on the subject of infant and child death. 43 One of the benefits of studying burials is that same manner as people in the 21st century do, and often the two are intertwined within a document; however, when it is possible, social and legal status will be addressed separately. 40.  For an example, see C. Pressler, The View of Women Found in the Deuteronomic Family Laws (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1993). 41.  Derevenski, “Engendering,” 193. 42.  Scholars often describe the lives of children through various objects found in excavations, such as games, toys, and models. For example, Rona Avissar determined that some miniature vessels in an archaeological setting can be identified as toys. She distinguishes between miniature vessels made by children, those in imitation of adult objects, and miniature vessels made by adults for strictly votive purposes (R. Avissar, “Children and Childhood in the Land of Israel” [paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Schools of Oriental Research, Boston, 2008]). However, the identification of these objects can often be uncertain and based on assumptions concerning size, shape, and location (S. Derevenski, “Where Are All the Children,” 10). 43. The following works, among others, address various aspects of a child’s death in Canaan, Egypt, Greece, Rome, and the Byzantine empire: J. Baker, “The Funeral Kit: A Newly Defined Canaanite Mortuary Practice Based on the MB and LBA Tomb Complex at Ashkelon,” Levant 38 (2006): 1–31; A. Biran et al., Dan I: A Chronicle of the Excavations, the Pottery Neolithic, the EBA, and the MBA Tombs (Jerusalem: Hebrew Union College–Jewish Institute of Religion, 1996); C. Bonnet and D. Valbelle, “Le village de Deir el Médineh,” Bulletin de l’Institut Français d’Archaéologie Orientale 76 (1976): 317–42; S. Campbell and A. Green, The Archaeology of Death in the Ancient Near East (Oxford: Oxbow, 1995); V. Dasen, Naissance et petite enfance dans l’Antiquité (Fribourg, Academica Press, 2004); E. Feucht, Das Kind im Alten Ägypten (Frankfurt: Campus, 1995); M. Golden, “Mortality, Mourning and Mothers,” in Naissance et petite enfance dans l’Antiquité, ed. V. Dasen (Fribourg: Academic Press, 2004); E. Scott, Archaeology of Infancy; idem, “Killing the Female? Archaeological Narratives of Infanticide,”

Foundations: Theory and Childhood

25

they help to identify social age categories. In turn, the social ages attest to the presence or absence of gender within social age categories. As mentioned above, it is difficult to determine the chronological age of a child. This can be attributed not only to the poor quality of the osteological remains, but to the confusion in trying to equate a social term (infant, toddler, child) with a specific biological age, and the resulting assumption that movement from one social category to the next correlates with the movement between biological ages. The solution is to recognize that movement between social age categories does not necessarily correlate to a biological age but is culturally bound. Identifying the social age categories within a specific society then, becomes the key to understanding how a society is structured and how gender plays out in the society. And a sound way in which to identify the social age categories is through burials. 44 A word of caution, however, is needed when examining burials. In order to understand the archaeological data present within the mortuary context, one must note both who controls the medium and whom the medium represents. With respect to burials, the medium represents children. However, the mortuary context is created by adults, the living members of a society who project their own ideals onto the dead. 45 This means that the data available do not offer a child’s view of life but offer an adult view of children and their gender. Be this as it may, burials still offer one of the best types of evidence available. 46 To overcome this hurdle, scholarship can bring to the forefront the way in which children affected—or did not affect—the world around them. This allows one not to see the data as a list of items created by adults (thus placing the current study in a long line of descriptive studies that treat the child passively) but to engender the child by emphasizing that children are important actors within society. 47 in Gender and the Archaeology of Death, ed. B. Arnold and N. L. Wicker (New York: AltaMira, 2001); E. Rega, “The Gendering of Children in the Early Bronze Age Cemetery at Mokrin,” in Gender and Material Culture in Archaeological Perspective, ed. by M. Donald and L. Hurcombe (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2000), 238–49. 44.  Baxter, Archaeology of Childhood, 97; Scott, Archaeology of Infancy, 9. 45. See Kamp, “Where Have All the Children Gone? ” 24; Parker Pearson, Death, 102–4. 46.  As noted by R. Hallote, “Though inferences from the dead will never be perfect reflections of the social structures or ideologies of the living, we should nonetheless be able to extract some insights about how a group perceived itself through the images left to us through mortuary remains . . . archaeological remains . . . should be able to serve as evidence for ideological statements about societal identity” (R. Hallote, “Real and Ideal Identities in Middle Bronze Age Tombs,” Near Eastern Archaeology 65 [2002]: 105–11). 47.  Among others, see Baxter, Archaeology of Childhood; Kamp, “Where Have All the Children Gone? ”; Soafer Derevenski, “Where? ” Three studies in particular highlight the engendering of children and their effect on their society. Elizabeth Rega’s study of the Early Bronze Age (2100–1800 b.c.e.) cemetery at Mokrin (in the former Yugoslavia) is often cited as one of the landmark cases using mortuary contexts to investigate gender (Rega, “Mokrin,” 238–49). Elenor Scott’s article, “Killing the Female,” examines the relationship between infanticide and gender and seeks to determine whether cultures valued one (potential) gender over another and/or whether this value caused a culture to give better care to a specific gender. Mark Golden

26

Chapter One

Traditional Historical Archaeology The latest theory in archaeology, called processual-plus archaeology, developed in reaction to postprocessual archaeology (theory based), which was a reaction to processual archaeology (“New Archaeology”), which in turn was a reaction to traditional archaeology. 48 Because each theory arose in response to a previous, a brief history of archaeological theory is needed in order to understand the current theories and the theory used in the present work. Traditional archaeology or historical archaeology characterizes the work of Near Eastern archaeologists from pre-WWI up to the 1970s. This era of archaeological work is generally divided into three time periods: pre-WWI, the time between the wars, and post-WWII. During the pre-WWI time period, traditional archaeology was in its infancy. It was during this period that F. Petrie created his relative chronology based on ceramic sequencing and stratigraphy. The decades between the wars are often called the “Golden Age” of archaeology. During this time, universities and religious institutions undertook large-scale operations, and the field of biblical archaeology gained popularity. Scientific progress was made when W. F. Albright combined the ideas of his colleagues and created a new ceramic typology that could be used independently to date ceramics from sites all over Palestine. 49 The post-WWII era witnessed the development of even more methodologies, most notably the Wheeler-Kenyon method, which uses baulks to catalogue stratigraphy. 50 From before WWI up through the 1970s, archaeologists excavated using a purely descriptive and classificatory-historical method. 51 This method is best described as: find something, describe it, classify it, and determine where to place it on a timeline. In the 1970s, however, archaeologists began to realize the folly in this methodology. If their goal was to understand an entire culture’s history, then they needed to change their approach; they needed to start giving explanations and not just descriptions. Emphasis must be on the meaning of human addresses the role of grieving mothers in ancient Greece and Rome in “Mortality, Mourning and Mothers.” His references and conclusions bring to the fore questions about gender that are in line with the questions raised by Scott’s article, namely, whether mothers mourned the death of one gender over the other and whether newborn infants were considered gendered (Golden, “Mothers,” 156–67). 48. W. Dever was the first to refer to processual archaeology as “New Archaeology” (W. Dever, “The Impact of New Archaeology on Syro-Palestinian Archaeology,” BASOR 242 [1981]: 15–18). 49.  Albright combined Fisher’s area orientation and Reisner’s recording system, as well as his own previous work in developing a stratigraphical methodology (T. Davis, “Levantine Archaeology,” in Near Eastern Archaeology: A Reader [ed. S. Richard; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2003], 55–56). 50.  For an explanation of the Wheeler-Kenyon method, see A. Mazar, Archaeology of the Land of the Bible (New York: Doubleday, 1990), 13–14; J. Blakely and L. Toombs, The Tell el-Hesi Field Manual (Philadelphia: American Schools of Oriental Research, 1980), 25ff. 51.  Dever, “New Archaeology,” 15.

Foundations: Theory and Childhood

27

experience. 52 No longer was it sufficient to examine the physical characteristics of an object; rather, archaeologists needed to explain why the object was made and why it was found in a specific context. A desire to know “why” led to the development and implementation of processual archaeology in Syro-Palestinian archaeology. 53

Processual Archaeology Processual archaeology, or “New Archaeology,” seeks to find the meaning behind human thought by reconstructing human behavior. A key component in processual archaeology is the theory of behaviorism, the belief that humans are “passive reflectors of the forces and factors in their surrounding environments, not individuals acting out their own ideas or intentions.” 54 Behaviorism states that external forces and events, such as the environment, cause humans to behave in a particular way; humans react to their culture. 55 Processual archaeology further states that human behavior can be reconstructed by using systems theory. This theory views cultures as “systems of socially transmitted behavior patterns that relate human communities to their ecological settings.” 56 By collecting, systematizing, and interpreting data in relation to the physical and historical context, systems theory relies heavily on behaviorism’s notion that behavior patterns are a product of individuals’ reactions to their surroundings. Archaeologists utilizing processual archaeology also invite specialists (for example, paleobotonists, zoologists, geologists, and so on) to be on excavation teams in an effort to incorporate many different scientific disciplines. One of these disciplines, anthropology, has become instrumental in structuring the archaeologist’s investigation into the cause of cultural changes and processes by dictating what data to collect, keep, and analyze. The incorporation of anthropology has also led to the use of ethnographic parallels, meaning modern Near Eastern societies are used as models for understanding ANE societies. 57 52.  Idem, “Archeological Method in Israel: A Continuing Revolution,” BA 43/1 (1980): 41–48. 53.  Processual archaeology became popular in Syro-Palestinian archaeology in the 1970s– 1980s. American anthropologists and archaeologists working in prehistorical periods had developed and implemented Processual archaeology much earlier. 54. D. S. Whitley, Reader in Archaeological Theory: Post-Processual and Cognitive Approaches (London: Routledge, 1998), 4. As M. Hegmon states: “The focus is on behavior—not on more abstract concepts such as culture—and the way behavior created the archaeological record” (M. Hegmon, “Setting Theoretical Egos Aside: Issues and Theory in North American Archaeology: Special Section: Mapping the Terrain of Americanist Archaeology,” American Antiquity, 68.2 [2003]: 213–43). 55.  Whitley, Reader, 1–5. 56.  Ibid., 3. In essence, the multidisciplinary approach of PA tries to transform traditional archaeology into scientific anthropology. 57.  Dever, “New Archaeology,” 15–17.

28

Chapter One

Postprocessual Archaeology Postprocessual archaeology stresses a theoretical and not a scientific approach to the archaeological data. Whereas processual archaeology focuses on empiricism, rationalism, and the natural world, postprocessual archaeology highlights idealism, relativism, and the social scientific aspects. 58 Postprocessual archaeology also pays attention to ideology and the intentional actions of the human mind. 59 One area in particular highlights the difference between processual archaeology and postprocessual archaeology —the understanding of how humans relate to their surroundings. While processual archaeology uses a behaviorist approach, postprocessual archaeology sees humans not as reactors but as actors. Postprocessual archaeology emphasizes that the impetus for change arises from an internal source, not from external forces. This position stems from the belief that the human mind plays an integral part in creating the archaeological record. 60 Understanding the mind to be a central contributor to the archaeological record has in turn caused postprocessual archaeology to focus on agency. A. Giddens defines agency as follows: “Agency concerns events of which an individual is the perpetrator, in the sense that the individual could, at any phase in a given sequence of conduct, have acted differently.” 61 Agency, then, focuses on a history of individual people rather than on cultures or systems. Often, studies that seek to “engender the past” use agency theory, for the purpose of engendering the past is to populate the past with agents. 62 Postprocessual archaeology also stresses the importance of symbols, finding meaning in everything from ritual to pottery, actions to objects. It embraces various critical approaches. One of these, reflexive anthropology, has radically changed the way archaeologists go about interpreting data. Postprocessual archaeology takes into consideration the way “the present influences (or determines) interpretations of the past and how interpretations become part of the present.” 63

Processual-Plus By the 1980s, the gap between scientific archaeology (processual archaeology) and theoretical archaeology (postprocessual archaeology) was glaringly obvious. Recent years have witnessed an increasing awareness of this chasm, resulting 58. A. Jones, “Archaeometry and Materiality: Materials-Based Analysis in Theory and Practice,” Archaeometry 46/3 (2004): 327–38; A. Jones, “Reply,” Archaeometry 47/1 (2005): 204. 59.  Whitley, Reader, 12. PPA and one of its branches, historical materialism, will be important in this study when considering how ideology affected the construction and textual representation of social and legal status. 60.  Whitley, Reader, 6. 61. A. Giddens, The Constitution of Society (Berkley: University of California Press, 1984), 9. 62.  Hegmon, “Theoretical Egos,” 219–21. 63.  Ibid., 218. Because of the impact reflexivity has had on the field, I will discuss it in further detail below.

Foundations: Theory and Childhood

29

in a call for a rapprochement between the two. 64 As P. J. Bray and A. M. Pollard state, “the science/humanity barrier must be broken to allow the generation a full spectrum of plausible solutions.” 65 One effort in narrowing the gap has been to educate the specialists who analyze archaeological data in archaeological theory. This kind of training has led to the incorporation of archeological scientists into the excavations. 66 Other nonspecialist field archaeologists have continued to use processual archaeology while at the same time integrating various elements of postprocessual archaeology into their work. 67 Current advocates of this approach have shown a growing interest in gender, agency, practice, symbols, meaning, material culture, and native perspectives. M. Hegmon calls this trend processualplus. This approach to archaeology “takes on post-processual themes but attempts to develop systematic methodologies and generalized conclusions.” 68 The following example demonstrates how the field is moving away from a (post)processual approach to archaeology and starting instead to utilize a processual-­plus approach. Whereas processual archaeology endeavored to place each artifact into a typology, the last few years have shown a turn away from typologies toward understanding how the various artifacts fit into the “big picture.” 69 Archaeologists look not only at what type of vessel they found but at its immediate context, as well as its larger context. They note whether the vessel was found with other vessels or goods, what type of building it was found in, where it was located in the building, and so on. Archaeologists then use this collective information to draw conclusions about the area as a whole. With processual-plus, a new emphasis has been placed on the types of questions scholars need to ask. In the 1970s and 1980s, processual archaeology focused on finding general laws and empiricism within the data. However, if one asks a scholar today, “What do you study? ” the current answer is likely to range from histories, to people’s relationship to the land, to environmental changes, to settlement patterns, to ethnicity and cultural identity, to symbols and meaning. While the types of questions have changed, moving from scientific in the 64.  Jones, “Reply,” 206. 65.  P. J. Bray and A. M. Pollard, “Comments on A. Jones, ‘Archaeometry and Materiality: Materials-Based Analysis in Theory and Practice,’” Archaeometry 46/3 (2004): 180. 66. D. Killick, “Comments on A. Jones, ‘Archaeometry and Materiality: Materials-Based Analysis in Theory and Practice,’” Archaeometry 46/3 (2004), 327–38; D. Killick, “Reply: Comments IV: Is There Really a Chasm Between Archaeological Theory and Archaeological Science? ” Archaeometry 47/1 (2005): 187. 67.  See, for example, Ian Hodder’s work at Catalhöyük (I. Hodder, On the Surface: Çatalhöyuk 1993–95 [McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, BIAA Monograph 22; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996]; I. Hodder, Towards Reflexive Method in Archaeology: The Example at Çatalhöyuk [McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, BIAA Monograph 28; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000]). 68.  Hegmon, “Theoretical Egos,” 218. 69.  Ibid., 227.

30

Chapter One

1970s–80s (processual archaeology), to theoretical in the 1990s (postprocessual archaeology), to a combination of both in current scholarship (processual-plus), the goal of archaeology has remained the same: to uncover the past. The best way to (re)construct the past is through using a mix of the previous approaches, in other words, the theories and methodologies of a processual-plus approach. This combination allows for the incorporation of a scientific approach (when applicable) as well as the inclusion of broader theoretical approaches. 70 This study uses a processual-plus approach, which is essentially modernist in that it strives to find underlying truths in the text and archaeological remains. Hegmon warns that “a modernist approach is often taken for granted, enabling researchers to proceed with their particular studies but also disabling their ability to imagine other ways of reviewing the world.” 71 Heeding this warning, the processual-plus theory engaged here incorporates many perspectives and theories in order to imagine the subject with an open mind. What follows is a review of some “plus” components of this approach. These components include theories centering on anthropology and some of its subfields: symbolism and identity, material culture, reflexivity, and mortuary archaeology.

Anthropological Theory Theories of Identity and Symbols Knowing the way identity is formed and how people are defined within a society is foundational to understanding categories of identity and status. People take on multiple identities every day. For example, a single person can have social, religious, ethical, ethnic, familial, and political identities. But as F. Bowie points out, “identity is defined by the other.” 72 A person becomes aware of a particular identity when faced with another that is different. Identities, then, are defined by boundaries, and boundaries are set by society. Membership in a group (society) requires this obedience to certain behavioral rules.  73 These rules form the boundaries needed to differentiate one group from the next, to keep one identity from becoming another. When these boundaries are crossed, the identity is changed. A. van Gennep studied the process that takes place when an identity changes. He calls this movement from one categorical identity to another “rites de passage.” For him, rites act as “universal structuring devices in human society.” 74 Each rite 70. For more discussion on a knowable past and its (re)construction, see pp. 33–34 below. 71.  Ibid., 233. 72. F. Bowie, The Anthropology of Religion (Oxford: Blackwell, 2000), 72. 73.  For example, when a woman loses her virginity, a boundary is crossed and her identity is changed. 74.  Bowie, Anthropology, 161. In this section, Bowie reviews the work of A. van Gennep, which can be found in the 1960 English edition of his book: The Rites of Passage (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1960).

Foundations: Theory and Childhood

31

de passage is a three-part journey. The passenger (person going through the journey) must first leave society, separating herself from the group social structure. She then enters into a liminal phase where she is devoid of all markers signifying the past or future identity. Finally, after passing through the liminal stage, she is reintroduced into society with a new identity. If one were to photograph these three stages, the first and last stages would represent the “before” and “after” photos. The middle “liminal” stage, however, is not as easily captured. According to V. Turner, in the liminal phase the characteristics of the passenger are at best ambiguous. 75 She is stripped of all past status, rank, and role and thereby made equal in all respects with her fellow passengers. The equality felt between the passengers forms what Turner calls communitas, a society that, due to the complete equality between the members of the society, is either unstructured or at best loosely structured. 76 Borders or places of transition—liminality—represent areas of instability and fear. Liminality is a realm connected with death, the womb, and invisibility. Ironically, this invisible stage is made visible by the very things that make it invisible. The juxtaposition of societal norms such as structure, rank, and power, highlight the absence of those norms in the liminal realm. As Turner states, “in rites de passage, men are released from structure into communitas only to return to structure revitalized by their experience of communitas.” 77 Without passage through the liminal phase a person cannot cross into a new realm. Without passage through the liminal phase the “before” and “after” photos would look the same. Once a person has crossed through the liminal phase, she is ready to state her new identity to society at large. One means of doing this is through performance acts. Those who participate in the performance are identified as “performers,” while those who observe the performance are identified as “observers,” so that participation in the performance becomes the boundary against which group identities are forged. In addition to performance, a person can also display his identity through symbols and material culture. 78 In very basic terms, a symbol 75. V. Turner, “Liminality and Communitas,” in A Reader in the Anthropology of Religion (ed. M. Lambeck; Oxford: Blackwell, 2002), 358–74. 76.  Note that at times people appear to undergo rites de passage alone. If van Gennep is correct in saying that the rites are a means of universal structuring, then no one is alone in the passage. At some point in time everyone goes through a rite de passage that someone else has gone through. During the liminal phase of one’s passage she is linked to past, present, and future passengers and shares communitas with them. Perhaps this idea is best summed up in the phrase “I know what you are going through.” Person A shares in Person B’s journey because Person A has gone through the situation already. Participation in another’s journey happens emotionally when one feels empathy for another. 77.  Turner, “Liminality and Communitas,” 373. 78. As Bowie notes, “identities are formed and maintained through the use of symbols” (Bowie, Anthropology, 70). See also S. Kus, “Archaeologist as Anthropologist: Much Ado about Something Afterall? ” Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 4/3–4 (1997): 209–10.

32

Chapter One

is one thing that stands for or represents another thing. In order for a symbol to operate successfully, its meaning must be recognized by the group of people in which it functions. If a person chooses object x as a symbol with the meaning y, but no one else understands x to mean y, there is a communication breakdown, and the symbolic transmission is unsuccessful. Problems in recognizing a person’s identity arise when symbols are interpreted incorrectly. Take for example the swastika. This symbol first appears in Grecian art. Thousands of years later it became the symbol that represented Nazi Germany. If a German shop owner in the 21st century who sold Greek antiquities was to use the swastika on a sign in front of his shop, he might not get much business. The shop owner might have chosen the design as a representation of his wares, but his society would see the swastika and incorrectly associate it with the Nazi party. This example demonstrates two points: (1) how the meaning of a symbol can change based on the time period and society in which it operates and (2) how a person’s true identity can be mistaken by the misinterpretation of a symbol. 79 Symbols not only have many meanings but can also take many forms. They range from gestured motions to words written on a page to tangible physical objects. 80 Therefore, when interpreting an object or symbol it is important to try to place the object back into its original context. Because a symbol is “mute,” the message that the image is trying to communicate often can be ambiguous. This leads to the possibility of disassembling and reassembling the meaning of the material symbol. For example, an artifact from 2000 b.c.e. may be understood to mean one thing when it was made but mean something different in the 21st century c.e. 81 The meaning may also be relative, for symbols have ideological and 79. I. Hodder states that symbols are chosen with the intent to identify. He makes the following seven observations concerning symbols, some of which can be seen in the example above: (1) A symbol has a meaning as part of a set (or group); (2) a symbol carries meaning from its previous use, even if that meaning changes into something else; (3) the use of a symbol by a new group includes a dynamic element, so that there is a relationship between the symbol’s use as x and its new use as y; (4) the entire essence of the symbol (structure, content, and meaning) exists within an ideological context; (5) symbols can often express what words cannot; (6) change in society is heralded and secured by the rise and fall of the emulations of styles/ symbols; and (7) symbols are socially and strategically created so that meanings can differ from one person to the next but still be successfully understood by the group in which they function (I. Hodder, The Present Past: An Introduction to Anthropology for Archaeologists [London: Batsford, 1982], 206–9). 80.  There is a difference between an object and the words written on the object. This is to say, I would not call an inscription material culture, but I would call the object upon which it is imprinted material culture. There are two symbols and hence two meanings at work, that of the object and that of the words. There may even be a third symbol, the writing of the inscription on a specific object as opposed to another object. 81.  Consider the above-mentioned example of the swastika. Also note that this concept is especially pertinent when interpreting burial remains, for burials are often prepared with an ideological bent so as not to mirror the actual living social order.

Foundations: Theory and Childhood

33

social importance; different symbols mean different things to different people. Though this is true, the meaning expressed is not always reality but often is that of an ideal world. 82

How to Know the Past It may seem that, in the theory of material culture that was just presented, all meaning is subjective. One way to move past this and access the past is through analogies. Using analogies, one starts from the known and works backward to solve the unknown. 83 Analogies allow people to interpret symbols and hence draw conclusions about different identities. The best type of analogy is a relational analogy.  84 The strength in relational analogies is their link to context. Context affects the relevance of the comparisons, meaning it is not only a window into the function of the object, but it offers insight into the symbolism and ideology behind the object, allowing a person to understand why she draws a correlation between two things. 85 It therefore becomes imperative to situate an analogy within its relevant context, so as not to engage in exercises of “subjective story-writing.” 86 The use of analogies assumes that it is possible to (re)construct the past. For example, a moderate postpositivist view would state that, yes, there is a true and objective past. Conclusively arriving at it is another matter. “Although we may not be able to recognize it (in the sense of developing singular scientific tests that will reveal it) . . . the point of science is to . . . attempt to move increasingly closer to it [a true and objective past]”  87 By showing different views of the same event/object, a Postmodern approach broadens our reconstructions of the past. Postmodernism has forced society to recognize and look beyond the whiteAnglo-Saxon-Protestant-male perspective and to embrace the multiplicity of differences in surface representations. It has brought about the rise of archaeology focusing on the “other,” such as females, children, and the Third World, as well as studies concentrating on gender, sex, ideology, and status. The theories and ideas developed by scholars in these various fields will be particularly instructive for the present project. 82.  Hodder, Present Past, 139–40; M. Parker Pearson, The Archaeology of Death and Burial (College Station: Texas A&M University Press 1999), 33ff. 83.  “As much as the past informs the present so the present informs the past” (Hodder, Present Past, 210). 84.  A relational analogy is based on the natural, cultural, or functional link between two things. This kind of analogy hinges on context. This kind of analogy should not be confused with a formal analogy, one based on similarities or common properties between two things. 85.  “If we know why a correlation occurs we can determine which variables are relevant in fitting an analogy, we can decide whether the similarities and differences observed between past and present will affect the validity of the analogical reasoning” (ibid., 157). 86.  Ibid., 14. 87.  Whitley, Reader, 11.

34

Chapter One

Reflexive Anthropology The discussion on symbols and analogies illustrates the need to engage in methods that will result in interpreting the meaning of a text, symbol, or object correctly. The interpreter is a key factor in this process, because each person brings his or her own biases and assumptions to the interpretation. One’s gender, age, race, and life experience affect the conclusions that he reaches. Thus, the field of reflexive anthropology was developed as a system of checks and balances for the interpreter to use when making observations and conclusions. It seeks to forego the observer/observed mindset and to see ourselves and our culture as informing both how one writes and the observations that one makes. 88 In archaeological observations this applies to those observations and analogies made concerning both material culture and text. Specifically, in Near Eastern studies dialogue takes place between the scholar and a society long past, making it all the more important to be consciously aware of the modern preconceptions the researcher may hold. The following chapters seek to interpret categories of children found in ANE texts and burials. How these categories are formed and understood is also subject to individual biases. For example, are the categories or classifications assigned to ANE societies and objects modern, ancient, or a little of both? Is the modern understanding of an adopted child imprinted onto the ANE category “adopted”? Furthermore, is “adopted” a modern or an ancient category? Perhaps it is even a mix of the two. While it is impossible to be completely objective, being aware of oneself and one’s biases allows the interpreter to understand how she comes to her conclusions concerning the meaning of an object or text. A reflexive anthropological approach is especially important when seeking to interpret burials.

Anthropology and the Development of Mortuary Archaeology Modern anthropological theory separates burials into the study of human remains and the study of funerary practices. 89 This dichotomy emerged as advances in theory and medicine made it possible to study human remains apart from their sociological situation. Prior to the 20th century, anthropologists focused on the religious aspect of burials, seeing a direct link between a given mortuary practice and a belief in the afterlife. 90 The French sociologists of the 20th century took a 88.  Bowie defines reflexivity as: “the examination of the ethnographic encounter as a dialogue between individuals and culture, and its attempt to understand the limitations these subjectivities impose” (Bowie, Anthropology, 98). 89.  A burial refers to the entire interment, including the human remains and grave goods. This should not be confused with the term tomb or grave, which refers only to the burial site. Human remains speak to the biological aspect of the dead person’s life, whereas funerary practices provide information concerning the way in which the living wished to present the dead (Pearson, Death, 3). 90. A. Bastian, Der Mensch in der Geschichte (Leipzig: Wigand, 1860); J. Goody, Death, Property, and Ancestors (Palo Alto: Stanford University Press, 1962); J. Lubbock, The Origin of

Foundations: Theory and Childhood

35

different approach, focusing instead on the social representation within burials. Most notable in this school are R. Hertz and A. van Gennep. 91 Hertz was the first to state clearly that mortuary practice is dictated by intrasocial differences between age, sex, and status. A. van Gennep, on the other hand, chose to focus on death as a rite de passage. The British school of social anthropology developed alongside the French School. It began to do ethnographical research relating funerary practice to the larger social structure. For example, A. R. Radcliffe-Brown maintained that death disrupts the balance in the social structure. 92 Mortuary practices therefore represent a society’s effort to rearrange itself and find a new equilibrium. 93 The British anthropologists understand mortuary practice as part of role behavior, meaning that society tells people how to behave and feel in various circumstances, such as death. Through the study of role behavior, anthropologists began to recognize how the sex of the deceased influenced the way in which he or she was buried. 94 Structuralism also flourished during this time. While the structuralist school does not formally treat mortuary practices, the works of C. Levi-Strauss and E. Durkheim have been adapted as a means of understanding the funerary complex. 95 Recently, anthropologists have proposed that mortuary practice is dependent on social variability, so that burial practice does not equal a reflection of a specific religion or belief system. L. Binford was one of the first to note how the relationship between age (ascribed status) and social participation (achieved status) may affect a person’s burial. 96 He also stresses the importance of cross-cultural studies in interpreting the relationship between symbol and referent. 97 Together, Binford Civilization and the Primitive Condition of Man (London: Longman & Green, 1882). 91. R. Hertz, “A Contribution to the Study of the Collective Representation of Death,” in Death and the Right Hand (ed. R. Needham and C. Needham; Glenco, IL: Free Press, 1960), 29–86; A. van Gennep, The Rites of Passage (London: Routeledge & Kegan Paul, 1960). 92.  A. R. Radcliffe-Brown, The Andaman Islanders: A Study in Social Anthropology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1922). 93. B. Bartel, “A Historical Review of Ethnological and Archaeological Analyses of Mortuary Practice,” Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 1 (1982): 32–58. 94.  Today’s society understands a separation between sex and gender, where sex is biologically determined and gender the result of a social separation of the sexes. (For a summary of sources on this point, see Pearson, Death, 95). Gluckman, in referring to sex roles, did not make the same distinction. For him, one fulfilled either a male or female sex role based on his or her gender (M. Gluckman, “Les rites de passage,” in Essays on the Ritual of Social Relations [ed. M. Gluckman; Manchester: University of Manchester Press, 1962], 5–35). 95.  See, for example, how M. Chesson adapts the work of C. Levi-Strauss in her study, “Households, Houses, Neighborhoods and Corporate Villages: Modeling the EBA as a House Society,” JMA 16 (2003): 79–102. 96. L. Binford, “Mortuary Practices: Their Study and Their Potential,” in Approaches to the Social Dimensions of Mortuary Practices (ed. James A. Brown; Memoirs of the Society for American Archaeology 25; Washington: Society for American Archaeology, 1971), 6–29. 97.  For example, neighboring societies who are unfriendly toward each other may have the same burial practices. However, one society may use the burial as a marker of high status

36

Chapter One

and P. Ucko theorize that burial practices vary according to three things. 98 First, the environment limits the way in which a corpse can be disposed; people living on the coast bury their dead differently from people living in the mountains. Second, contact between different societies influences burial practice and deathrites. Finally, burials vary according to the associations between the living and the dead. 99 In response to the variation and complexity recognized in burials, scholars of mortuary archaeology have begun dividing their discipline into specialties. Broadly speaking, these specialties include two fields: biology and sociology. Biologists examine the human remains to uncover what the bodies can relate about the lives of the deceased. Due to the increasing pace in scientific developments, new technologies have allowed scientists to determine things such as the sex, age of weaning, diet, chronic versus longterm pathological conditions, and mortality rates with mounting precision. 100 While biologists concentrate on the scientific aspect of the burial, and socioanthropologists focus on the meaning imbued in the burial. Socioanthropologists maintain that burials are culturally significant, specific, and determined. 101 In order to understand the meaning behind the burial, socioanthropologists examine many aspects of the burial, including the technical components relating to the method used for burial, and the ritual aspect, which reflects the deceased’s social status. One of the most important points about child burials is that they are created by adults, meaning one never sees the world of children but only experiences the way in which adults tried to ascribe social status to these young deaths. 102 As such, society and “cultural attitudes dictate where and how infants and children are buried, when they assume their gender identity, whether they are exposed to and the other society in mockery as a marker of low status (Bartel, “Analyses,” 51; I. Hodder, Symbols in Action: Ethnoarchaeological Studies of Material Culture [London: Cambridge, 1982]).  98. P. Ucko, “Ethnography and Archaeological Interpretation of Funerary Remains,” WA 1 (1969): 262–81; Binford, “Mortuary Practices,” 6–29.   99.  These associations concern how the living perceived the age, sex, status, and social affiliations of the dead. 100.  See, for example, T. Shay, “Differentiated Treatment of Deviancy at Death as Revealed in Anthropological and Archaeological Material,” JAJ 4 (1985): 221–24; A. H. Goodman and G. J. Armelagos, “Infant and Childhood Morbidity and Mortality Risks in Archaeological Populations,” WA 21 (1989): 225–43; C. Spencer Larsen, Bioarchaeology: Interpreting Behavior from the Human Skeleton (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997); P. Smith and G. Avishai, “The Use of Dental Criteria for Estimating Postnatal Survival in Skeletal Remains of Infants,” Journal of Archaeological Science 32 (2005): 83–89; J. Ullinger et al., “Bioarchaeological Analysis of Cultural Transition in the Southern Levant Using Dental Nonmetric Traits,” American Journal of Physical Anthropology 128 (2005): 466–76; and M. Lewis, The Bioarchaeology of Children: Perspectives from Biological and Forensic Anthropology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007). 101. E. Bloch-Smith, Judahite Burial Practices and Beliefs about the Dead (JSOTSup 123; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992), 17. 102.  Parker Pearson, Death, 103.

Foundations: Theory and Childhood

37

physical abuse, and at what age they are considered adults.” 103 Because this subfield of mortuary archaeology is a relatively recent development, the archaeology of children has been approached almost entirely from a sociological perspective. The works of the few scholars who do integrate biological studies, osteological studies, and social theories will be used as a template for the current project. 104 Another significant contribution to the discipline of mortuary archaeology is gender theory. 105 Gender theory made its debut in mortuary archaeology through its effort to make the invisible visible. Women were the first group of “invisibles” to garner attention. The theoretical foundations laid by women’s studies have paved the way for the study of another group of invisibles: children. 106 Mortuary archaeologists, recognizing that children were major contributors to ancient societies, are now giving special attention to children within the archaeological context.

Gender Theory and Childhood Archaeology In order to study and understand the gender of children, one must examine how society engenders children. Picture the following two scenarios: A mother is walking down the street with her small child, whom she has dressed in yellow. A woman passing by stops to admire the child and says, “What an adorable little baby—is it a girl or a boy? ” In the next scenario the mother has dressed the little one in pink. A woman stops and says, “Oh, what a cute girl!” The difference between the two scenarios has to do with the signals that yellow and pink put forth. In contemporary American culture, pink is associated with girls. 107 Yellow, 103.  Lewis, Bioarchaeology, 1. 104.  Such works include R. Harris, Gender and Aging in Mesopotamia (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 2000); Lewis, Bioarchaeology; Wyke, Gender; idem, Parchments. 105.  J. M. Gero and M. W. Conkey, eds., Engendering Archaeology: Women and Prehistory (Oxford: Blackwell, 1991); L. Meskell, The Archaeologies of Social Life (Oxford: Blackwell, 1999); M. Wyke, Gender and the Body in the Ancient Mediterranean (Oxford: Blackwell, 1998); M. Wyke, Parchments of Gender: Deciphering the Bodies of Antiquity (Oxford: Clarendon, 1998); Y. Peleg, “Gender and Ossuaries: Ideology and Meaning,” BASOR 325 (2002): 65–73; C. Meyers­, “Engendering Syro-Palestinian Archaeology: Reasons and Resources,” NEA 66/4 (2003): 185–97. 106.  J. Sofaer Derevenski, “Engendering Children, Engendering Archaeology,” in Invisible People and Processes: Writing Gender and Childhood into European Archaeology (ed. J. Moore and E. Scott; Leicester: Leicester University Press, 1997), 192–202; J. Baxter, Archaeology of Childhood: Children Gender and Material Culture (Walnut Creek, CA: Alta Mira, 2004). 107.  Pink was not always associated with girls. Prior to the 1950s, pink was normally associated with boys because it was considered a strong color (J. Paloti, “The Gendering of Infants’ and Toddlers’ Clothing in America,” in The Material Culture of Gender [ed. K. Martinez and K. Ames; Winterthur, DE: Henry Francis du Pont Winterthur Museum, 1997], 32). For a discussion of gendering through clothes and other devices in the modern era, see Scott, Archaeology of Infancy, 18–20.

38

Chapter One

on the other hand, is considered a neutral color, used for both boys and girls. As the reaction of the person passing by demonstrates, the color of the outfit is the cue for the gender of the child. Studies have shown that color-coded clothing influences the observer; adults who are confronted with one-month-old babies dressed in pink or blue treat the children as girls or boys, respectively, and offer them “gender appropriate” toys. 108 On the other hand, adults who interact with babies dressed in neutral colors offer the babies neutral toys, or guess (usually incorrectly) the gender. 109 The example of color-coded clothing demonstrates on a very basic level that gender belongs to a system of cultural codes generated by society. The first studies to address children and gender came out of a post-1980s theoretical wave, which states that in order to know the past fully one must incorporate children into the study of the past. 110 This wave linked the period of childhood with the gendering process, arguing that constructions of childhood are, in essence, constructions of gender. 111 Whereas gender studies examine the way in which a culture ascribes roles, activities, and behaviors to all people regardless of age, studies of childhood limit their scope based on the individual’s position in the life cycle. Therefore, understanding the construction of gender is an important part of understanding the construction of childhood. Because it is a culturally constructed phenomenon, gender must be learned. One is not simply born as male or female. 112 The question is then how do people 108.  Color coding came into vogue in the 19th century when it was believed that gender could and must be taught early on in a child’s life. This wave of thinking diverged from the 18thcentury notion that gender was an innate quality that would develop naturally. Thus, until the 19th century all children were dressed in gender-neutral colored clothing. In fact, only in the 1890s did gender-specific styles of clothing gain popularity. Prior to the late 19th century, boy and girl children alike wore clothes patterned on what adult women wore—dresses (Paloti, “Gendering,” 29. Now, in the 21st century, we understand gendering as a process, taught through actions and material culture (see references, nn. 114 and 121 below). 109.  Paloti, “Gendering,” 33–34; Scott, Archaeology of Infancy, 18. 110.  Prior to the 1980s, the importance of children was marginalized (Baxter, Archaeology of Childhood, 8–9). For example, children were identified in an archaeological setting by the presence of toys. Objects labeled as toys were most often otherwise unidentifiable. Archaeologists labeled these objects as toys because they assumed that children would have been present at a site. Thus, children were given a passive, descriptive role in the archaeological setting. Again, in ethnoarchaeological studies, children were merely described, not seen as actors in and contributors to society (Baxter, Archaeology of Childhood, 4–6; see also her lengthy bibliography on these pages). 111.  In describing childhood as a period of gendering, Baxter states “as the girl progresses through her physical development, she will shed the role of child (often a marked rite of passage associated with puberty or menarche), but she will retain and develop her gendered identity as a female” (Baxter, Archaeology of Childhood, 3; see also A. Rotundo, American Manhood: Transformation in Masculinity from the Revolution to the Modern Era [New York: Basic Books, 1993]). 112.  M. W. Conkey and J. M. Gero, “Tensions, Pluralities, and Engendering Archaeology: An Introduction to Women and Prehistory,” in Engendering Archaeology: Women and Prehistory

Foundations: Theory and Childhood

39

become male or female, and furthermore, once gender is identified, how it is maintained, created, and re-created in everyday life? 113 J. Butler first argued the case for gender as performance, so that becoming male or female was done through observing repetitive acts performed by others in the community. 114 These repetitive acts are part of cultural socialization, “the process through which cultural information is transmitted across generations.” 115 Gender, thus, is not only culturally constructed but socially constructed as well. 116 Socialization of any kind first takes place in the household; it is inextricably linked to the family and kinship group in which the child grows up. 117 Social learning theory states that children engage in behaviors for which they are duly rewarded. Each social age has a different understanding of gender, as each social age is at a different point in their gender learning. For example, younger children hold much tighter to gender stereotypes when playing or identifying a man or woman, whereas older children have the ability to understand gender in a more complex manner. Golombok and Fivush conducted a landmark study in the process of engenderment in the Western world. 118 They identified four steps in the gender process. Step zero is a preunderstanding of gender. This is the child who perceives no differentiation between a man and a woman. Around two years of age, children enter the “gender identity” stage, where they distinguish men and women based solely on physical traits. Therefore, if a man has long hair, the child will identify him as a woman; the same goes for women with short hair and muscular builds—the child will identify that person as a man. In the second stage, reached at 3–4 years old, “gender stability,” the child understands gender as a constant across time, but not across situations. At age 5, children enter the final (ed. J. M. Gero and M. W. Conkey; Oxford: Blackwell, 1991), 9. In using the terms male and female, I am drawing a distinction between sex and gender. Sex refers to the biological differences between men and women, whereas gender designates the cultural interpretation of sexual differences. See B. Voss, “Sexuality in Archaeology,” in Handbook of Gender in Archaeology (ed. S. Milledge Nelson; Lanham: AltaMira, 2006); S. Crawley, L. Foley, and C. Shehan, Gendering Bodies (Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2008), 14. 113.  S. J. Kessler and W. McKenna, Gender: An Ethnomethodological Approach (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1985) addresses this question. 114. J. Butler, Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity (New York: Routledge, 1990). Another possible explanation is that gender is a performance of the body. This view stresses the importance of the physical being in the creation of gender (Crawley, Foley, and Shehan, Gendering, 40). See also J. Sofaer Derevenski, “Engendering Children, Engendering Archaeology,” in Invisible People and Processes (ed. J. Moore and E. Scott; London: Leicester University Press, 1997), 192–202. 115.  Baxter, Archaeology of Childhood, 3; see also Scott, Archaeology of Infancy, 5, 9. 116.  Crawley, Foley, and Shehan, Gendering, 37–55; Kessler and McKenna, Ethnomethodological Approach, 162. 117.  Yasur-Landau et al., introduction, 1. 118. S. Glombok and R. Fivush, Gender Development (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994); see also Sofaer Derevenski, “Engendering,” 195–99.

40

Chapter One

stage, “gender constancy,” where they understand gender as a constant through both time and situations. Thus, children learn and understand gender differently at different developmental, or social, ages. The theory of socialization, wherein an adult transfers knowledge to a child, has come under fire because it suggests that a child plays a passive role. This sort of role is counter to the tenet that children are actors, a key notion in the study of childhood archaeology and gender. 119 One way to solve this problem, to assign an active role to both adults and children, is to understand socialization as a dialogue between and adult and child. In a dialogue model, the child needs to obtain the knowledge and the adult shares the knowledge. 120 For example, the little girl mentioned above will begin to learn that her mother dresses her in pink because girls in modern American society wear pink and pink means girl.

Gender and Material Culture An important medium of socialization is material culture. Gender is expressed, enacted, and reinforced through objects and their associated uses. 121 In her landmark study, G. Lillehammer noted the importance of culture in a child’s life. She states that a child’s world is divided into three parts: the culture created when a child interacts with the environment, the culture transferred from adult to child, and the culture transferred from child to child. 122 Due to its concentration on mortuary archaeology, this chapter concerns itself not so much with child-child culture but with the first two divisions of culture, both of which rely heavily on material culture in the gendering process. Because the data found below draw their conclusions from material culture, it is worth exploring briefly the role material culture plays in socialization and the gendering of a child. As a socially and culturally created medium that conveys information, material culture is in essence a symbol and falls under the governance of Hodder’s seven observations on symbols, mentioned above. 123 Because symbols have many meanings, it is important, when interpreting an object or symbol, to try to place it back into its original context. As will be seen below, this concept is especially 119.  Other guiding elements in the study of childhood archaeology are as follows: “look at a child through relationships and acknowledge the cultural construction of childhood and its parallels to gender” (Baxter, Archaeology of Childhood, 23). See also Sofaer Derevenski, “Engendering,” 194. 120.  Ibid., 24. 121.  “The engendering of children is, therefore, the development of an understanding of the use of material culture as a repository of gendered symbolic meanings, followed by the decoding and learning of those embedded meanings and finally, the organization of that symbolic knowledge” (ibid., 196). 122. G. Lillehammer, “A Child is Born: The Child’s World in an Archaeological Perspective,” Norwegian Archaeological Review 22/2 (1989): 90. 123. As Bowie notes, “identities are formed and maintained through the use of symbols” (Bowie, The Anthropology of Religion [Oxford: Blackwell, 2007], 70).

Foundations: Theory and Childhood

41

pertinent when interpreting burial remains, for burials are often prepared with an ideological bent. 124 When examining an object one must realize that “that the object created is expressive, that it is a representation of, at the very least, a social engagement with the past world in which the people . . . lived.” 125 As such, objects of material culture are a part of the performance acts and by association, the socialization dialogue described above. In learning the knowledge shared by adults, children use material culture to reenact performances. In turn, the children are duly rewarded for imitating the appropriate and desired gender behaviors. 126 Finally, a word of caution in is in order here. One should not equate the imitation and knowledge of gender with being fully gendered, for as the term “engendering” suggests, gendering is a process, one that continues until the child reaches maturity. 127 The following analysis addresses the dynamic between gender­and age; the fluid movement from nongendered child to gendered child.

Applying Gender Theory in the Ancient Near East Gender theory states that gender and sexuality are two separate things: sex is the biological term for male and female, while gender is the way that society encultures a person to fit specific societal roles. According to J. Butler, gender is indeterminate and expressed as a performance; it is acted out and repeated and thus given a cultural solidification. 128 This theory is based on the work of M. Foucault, first presented in his History of Sexuality. 129 M. Wyke states: “For Foucault, a proper understanding of sexuality as a culturally constructed discursive apparatus necessitated a return to the texts of antiquity in order to study the formation of the desiring subject . . . the seeming alterity of our distant past became an 124.  Ibid., 139–40; M. Parker Pearson, The Archaeology of Death and Burial (College Station: Texas A&M University Press, 2000), 33. It may seem that Hodder’s is a theory of material culture in which all meaning is subjective. However, he argues that through the use of analogies we can start from what we know and work backward to solve what we do not know. Analogies allow one to interpret symbols and hence draw conclusions about different identities (Hodder, Present Past, 157, 210). It is imperative to situate an analogy within its relevant context so as not to engage in exercises of “subjective story-writing (Hodder, Present Past, 14). See also Baxter­, Archaeology of Childhood, 4–7. 125. R. Joyce, The Languages of Archaeology (Oxford: Blackwell, 2002), 142. 126.  Derevenski, “Engendering,” 198. 127.  It is important to note that gender and childhood are culturally constructed, meaning that the constructions of each vary with each culture. So too does the point at which a particular culture considers a child to have reached maturity. I use the term maturity here to refer to the end of the gendering process, the point at which a child is considered gendered. Gendering and maturity are often marked by a special rite of passage, such as menarche or marriage. See Baxter, Archaeology of Childhood, 3; Tropper, “Economics,” 227. 128.  See J. Butler, Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity (New York: Routledge, 1990), 47–106. 129. M. Foucault, The History of Sexuality (trans. Robert Hurley; New York: Vintage Books, 1988–90).

42

Chapter One

instrument with which to challenge contemporary belief in the existence of biologically determined, historically unchanging sexual behaviors and identities.” 130 Consider, for example, the following statement in which J. L. Berquist heeds Foucault’s call and “returns to the texts of antiquity.” In describing how the book of Sirach uses rhetoric to show the social construction of the male and female genders, Berquist states: “As young men become public figures, learning to exert increasing control over self, body, and the surrounding physical and social environment, society forces women inside . . . by such restriction, women learn to relinquish both bodily autonomy and social power.” 131 Note that Berquist points out the societal norms for the male and female genders as taking place through repeated actions. In Sirach’s Hellenistic society, sons became men within the political realm and in doing so gained control over the physical realm (women and children). By the same token, Berquist states that a daughter’s sexuality was something that needed to be controlled. As such, daughters were expected to restrain their actions and stay within the sphere of the household—males were taught to enforce this. Hence, daughters, and the women they grew up to be, held a very stationary and subjugated position in Hellenistic society. 132 According to this theory (ancient) bodies are “‘parchments of gender:’ textual skins on which gender is inscribed and on which can be traced other interconnected matricies of knowledge and power that give those bodies their seemingly legal contours.” 133 In other words, the description of the body within the texts acts as a site for the production of gender. For our purposes, the legal materials are our literary representation of gender and the site to which one looks for the production of gender. It is possible that the child was seen as neither masculine nor feminine, but “other.” This is not to say the child was “neuter,” for that in itself is an identification of gender; rather, the child is presented both as gendered and genderless at the same time. As feminist scholars have pointed out, “gender” and “age” are not natural states, but social constructs made to support and organize power relations. 134 R. Harris has applied gender theory to the ancient Mesopotamian culture. 135 While her scholarship 130. M. Wyke, Parchments of Gender: Deciphering the Bodies of Antiquity (ed. M. Wyke; Oxford: Clarendon, 1998), 1. 131.  J. L. Berquist, “Controlling Daughters’ Bodies in Sirach,” in Parchments of Gender (ed. Maria Wyke; Oxford: Clarendon, 1998), 114. Berquist does not mention which text source he uses for Sirach. However, he does list the following commentary as the most extensive and recent work on the subject: P. W. Skehan and A. A. DiLella, The Wisdom of Ben Sira (Anchor Bible 39; New York: Doubleday, 1987). 132.  Berquist, “Daughters’ Bodies,” 116. 133.  Wyke, Parchments, 3. 134.  Butler, Gender Trouble; M. Hawkesworth, “Confounding Gender,” Signs 22 (1997): 649–89. 135.  Harris, Gender. Throughout her study, she highlights the importance of using modern­methodology. With respect to gerontological research, she states that it has produced

Foundations: Theory and Childhood

43

focuses mostly on the view of the elderly in Mesopotamia, she does address the aspects of gender and aging, or “views regarding appropriate activities and behavior at particular life stages.” 136 She applies the tenants of gender theory to Mesopotamian texts to prove how, in the ANE, gender, age categories, and status are all dependent on repeated acts, acts which are fulfilled by taking on different roles within society. 137 Like those in most preindustrial societies, Mesopotamians did not place an emphasis on chronological age. 138 This resulted in a society in which age is not the primary criterion in determining the role one takes on, but rather one takes on roles appropriate to ones’ life stage: children, young adults, and old adults. 139 Young adults, people who are able to take on the most roles and contribute at the highest economic level, make up the core of Mesopotamian society. Because children and older adults are physically incapable of contributing at the same level, they are often grouped together. 140 Consider, for example, these texts: “He is a child, we will make him serve as a doorkeeper with the old man and weak women.” 141 “An old man or an old woman . . . [is] like one child in price.” 142 theory and data that are “less likely to be culture-specific and culture-bound that might be expected” (p. 81). 136.  Ibid., 3. 137.  In Catherine Silver’s study on gender identity in old age in modern industrial societies, Silver finds that, as people reach a certain place in their lives, society no longer views them as “male” or “female” but sees them as a marginalized group or “other.” She notes how elderly people live in a unique space; they are socioeconomically disadvantaged compared to younger groups, but at the same time they are able to question societal norms and act counter to them because they have disengaged from the “adult” (that is, working) world that defines and reinforces these norms. Gender in this phase of life is leveled as gender expectations are lifted, resulting in a sense of rolelessness and even role reversal. This is surprisingly similar to Harris’s conclusion regarding Mesopotamian views of the elderly (C. B. Silver, “Gendered Identities in Old Age: Toward (De)Gendering? ” Journal of Aging Studies 17 [2003]: 379–97. See also E. H. Erikson, J. M. Erikson, and H. Q. Kivnick, Vital Involvement in Old Age: The Experience of Old Age in Our Time [New York: Norton 1986]; D. L. Gutmann, Reclaimed Powers: Toward a New Psychology of Men and Women in Later Life [New York: Basic Books, 1987]; A. S. Rossi, ed. Gender and the Life Course [New York: Aldine, 1985]; A. S. Rossi, “Gender and Parenthood,” in Gender and the Life Course; Z. Bauman and T. May, Thinking Sociologically [London: Blackwell, 2001]). 138.  Note how the terminology used to describe children is based on relative age: Wilcke, “Familiengründung,” 215–19. 139.  Harris notes that often adolescent roles overlap with the roles filled by young adults (Gender, 6). The same generalized age divisions are also seen in the biblical text: Lev 27:1–8 and Deut 32:25. 140.  Harris points out how in UR III and NB ration lists young children and the elderly often received equivalent amounts (ibid., 206 n. 31). 141.  CAD S 183; and Harris, Gender, 72. 142.  This comes from price lists in a stipulation relating to murder in an ancient treaty (S. Greengus, Old Babylonian Tablets from Ishchali and Vicinity [Leiden: Nederlands Instituut, 1979], 75:7–8). Harris argues that while Mesopotamian society sought to mitigate the ageism,

44

Chapter One

Based on these kinds of attitudes, Harris states that the elderly were marginalized by being equated with children. 143 Applying this theory to children, it appears that children, as well as the aged, were marginalized by society, but for different reasons. Whereas Harris’s study supports the conclusion that the elderly became increasingly degendered, one finds that children were increasingly engendered. 144 In very simplistic terms, a person’s gender journey can be represented by a bell curve. A child is born into society as neither male nor female with regard to gender but as “other,” and society begins to gender this “other” until the gendering process is culminated. 145 The process concludes at puberty, when the person transitions from being a child to an adult, one who is a full member of the working world. As an adult grows older and reaches the latter stages of life, gender distinctions begin to slip away, and the aged adult again enters the gender category “other” as he or she becomes degendered. 146 In the proposed model, the young adult “working class” represents the standard, while the children and aged are those who are marginalized by the young adults. Support for this conception of the aged and children can be found in the manner in which Mesopotamian art and texts present the world, for by focusing on young adults, they imply that “young adulthood” is the ideal stage in life. 147 As a young adult a person is fully gendered according to societal norms it remained an underlying tension. She suggests that myths became a place to release indirectly some of these tensions. Consider, for example, the succession struggles in the tales of Enuma Elish, Atrahasis, The Harab Myth, Lugal-e, and Angim. 143.  Harris, Gender, 57, 90. 144.  In her chapters entitled “Gendered Old Age in Enuma Elish” and “Old(er) Women,” Harris describes the way in which the attributes that characterize a person as “male” or “female” begin to slip away. For example, the old men are no longer youthful or competitive but passive and self-controlled (ibid., 83). In losing their “sexual powers,” old women, those who are postmenopausal, experience a freedom of sorts as they are no longer subject to various purity laws. They become either more aggressive and authoritative, not submitting to male domination or wise sages, advising and counseling the younger adults (ibid., 84, 90–98). The term (de)gendered is borrowed from Silver’s study (“Toward (De)Gendering? ” 379–97). 145. K. Kamp, “Where Have All the Children Gone?, 14. 146. See Harris, Gender, 67–118. 147. Consider, for example, ANE art. Unlike Egyptian art, Mesopotamian art rarely depicts children or the aged. Reliefs show males coming in from battle and show displays of strength and virility. The 7th-century relief detailing the capture of Lachish is a rare exception (see P. Albenda, “Women, Child and Family: Their Imagery in Assyrian Art,” La Femme, 17– 21; J. V. Canby, “The Child in Hittite Iconography,” in Ancient Anatolia: Aspects of Change and Culture Development” [Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1986], 54–69). Mesopotamian texts, especially myths, are written from the viewpoint of the young adults. Harris describes this vividly in her chapter, “Gilgamesh’s Coming of Age.” Here, childlike behavior by an adult is frowned upon. On the other hand, Gilgamesh seeks to overcome death and old age through gaining immortality. While the Mesopotamians did not fear old age, it does not appear to be looked upon favorably unless it is accompanied by soundness of body and mind, two traits characteristic of young adults (Harris, Gender, 53). Especially interesting are the two law cases

Foundations: Theory and Childhood

45

and, as Berquist would say, performing repetitive acts that created and enforced that gender. With this in mind, it is interesting to note that acts performed by children are often done by children of both biological sexes. For example, the biblical text states that some domestic chores are undertaken by girls and boys alike. 148 Children, such as David and Rachel, both tend their father’s sheep (1 Sam 16:11 and Gen 29:9). The fact that the sheep are called “his/her father’s sheep,” demonstrates that the sheep were the responsibility of an adult man—adult women did not tend sheep. That both a girl and boy child tended sheep is an example of children being seen as genderless or at least not fully gendered. If the girl were fully gendered, she, like her adult mother, would not be out tending sheep, but doing household chores. Mesopotamian texts also mention children as a nongendered group. Texts from Mari state that children, regardless of their biological sex, accompany mothers­to work and are given simple chores to accomplish. 149 In the Ur III period, children accompanied the women to the weaving centers where they performed light tasks. 150 In addition, Harris notes that by the time children were 3 or 4 years old they began running errands for their mothers. 151 While these references may appear to group children with women, this does not mean that children are seen as “female”; rather, it is more likely that children are seen as “other” to a young adult male-oriented society. Harris, regarding elderly men, describes this world view rather poignantly: “The marginalization of elderly men by being equated with children and women . . . no doubt can be accounted for by the decreasing economic contribution of elderly men.” 152 That is to say, anyone mentioned by Harris that concern parricide. In these texts, it appears that the son is anxious both to grow up and to come into his inheritance, something that can only happen once the father has died. They demonstrate the power that comes with being a young adult and the idealized perception of that stage in life (ibid., 71; R. Zettler, “The Genealogy of Ur-Meme: A Second Look,” AfO 31 [1984]: 1–9; S. Parpola, “The Murderer of Sennacherib,” in Death in Mesopotamia [ed. B. Alster; Copenhagen: Akademish Forlag, 1980], 117–18). 148. L. Stager and P. King, Life in Biblical Israel (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001), 46. 149.  Simple tasks could include picking up clods (kirbānu) of dirt in the field or working in textile shops as teasellers (kunšillu) (CAD K 402; J. A. Brinkman, “Sex, Age, and Physical Condition Designations for Servile Laborers in the Middle Babylonian Period: A Preliminary Survey,” in Zikir Šumim: Assyriological Studies Presented to F. R. Kraus [ed. G. van Driel et al.; Leiden: Brill, 1982], 4; Harris, Gender, 20). 150.  Waetzoldt, “Compensation,” 132–53, 140. 151.  She quotes: “Like a child (dumu) sent on an errand by its mother, she went [from the chamber]” (ibid.). See also T. Jacobsen and S. N. Kramer, “The Myth of Inanna and Bilulu,” JNES 12 [1953]: 160–87. 152.  Harris, Gender, 57. Neo-Babylonian slave-sale documents demonstrate the relationship between children and their economic productivity. These documents are particularly useful because they list either an age category or the actual age of the child being sold. In the

46

Chapter One

weaker than a young male adult was seen as a separate group. 153 The same may be said for children. Despite the fact that children are seen as “other,” there is an effort put forth to gender the child according to his or her biological sex and social station in life. Family trades, such as artisan, priest, and scribe, were handed down from parent to child. 154 In addition, fathers taught their sons how to farm, hunt, and handle weapons, and mothers taught their daughters how to do various religious duties and how to run the household. 155 Mesopotamian texts state that craftsmen, such as bakers, carpenters, singers, or seal cutters, could train young people as apprentices. 156 Adults preformed acts, which the children then copied; little girls emulated their mothers and little boys their fathers. 157 Clear evidence of this can be seen in the toys given to the children. For example, little boys played with weapons, ships, chariots, and wagons, and little girls played with dolls and miniature furniture sets. 158 In summary, ANE society seems to relate to children in two different ways. On the one hand, they are seen as “other” and genderless. This is demonstrated both by the fact that identical light tasks are given to girls and to boys, and by the fact that the ration lists do not distinguish between their two genders. On the other hand, adults encouraged children to act according to societal gender norms by giving them gender-specific toys and by teaching them gender-specific trades. The tension between these two perspectives demonstrates that gendering is a process that is both imposed on and modeled for the child. Gendering does not happen all at once but takes time. When the process is complete, the child is no longer a child but is seen as a fully gendered adult.

contracts, a child is only mentioned by name when (s)he has reached an age where (s)he can contribute to the economy and is hence considered a socially viable member of society. For example, an infant is listed as an extension of the mother, but a six-year-old child is referenced by name and sold independently of the mother. See the discussion on Nbn. 693 in the section “Chattel Slaves” on pp. 144–145 and 147–150 below. 153.  Young female adults were deemed more economically valuable than children and the aged because they were stronger and had the capacity to bear children. A woman’s sexuality had power over men in a way that a child or aged person could not. See Harris, Gender, 92. 154.  J. M. Miller and J. H. Hayes, A History of Ancient Israel and Judah (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2006), 26; J. N. Postgate, Early Mesopotamia, Early Mesopotamia: Society and Economy at the Dawn of History (New York: Routledge, 1992), 229; Stol, “Private Life in Ancient Mesopotamia,” CANE 1:492. 155.  Stager and King, Life, 46–47. See 1 Sam 8:11–13; Ruth 2:8; and Ezek 16:44. 156.  Stol, “Private Life in Ancient Mesopotamia,” CANE 1:492. See also CH 188–89. 157.  This can be seen in Egypt as well (“Childhood,” in The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt (ed. D. Redford; 3 vols.; Oxford: Oxford Univeristy Press, 2001], 1:263). 158.  For an extensive discussion of children and their toys, see A. D. Kilmer, “Games and Toys in Ancient Mesopotamia,” Actes du 12c Congres International des Sciences Prehistorique et Proto-historique 4 (1993): 359–64.

Foundations: Theory and Childhood

47

Synthesis Children of the past are not invisible or underrepresented in the historical record; we simply must readjust our focus away from not only an androcentric view but also away from a purely feminist approach to the data and move it onto children. This means recognizing children as actors in all aspects of their lives, be it social status, kinship affiliation, gender, and membership within their societies. This chapter has set out to realign the focus by addressing some of the major issues that have previously blocked our vision. First, it tackles a definition for the terms child and childhood. It points out that the ancient world revolved not around chronological movement in age but around social stages. Therefore, the terms child, baby, and childhood, as used in this book, refer to umbrella categories for social ages. Here, the term baby refers to a person aged birth to 2 years, and a child is 3 to 12 years old. However, within these two chronological ages exist many different social ages (such as suckling, weaned child, stick-gatherer, youngling, and so on). Social ages are important when discussing the various modes social mobility and the process of engenderment. After discussing who a child is and what a household is, the chapter then discusses where children are located in the historical record: texts and archaeological materials. In line with a processual-plus approach to the materials, anthropological theories (reflexive anthropology, symbols and identity, and gender theory) and archaeological theories (traditional archaeology, processual, postprocessual, and processual-plus archaeology, and childhood archaeology) are discussed. The chapters that follow apply the foundational information found in this chapter to develop a picture of how children in the ANE fit into their respective households and societies.

C

h a p t e r

T

w o

Adoption Adoption in the Ancient Near East 1 The basic function of adoption was to create a kinship tie between two people equal to the kinship tie between two blood relatives. 2 For example, one could adopt someone in order to obtain an heir, create family unity, legitimize illegitimate children (those born to auxiliary wives, slaves, or concubines), provide elder care, or manumit a faithful slave. One may also adopt for the purpose of gaining the right to give a woman in marriage and/or obtaining a female house servant. 3 1.  The majority of our information concerning free-born children comes from adoption contracts. This is not surprising, because adoption was a common practice in the ANE, and its legal import demanded that the transaction be properly recorded. Because of the wealth of information available in this area, the majority of the present chapter is therefore devoted to analyzing documents relating to the status of adopted children. Since the data pool is quite large, what follows is not an exhaustive treatment of the subject matter but a representative survey of the institution of adoption in the ANE. The seminal work on adoption in Mesopotamia belongs to M. David, Die Adoption im altbabylonischen Recht (Leipzig: Weicher, 1927). A more recent addition to the field is the study by E. Stone and D. Owen with a contribution by J. R. Mitchell, Adoption in Old Babylonian Nippur and the Archive of Mannum- mešur-liṣṣur (Mesopotamian Civilizations 3; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1991). For other comprehensive studies, see also: E. M. Cassin, L’adoption à Nuzi (Paris: Geuthner, 1929); M. David, “Adoption,” RLA 1 (1960): 37–39; R. Harris, Ancient Sippar: A Demographic Study of an Old-Babylonian City (1894–1595 b.c.) (Leiden: Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul, 1975); P. Obermark, Adoption in the Old Babylonian Period (Ph.D. diss., Hebrew Union College–Jewish Institute of Religion, 1991); J. Paradise, Nuzi Inheritance Practices (Ph.D. diss., University of Pennsylvania, 1972), 1–73. 2.  F. W. Knobloch, “Adoption,” ABD 1:76–79; E. A. Speiser, “The New Kirkuk Documents Relating to Family Laws,” AASOR 10 (1928–29): 7–12; C. Zaccagnini, “Nuzi,” in A History of Ancient Near Eastern Law (ed. R. Westbrook; Leiden: Brill, 2003), 595. 3.  These latter two purposes are part of an adoption called tuppi kallūtu, “document of daughter-in-law-ship.” See K. Grosz, “On Some Aspects of the Adoption of Women at Nuzi,” in Studies on the Civilization and Culture of Nuzi and the Hurrians: vol. 2, General Studies and Excavations at Nuzi (ed. D. I. Owen and M. A. Morrison; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1987), 131–32 n. 1; Speiser, “New Kirkuk,” 21ff.; R. Westbrook, Old Babylonian Marriage Law (Horn, Austria: Ferdinand Berger & Söhne, 1988), 17ff.; I. Mendelsohn, Slavery in the Ancient Near East (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1949), 19.

48

Adoption

49

The act of adoption meant that any ties to the natal family were formally dissolved. Most adoptions conducted were considered “genuine adoptions” wherein a person was adopted as a son or daughter by a family who needed an heir. 4 Genuine adoptions of children were most prevalent during the Old Babylonian and Middle Babylonian periods. 5 In the Neo-Babylonian and Late Assyrian periods, genuine adoptions became less common because manumitted slaves began to carry out the functions of an adopted child, whose duties included becoming the inheritor and eldercare giver. At Nuzi, an additional form of adoption takes place: “sale adoptions.” These adoptions are legal fictions wherein adult, nonbiological family members are “adopted” to “inherit” familial lands and estates. 6 Unlike most transfers of inheritance, in a sale adoption the property transfer happened immediately, rather than after the death of the “adopter.” In other words, sale adoptions enumerate the monetary value of the inheritance share, which is immediately “inherited” by the adoptee, who in turn often gives the adopter a “gift” in gratitude. Because sale adoptions pertain to adults, not much more must be said about them; however, genuine adoptions offer much information on children. Historically, research undertaken on adoption contracts referencing children has focused on the adults in genuine adoptions, not on the role/place of children in the adoptions. 7 This chapter focuses on the children, asking what status they were given and examining how they entered into the household. The majority of our information on genuine adoptions comes from adoption contracts. 8 In light of this, a brief introduction to the contracts’ structure will 4.  See, for example: E. Cuq, Études sur le droit Babylonien les Lois Assyriennes et les Lois Hittites (Paris: Geuthner, 1929), 57–58; Stone and Owen, Adoption, 11; Paradise, Inheritance, 15–16; Obermark, Adoption, 11; K. Nemet-Nejat, Daily Life in Ancient Mesopotamia (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2002), 131–32. 5.  Genuine adoptions are not limited to the adoption of children; adults could also be adopted in this manner. 6.  Unlike genuine adoptions, in sale adoptions the same person could be adopted multiple times. Sale adoptions are found at Nuzi during the mid-second millennium and also in OB Nippur. See, for example, HSS 5:55, 56, 75; ARN 45/65; BE 6/2 28; PBS 8/1 16; PBS 8/2 153; TIM 4 13, JEN 8, 89, 216, 404, 414. One example has also been found at Sippar (CT 45 16). For more on sale adoptions, see Maidman, A Socioeconomic Analysis of a Nuzi Family Archive (Ph.D. diss., Yale University, 2003), 93; Stone and Owen, Adoption, 11; Obermark, Adoption, 13, 16; Paradise, Inheritance, 15; Zaccagnini, “Nuzi,” 604. 7.  While this study focuses on children, formal adoption of adults did occur and in fact was more common than formal adoption of children (Greengus, “Legal and Social Institutions of Ancient Mesopotamia,” CANE 1:479). Thus, most of the previous studies on adoption focus on the various forms of the institution, not the age and status of the person adopted. Some studies, such as Obermark’s, make reference to the difference between children and adults but do not concentrate on children per se. 8.  Law codes also mention adoption, but, with the exception of CH 185–91, most laws are concerned with inheritance issues. F. Knobloch offers an explanation for the lack of laws

50

Chapter Two

both aid the following discussion and serve as an introduction to the adoption genre. Adoption contracts are structured around three main components. 9 The first component is a statement of adoption, which describes the parties involved. The statement can be nominal: PN1 DUMU(.SAL) PN2 ‘PN1 is the son/daughter­ of PN2’; or verbal: PN1 KI PN2 ana mārūtum leqû ‘PN1 has taken/will take PN2 (from PN3 his/her parent or sibling) in adoption’. The second component governs the renunciation of the adoption relationship by either party. In most cases, this specifies that if a child disavows the adoptive parent he or she will be punished, while if a parent severs the adoptive relationship he or she will be subject to a monetary penalty.  10 In many cases, adoption contracts place a larger penalty on the person breaking the contract: mannummē ša ina bērišunu iblkatu 1 MA.NA KÙ.BABBAR 1 MA.NA KÙ.GI umallā ‘whoever breaks this contract shall pay 1 mina silver and 1 mina gold’. The third component is the oath sworn by both parties before the gods and/or human witnesses. While these are the three basic clauses found in an adoption contract, many contracts include additional clauses, some of which will be seen in the contracts examined below.

Identifying Children in Adoption Texts Adoption texts reference children in one of two ways: explicitly or implicitly. Explicit references include laws and documents that refer to adoptees with a term designating the person as a child. Implicit references to children are harder to determine. Because most ANE texts do not give the specific age of the adoptee, one must infer from other clues in the text that the adoptee is a child. For example, if a document makes provisions for a girl’s marriage, one can assume that she is not married when the document is drawn up and, therefore, she falls into the umbrella category “child” as defined in chapter 1. Another example is the adoptions of infants and children. These usually mention the names of the parent(s) and assert that the infant/child is being adopted “from them.” 11 But in other cases, the surrounding context suggests that the adoption of a child, not an adult is in question. Examining only genuine adoptions allows one to concentrate on the adopted child’s social status and gender, as well as the degree to which the child is given agency and has a responsibility in the contractual relationship as a member of a new household. governing adoption. He states that there was no way in which to standardize adoption laws because the stipulations for adoption changed from one adoption contract to the next (Knobloch, “Adoption,” 77). 9. M. Ellis, “An Old Babylonian Adoption Contract from Tell Harmal,” JCS 27:3 (1975): 130–51. For additional adoption formulas, see S. Paul, “Adoption Formulae: A Study of Cuneiform and Biblical Legal Clauses,” Maarav 2/2 (1979–80): 180–85. 10.  The punishment for disavowing a parent often means being sold into slavery. See, for example, TIM 5 3:12–13; BAP 95: 20–21; BAP 96: 20–22; CT 8 22b: 9–10; CT 48 48: 14–15. The fine on the parent serves as a substitution for the child’s lost inheritance. 11.  Obermark, Adoption, 19–20.

Adoption

51

Baby: Ina mêšu CH 185 This is the first of five laws in the Code of Hammurapi concerning the adoption of a ṣehrum. The term ṣehrum comes from the verb ṣehrum, and means ‘to be small, young, second in rank, a child, or servant’. 12 The opening line of CH 185 discusses a man adopting a ṣehrum . . . ana mārūtim ileqma ‘for sonship . . . he adopts (lit., takes) him [the ṣehrum]’. This ṣehrum is further defined as one who is ina mêšu, first translated by M. David as “unter seinem Namen.” 13 M. Roth’s more current translation calls such a child, “one who was taken at birth.” 14 The phrase ina mêšu literally means ‘from its water or amniotic fluid’, which implies that CH 185 concerns a case where a child was adopted at the moment it was born. 15 Whether or not children were actually taken from their mothers at the instant of birth is unclear; one can, however, conclude that people adopted children from a very early age. 16 CH 185 then states that the adopter takes a newborn and raises it (urtabbīšu) and concludes with the statement tarbītum šî ul ibbaqqar, ‘that rearling shall not be reclaimed’. The term tarbītum is related to the D stem of rubbûm meaning ‘to raise a child’. 17 Here it refers to the child who has been/is being raised. The phrase tarbītum šî ul ibbaqqar emphasizes that, once the adopter has taken the young child into his household and raised him/her, the child cannot be reclaimed by the natal family. The prohibition against reclaiming the child protects against charges the natal family could bring against the adoptive father in hopes of reclaiming the child. Such a charge may arise if the mother (or her family) wished to reclaim the child on grounds that the she was not in a stable mental place and not thinking clearly when she agreed to give the child up for adoption. Taking a child 12.  CAD Ṣ‚ 122, 179. G. Evans comments on the status of one called ṣihru, stating he was “incapable of protecting his own interests . . . or of undertaking the rights and responsibilities of a full member of society” (G. Evans, “Ancient Mesopotamian Assemblies,” JAOS 79 [1958]: 8). 13.  David, Adoption, 24–25, 28. 14. M. Roth, Law Collections from Mesopotamia and Asia Minor (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997), 119. Earlier translations, such as Driver and Miles, follow M. David and translate this phrase incorrectly as “in his name” (G. R. Driver and J. C. Miles, The Babylonian Laws [Oxford: Clarendon, 1955], 388). 15.  The word mêšu is parsed as: mû + 3ms sfx (šu). For mû as “amniotic fluid,” see CAD M/2 145; J. Huehnergard, A Grammar of Akkadian (Harvard Semitic Museum Studies 45; Win­ ona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2000), 454; R. Paulissian, “Adoption in Ancient Assyrian and Babylonia” Journal of Assyrian Academic Studies 13/2 (1999), 12–13; R. Yaron, “Varia on Adoption,” JJP 15 (1995): 173. 16.  Other texts support this practice as well. See J. J. Finkelstein, “šilip rēmim and Related Matters,” in Kramer Anniversary Volume: Cuneiform Studies in Honor of Samuel Noah Kramer (ed. B. L. Eichler, J. W. Heimerdinger, Å. W. Sjöberg; Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker, 1976); Paulissian, “Adoption,” 12. 17.  CAD T 223–25; Huehnergard, Grammar, 526.

52

Chapter Two

from its birthing waters, amniotic fluid, would indicate that the mother agreed to give her child for adoption while in labor or soon thereafter. M. Malul offers a similar argument in the case of foundlings who were adopted. He states that if the biological mother is hired as a wet nurse she could become “psychologically attached to her formerly rejected child and would be reluctant to part with it after the term of her service.” 18 While he argues the mother’s actions are based on psychological factors after the adoption has taken place, this is not to say that psychological factors could not have played a part in wishing to give up the child in the first place. Another possibility is that the mother may have been poor or widowed at the time of the child’s birth, but now her fortunes have been reversed. Today’s Western­society frequently finds cases of this nature brought in to court. Consider for example the precedent setting case, People ex rel. Scarpetta v. SpenceChapin Adoption Service. This case concerns an unmarried mother who claimed she was under the stresses of childbirth when she gave her child up for adoption. The court ruled in favor of the mother on the basis that it was in the child’s best interest to be with its birth mother. The ruling states: “the mother has adequately stabilized her own relationships and has become stable enough in her own mind to warrant the return of the child to her. . . . this undoing [of the adoption] is based on a finding of fact that for various reasons, some obvious, the surrender was not made by her with such stability of mind and emotion.” 19 While one must be careful in making comparisons between cases separated by large a gap in time and culture, an argument can be made based on human nature. The biological aspect of the birthing process has not fundamentally changed in the past 3,800 years. It is possible to say that a woman in the ANE would have experienced the same kinds of hormonal and emotional fluxes and stresses as women in today’s world and therefore may have been subject to a similar “instability of mind” when it came to agreeing to an adoption. Whether or not ancient societies understood or acknowledged psychological stressers, CH 185 clarifies the solemnity of the institution of adoption; it is not to be entered without thought, for even an agreement to adopt a child made before its birth cannot be reversed once it has been raised by the adoptive parent. 20 By 18. M. Malul, “Foot Symbolism in the Ancient Near East,” ZAR 7 (2001): 364. See also Obermark, Adoption, 96–97. 19.  People ex rel. Scarpetta v. Spence-Chapin Adoption Service, 269 N. E.2d 787 (NY 1971). 20.  The law is unclear as to whether or not a child could be reclaimed if it had not yet been designated as a tarbītum, a term that suggests the passage of time. See also CT 52:103 for another case indicating that a child adopted ina mêšu cannot be reclaimed. CT 52:103 is an OB letter in which a man complains that he adopted his nephew ina mêšu, paid the required amount for the child, and then the child’s biological father reclaimed him [ina]nna Akbarum šū [ṣehr]am ša ina mêšu elqū[m]a urabbûšu [ībt]arann[i] ‘now Akbarum has reclaimed from me the child whom I had adopted in its amniotic fluid and whom I had raised up’ (lines 15–17). A

Adoption

53

using a more vivid and explicit translation “from its amniotic fluid,” rather than “at birth,” this point is plainly stated. 21 At this point, it is appropriate to address the issue of gender and infant adoption. It is perhaps worthy of notice that the text employs tarbītum a nominal 3rdfeminine-singular noun, to describe the infant, previously described as ṣehrum, a 3rd-masculine-singular noun. One may therefore wonder whether the text might refer to the child as being male as well as female. This observation raises a few questions. First, is the text trying to say that the infant was perceived as having no particular gender? This is a difficult reading, one that can only be weighed after­considering how the terms ṣehrum and tarbītum are understood when they appear in tandem in other laws. Therefore, this reading will await discussion below, after an examination of CH 186–91 has been completed. A second possible reading understands CH 185 as applying to either a male or female infant. This is an interesting reading in light of the practice of infanticide, another way in which an infant could leave its natal family. Studies have demonstrated that when a child is unwanted they are eliminated either at birth by or by neglect. 22 In particular, societies practicing infanticide do so more with female babies than male babies. Scholars have presumed this is linked to the economic viability of the female. In practical terms, a male offspring is more useful in patrilocal agrarian societies, war-ridden places, and societies that depend heavily on sons for eldercare. 23 It is notable that there are no laws regulating the practice of infanticide in the same way as laws regulate adoptions. One may assume this was because societies did not acknowledge an infant as having a social persona or even a potential social persona. The infant had no achieved status, unless one counts making it out of the womb alive, and their ascribed status was that of the lowest rankings. Even if the infant came from a wealthy family, their ascribed status would still be the least in their social class. CH 185, however, encourages one to look at the full transliteration and translation of this text can be found in F. R. Kraus, Altbabylonische Briefe (vol. 7; Leiden: Brill, 1977), no. 103. 21. Meir Malul suggests another interpretation of this law, one that states the child was unwanted by the parents and exposed with its birth blood still on it. This view will be explored below in the section on orphans (M. Malul, “Adoption of Foundlings in the Bible and Mesopotamian Documents: A Study of Some Legal Metaphors in Ezekiel 16:1–7,” JSOT 46 [1990]: 97–126). 22. B. Nakhai, “Female Infanticide in Iron II Israel and Judah,” in Sacred History, Sacred Literature (ed. S. Dolansky; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2008), 257–72. 23.  Nakhai, “Female Infanticide,” 258; A. L. Huges, “Female Infanticide: Sex Ration Manipulation in Humans,” Ethology and Sociobiology 2 (1981): 109–11; E. Scott, “Killing the Female? Archaeological Narratives of Infanticide,” in Gender and the Archaeology of Death (ed. B. Arnold and N. L. Wicker; Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira, 2001), 7; S. Scott and C. J. Duncan, Demography and Nutrition: Evidence from Historical and Contemporary Populations (Oxford: Blackwell Science, 2002), 271.

54

Chapter Two

situation differently. By assigning agency to the infant, one can understand this law as signaling that even the lowliest person within a society was important. 24 The very need to regulate the social movement of a person at the moment of his/ her birth demonstrates the social potential of an infant. True, that importance, potential and the need to regulate these attributes may stem from their future economic value (inheritor, provider in old age, dowry, and so on); however, this does not negate the fact that ANE society acknowledged the need to assign the adopted infant a particular social status and social position. The infant, be it male or female, was alive and therefore beginning the process of engenderment and attachment to a family and society; therefore, the parties responsible for the infant’s social development must be clearly demarcated. There must be no question as to the infant’s place in the social lineup. CH 185 thus begins to point out the complicated nature of social mobility and the need to regulate it, even at the youngest age.

The Suckling Child: DUMU.GAB/DUMU.NÍTA.GABA/DUMU.SAL.GABA PBS 8/2 107 In PBS 8/2 107 the adopted child is identified as follows: 1 DUMU. NÍTA. GAB ì-lí-a-wi-li mu-ni-im DUMU a-a-ar-tum ‘One suckling male baby, Ili-awilim by name, the son of Ayartum’ (lines 1–3). The first identifying marker of this child is not his name or lineage but his status. He is a DUMU.NÍTA.GAB ‘a suckling male baby’. M. Stol states that children were weaned around 2 or 3 years old. 25 Therefore, if the child in PBS 8/2 107 is still a “suckling,” it must be between birth and 3 years old. It is also noteworthy that while the child is very young, it has been named. Most scholars think that free-born children were given names soon after birth. 26 The biblical text also supports this view. 27 H. D. Baker states that slave children, on the other hand, are named at 2–4 years old. 28 It is 24.  It is interesting to ponder whether or not CH 185 may be encouraging adoptions of females along with males, rather than killings. 25.  In YOS 331, a man hires a wet-nurse for three years, that is, until the child is weaned (see also: M. Gruber, “Breast-Feeding Practice in Biblical Israel and in Old Babylonian Mesopotamia,” JANES 19 [1989]: 61–83; Obermark, Adoption, 42). Egyptians also nursed a child for three years (Pinch, “Private Life in Ancient Egypt,” CANE 1:376). 26.  Nemet-Nejat, Daily Life, 120; M. Stol, “Private Life in Ancient Mesopotamia,” CANE 1:491; G. Pinch, “Private Life in Ancient Egypt,” CANE 1:376; D. Redford, “Childhood,” in The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt (3 vols.; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 1:262. 27.  In Num 3:40, Moses is to record the names of male children “by name from one month and up.” 28.  H. D. Baker, “Degrees of Freedom: Slavery in Mid-first Millennium bc Babylonia,” WA 33 (2001): 22. See also pp. 143–144, Nbk. 100.

Adoption

55

unknown whether parents of free children ever waited to name their children. Because of the high rate of infant mortality, it is quite possible that parents would name a child only after it had passed through the initial dangers associated with infancy and was considered a viable life. 29 In this case, the act of naming would signify a social status by marking the child as a member of society. PBS 8/2 107:3 states that the child is the son of Ayartum, who is identified in line 4 as his mother. K. Nemet-Nejat calls attention to the fact that free people are identified by their fathers’ names, for example, “Zigi son of Akkuia.” 30 It is interesting then that Ili-awilium is called the son of his mother and not his father. In fact, the father’s identity remains a mystery. Line 5 states that Ayartum has a sister, Erištum; but nothing further is said about Ili-awilim’s family. Lines 4–9 continue with the basic adoption formula: one set of people (Yasirum and Ama- dSin) adopts the child from another set of people (Ayartum and Erištum): [NA]M.DUMU.NI MEŠ [ŠU].BA.AN.T[I].(M)EŠ (lines 8–9). The price for the child is 10 shekels of silver and 2 minas of wool (line 11). This is given by Yasirum and Ama- dSin to Ayartum and Erištum. This is not called a sale price but rather a ‘compensation or upbringing gift’ ([KÙ] NAM.BULÙG. GÁ.NI.ŠÈ) for raising the boy. 31 Note that the compensation is given to both the mother and her sister. Obviously, they did not both bear the child, so why do they both receive it? The most likely answer is that Ili-awilim’s father is not part of his life, and until this point his mother and aunt have been his primary caregivers; therefore, they are the ones to receive the compensation. More information is found in the phrase [KÙ] NAM.BULÙG.GÁ.NI.ŠÈ. In addition to relating that his mother and sister are compensated for his upbringing, the phrase also points to the child’s stage in life. The term “upbringing gift” appears as another way to emphasize the child’s very young age. The price 29.  Various magical texts and incantations were said over babies to ward off the dangers of the “evil eye.” One incantation from Sippar describes the “evil eye” as a bird that flies through houses and strangles babies (K. van der Toorn, Family Religion in Babylonia, Syria, and Israel: Continuity and Change in the Forms of Religious Life [Leiden: Brill, 1996], 121–25; see also W. Farber, “Zur älteren akkadischen Beschwörungsliteratur,” Zeitschrift der Assyriologie 71 [1981]: 51–72). With the implementation of modern medicine, the number of people living in modern Arab households has increased in the so-called post-penicillin age (I. Finkelstein, “A Few Notes on Demographic Data from Recent Generations and Ethnoarchaeology,” PEQ 122 [1990]: 47–52). See also A. H. Goodman and G. J. Armelagos, “Infant and Childhood Morbidity and Mortality Risks in Archaeological Populations,” WA 21 (1989): 225–43. 30.  Nemet-Nejat, Daily Life, 127; Stol, “Private Life in Ancient Mesopotamia,” CANE 1:487; HSS 5:67.1. 31.  Women giving birth were put in seclusion and tended by midwives or female relatives. See R. Janssen and J. J. Janssen, Growing Up and Getting Old in Ancient Egypt (London: Golden House, 2007), 6; Nemet-Nejat, Daily Life, 129; Pinch, “Private Life in Ancient Egypt,” CANE 1:376; J. A. Scurlock, “Baby-Snatching Demons, Restless Souls, and the Dangers of Childbirth: Medico-magical Means of Dealing with Some of the Perils of Motherhood in Ancient Mesopotamia,” Incognita 2 (1991): 137–85; Stol, “Private Life in Ancient Mesopotamia,” CANE 1:491; Stager and King, Life in Biblical Israel (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001), 41.

56

Chapter Two

is reminiscent of the compensation given for the nursing fees mentioned in the adoption contracts of 2- to 3-year-old children. 32 Because the child in PBS 8/2 107 is still a suckling (DUMU. NÍTA.GAB), the money is not called “compensation for nursing.” Instead, the money is deemed a “payment for raising the boy so far” to emphasize the fact that the child is not weaned. 33 The final part of the text states that the adoptive parents are allowed to take their new child and depart (lines 17–21). Note that line 9 also states that the adoptive parents ‘took’ (leqû) the child from its family. Thus, at first glance the repetition of taking the child in line 21 seems superfluous. However, looking to the vocabulary one sees that two separate words are used to describe the action of taking the child. In line 21, the word is not leqû but ṣabātu. This word means ‘to seize or take’ and often means ‘to take x as a legal possession’. 34 Whereas, in the first instance the adoptive parents took the child in adoption by entering into a legal contract, in line 21 the adoptive parents took the child in a physical sense, by removing the child from the house. In removing the child from its biological family, the adoptive parents both literally and symbolically signal that the child is now legally a part of their family, and their responsibility. 35

TIM 5 4 This contract opens by identifying the child in line 1 as: 1 SIKIL.TUR.RA DUMU.SAL.GABA ‘a suckling female baby’. Again, the first thing one learns about the child is her status: she is a baby between birth and 3 years old. The lines that follow state that the woman Naramti-Aya adopts the baby girl from Naramtum, the wife of Alimasiqi, and her son Pulasum (lines 2–6). It is interesting that neither of the people giving the baby for adoption is identified as the mother or the father. It would seem, then, that the child is being adopted from her legal guardians and not her parents. The contract does not include a payment for weaning or raising the girl, so it may be that she recently came into the care of these guardians and/or that she is nearing the end of the weaning period. 36 Line 8 says that the child’s name is Isurtum. As mentioned above, the formula used to describe a free person is usually PN son/daughter of PN. 37 The absence of her lineage both in line 1 and line 8 may lead one to think that she is 32.  Texts from Sippar that date to the reign of Hammurapi state that the nursing compensation consists of barley, oil, and wool: BM 78811, CT 47 46, 48 70. 33.  Because the child is being adopted, it is possible that he is nearing the end of the nursing period. 34.  CAD Ṣ 221–22. 35.  Obermark notes that the present/future iṣabbat may indicate that the adoption has not yet occurred. This would mean the adoption would take place after the child is weaned. 36.  Of course, it may also be that the contracting parties did not feel it necessary to include this in the contract (Obermark, Adoption, 32–33). Note too that the contract also omits a clause describing inheritance and an obligation to support her adoptive mother, something we may expect to see in a contract of this nature. 37.  See the discussion of PBS 8/2 107, pp. 54–56.

Adoption

57

a slave child, for in contracts slaves are simply called “PN.” While this is possible, there is nothing else in the contract to indicate that she belongs to the slave class. 38 Instead, it seems likely that her parents are deceased or unknown and that until the adoption took place she was not legally considered part of anyone’s family. 39 As such, she did not carry the status of daughter and could not be called according to the formula “PN daughter of PN.” Once the adoption occurs, the girl gains a place in Naramti-Aya’s family and is legally recognized as Naramti-Aya’s daughter. However, if a verba solemnia is uttered, this relationship could be severed and the contract broken (lines 7–16). If Naramti-Aya repudiated her daughter, Naramti-Aya would be forced to give up her estate. 40 If Isurtum repudiated her mother, Naramti-Aya could shave Isurtum’s head and sell her. 41 Obermark raises the point that no person, knowing slavery was the punishment, would choose to repudiate his/her adoptive parents. He suggests that instead these punishments acted as formulaic threats and were “inserted in terrorem.” 42 The real punishment for the repudiating adoptee was more likely a fine or forfeiture of their inheritance. 43 The contract concludes by stating that whoever breaks the contract shall pay 2 mina of silver and have her tongue torn out (lines 17–19). TIM 5 4 belongs to a larger group of adoption contracts in which single women, either cloistered or noncloistered, are the adopting party. 44 Within this group, TIM 5 4 falls into the smaller category of noncloistered women who adopt young girls. 45 These women are most likely unmarried and adopt children as a means of support in old age or even as heirs. In light of this, it is interesting that TIM 5 4 includes neither a support clause nor an inheritance clause. Perhaps these elements were inherent in an adoption of this nature and so did not need to be included in the written document. In summary, the two OB adoption contracts (PBS 8/2 107 and TIM 5 4) elucidate another category of adopted free child, the DUMU. NÍTA.GAB /DUMU. SAL.GABA ‘suckling (male/female) child’. The age of the child designated as DUMU. NÍTA.GAB /DUMU.SAL.GABA falls somewhere in between the newborn child described in CH 185 as ina mêšu and the tarbītum ‘rearling’. 46 Moreover, DUMU.GAB is used only to establish the age of the child; it is not used to 38.  For example, there is no reference to past owners or mention that she is manumitted. 39.  While she may be legally bound to a particular household, this does not mean she was perceived as a member of the family. 40.  For a full discussion of forfeiture, see Obermark, Adoption, 48–50. 41.  See also TIM 5 3:12–13 and BE 6/1 17: 10–17. 42.  Obermark, Adoption, 52. 43. Ibid. 44.  These women can be women of ordinary or special status (nadītus: CT 48 17, 59; RA 73, kulmašītus: CT 45 34, or qadištus: BIN 7 163; TCL 1 146; see Obermark, Adoption, 70–74). 45.  See also YOS 8 149, 152; TS 13; Warka 94 (Obermark, Adoption, 76). 46.  Because we know that a child was weaned around 3 years old, we can ascertain that to be considered a tarbītum the child must be at least 4 years old.

58

Chapter Two

describe the legal status of the child. Instead, one is left to infer the legal status of the child based on the remainder of the documents to be explored.

Young and Reared Child: Ṣehrum, tarbītum CH 186 This law is similar to CH 185 in its content and structure. Both CH 185 and CH 186 address the adoption of a ṣehrum by a member of the awīlum class. Like CH 185, CH 186 begins with the phrase šumma awīlum ṣehrum ‘if a man . . . a young child’ and uses the same terminology for adoption: ana mārūtim ilqe ‘for sonship he took’. It then discusses the fate of the child once it enters the adoptive father’s house. As in CH 185, the child identified in CH 186 first as a ṣehrum and then as a tarbītum. With respect to the structural and functional features of the law, CH 185 and 186 are very similar. In the protasis, both mention an adoption occurring under special circumstances. The apodosis then describes a reaction to the adoption. Whereas CH 185 is concerned with the natal family’s reaction to the adoption, CH 186 focuses on the child’s reaction to the adoption: inūma ilqûšu abašu u ummašu iḥiat tarbītum šī ana bīt abišu itâr ‘since the time he adopted it/when he adopted him, that rearling seeks his father and/or his mother, that rearling shall return to the house of his father’. 47 CH 186 does not state the age of the child or how much time has elapsed between the adoption and the child’s desire to seek out his mother and father. It is also unclear how the child’s return to the natal parent’s house comes about. Is it by way of an action: the child walks out of the adoptive parent’s house? Or by a word: the child declares that it misses its parents? 48 In either case, in order to seek out his parents, the child must know where to find its biological parents. This means that ṣehrum refers to a young child who is old enough (at the time of adoption) to know who his/her parents are and yearn for them. 49 If, as scholars have stated, the hallmark of an adoption is the severing of all natal family relations, then the law in CH 186 is problematic. 50 Not only does CH 186 state that the child has the option of seeking out his/her parents, but the child is allowed “to return to the house of its father”—in other words, resume relations with the family of origin. According to the traditional adoption model, 47.  This is the only law that mentions the adoption from the child’s point of view. 48.  Because of the ambiguity in the Akkadian, it is also possible that the adopter is seeking the parents. I agree with Roth’s translation, which states that the child is the one searching for its parents. 49. Understanding ṣehrum in this way informs how one understands CH 185. The child there was called a ṣehram ina mêšu and not simply a ṣehrum. The ina mêšu suggests that the child was so young, it had no bond with or memory of its parents. 50.  “One of the general rules of adoption is that, once it is concluded, the link between the adoptee and his/her natal kin is officially severed” (Grosz, “Some Aspects,” 139).

Adoption

59

returning to the natal family voids the adoption contract. This raises another issue: CH 186 seemingly empowers the young child to break an adoption contract and to do so without suffering legal repercussions, an action that is problematic on two accounts. First, a child does not draw up his own adoption contract. He or she was not in charge of his own fate, but rather, an adult, usually a member of the natal family, acted as the child’s agent. This means that technically a child is not one of the contracting parties and therefore does not have the power to break the adoption contract. Second, standard adoption contracts state that if either party undersigned should break the contract, he is to pay a substantial fine to the party legally “wronged.” CH 186, then, goes against the larger legal context; it allows the child an amount of legal agency for which there is no precedent. One solution is to see CH 186 as part of a set of extraordinary laws given in the Code of Hammurapi. “The unusual, even anomalous character of the situations described in CH 185–193 can be inferred from their near total lack of representation in the corpus of Old Babylonian adoption contracts.” 51 Another solution is to see CH 186 as focusing on the difference in status between the two ṣehrums described in CH 185 and 186. In the former case the ṣehrum was adopted ina mēšu, meaning the parents gave the infant up at birth. CH 186, on the other hand, deals with a ṣehrum not adopted at birth but adopted later in life. Whereas the child adopted ina mēšu (CH 185) would have no recollection of his family or that he was adopted, the child adopted later in life (CH 186) may remember his natal family and be aware that he is adopted. CH 186 may therefore be addressing the emotional trauma caused by the separation and inclusion in a new family. 52 If this is the case, CH 186 should be understood as a piece of humane legislation. The key to understanding CH 186 is whether or not relations were actually severed between the child and its natal family. This and other issues mentioned above can be resolved by adapting a model that K. Grosz has introduced. 53 On the basis of the Nuzi corpus, Grosz suggests that in some cases the natal family stayed in touch with the adopted child. 54 If this were also true in Babylonia, CH 186 would be easier to understand, for it would explain why the child wished to seek its parents and return to “its father’s house.” Having contact with his/her family may cause the child to miss them and hence the desire to return home. While this is certainly possible, it is still remarkable that within the larger legal context a child could sever the adoption and return home. Perhaps what is taking place here is not a complete severing of the adoption, but a description of a different adoption relationship. Grosz makes a case for what she calls the godparent model of adoptions at Nuzi. She asks whether or not “a 51.  Obermark, Adoption, 100. 52.  Ibid. 53.  Grosz, “Some Aspects,” 131–32 n. 1. 54.  JEN 428 and HSS 19:92 both refer to the family’s being in contact with and having interest in the adopted girl (ibid., 139).

60

Chapter Two

girl, or a woman adopted ana mārtūti, actually ever was included into the adoptive family and excluded from the native one.” 55 She hypothesizes that at Nuzi, under a godparentage adoption a girl obtained a second set of parents while staying in her natal family and therefore kept her status as a daughter of that family (that is, no natal ties were severed). This second set of parents functioned as godparents. They would take an interest in her upbringing, be responsible for financially supporting her, and arrange for her marriage. Godparents would be chosen from people of a higher social standing than the girl’s biological parents or from friends close to the family. 56 At Nuzi, there are even some cases where a girl’s mother has died and a female relative adopts her, most likely to teach her various female tasks that her father cannot. 57 Grozs states that in economic terms, the institution of godparentage is a deficit; however, in social, cultural, and emotional terms the benefits for the godparents are considerable. 58 Therefore, following Grosz, the institution of godparentage should be understood as highly honorable and entered for social and emotional benefits, not for financial gain. Grosz raises an important point: adopters could serve in various capacities; they need not be understood as traditional adopting parents. It is possible that a similar situation may be occurring in CH 186. Instead of a strict godparentage adoption, it is possible that CH 186 may be describing something closer to an adoption with god-/foster parents. 59 It is possible in this kind of adoption a child would live with the god-/foster parents and still retain a connection to its natal 55.  Ibid., 140. 56.  Ibid., 140–41. These motivations were also part of choosing godparents in medieval Europe. “Often the motive to become a co-parent was political or diplomatic if the invited sponsor was a person of power, wealth, or holy reputation” (S. Keef, “Review of J. Lynch, Godparents and Kinship in Early Medieval Europe,” Church History 56 [1987]: 387). 57.  Grosz, “Some Aspects,” 140; Contenau 9; HSS 13:15; and HSS 19:94. 58.  Grosz, “Some Aspects,” 140. 59.  In medieval Europe, “fictive kin networks,” such as godparents, played an important role in the spiritual upbringing of the child, and the godparents were often chosen with the expressed purpose of raising the child’s social status. Like some adoptions, the godparent relationship was sealed with an exchange of gifts. The bond between the godparent and godchild was expected to last for the entire lifetime of the parties involved and served as a means of protection and financial support for the child, especially if something happened to the child’s parents. Godparents were even referred to as co-parents, co-mother and co-father. In some cases the godparent even named the godchild (J. Lynch, Godparents and Kinship in Early Medieval Europe [Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1986], 163–204, especially pp. 172, 175, 185, 190, 192, 193). At times, the bond between the godparent and child was such that the godparent thought of the child as his own. Consider the following 7th-century c.e. letter in which a godparent prays God would save his godson from drowning: “return to me the son who I gained, Abrunculus by name, whom I have raised from infancy and have instructed in letters and have dedicated to You my Creator.” The letter also suggests that the godchild lived with the hermit. (Lynch, Godparents, 183, as found in Vita sancti Apri eremitae [ed. the Bollandists; Catalogus codicum hagiographicorum latinorum antiquiorum seculo XVI qui asservantur in Biblioteca Nationali Parisiensi 2; Paris: Bolandists, 1890], 92–93). While godchildren did not automatically inherit from the godparents, some wills did include legacies left to the godchildren. This

Adoption

61

family. Moreover, there may have been the understanding that, should the child desire (inūma ilqûšu abašu u ummašu ihiaṭ). it could return to its natal family. In this way, leaving the family is a purely physical action and not a legal severing of relations with the family. As with Grosz’s godparentage model, the god-/foster parents in CH 186 would still be responsible to uphold their end of the contract, to care and support for the child, even if the child did not reside in their house. This solution both salvages the law and make sense of what is happening. It also allots the child a certain amount of legal agency, but within a set of boundaries; it may choose to live with either household. This in and of itself is a mark of social status, for the adopted child is seen as a member of the family and one who has a voice. Understanding CH 186 as god-/foster parentage adoption solves the problem of a child’s being able to end a legal contract at will by stating that the child’s actions in fact did not end the adoption. In this way, it lessens amount of legal agency that OB society gave a child and upholds the authority of an adoption and of legal contracts as a whole.

CH 187, 188, 189 These three laws continue to define the circumstances under which a child can be reclaimed. CH 185 and 186 places the regulations on the man who wishes to reclaim his child from an awīlum. CH 187, 188, and 189 are grouped together because they concern a child who is taken by someone other than an awīlum. A literal reading of CH 187 states: “the child of a eunuch, who is a palace servant, or a child of a sekretu shall not be reclaimed.” Unlike the formulation of the other laws in this section, this law does not include the standard phrase for adoption. They do not include the verbs leqûm or rabû, or the term mārūtim. However, one is to understand that the child has been taken in by either a eunuch or a sekretu. 60 This is clear from both the placement of the law in the section dealing with adoptions and from the verb ibbaqar at the end of the law. A child can only be reclaimed if he or she is living with someone other than the biological parents. M. Roth’s translation helps clarify this: “A child of (that is, reared by) a courtier who is a palace attendant or a child of (reared by) a sekretu will not be reclaimed.” 61 was often the case when the godparents did not have biological children of their own (Lynch, Godparents, 190). 60.  The term sekretu refers to a class of women who were enclosed, most likely women who were part of the temple staff or related in some way to the king. Either position is a highranking one and would explain why she would be protected from losing her adopted child. While we do not know much about the exact position of the sekretu, we do know that the nadītum of Šamaš, another class of temple women, were not allowed to bear children. These women adopted children as a means of eldercare (R. Harris, “Hierodulen,” RLA 4:391–93; CAD N/1 63–64). For a discussion of cloistered women adopting children, see C. Wilcke, “Familiengründung im Alten Babylonien,” in Geschlechtsreife und Legitimiation zur Zeugung (ed. E. Müller; Munich: Freiburg, 1985), 261–63. 61.  Roth, Laws, 119.

62

Chapter Two

A second anomaly within CH 187 is the absence of an age-specific word to describe the child. Whereas CH 185, 186, 188, and 189 include tarbītum, ṣehrum, or ṣehram ina mêšu, here the term for child is written as DUMU, or māru in Akkadian, the generic term for child. It is possible to read the sign as TUR, Akkadian ṣehrum; however, none of the standard translations suggest this. 62 The phrases for ‘child of a eunuch’ and ‘child of a sekretu’ are written DUMU GÌR.SÌ.GA (mār girseqîm ekallim) and DUMU MI.ZI.IK.RU.UM (mār sekretim), respectively. Because the sign for DUMU/TUR is in construct in CH 187, DUMU (māru) fits best grammatically; TUR (ṣehru) is not expected in the construct state. 63 CH 187 differs in yet another way from the surrounding laws: it is an apodictic and not a casuistic law. It does not state why the child should not be reclaimed but only that it is forbidden. Perhaps this has to do with the status of the person taking in the child. A eunuch of the palace and a sekretu were both high-ranking people within Old Babylonian society. 64 It is likely that the eunuch and especially the sekretu may not have been able to or allowed to marry or have their own children. It is possible, then, that this law is protecting the rights of the eunuch and the sekretu, by ensuring that they would have someone to inherit through and look after them in their old age. 65 The law is clear; the eunuch and sekretu hold a special place in society and in no case can their adopted child be reclaimed. CH 188 states: “If a craftsman takes a young child for rearing and teaches him his trade, the child shall not be reclaimed.” This law includes some of the same terminology used in the previous laws: leqû and tarbītum. Note that, while in CH 185 and 186 tarbītum was used to refer to the adopted child, here in CH 188 tarbītum is used to refer to the child. The child is not taken for sonship so that the adopter may raise him (cf. CH 185, 186: ana marūtim ileqma urtabbīšu), but is taken for the purpose of raising him and teaching him (ana tarbītum ilqēma šipir qātišu uštāhissu). It appears that CH 188 refers to an apprenticeship adoption, in which the child must be properly educated and raised. 66 Unlike the previous adoption laws, CH 188 supplies the terms of the arrangement: if the child learns 62. Both Borger and Roth read DUMU and assume its meaning to be māru. 63.  Despite the lack of an age-specifying word, CH 187 is included in the discussion of adopted children based on its context within the rest of the adoption laws regarding children. 64.  Nemet-Nejat, Daily Life, 190–93; Obermark, Adoption, 102–3; Driver and Miles, Laws, 392. 65.  This translation reads GÌR.SÌ.GA as Akkadian girseqû, “courtier.” It is likely that this person was a eunuch, and therefore unable to beget children of his own (Obermark, Adoption, 102ff.; CAD G 94–96). Driver and Miles support this by suggesting that these temple and palace officials were either “eunuchs incapable of begetting offspring or epicenes debarred from bearing children” (Driver and Miles, Laws, 384). 66.  Obermark calls this “an obligation, not an option” (Obermark, Adoption, 104). It is interesting that tarbû, another noun formed from rabû, comes to mean apprentice or pupil (CAD T 225).

Adoption

63

a trade, he cannot be reclaimed. 67 There is a clear link between the ability of the natal family to reclaim the child and the terms of the contract being fulfilled. If the terms are fulfilled, the child may not be reclaimed. The succeeding law, CH 189, describes what happens if the craftsman does not teach the child his trade: “If he does not teach it his trade (la uštāhissu) that rearling (tarbītum ši) shall return to the house of his father (abišu).” Both the content and grammar suggest CH 189 is a continuation of CH 188. 68 This is important because it provides an insight into what the phrase “to return to its father’s house” means. If the child in CH 188 is taught a trade and therefore cannot be reclaimed (ul ibbaqqar), and the child in 189 is not taught a trade and therefore must return to the father’s house (ana bīt abišu itâr), does returning to the father’s house mean the same as being reclaimed, or does returning to the father’s house mean that the contract has been broken? One can argue that in CH 189 returning to the father’s house means that the contract has been broken. Here the contractual obligations are clearly stated and have not been met, the child has not been taught a trade and hence the contract is broken. Once the contract is broken, the child is in limbo; he is neither a part of his natal family nor does he belong with the person to whom he is an apprentice. Who will take care of him and from whom will he inherit? Addressing this problem, CH 189 states that the child can legally resume relations with his/her natal family: (s)he “shall return to the house of his father.” This is significant, because of the importance the family unit held in ANE society. For example, members of the family perpetuated the family, took care of the aging parents, and performed the religious rites due to a parent after death. 69 Membership­in 67.  Compare this to the Hittite Law 200B: “If anyone gives (his) son for training either (as) a carpenter or a smith, a weaver or a leatherworker or a fuller, he shall pay 6 shekels of silver as (the fee) for his training” (Hoffner, “Hittite Laws,” in Law Collections from Mesopotamia and Asia Minor [ed. M. Roth; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997], 159). Here the situation is reversed; the parent pays the apprentice to train the child. Hoffner adds law 86B to the end of 200B, and offers two possible translations for 86b: “If the teacher makes him an expert (the student’s parent) shall give to him (that is, to his teacher) one person” or “If (the teacher) makes him (that is, the son) an expert (and retains him in his own employ), he (the teacher) shall give to him (that is, the parent) one person” (Hoffner, “Hittite Laws,” 159; see also Imparati, “Private Life among the Hittites,” CANE 1:579). If we follow Hoffner’s second reading for HL 86B, then it appears that if the child was a promising student, so much that he could become an expert in the trade, then the teacher was obligated to supply the parents with a replacement child. Hoffner suggests that this exchange may have served as a way of buying the trainee from his parents (Hoffner, “Hittite Laws,” 227). If this is true, then in exchanging another child for the trainee, the teacher gained legal custody of the trainee and was responsible for raising him. The parents of the trainee would then be responsible for the upbringing of the replacement child. 68.  The use of the word he as a subject in CH 189 can only refer back to the craftsman in CH 188. 69.  Driver and Miles, Laws, 383. For additional information on ancestor worship and the duty of the eldest son, see Brian B. Schmidt, “The ‘Witch’ of En-Dor, 1 Samuel 28, and Ancient

64

Chapter Two

a family­determined­one’s social status and meant a kinship link and means of inheritance. 70 For a child, the family is even more important, for without one he has no means of feeding, clothing, or supporting himself. As the child grows, her needs lessen and she can become a contributor to the family income. 71 However, until the child is married, the child still needs the family for financial and economic support. Therefore, it is particularly important that an adopted or apprenticed child be able to return to the natal family if the terms of adoption are broken.

CH 190–91 These two laws address the ability of the adopted child to inherit from the adoptive father. Inheritance takes place after the child has grown up and is no longer a child. Therefore these laws technically fall outside the limits of this study. However, they are included here for two reasons. First, these laws begin with the now-familiar adoption formula, šumma awīlum ṣihram ša ana mārtūtišu ilqûšuma, and also include the phrase tarbītum šî, both of which make reference to the adopted child as a child. Second, the decisions concerning how much the adopted child will inherit appear to take place at the time of adoption, in other words, when the child is still a child. As such, these laws add to our knowledge of the adopted child’s legal and social status and place within in the household. Both CH 190 and 191 discuss an adoption by an awīlum and consider the adopted child’s inheritance portion vis-à-vis the adoptive father’s biological children. CH 190 states that an adopted child may return to its father’s house if the adoptive father itti mārīšu la imtanūšu ‘does not count it (the child) with his (biological) children’. The key phrase here is la imtanūšu. What did it mean to “count” the child with the biological children? The word manû literally means ‘to count’ but can also have the meaning ‘to assign persons to the responsibility of someone’. 72 See, for example, CH 170, which states: itti mārī hīrtim imtanūšunūti ‘he counts them [his children by the slave woman] with the children of his wife’. This means that, with respect to their inheritance, the slave’s children were Near Eastern Necromancy,” in Ancient Magic and Ritual Power, ed. M. Meyer and P. Mirecki (Leiden; New York: Brill, 1995), 111–29; E. Bloch-Smith, “Cult of the Dead in Judah: Interpreting Material Reamins,” JBL 111 (1992): 213–24; idem, Judahite Burial Practices and Beliefs about the Dead (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992). 70. On social status, see Stol, “Private Life in Ancient Mesopotamia,” CANE 1:485. Inheritance, for a female, came through her father or, if married, her husband; a male would inherit through his father. The inheritance issue is significant both ways. Not only was it important to have someone from whom to inherit but, as mentioned above, one of the primary reasons a family adopted a child was to ensure that they had an heir. 71.  A child could be hired out to work in a field or dedicated to a temple. See, for example, Chiera, OB Contracts no. 111; Stol, “Private Life in Ancient Mesopotamia,” CANE 1:493; and pp. 155–158. 72.  CAD M/1 225.

Adoption

65

given a status as “officially part of the family.” 73 The child in CH 190 has not yet been “officially” included in the family. The phrase la imtanūšu may relate to the child’s inheritance. Part of an adoption contract was to specify the adopted child’s inheritance share and where the adopted child would stand with respect to any biological children. 74 CH 190 is a case of neglect: the father does not “implement the contract of adoption by treating [the adopted child] as his own son; as he has thereby broken the contract, the adoptee is entitled to leave him and return to his own family.” 75 CH 190 then addresses what happens when an adoptive father does not fulfill his contractual duties. 76 In CH 191, the father has established his household (É-šu īpuš) “by reckoning as equal with any future [or current] children the young child whom he took and raised in adoption.” 77 É-šu īpuš suggests that the manû process has already occurred and therefore the adoptive father has deliberately broken the contractual agreement by disinheriting the adopted child in favor of his biological children. As recompense he is required to give the adoptee 1/3 of his property for an inheritance and let the child go. Unlike the previous law, CH 191 does not state that the child shall return to his father’s house. Examining 190 and 191 together, one sees that in the first law the child receives no inheritance from the adoptive father and so returns to his father’s house. In the second law, the child does receive an inheritance from the adoptive father (albeit as a penalty payment), but does not return to his father’s house. Here, a return to the father’s house appears as the legal catch phrase for inheriting from the father. 78 73.  CH 171 explicates what happens when the father does not verbally claim them as his children. See also MAL A 28, which addresses the case of a widow, pregnant with her dead husband’s son, who enters the house of another man. The law states that, if the boy grows up in the house of this man, but the man does not adopt the boy, then the man will have no legal responsibility for the boy, nor will the boy inherit from the man’s estate. Instead, the boy will inherit from his dead father’s estate. Presumably, if the man does adopt the boy, then the boy would be legally dependent on the man and inherit from him, not from his dead father. 74.  See, for example, the eponymy of Sha-Nabu-shu in Orientalische Literaturezeitung vol. 6 col. 198. L. Delaporte states: “Sinqi-Istar and his wife Raʿimtu accepted his little boy Ashurtsabâtsu-iqbi from Nabu-nâ’id ‘to make him their child,’ and specified that, even though they might later have as many as seven heirs, Ashur-tsabâtsu-iqbi would always be regarded as the eldest” (L. Delaporte, Mesopotamia: The Babylonian and Assyrian Civilization [trans. V. Gordon Childe; London: Routeledge and Kegan Paul, 1970], 289). Consider also YBC 11174 no. 66, which establishes which son is the eldest and receives the larger inheritance portion. S. D. Simmons, “Early Old Babylonian Tablets from Harmal and Elsewhere (Continued),” JCS 14 [1990]: 32). For additional examples, see YOS 14 47; VAS 8 127, 8 73. 75.  Driver and Miles, Laws, 396. 76.  Obermark suggests on the basis of BE 6/1 17 that the adopting parents placed unreasonable demands on him (BE 6/1 17:23, du-la-am ú-ma - l a - šu) by giving him exceptionally burdensome duties or responsibilities” (Obermark, Adoption, 108). 77.  Roth, Laws, 119. 78.  It is likely that the same is true in CH 189, where the adoption contract is also broken and the child leaves with nothing.

66

Chapter Two

The phrase tarbītum šî ana bīt abišu itâr ‘that rearling shall return to his father’s house’ has already appeared two different times. Based on the previous discussion of this phrase, CH 190 causes one to question the practical implications of this action, for neither the laws nor the adoption contracts address what happens to the child after it “returns to its father’s house.” The most pressing issue is from whom, if not from the adoptive parent, did the child inherit. The answer is found in the way in which CH uses the terms ṣehrum and tarbītum. The standard definition of ṣehrum refers to one who is a small or young child. The term tarbītum comes from the verb rabû in the D stem, ‘to raise a child’. Following Roth’s lead, tarbītum has been translated as ‘rearling’. While these definitions allow for a sensible translation of the laws, one must consider the larger picture and ask the question that was posed above when discussing the gender of the child in 185: Why do the laws use two different terms to refer to the child? Why not continue to call the child a ṣehrum through the entire law? It appears that the adoption laws in the Code of Hammurapi use the terms ṣehrum and tarbītum in a specific way. Reading through the adoption laws, one finds that a child is always referred to as a ṣehrum before it is adopted and a tarbītum after it is adopted. Logically a child could not be identified as tarbītum before it had been raised. However, at what point is a child considered raised? Does the child have to live under the tutelage of a family for a certain amount of time before it can be called a tarbītum? I suggest that the common terms ṣehrum and tarbītum may have had a secondary legal meaning in the CH adoption laws in order to describe the status of the adopted child. If this is correct, before adoption the child was called a ṣehrum. This referred to a free-born child. Once the adoption took place, the child’s status was changed to “adopted child,” or “one raised by another.” For this new category a different term was needed. Therefore, tarbītum, a noun coming from the verb rabû ‘to raise’, became the choice word used to describe an adopted child in the laws. 79 There may be some who oppose these translations, arguing that ṣehrum and tarbītum were terms related to age. It is true that ṣehrum most often refers to age categories, such as “young child” or even an older, adolescent child. 80 Yet within the CH itself, why, if the laws meant these as age-related terms did they not use 79.  For further support for this reading of tarbītum, see Malul, “Foundlings,” 107. There, he discusses the verb rubbûm and its presence within adoption contracts. He goes on to state: “A derivative of this verb, the word tarbītum which occurs also in our section, occurs in another formula which also seems to have the technical-legal meaning ‘to adopt’. . . . This word, being the nomen actionis of the verb rubbûm in the D-stem with the literal meaning ‘raising up,’ has sometimes the concrete meaning of a child taken into adoption . . . and it could then be translated as ‘an adopted child.’” The PSD describes Á.È (tarbûtu) as ‘foster child’, and NAM. BULUG3 (tarbītu) as ‘upbringing of an adopted child’. 80.  See, for example, TCL 7 53:6 (OB) aššum PN kī ma la si-ih-ri-i[t] ra-bi-a-at ‘don’t you know about PN, that he is no (longer) a minor but (is) grown up?’ and BE 6/1 116:2: 1 SAG.ÌR TUR.RA ‘one adolescent slave’ (CAD Ṣ 182).

Adoption

67

more explicit terms? 81 For example, why is the ṣehrum not first called ina mêšu ‘a child in its birth waters’, pirsum ‘a weaned child’, and then tarbītum ‘a raised child’? Understanding terms ṣehrum and tarbītum within the CH adoption laws as both legal and age-related, the issue becomes less muddled. The discussion of CH 185–89 demonstrated that the laws do not use ṣehrum and tarbītum necessarily to designate specific age groups but to convey categories of status. This is particularly clear in the case of CH 185, which uses the phrase ina mêšu to describe the age of the ṣehrum being adopted. A free child is referred to as a ṣehrum before the adoption takes place and a tarbītum after (s)he is adopted. That these terms specify the legal and social status of the child becomes especially evident through the analysis of CH 191. With this understanding of ṣehrum and tarbītum the issue of inheritance and the un-adopted child in CH 191 can now be addressed. The first possibility is that the phrase tarbītum šî ana bīt abišu itâr means that the rearling will now inherit from his biological father’s house. This is the position Driver and Miles take: “[the child] would take back his original name [PN son of biological father’s PN] and reacquire his right to inherit from his natural father.” 82 While Driver and Miles do not give any support for their conclusion, such support can be found in CH 191’s choice of pronouns, in its use of šû, ‘that’, instead of šu, ‘his’. Until CH 190–91, the adoption laws have used šu to modify either DUMU/māru (child) or ṣehrum (young child), suggesting that the child is called “his [the father’s] child” when (s)he is residing as part of the natal family. 83 CH 190–91 says that the biological children are also referred to as mārīšu DUMU.MEŠ irtašīma ‘he has children (of his own)’. Like the previous adoption laws, the adopted child is called tarbītum šî ‘that raised child’. One can ask, then, why does CH 191 refer to the adopted child first as tarbītum šî and then as DUMU šu-ú? I suggest that switching back to the term DUMU foreshadows a return to the natal family and a loss of 81.  Babylonian and Assyrian census lists demonstrate that these societies did distinguish between various life stages. These lists divide people up into: child at the breast, weaned child, child, adolescent, and finally adult or elderly person. See the distribution lists from Kish and the census lists from Haran as well as food ration lists from Sumerian archives (V. Donbaz and N. Yoffee, Old Babylonian Texts from Kish Conserved in the Istanbul Archaeological Museums [Bibliotheca Mesopotamica 17; Malibu: Undena, 1986]; Nemet-Nejat, Daily Life, 127–28, 131; J. N. Postgate, Early Mesopotamia: Society and Economy at the Dawn of History [New York: Routledge, 1992], 93; H. W. F. Saggs, The Might That Was Assyria [London: Sidgwick & Jackson, 1984], 137; Stol, “Private Life in Ancient Mesopotamia,” CANE 1:487). 82.  Driver and Miles, Laws, 396. 83.  CH 28 and 29 legislate who shall do the ilku duty if the father is taken captive while on military duty. Both laws state that the son is responsible and refer to him as mārušu, “his son.” In other inheritance laws, such as CH 38 and 39, we see that the biological daughter who will inherit is called mārtišu, “his daughter.” By using the 3ms pronoun—his daughter and his son—these laws suggest that the child is called “the father’s child” when it is residing as part of the natal family. It also designates the child as a dependent, and one who will inherit from the birth family.

68

Chapter Two

the adoptee status. This reading is consistent with the way the texts refer to children who are living with their biological father. If the shift away from tarbītum šî is an indication that the adopted child’s status is changing, perhaps the use of šu-ú is even a play on words. After being kicked out of the family, the child is not described using the 3ms suffix pronoun šu ‘his’ but with the 3ms independent pronoun šû ‘that’. We do not know whether or not these pronouns were pronounced the same way, but one must wonder if the pairing of pronouns can be seen as signaling a transition from tarbītum šî (one part of the adopted family) to DUMU-šu (one part of the biological family). If we follow Roth’s lead and read DUMU šu-ú as ṣihrum šû, it is even clearer that the child’s status has come full circle. It is a ṣehrum that the man took in adoption (ṣe-eh-ra-am ša a-na ma-ru-ti-šu il-qe-šu-ma) and a disinherited tarbītum turned ṣehrum that leaves the house (a-na tar-bi-tum na-sa-hi-im pa-nam iš-ta-ak-an DUMU šu-ú. re-qú-sú ú-ul it-ta-la-ak).

Introduction to mārūtu, mārtūtu, and mārtūtu u kallūtu Adoptions The next section explores the adoption documents commonly referred to as ṭuppi mārūtu, ṭuppi mārtūtu, and ṭuppi mārtūtu u kallūtu. The texts in this section come from Nuzi and have been chosen because of their implicit reference to the young age of the adopted individual. 84 Because the mārūtu, mārtūtu and mārtūtu u kallūtu institutions have been studied extensively, the following discussion will be limited to several texts that are both representative of these institutions, and illuminate the status of the adopted child. While Nuzi adoption contracts can contain many different clauses, a contract need not contain every possible clause to be considered valid. Some OB adoption contracts even leave out critical information, such as the exact nature of the property to be inherited. This leads one to wonder what the precise purpose of the adoption contract was. It may be that the role of the contract was to include detailed information on issues which may arise in future litigation. 85 The following is a brief overview of those clauses commonly found in Nuzi adoption contracts. 86 1.  ṭuppi mārūti (mārtūti or mārtūti u kallūti) ša A; ana mārūti ītepuš Tablet of adoption belonging to A, for sonship/daughtership/daughter and daughter-in-law-ship he adopted B. 2.  eqlāti, bītāti A ana B ittadin The property A gives to B 84.  We should note that not all of the individuals adopted mārūtu, mārtūtu, and mārtūtu u kallūtu are children. 85.  Paradise, Inheritance, 188; Obermark, Adoption, 30–32. 86.  AASOR 10 pp. 7–8. See also Cassin, L’adoption, 8–48. For information on the clauses found in OB adoption contracts, see Obermark, Adoption, 29ff.

Adoption

69

3.  A X GIN KÙ.BABBAR.MEŠ ki terhatišu ša B ana C iddin A (the adopter) has given x shekels as the bride-price of B (the female adoptee) to C (the parent/guardian) 4.  šumma māru ša A ittabiši, ū rabū; šinnišu zitta iliqqi, ū B tertennu. šumma māru ša A la ittabiši, ū B ewiru. If A has a biological son(s) he shall be firstborn; a double portion he shall receive, and B shall be second (that is, the junior son). If A has no biological son(s), B shall be the principal heir. 5.  adū A balṭu ū B ipallahšu As long as A is alive, B shall serve him. 6.  A māra šana nakara ina muhhi B la īpuš A shall not adopt another son in addition to B. 87 7.  mannummē ša ina bērišunu iblkatu 1 manū kaspu 1 manū hurāṣu umallā Whoever of the parties breaks the contract shall pay 1 mina silver and 1 mina gold. 8.  ṭuppi ina arki šūdūti ina cNuzi (or other GN) šaṭir Document is written after the proclamation at (the gate) of Nuzi

Sonship and Daughter-ship Adoptions: Ṭuppi mārūtu and ṭuppi mārtūtu HSS 5:60 Due to its clear and concise nature, HSS 5:60 serves as an introduction to the ṭuppi mārūtu corpus. 88 After examining this text, it will be easier to see how the following texts differ from the typical ṭuppi mārūtu structure. Lines 1–4 identify the parties involved. For sonship (ana mārūti), Zigi is adopted (epēšu) by Elheltešup. The wording here slightly varies from that of the OB texts previously examined. The OB documents stated, “the child was taken (leqû) for adoption (ana mārūtim).” In both cases, the intent is the same—to adopt a child. HSS 5:60:5–8 list the property allotted to the adopted son; Zigi receives an inheritance equal to “one share.” This becomes important when read in 87.  This phrase is not always included in an adoption contract. See, for example HSS 5:67, HSS 19:50–51, RA 23 51, JEN 1:59, JEN 4:410, HSS 9:22. 88.  HSS 5:60 does not give any information concerning the adoptee’s age; therefore, he could be an adult or a a child. However, nothing in the text suggests that Zigi need be an adult when he is adopted. There is no clause, similar to that found in OB adoption contracts, that states PN was adopted KI NÍ.TE.NA ‘on his own’ (that is, the contract was drawn up between two consenting adults). Instead, HSS 5:60 only states: “Zigi, son of Akkuia, is adopted for sonship by Elheltešup,” leaving his age unknown. The fact that we have subsequent documents in which Zigi’s own sons are mentioned may suggest that Zigi had not yet borne sons at the time of his adoption. If Zigi did have sons at the time of his adoption, we would expect them to be mentioned in Elheltešup’s line of succession.

70

Chapter Two

combination­with the next section, which stipulates Zigi’s position in the line of succession. If Elheltešup begets a biological son, that son shall be considered eldest, that is, the firstborn son, and receive a double portion (šinnišu zitta; lines 8–10). Zigi then becomes the tertennu, the junior, or second son (line 11). According to lines 12–13, if Elheltešup has no biological son, then Zigi shall be the sole heir (ewuru). 89 The contract takes care to specify how many shares Zigi receives if he is the ewuru or the tertennu. 90 The first biological son, on the other hand, will automatically receive a double portion. Here, the adopted son, while considered a member of the family and given an inheritance from the family estate, is not treated in the same manner as a natural son. Thus, in this particular situation there is some stigma attached to the status of adopted child that does not allow for the child to inherit automatically in a manner equal to that of a biological child. 91 The following two sections are the sole adoptee clause and the service clause. HSS 5:60:14–15 states that a māra šana nakara, literally ‘a strange (that is, additional) son’, shall not be adopted in addition to Zigi. This clause first and foremost protects the adopted child’s status as heir. The only way his status can be trumped is by the birth of a biological child. The sole adoptee clause also implies that a parent may not adopt another child if Zigi is found unsatisfactory. An adoptive parent may find Zigi is a deadbeat and does not fulfill his duties as adoptive son as well as they had hoped. It may also be that Zigi falls ill and is not able to do his duties for a period of time. In either case, while it is not explicitly 89.  Ewuru is a Hurrian word meaning ‘heir’. C. Zaccagnini further defines ewuru as “the term used whenever there might be uncertainty or dispute over the identity of the person given the legal power and duty to resolve inheritance disputes among other heirs or against third parties, independently of his hierarchical position among the potential heirs to the estate” (Zaccagnini, “Nuzi,” 601; see also Paradise, Inheritance, 243–44; RA 23 5, RA 23 51, HSS 5:67, and HSS 5:60; G. Dosch, Zur Struktur der Gesellschaft des Köingreichs Arraphe [Heidelberg: Heidelberger Orientverlag, 1993], 92–114, especially p. 98). 90.  The issue is whether here ewuru equals ‘first born’ or ‘eldest’ or if it means ‘the one appointed legal power’. Because HSS 5:60 does not call Zigi rabû ‘eldest’ if there are no other children, we are left to discern whether or not ewuru here is equal to rabû. Following Zaccagnini and Dosch, it appears that ewuru does not equal rabû, because the term ewuru is only employed when there is uncertainty as to who the legal authority resides with. Here, ewuru is meant not to designate Zigi’s place in the line of succession but rather to establish him as the person with the legal authority to resolve matters related to the inheritance/estate. However, if Zigi is the only son, it would seem that he, like one appointed rabû, would take a double portion, if not more. Perhaps the text just assumes that as the only son Zigi would be rabû, but because he was adopted, he felt the need to clarify the fact that as an only son he would have control of legal matters, and so it identifies him as ewuru. 91.  Two wills from Emar that mention both a natural son and an adopted son (RE 28 and Emar VI 183). In these wills, the adopted and natural sons all inherit equally (T. Undheim, Late Bronze Age Middle Euphrates Wills in the Context of their Ancient Mesopotamian Analogues: A Window on Emar Society [Ph.D. diss., Hebrew Union College–Jewish Institute of Religion, 2001], 216).

Adoption

71

stated, it is most likely that the adoptive parent (Elheltešup) would have to sever the adoption relationship with the adopted child (Zigi) before adopting another child. Lines 16–18 contain the service clause: “Zigi shall clothe Elheltešup with a robe for as long as he lives,” which is another way of saying that Zigi shall support his adopted father until his death. In many cases, the firstborn son held additional responsibilities that extended beyond the father’s lifetime, such as maintaining the father’s grave and the ancestor cult. 92 We are not told whether Zigi’s duties change if a biological son is born, but in ANE society all members of the family are held responsible for their parents’ well-being. After these two sections, HSS 5:60 lists the fine imposed on the party severing the adoption relationship. Here, we find that the penalty component in the Nuzi contracts differs from the one found in OB adoption contracts. Whereas in the OB contracts previously examined, the child is sold and the parent forfeits an amount of money, in the Nuzi contracts both the contracting parties are financially penalized in an equivalent fashion. The standard penalty clause, as found in HSS 5:60:18–20 states: “whoever among them (mannummē ša ina bērišunu) breaks the contract (iblkatu) shall pay 1 mina silver and 1 mina gold.” 93 The document closes with the statement: ṭuppu ina arki šūdūti ina bab abulli šaṭir ‘document written after the šūdūtu in the gate’. CAD Š defines šūdūtu as 92.  K. Van der Toorn, Religion in Babylonia, Syria, and Israel: Continuity and Change in the Forms of Religious Life (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 54. Part of maintaining the grave was to ensure proper sacrifices (food or oil) were offered to the dead. See Gen 28:17–18, 31:53, 46:1; Deut 26:14; and E. Bloch-Smith, Judahite Burial Practices and Beliefs about the Dead (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992), 146ff. 93.  While most of the ṭuppi mārūti documents found at Nuzi follow the penalty form found in HSS 5:60, exceptions to this pattern do exist. Consider, for example, HSS 5:7. In addition to the clause defining the penalty fine for breaking the contract, it includes a clause regulating the circumstances under which the adoption can be broken. Lines 21–30 state: šum-ma 1 Še-el-lu-ni i-na pí-i ša 1 A-kap-še-en-ni u MÍ Til-ku-uš-hé la i-še-im-me šum-ma a-na pa-ni DI.KUD.MEŠ ú-šeel-lu-šeu-nu-ti šum-ma ša-ni-a-na šum-ma 3 ši-šu ú-še-el-lu-šu-nu-ti ù qí-ir-ba-ab-šu ša 1 Še-el-lu-ni 1 A-kap-še-en-ni ù MÍ Til-ku-uš-hé i-he-ip-pé-šu-nu-ti ‘If Šelluni does not obey (šemû) Akapšenni or Tilkušhe, they shall bring him to the judges. If on a second occasion or third occasion they go up [for legal action], then his [Šelluni’s] clod (kirbānšu) [adoption tablet] Akapšenni and Tilkušhe shall break (hepû)’. What exactly the term ‘obey’ (šemû) means is left open to interpretation. The clause’s importance lies in its innovation. First, no matter the circumstances, the child cannot be sold. Instead, the parents are allowed to break the “clod” (an earthen lump of clay). Breaking the clod was symbolic of severing the contract (CAD K 401–3). Before this could be done, the parents had to bring the child to the judges multiple times, meaning that the adoptive parents could not sever the contract on a whim. Furthermore, this demonstrates that there was a legal framework set up to sever the adoption. A similar process is described in CH 168–69. These laws state that if a father wishes to disinherit a son, he must bring his case before a judge, who will then investigate the case to determine whether the son has committed an offense worthy of such measures. CH 169 states that, if the son is found guilty, he is given a second chance to change his ways—he cannot be disinherited unless he is twice found guilty of an offense worthy of disinheritance. Taken together, this information points to a society that highly valued the status of the adopted child and had structures set up to protect this child’s rights.

72

Chapter Two

an edict in the sense that it establishes a certain social policy, like the Mesopotamian debt remission decrees (mīšarum). 94 Scholars make the comparison between šūdūtu and mīšarum because two Akkadian terms, andurāru ‘remission or manumission’ and kirenzi ‘manumission’, are present in some of the texts that include šūdūtu clauses. 95 Earlier scholars understood šūdūtu to mean ‘proclamation’, coming from the verb īdū. These scholars assumed that every (adoption) transaction required a publication or notice to be posted before the transaction took place. 96 It may also be that the šūdūtu served as an official notice of a change in legal and social status. In the ṭuppi mārūti documents it would indicate that a child has moved from its previous status (the status of a biological son, inheriting from its father) to adopted son, who inherits from his adoptive parent. 97 Whether the šūdūtu is an edict, proclamation, or signifier of social status, it remains unclear how the šūdūtu relates to the actual adoption transaction. In summary, while HSS 5:60 does not offer innovative stipulations or regulations on adoptions, it presents the various elements commonly found in the mārūtu adoption contracts in a clear and concise manner.

HSS 5:67 HSS 5:67 is a more elaborate ṭuppi mārūtu contract from Nuzi. It opens according to the pattern seen above in HSS 5:60. HSS 5:67: 1–7 list the adopter (Šurihilu) and the adoptee (Šennima) and the fields and estates given as the inheritance. Then it states that Šennima shall be second in line should a son be born to Šurihilu (lines 8–11). 98 After this, it says the child will serve the father until he dies (lines 12–13). Lines 14–15 state that when Šurihilu dies, Šennima shall become the inheritor. 99 At this point, the contract begins to differ from HSS 5:60. 94.  CAD Š 195. 95.  Zaccagnini, “Nuzi,” 566; Zaccagnini, “Debt and Debt Remission at Nuzi,” in Debt and Economic Renewal in the Ancient Near East (ed. M. Hudson and M. van de Mieroop; Bethesda, MD: CDL, 2002), 175–96. 96.  Speiser argues that this kind of proclamation is not limited to sealing formal adoptions but is also found at the close of sale-adoptions and tidennūtu tablets. He notes that this action makes the contract legal, “the transaction is not consummated until due publicity has been given to it in an acknowledged place” (Speiser, “New Kirkuk,” 12). 97.  Koschaker, NKRA 78:61ff.; and Speiser, “New Kirkuk,” 12. 98.  So far we have seen, adoption contracts in which the adopted son takes second place to the biological sons. However, there are instances elsewhere where the adopted son does not move down in the line of succession. For example, MAH 15.951:14–15 states: “even if (IpquAntum) has 10 (subsequent) sons, Mar-Ištar will be his eldest heir (a- p i l - š u r a - b u - u m).” (See Obermark, Adoption, 62.) Contracts also exist where two children are adopted at the same time. In these cases the adoption contract specifies who will be the eldest among the two. See, for example, YOS 14 47 = YBC 11174 = JCS 14: 32 no. 66. Simmons, “Tablets from Harmal,” 23–32; Obermark, Adoption, 150. 99.  According to lines 8–11 if Šurihilu has a biological son, then that son becomes the eldest, receiving a double share, and Šennima becomes the second ranked son (tertennu).

Adoption

73

The next 14 lines concern Šennima’s marriage and progeny, a provision not mentioned in HSS 5:60. HSS 5:67: 16–17 begin by elaborating the terms of Šennima’s prearranged marriage. 100 Marriages of this kind are to be expected in the ANE, and the terms given in HSS 5:67 emphasize the fact that as an adopted son Šennima is treated with the same status as a biological son. However, tight restrictions are placed on the marriage. If Gilimninu (Šennima’s appointed wife) bears children, Šennima cannot marry another wife. 101 The contract then states that if Gilimninu cannot have children she is to take a Lullu woman and give her to Šennima to couple with. 102 Note that it is the wife’s responsibility, and not the husband’s, to find and leqû ‘take’ a suitable handmaid to produce offspring. 103 HSS 5:67.22 states that Gilimninu shall not send away the children of the Lullu handmaid; in other words, she shall treat them as part of her family. 104 The text then switches back to the scenario in which Gilimninu is able to bear children. If she bears sons, the sons will inherit the entire inheritance portion allotted to Šennima. If she bears a daughter, but no son, then the daughter shall inherit, but only in the amount equal to one portion. 105 The daughter does not inherit the double portion given to a firstborn son; instead, she inherits like a second or third born son. Presumably, the remainder of the estate would pass to other male relatives. 106 100.  This indicates that Šennima is not married and thus falls into the category “child.” 101.  We know that sons or daughters are implied here from lines 23–29, which state that if Šennima has no sons, his daughters can inherit. 102.  Speiser identifies the term Lullu woman as being synonymous with slave woman (Speiser, “New Kirkuk,” 34 note 18). However, it could also simply mean that the Lullu people are a lower social class and as such are the traditional people used for Nuzi handmaids. H. Klengel­describes the land of Lullu(bum) as a territory near Nuzi. At times, this place is mentioned as a source of slaves and as a hostile country. See H. Klengel, “Lullu(bum),” RLA 7:164–68; and I. Winter, “Tree(s) on the Mountain: Landscape and Territory on the Victory Stele of Naram-Sin of Agade,” in Landscapes: Territories, Frontiers and Horizons (ed. L. Milano et al.; Padova: Sargon, 1999), 65. For the location of the Lullubum people, see J. Tenney, Life at the Bottom of Babylonian Society (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 123. 103.  Gen 16:2; 30:3, 9. 104.  A similar situation is seen in the Sarah-Hagar narratives in Gen 16 and 21. 105.  While the contract allows for the possibility of more than one son (DUMU.MEŠ), it only discusses the possibility of one daughter (DUMU.MÍ). We are not told what happens if there are multiple daughters; would they inherit one portion each, or does only the eldest daughter inherit a portion? Presumably, the latter would occur. Consider the cases from Emar where, in the absence of a biological son, the status of sinništu u zikaru ‘female and male’ was conferred on a daughter so that she could inherit the family land and preserve patrimony. According to Undheim, this status, “sinništu u zikaru (a female with a male status) was equated with being an heir” (Undheim, Wills, 207–14, esp. p. 210). See also Hirayama 25, 26; Prima dell ‘alfabeto 66; RE 15, 85; ArO 5 no. 13; Z. Ben-Barak, “Inheritance by Daughters in the Ancient Near East,” Journal of Semitic Studies 22 (1980): 22–23. 106.  Only in the case that a daughter was adopted by her father and ana mārūti epēšu ‘for sonship adopted/made’ would the daughter be able to be the chief inheritor (J. Paradise,

74

Chapter Two

One final observation can be drawn from the section regulating Šennima’s marriage and progeny. The language used in this section attracts attention to the identity of the child. A child born to Šennima and Gilimninu is called either: DUMU.MÍ ša MÍ Gi-li-im-ni-nu, ‘the daughter of Gilimninu’ or DUMU.MEŠ ša ŠÁ MÍ Gi-li-im-ni-nu ‘the sons that Gilimninu (bears)’. On the other hand, the child born to Šennima by a Lullu woman is called še-ir-ri-ši ‘the young child’. Note too that earlier Šennima is called DUMU-šú ‘his son’. These different name identifications support the conclusions drawn above in the discussion of CH 170–71. 107 To reiterate, a free-born child is identified by his father’s name. 108 In addition, when more than one woman enters the picture the child is identified by the mother’s name, and it is not uncommon that the child born to a handmaid is simply called that child or her child, even if the child will later enter into the line of succession. 109 Although these 14 lines may appear to be tangential to the adoption, they offer important insights into Nuzian society and the status of the adopted child. Though the adopted child is given the status of son, he is not given the same amount of freedom as a biological son. 110 The fact that the contract includes a line stating that Gilimninu shall not send away her handmaiden’s children may point to the fact that this practice was not uncommon. One can hear echoes of the Sarah and Hagar story in this prohibition. Most likely, Šurihilu included this clause to safeguard his line of succession and bypass any confusion as to the status of his adopted son’s biological children and the adopted son’s children by his handmaid. Per the stipulations set forth by the contract, all of Šennima’s children fall into the line of succession, just as the children of Šurihilu’s biological son would. After the discussion on Šennima’s marriage, HSS 5:67 returns to the familiar adoption format and states that Šurihilu shall not adopt another son in addition to Šennima. Following this statement, the document lists the penalty for breaking the contract. This ends the official contract between Šurihilu and Šennima. “Daughters as ‘Sons’ at Nuzi,” in Studies on the Civilization and Culture of Nuzi and the Hurrians (ed. D. I. Owen and M. A. Morrison [Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1977], 203–13). 107.  The reference to CH 170–171 is found in the section on CH 190–91. 108.  See the discussion on Exod 21:2–11. 109. Concerning a child identified by the mother’s name, see discussion of CH 170– 71, pp. 64–65 and 150–151. For more on the identification of a handmaiden’s children, see Gen 21:10ff., which describes Ishmael with the pejorative ‫‘ הזאת אמה בן‬son of that amah’. Note also that, even though Ishmael was the eldest in the line of succession, his is not considered the firstborn son. See pp. 162–165. 110.  Because there was no need to document inner-family discussions, we do not know if fathers gave their sons “strong” suggestions of how to do things. Yet, I cannot help but think that fathers did not regulate their biological son’s postmartial actions with rigor such as HSS 5:67 presents. If Gilimninu is a daughter, then it may be that the adopted son is treated more as a “son-in-law,” upon his marriage. The stipulations given concerning Gilimninu’s children then are meant to protect the family line.

Adoption

75

Lines 35–42 appear as a post script to the contract and mention various things in connection with Gilimninu. Lines 35–39 state that Gilimninu has been given a handmaid and a woman to supervise. It does not specify whether this handmaid is a Lullu woman and would therefore fit the qualifications listed in lines 21–22. Lines 40–42 say that should Šennima take another wife after Gilimninu has born children, she may “take up her bundle and leave.” 111 In other words, Šennima’s actions would free her from their marriage contract, but her children would remain with Šennima and inherit as part of Šurihilu’s line. An adoption contract such as this includes information not only on the adoption but on the adopted child’s life as well. It first states that unless there is a biological son, the adopted son shall be the sole inheritor. In addition, the adopted son’s line shall inherit from the adoptive father. While the contract discusses what happens when Šurihilu has a biological son, it does not mention what happens if Šurihilu has a biological daughter. Presumably, Šennima, the adopted son, would still inherit. Note, however, that the text does state what shall happen should Šennima, the adopted son, bear a daughter but no sons. In this case, Šennima’s daughter shall receive one portion of the lands and buildings. 112 Perhaps this means that there are some limitations within the status “adopted,” that the adopted child is not legally able to adopt a son himself lest it disrupt the line of inheritance. When read as a whole, this contract, with all its provisos, is more a document about the adoptive father’s line of succession than about the adopted child.

HSS 19:88 HSS 19:88 is representative of the ṭuppi mārtūtu documents. 113 These adoption contracts are similar to the ṭuppi mārūtu contracts seen above; the main difference is that these documents concern girls and not boys. As such, the contracts often substitute information about the girl’s dowry in place of a clause listing the inheritance rights of the adopted child. 114 HSS 19:88 begins in the same manner as the ṭuppi mārtūtu texts. It opens with a statement identifying the adopters (Pantara and Tya) and the adoptee (Azuašše). In this text, the mother and not the father contracts the child’s adoption. 115 Line 8–12 state that the adopting parents have given 20 shekels to the girl’s mother, which is equivalent to her bride price. In turn, the adoptive parents shall

189.

111.  Her “bundle” is her portion, dowry, or assigned property. 112.  For women as inheritors see the footnoted discussion on sekretu under CH 187, 188,

113.  For other examples of ṭuppi mārtūtu contracts, see, for example, HSS 9:119, 19:38; AASOR 10 no. 31; JEN 431, 465; and Cassin, l’Adoption, 299–311. 114.  Grosz, “Some Aspects,” 133, 152. 115.  It is possible that Pantara was identified by her mother’s name because she was born out of wedlock. It is also possible that the identity of her father was unknown.

76

Chapter Two

give the girl in marriage (ana aššūti innadin) and retain whatever future bride price is obtained. If Azuašše fetches a bride price higher than 20 shekels, her biological mother may not try to sue for more money. Lines 12–16 make it clear that the adoptive parents have not only legal guardianship over her but also have obtained the “right” to marry her off. 116 While her future husband is unspecified, the fact that Pantara and Tya can choose her mate at a future date emphasizes the fact that Azuašše is equal in status to any biological daughter that Pantara and Tya may have, for parents in the ANE could marry their child to whomever they saw fit. 117 The clause in lines 17–19 serves multiple purposes. First, it protects the rights of the adoptive parents by stating that their adopted daughter shall be returned to them if she has a claimant (pirqu), that is, if someone else claims that the girl has legal obligations to them. The person giving her in adoption must satisfy or pay all preexisting claims. In other words, as far as the parties concerned know, the adopted girl does not have any claimants, and she is free for adoption. These points imply that the girl could have a claimant or perhaps did in the past. From this, one can surmise that before her adoption the girl may have either served as a debt-pledge for her parent(s) or that she was an emancipated slave. 118 The fact that she is now being adopted out by her mother suggests that either Azuašše’s term of service was up or that she was manumitted, and her mother is indeed her legal guardian. Either party who backs out is subject to pay a penalty (lines 22–24). The following lines reveal the penalty for breaking the contract: 1 mina silver and 1 mina gold (lines 22–24). The contract concludes with the ṭuppu ina arki šūdūti ina cNuzi (or other GN) šaṭir formula (lines 25–26). 119 In comparison to the ṭuppi mārūtu texts, the ṭuppi mārtūtu texts have a similar introduction and conclusion but include information concerning the dowry and not the inheritance share. These differences are related to gender and exemplify the social and legal status given to the adopted male and female children. As the subject of the adoption, male children are eligible to receive inheritance and become part of the adoptive father’s line of succession. 120 Female children, on the other hand, 116.  Often contracts of this nature name a specific person or an abstract class of persons to whom the girl will be married. For example, the adopted daughter may be given to a member of the family or to a slave. The ṭuppi mārtūtu u kallūtu also offer examples of this. 117.  However, one could argue that by not stating what kind of person Azuašše shall marry, the rights of the adoptee were not highly regarded. In other words, by not ensuring the adopted girl would be married to a well-off person, her chances of being married to a slave or persons of a lower class were raised. 118.  See pp. 141–150 concerning slave children. 119.  This particular contract was made in the city of Huraṣinamar. 120.  There are cases where the mārtūtu contract records the inheritance of the female adoptee. See, for example, HSS 19:38. While the female adoptee is not a child, the text merits a brief explanation. In this text Menni adopts Uzna, the wife of Ennamati, and gives her four young men as her inheritance share. These young boys are children of a slave mother, and the

Adoption

77

are typically adopted for the purpose of giving them in marriage and collecting a bride price. In both cases, the adoption serves to expand the lineage of the adoptive family.

Daughter and Daughter-in-Law-ship Adoptions: Mārtūtu u kallūtu The next three adoption texts address girls who are adopted both as daughter (mārtūtu) and as daughters-in-law (kallūtu). 121 As will be seen, these differ from the mārūtu and mārtūtu texts in that the child in question is adopted for more than one purpose. It also means that the girl’s status within the household is not fixed at the completion of the adoption. Nor is it established at her initial entrance into the household. Instead, her place in the household remains fuzzy until the adoptive parents decide what to do with her.

JEN 432 In JEN 432:1–5 the girl Wašelli is adopted by the man Takku for daughter and daughter-in-law-ship (ana mārtūtu u kallūtu) from Akaptilla, her father. In the next section, Takku, the adoptive father, declares whom the girl Wašelli can marry. He reserves the right (hašāhu, literally, “if he desires”) to marry her to one of his slaves, to an adopted son, or to himself. 122 Not only does this demonstrate text suggests that they retain their slave status when they enter into Uzna’s care. Uzna takes legal responsibility of these boys and also pledges to give Menni, her adopted mother, food (that is, support her) and attend to her funerary rites. What we see then is a variation on the ṭuppi mārtūtu form seen in HSS 19:88. Because Uzna was already married, there was no need to address her future marriage or mention a dowry. Instead, we find an inheritance clause filling this part of the text. It seems that when the girl adoptee was a child, the contract arranged for her marriage; when she was an adult, the contract listed her inheritance. As we saw with the ṭuppi mārtūtu documents, the texts can vary depending on what issues the contracting parties needed to address. In one extraordinary will (YBC 5142), a father gives his daughters the status of sons. Using the same language seen in the ṭuppi marūti texts, the will states that the daughters shall inherit the father’s entire estate. This document is not included in the current study because it falls under a different category of texts called šīmtu or ‘will’ documents. It is also unknown whether the girls are children at the time the will was executed. For extended treatment of this text, see Paradise, “Daughters,” 203–13. See also, Undheim, Wills, 207–14. 121.  A. van Praag suggested that at Nuzi the kallūtu form developed out of the mārtūtu adoptions. He believed that for economic reasons fathers could give their daughters as mārtūtu and gain immediate access to their bride wealth. However, if the adoptive father could not pay the terhātu ‘bride price’, the two parties would exchange daughters. If one of the daughters was too young to marry, she was taken in as kallūtu, with the expectation that she would eventually be married into the adoptive father’s household (A. van Praag, Le Droit Matrimonial AssyroBabylonien [Amsterdam: Noord-Hollandsche uitgevers maatschappij, 1945], 80–82). 122.  This is similar to the fate of the daughter in Exod 21:7–11. Note that at Emar some texts record that the adoped male may marry the daughter(s) of the adoptive parent (Arnuad no. 29 and 124).

78

Chapter Two

the control the father has over his adopted daughter’s future, but it also shows that a girl adopted as mārtūtu u kallūtu can be married to a person of any status. One sees that the mārtūtu u kallūtu status allows for some part of the girl’s social status to be decided after she is adopted. If she is married to Takku’s adopted son then her status in the family may be equal to a daughter. If, however, she is married to a slave her status is more a slave. If married to Takku, Wašelli’s becomes more of a second-tier wife. 123 It is noteworthy that in each of these three marriage scenarios the husband must be someone connected to the adopter’s family. 124 Takku agrees to these stipulations by paying Akiptilla 40 shekels of silver as the hašahušennu money (line 12) for Wašelli. 125 The issue of payment is revisited at the end of the document, which records a verbal description of the written receipt for the money Aktiptilla received as Wašelli’s bride price from Takku. 126 In lines 13–18, Wašelli’s status and her place in the household is further defined; any children (še-ir-ra-šu) that Wašelli bears shall belong to Takku and that her property gained post-adoption belongs to Takku. Why are Wašelli’s children servants of her adoptive father, and why does her property belong to her adoptive father? Furthermore, why is the status of the girl adopted mārtūtu u kallūtu not equal to that of a free person? Based on the presence of the pirqu clause in line 22, one may assume again that Wašelli was formerly a debt-slave or chattel slave. However, Wašelli is being adopted out as though she were a free child; she is given in adoption by her father, her legal guardian. Moreover, there is no purchase price mentioned, nor is the contract drawn up in the same manner as a slave sale documents. 127 True, no one text is typical; however, one must acknowl123. T. Thompson, The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1974), 230–31. 124.  Family must be here understood to include anyone from the adopter’s household. This means that slaves and adopted sons are considered to have the same social status: family member. 125.  CAD describes hašahušennu as “a form of silver normally used only for payments involved in marriage transactions, in loans or sales of slave girls” (CAD Ḥ 136). Hašahušennu is a Hurrian word found only in the Nuzi texts. The term appears in three marriage contracts: HSS 5:79.12, 5:80.9; and JEN 441:8. In each of these cases, the brother gives his sister in marriage. In addition to our two texts, JEN 432 and 433, it appears in RA 23 156 no. 54:11, HSS 9:25.3, 12, and JEN 655:25. These last three texts concern a loan, sale, and legal settlement, respectively. 126.  Note that Aktiptilla calls this money the terhatu ‘bride price’ and not the hašahušennu. 127.  See pp. 141–142 on slave sale contracts. T. Thompson states that a girl adopted mārtūtu u kallūtu can have either a status equal to a full daughter or a status on par with that of a slave (Thompson, Narratives, 231). In discussing the ṭuppi mārtūtu u kallūtu form, Thompson argues from this case that: “Because of the very wide range of use of these contracts it is impossible to give a single text or even a number of texts as typical” (Thompson, Narratives, 232, emphasis mine). However, from a footnote, it is clear that in his mind these contracts include not just mārtūtu u kallūtu texts but the ana mārtūtu and ana kallūtu texts as well (ibid., 232 n. 156). This is problematic because these texts handle different situations and assign different statuses (that

Adoption

79

edge that the ṭuppi mārtūtu u kallūtu texts/transactions all have a basic core to which various stipulations, dependent on the situation at hand, are added. One such example of a stipulation is the clause in JEN 432:13–18, which seems to suggest that Wašelli’s status is closer in status to that of a slave girl than that of a free daughter. 128 However, other ṭuppi mārtūtu u kallūtu texts/transactions exist wherein the girl is clearly a free person. 129 The remainder of JEN 432 proceeds as expected. Lines 22–25 state that Akaptilla, Wašelli’s birth father, shall clear her of any claims brought against her and shall return her to Takku. This claimant clause functions the same here as it does in the mārtūtu documents, examined above. JEN 432 closes with both the standard fine (1 mina silver and 1 mina gold) imposed on the party breaking the contract, and a statement that the document was written in the gate of Tursa/ Durša. After this there is a list of witnesses and seals. Despite all the evidence supporting Wašelli’s free status at the time of adoption, she is attached to the household of Takku in a manner that we have not yet encountered. Neither the mārtūtu nor kallūtu element of the contract explains neither why Wašelli’s children are Takku’s slaves nor why her property gained postadoption belongs to Takku. These elements could have been explained easily enough were Wašelli being sold as a chattel slave or even as a debt-slave. In that case, one would expect everything she owned to belong to her master. 130 However, this is an adoption contract, and it appears that Wašelli is the daughter of a free person as evidenced by the description of her lineage. 131 JEN 432 seems to suggest that Wašelli’s new status lies somewhere between free and slave. 132 Lines 13–18 suggest that Wašelli is a kind of investment. The adoption formula uses the verb nadānu ‘to give’; but perhaps in using the passive form of nadānu, the contract is meant to draw attention away from the girl as a is, daughter, daughter-in-law, and simultaneously both daughter and daughter-in-law) to the females involved. Additionally, it is unclear whether Thompson sees the wide array of statuses available in “these contracts” as available in each kind of contract. In addition, Thompson actually contradicts himself in the next sentence by pointing out four elements that all the documents contain. 128.  For a discussion of slaves’ children belonging to the master and not the father, see pp. 123–127. 129. E.g., AASOR 16 nos. 42, 43, 44; AASOR 16 no. 30 and 31; CT 47 40; H IX 145; H XIX 87. 130.  Children born to slave mothers were considered extensions of the mother’s body and, therefore, property of the master. See pp. 123–127. 131.  In lines 2–3, her father is called “PN son of PN,” which is the formula used to name free persons. Wašelli is also identified as [DUMU.MUNUS]-sú ‘his daughter.’ These two things are significant because they appear to identify Wašelli as a legally free person at the time of her adoption. 132.  If the pirqu clause in line 22–23mean that she had previously served as a debt-pledge for her father, then the clause in lines 24–25 would guarantee that her father would clear her and return her to Takku in the event that her previous distrainer should try to raise a claim.

80

Chapter Two

person and present her more as an asset: she was given for adoption. Whether or not the verb choice was made intentionally, it is evident that Takku wished to adopt more than “the girl” Wašelli; he wished to adopt Wašelli and her potential earning power, that is everything that comes forth from her (be it children, money, or property). Hence, this is a document that binds Wašelli, the person, and her potential earning power to Takku through the institution of kallūtu. In light of this, the phrase ṭuppi mārtūti u kallūti ša PN1 PN2 mārassu ana PN3 ittadnu is best translated ‘Tablet of daughter and daughter-in-law-ship belonging to PN1. PN2, his daughter (the girl and everything that shall come forth from her), to PN3 was given’.

JEN 433 This text is another ṭuppi mārtūtu u kallūtu text, similar to JEN 432. The opening lines relate that Nuhua, the daughter of Taya, is given in adoption to Tarmitilla. As in JEN 432, all the parties involved are identified as PN son/daughter­ of PN, thereby classifying them as free people. However, in the following lines (7–14) Nuhua’s new status is described in a diminished fashion. Lines 7–10 state that, if Tarmitilla desires, he can either marry Nuhua to a slave or sell her. In the event that his slave dies, he reserves the right to marry Nuhua to another of his slaves. Here, the status of a free daughter is being lowered to the status of a slave wife. While a slave could have many rights and be well-off, being married to a slave does not carry the same status as being married to a free man. 133 It is also significant that Tarmitilla may choose to sell Nuhua: šum-ma ha-ši-ih [i-na] bá-a-bi i-na-an-din-ma ù KÙ.BABBAR-šu [i]-li-iq-qì ‘if he desires, in the gate he shall sell her and his money he shall take’. This indicates that Nuhua’s position in Tarmitilla’s household is not necessarily akin to that of a daughter. While there is no clear evidence forbidding the practice of selling a daughter, this situation only seems to arise in times of economic hardship. On the other hand, it is well documented that a man can sell a slave whenever he decides to. 134 However, like in JEN 432, the girl in JEN 433 is entering the man’s household as a daughter and daughter-in-law, not as a slave. Also troubling is the fact that Tarmitilla has the right to marry her to a second slave if the first dies. This indicates not only that Tarmitilla retains legal control over Nuhua but that he sees her status as more equal to that of a slave and not that of a daughter. 133. M. Dandamaev, Slavery in Babylonia: From Nabopolassar to Alexander the Great (636– 331 bce) (ed. M. Powell and D. B. Weisberg; trans. V. Powell; DeKalb: Northern Illinois University Press, 1984), 69. 134.  True, a man may sell his daughter to act as a pledge for his debt, but this is different from selling his daughter into permanent slavery. See the discussion on pp. 138–140 and in my “Neither Slave Nor Free: Children Living on the Edge of a Social Status,” in Windows to the Ancient World of the Hebrew Bible: Essays in Honor of Samuel Greengus (ed. B. Arnold, N. Erickson, J. Walton; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2014), 121–37.

Adoption

81

This view is confirmed by the next two statements, both of which subjugate Nuhua to Tarmitilla in the same way that Wašelli was to Takku in JEN 432. Lines 10–11 state that all of Nuhua’s future children and estate belong to Takku, again reinforcing the idea that in a mārtūtu u kallūtu document the girl and her potential earning power are being adopted. The next statement, which is almost identical to the statement in JEN 432, binds Nuhua to the house of Tarmitilla forever (lines 12–14). The document then formally concludes with the fine for breaking the contract. Three more clauses are appended to the end of this document. The first clause states: šum-ma MÍ Nu-hu-ú-a i-na É-it 1 Tar-mi-til-la la-am mu-ti-šu [it-it ša-ni] [i]-it-ti-⟨lu!⟩ di-nu ša na-a-[ki] ‘If Nuhua, while in Tarmitilla’s house, sleeps with another man before (having) her husband (assigned), the punishment of nâki shall be imposed upon her’. CAD defines nâku as follows: “to have illicit sexual intercourse, to fornicate.” 135 By holding Nuhua to this standard, she is being held to the same standards as a free woman who is betrothed to marry— a standard unusual for a slave. While the repercussions for such an act are not explained in our text, it appears that if Nuhua engages in premarital sex, the punishment of nâku will serve to oppress her and control her status within the household. 136 In effect, Nuhua’s adoption contract assigns her the worst aspects of both free and slave statuses. The following lines state that any young children of hers (še-ir-ri-ti-šu) shall be maidservants (GÉME.MEŠ) or male servants (ÌR. MEŠ) to Tarmitilla. 137 The final clause states that Tarmitilla has delivered/paid an imer of grain and 10 shekels of hašahušennu silver, as her terhatu ‘bride price’, and has given it to Nuhua’s father, Taya. In sum, JEN 433 establishes Nuhua as an adoptee with a social and legal status lower than the one she may have had when she entered the contract. There is no pirqu clause to suggest that Nuhua was born a slave. She now belongs to a man who can choose to marry her to a slave or to sell her. Both of these actions would most likely be frowned on in ANE society if done by a girl’s biological father. Perhaps in the end, these two mārtūtu u kallūtu adoption contracts (JEN 432 and 433) describe relationships that are more fictive than literal. For example, the mārtūtu u kallūtu adoptions could create a fictive family tie in which the girl is not bound by any obligations to the adopter. The the mārtūtum part of the contract would then represent “a limited, temporary adoption which remained in effect only until the adopted girl was married off; this interpretation is supported by the 135.  CAD N 197. 136.  YOS 10 47:13 states that a husband had the right to kill a married woman who engaged in extra-marital sex: aššat awīlim i-ni-a-ak-ma (nâku) [i]na bīti uṣṣi ‘that man’s wife will have illicit intercourse, and her husband will seize her and kill her’ (CAD N 198). 137.  JEN 432:13–18 above, places this same regulation on the children of Wašelli. This phrase is also found in JEN 638 // JENu 377 + JENu 402a (M. P. Maidman, “Joins to Five Published Nuzi Texts,” JCS 42 [1990]: 71–85).

82

Chapter Two

fact that a terharum is paid to the natural parents, an indication that the adoptee’s marriage is a central motive in these contracts. ” 138 Thus, these contracts may serve as an outlet for parents to free themselves of an unwanted daughter without breaking societal norms.

JEN 440 + Revised In 1990, M. P. Maidman published a series of texts that combined joins with texts previously published by Chiera in the JEN series; this text represents one of those. While technically a ṭuppi riksi, JEN 440 + Revised (JEN 440R) 139 concerns a girl who was previously adopted as mārtūtu u kallūtu. JEN 440R is an almost identical copy of JEN 638. While the scribes and witnesses are different, it appears to record the same transaction. Maidman suggests that JEN 638 may be an older copy. 140 JEN 440R is included in this discussion because lines 1–21 relate to the status of the girls in JEN 432 and 433, in particular the status implied by the clauses indicating that the children of the mārtūtu u kallūtu adoptee shall belong to the adoptive father. JEN 440R records the marriage contract of the girl Puhuya, who was previously adopted mārtūtu u kallūtu by Tehiptilla. It appears that Tehiptilla has since died or become incapacitated, for Ennamati, Tehiptilla’s son, is the person representing Puhuya’s interests in this document (lines 8ff). Lines 10–13 state that Hulukka wished to marry Puhuya and paid her bride price with a young girl (ṣuharta/tu) named Kuppe. 141 Because the bride price is paid with flesh (a person) and not with something of monetary value, we do not know how much Puhuya is “worth.” However, the text obliquely states Puhuya’s (bride) price in lines 14–21 by describing Kuppe’s status and “the control which the recipient of the female may exercise over her.” 142 We learn that Ennamati has the legal authority to give Kuppe in marriage to his son, to his slave, or to whomever he pleases (lines 13– 18). 143 If the husband should die, Ennamati may give her to a second or even a third husband. 144 The next clause expands the realm of Ennamati’s authority by 138.  Obermark, Adoption, 80–81. 139.  This text includes JEN 440 (JEN 402a), which itself is a combination of JENu 337 + 402b + 1172. For a reading combining JEN 440 and JEN 638, see J. M. Breneman, Nuzi Marriage Contracts (Ph.D. diss., Brandeis University, 1971), 70–72. 140.  Maidman, “Joins,” 77. 141.  Breneman reads imêra (?) ‘donkey’ and not ṣuharta/tu ‘servant girl’. He states that “the payment of Kuppe into the same position was not sufficient,” a donkey was needed to make up the difference (Breneman, Nuzi Marriage, 72). 142.  Maidman, “Joins,” 79. 143.  The phrase “his slave” is restored from Jen 638:18. See also JEN 428:6–11, 432:6–11, 433:6–9; and HSS 9:145.6–12. 144.  For further texts referencing the practice of giving a woman to multiple husbands, see also JEN 26:9–11, 50:9–10, 431:8–10, 433:9–10, 441:12–14, 437:8–12; AASOR 16 nos. 30:9–12 and 33:18–21.

Adoption

83

stating that any children Kuppe bears, either male or female, shall remain in Ennamati’s house as his servants (lines 19–21). Maidman’s translation reads: “And Hulukka has given as bride price to [Enna-mati] one servant girl (ṣuharta/tu) named Kuppe” (lines 10–13). He has chosen to translate ṣuharta/tu as ‘servant girl’, and indeed these lines describe Kuppe in slave-like terms: she is given as a payment for the bride price and her children will be born into slavery. 145 The giving of the ṣuharta/tu is crucial to understanding the status of both the terhatu girl and mārtūtu u kallūtu girls. It appears as that one girl was exchanged for another. 146 K. Grosz supports this theory by reconstructing the situation in the following manner. Hulukka met Puhuya while she was living in Tehiptilla’s house as a girl adopted mārtūtu u kallūtu. As she was under a contract, “Hulukka was obliged to redeem her with a slave-girl, which he provided as substitute for his future bride.” 147 It seems that Ennamati wants to retain the services of the adopted girl (Puhuya) and so instead of the normal monetary bride price, he asks for another girl (Kuppe) in return. As Puhuya’s replacement, Kuppe is subject to the same regulations presumably laid out for Puhuya in her original mārtūtu u kallūtu contract. In discussing mārtūtu u kallūtu adoptions, Grosz makes another very important point, one that is particularly relevant to our understanding not only of ṣuharta/tu but also of the girl adopted mārtūtu u kallūtu. She states: “distinctions between free and slave must not have been so clear-cut, with categories of semifree, indentured, or semi-dependent in-between.” 148 Recognizing status as a sliding scale allows for a better understanding of the status given to the free-born girls adopted mārtūtu u kallūtu in JEN 432 and 433. Above, it was pointed out that the adopted girl remains a dependent in the adoptive father’s household for life. In addition, both of those texts give the father the right to all of the girl’s future assets, be it children or physical possessions. 149 This means that the children 145.  Grosz translates ṣuharta/tu as ‘slave-girl’ (“Some Aspects,” 147–48). 146.  Breneman, Nuzi Marriage, 72. 147.  Grosz, “Some Aspects,” 148. Because the girl Puhuya is under contract to Tehiptilla, Hulukka cannot simply take Puhuya as a wife but must offer some sort of compensation to Tehiptilla. I think this is what Grosz means when she says “Hulukka was obliged to redeem her (Puhuya).” Her argument must be based on JEN 638: 25–27, which declares that Puhuya is henceforth a free woman of Arrapha, that is, not to be treated as a slave: 1 En-na-ma-ti-ma uš-tu [ûmi]mi meš an-n[i-i] fPu-hu-ia i-na mārāti[meš] [A]r-ra-ap-he šu-ú[x] (Breneman, Nuzi Marriage, 70). Therefore, Puhuya could have been “replaced” by Kuppe. Hulukka must defend Kuppe from any future claims. In addition, Puhuya, now a free woman, is considered via this transaction to be a daughter to Ennamati. Additionally, Puhuya’s husband, Hulukka, must honor Ennamati as a father in exchange for allowing Puhuya’s status to be elevated. 148.  Grosz, “Some Aspects,” 147. 149.  Maidman and Grosz both point out that JEN 113/649 serves as further background to JEN 440R (Maidman, “Joins,” 78; Grosz, “Some Aspects,” 148). This document states that, while married to one of Ennamati’s slaves, Puhuya bore five children. These children were slaves and belonged to Ennamati. After Puhuya was released from her contract and married

84

Chapter Two

of the girls adopted mārtūtu u kallūtu inherit from the adoptive father and not from their mother or their biological father. 150 Based on this background, we can draw some conclusions about the status of the girl adopted mārtūtu u kallūtu. On the one hand, we could say the mārtūtu u kallūtu institution is not a “happy” solution wherein a destitute father gives up his daughter so she can have a better life. Instead, through this practice the adopter gains the right both to marry off the girl and to decide what social status to assign her. 151 In most cases, this involves the possibility of being married to a slave. On the other hand, as Grosz points out, the economic position of some free-born parents could be such that their daughter’s future would be considerably enhanced by marrying a wealthy slave, or becoming fully free, that is, socially raised as Puhuya in JEN 638. 152 The girl adopted mārtūtu u kallūtu does not automatically gain the status of daughter equal to that of a biological daughter. It is even questionable whether or not the girl is ever given the full status of daughter. Grosz argues that this practice was used by the wealthy population not as a means of adopting a daughter for the sake of a familial relationship, but as a way to gain the permanent service of women dependents. 153 The three Nuzi texts examined suggest that a girl adopted mārtūtu u kallūtu does not necessarily have a status equal to that of a girl adopted ana mārtūtu. Legally speaking, the girl is considered the adopter’s child. However, there is nothing in the mārtūtu u kallūtu contract explicitly requiring the father to treat her as nicely as he may a biological daughter; he may choose to treat the adopted girl like a slave. 154 Through both the language and stipulations of the mārtūtu u kallūtu adoption, one gets a picture of a girl who has an actual status that can vary somewhere between free and slave. According to the ṭuppi mārtūtu u kallūtu documents, this Hukkula, the two of them were able to redeem two of the five children. Grosz suggests that the couple could not afford to redeem all five. In any case, JEN 113/649 states that Puhuya and Hukkula retain the right to choose a wife for the one boy left behind and vow to clear the remaining three children from any future claims against them. This text states that even though the mother was freed from her contract and former master, the children remained bound to the house of Ennamati. 150.  Grosz, “Some Aspects,” 146. 151.  Westbrook, Marriage Laws, 39; Obermark, Adoption, 78–79. 152.  Grosz, “Some Aspects,” 147. 153.  Ibid., 149. 154. Consider, for example, the fairy tale Cinderella, wherein the adopted daughter is forced to do the domestic chores while the biological daughters live a luxurious life. Note that, while the girl adopted mārtūtu u kallūtu could be treated like a slave, some Nuzi documents strictly forbid the girl adopted mārtūtu u kallūtu from being reduced to slavery (AASOR 16 nos. 30–32 and 42). Most societies in the ANE frowned on free-born parents selling their children into slavery. This practice was only undertaken in rare circumstances, such as a siege, when the existence of the society at large was threatened (L. Oppenheim, “Siege Documents from Nippur,” Iraq 17 [1955]: 69–89).

Adoption

85

status could fluctuate according to the parties’ wishes; it could be closer to the status of a slave or closer to that of a free child. This in itself is a comment on Nuzi society: adopting parents, be they male or female, had the power to decide the fate of the child they were taking on as a dependent. Not only did they decide the course of the girl’s life, but at times they decided the status and fate of her unborn children’s lives as well. 155 As such, the practice of mārtūtu u kallūtu adoption seems to be driven by different economic concerns than the mārutu or mārtūtu adoptions. Whereas the latter two are concerned with creating new familial bonds, the former was often more concerned with gaining the permanent services of the girl (and her children).

Synthesis: Status, Social Mobility, and Gender Taken as a whole, the adoption texts offer a lot of information regarding children. First, the adoption texts demonstrate the need to regulate how a child entered one household and exited another. Even though the institution of adoption was well established, the documents and laws suggest that each adoption situation was different; each child had his/her own story. The texts above describe everything from a newborn child, to a nursing child, to a child ready for marriage. While the texts may have been written by adults for purposes of their own (legal rights, inheritance and marriage rights), the effect of these documents had serious repercussions for the children described in them.

Social Status of the Adopted Child Through the laws and contracts examined above, the social status of the adopted child in the OB time period appears almost equal to that of a free child. Proof of this is the way in which documents address inheritance and dowry issues. Consider how the texts ensure that the adopted child receives some kind of inheritance, either from the adopted parent or, if the adoption-relationship is severed, from the biological parent. They also define the place of the adopted child in the line of succession. The texts address everything from what will happen if the adoptive parents have a biological child after the adoption, to situations where biological children already exist. The emphasis on inheritance demonstrates its importance in ANE society. Through it one creates and retains ties to the family, the core structure of a patriarchal society. Lest the adopted child be displaced, the ANE social system created a status for the adopted child that guarantees it a familial connection. This status is not tied to a specific age group, but could be conferred on groups such as newborn children (ina mêšu), suckling children (DUMU.GABA), and young children 155.  This practice seems to be limited to the children adopted as mārtūtu u kallūtu. This did not seem to be as much of a concern for adult women adopted in this manner.

86

Chapter Two

(ṣehrum). It is suggested that the status “adopted” is indicated in the Code of Hammurapi by the use of the term tarbītum. Moreover, since tarbītum appears here as a noun referring to the child, and not as part of the phrase ana tarbītum, “for child rearing,” it is probable that it is meant to be understood with a legal meaning in the laws. 156 The absence of the term tarbītum in the OB and Nuzi adoption contracts suggests that the status “adopted child” is understood and does not always need to be referred to by an official title. Within this discussion it is important to note that, while “free” and “slave” represent the two extremes, they are not mutually exclusive. As seen in the documents and laws, the stipulations of an adoption contract may be broken and the child returned to his natal family. One wonders what kind of conditions the child lives in between the time the contract is broken and the time s/he returns to the natal family. Who announces that the contract has been broken? Do witnesses see the adopted child mistreated physically, emotionally, or socially? And if so, who is doing the abuse, the adoptive parents or the biological children of the adoptive parents? The Nuzi contracts in particular highlight the varying social statuses of an adoptee. For example, the ṭuppi mārtūtu u kallūtu documents suggest that the adopted girl was being adopted for more than just her help but for her potential earning power (as a wife). Furthermore, these women could be adopted specifically for the purpose of giving her in marriage, to a family member, or to a slave. The fact that an adoptee’s status was not fixed, but could change depending on the nature of the contract attests to the fact that not all adoptions were equal and not all adoptions resulted in the same social status.

Social Mobility within a Single Institution The examination of CH 185–89 brings the issue of permanency to the forefront and raises the question whether or not an adoption is binding or can be broken. Two phrases in particular speak to this issue: “returning to the father’s house” and “reclaiming the child.” If, as suggested above, “returning to the father’s house” signals a break in the contract, what do CH 185, 187, and 188 mean when they say, “the child shall not be reclaimed? ” Perhaps allowing the child to return to his natural parents in some cases (CH 186, 189) meant the parents retained some interest in the child. The issue at hand is to what extent the family retains an interest. It was argued above with CH 186 that, in a god-/foster-parentage adoption, the link with the natal family is never broken. However, this is not the case with most adoptions. In “formal” adoptions the child leaves one family and joins another. By 156.  CAD T 223–24. The earliest passages listed under tarbītum 2a (rearling, child placed for rearing, offspring) come from the adoption laws in the CH. Later usages can be found in OIP 2 35 iii 72 (Senn.) and Borger, Asar. 53 Ep 14 iv 15. According to CAD T, the term BULÙG. GÁ (tar-bit) appears in Lugale 1:29, BaghM Beiheft 2 no. 6:27; and CT 16 36:3. In each of these cases it appears in the construct and is translated as ‘offspring of x’.

Adoption

87

doing so, the child gives up the right of succession in his natural family in favor of inheriting through the adoptive parent. This makes sense, for the main objective of a formal adoption is to gain a successor. A person could not inherit from both his natal and adoptive families. Reclaiming the child would mean that when the child left the adoptive family and rejoined the natal family it would cease being the heir to the adoptive parents. By stating that the adopted child cannot be reclaimed, the laws guarantee the adopting parent an heir. In the cases of CH 185, 187, and 188, this ban on reclaiming the child is included because of the special circumstances surrounding the adoptions. CH 185 concerns the child taken at birth and raised. Perhaps the prohibition on reclaiming the child has to do with the amount of time the child has spent with its natural parents versus the time it has spent with its adoptive parents. The biological parents have done nothing to raise the child; therefore, they have no claim to the child. 157 CH 187 initially does not appear to provide any reason that the child cannot be reclaimed. However, the law was meant to safeguard the rights of those people who have a special place in society and who cannot have children of their own, this ban on reclaiming guarantees that they will have an heir. CH 188 concerns a child taken in apprenticeship. This suggests that there is more to some adoptions than just raising the child: the adopter can also be charged with educating him/her. If the adoption obligations are fulfilled, then the child cannot be reclaimed, for by reclaiming the child, the natal family would deprive a successor to his estate and to his business. Whether it is explicitly stated or not, there is something inherent in the nature of the adoptions in these three laws that make them irrevocable. While the laws mention the concept of reclaiming, G. R. Driver and J. C. Miles noted this concept is not found in any extant adoption contracts. 158 Since they wrote The Babylonian Laws in 1955, more adoption texts have been uncovered, which suggest that this is not entirely true. Some adoption contracts, such as CT 8 48a: 11–14 and BIN 7 206: 9–11 state that no one shall raise a claim against the adoptee. The adoptee in these contracts happens to be a slave, who is freed by the master and subsequently adopted. While these contracts address the possibility of the adoptee being reclaimed, it is important to note that the adoptee is a slave, and those in the CH laws discussed above are free children. It may 157.  It is unknown whether the Babylonian society thought life began at birth or conception. Even if one were to argue that they believed life began at conception, the biological mother would have done little compared to the adoptive parent in the way of financially, economically, and emotionally raising the child. Others have argued that this law concerns a foundling. If this is so, then the biological parents have no claim on the child, for a foundling was a disenfranchised and statusless person. The act of abandoning the child meant it was free for anyone to claim and take in (Malul, “Foot,” 365). 158.  Driver and Miles, Laws, 385. In his exploration of the CH adoption laws, Obermark does not include a discussion on the issue of reclaiming children; instead, he focuses on a different angle, stating that CH 189 “deals not with the right of the parent to reclaim a child, but with the child’s right to return to its parents” (Obermark, Adoption, 104).

88

Chapter Two

be that the claim raised in the OB contracts has more to do with the child’s previous slave status than his/her new adopted status. If the OB contracts concern slaves exclusively, where does the practice of reclaiming free children referenced in the CH come from? Reasoning that the CH was written with an established practice in mind (that is, people could and did [?] reclaim their children), one can follow the lead of Driver and Miles, who “scratch below . . . and attempt to explain the background and the circumstances with which each law deals.” 159 A further examination of adoption contracts may provide some insights to this end. With regard to the nature of adoption contract, K. Nemet-Nejat has pointed out that “these [adoption] transactions were recorded as if they were sales,” that is, adoption contracts followed a format similar to that of all other sale contracts. 160 Accordingly, one should be able to compare the form of adoption contracts to that of other kinds of sale contracts in order to elucidate the missing link—what it means to reclaim a child. OB sale documents adhere to a standard form stating: (1) a sale is taking place; (2) the full price has been paid; (3) the transaction is complete; (4) the seller is satisfied; (5) the bukānum has been transferred; (6) the parties made an oath of renunciation of claims; and (7) witnesses are present.  161 According to I. Mendelsohn, slave sale contracts were also similar to sale documents, “early Sumerian slave-sale deeds differed neither in form not in wording from any other deed of sale.” 162 He states that OB slave-sale deeds listed between four and six components, including the name of the slave sold, the names of the seller and buyer, the price, the clause concerning the revocation of the transaction, an oath, and witnesses. This similarity is important for two reasons. First, it supports the fact that there was a standard method used to contract both goods and people. Second, it demonstrates that the format for transferring an adopted child is the same as that used to transfer ownership of a slave. 163 So while Old Babylonian adoption contracts do not contain a prohibition against reclaiming children, it is known that in other circumstances contracted people, as well as items, could be reclaimed. 164 159.  Driver and Miles, Laws, 54. 160.  Nemet-Nejat, Daily Life, 131. 161.  The term bukānum literally means ‘wooden pestle’. Its use in sale contracts seems to indicate a symbolic gesture, perhaps handing the seller an item, which signifies the transaction is complete. The phrase bukānum šutuqu means: ‘to conclude a sale’. See CT 433b:10, 45 117:14, 6 40b:9; BIN 7 41:32 (CAD B 308); D. O. Ezard, “Die bukānum-Formel der altbabylonischen Kaufverträge und ihre sumerische Entsprechung,” ZA 60 (1970): 8–53; Mendelsohn, Slavery, 34–36; A. Skaist, “The Sale Contracts from Khafajah,” in Bar-Ilan Studies in Assyriology (ed. J. Klein and A. Skaist; Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 1990), 255–58, 263; R. Harris, “The Archive of the Sin Temple at Khafajah,” JCS 9 (1955): 31–120. 162.  Mendelsohn, Slavery, 34. 163.  This suggests that, like the slave, the adopted child may fall into a separate social category and is distinguished from the typical free child. 164.  However, the prohibition against claims such as these is not present in every other sale document. See, for example, the slave sale documents: BE 3 15; RV 50, 51; YBT 5 141.

Adoption

89

The issue of who can reclaim and whether a child can be reclaimed is important in the institution of adoption, for the institution is founded on the principle that an adoption breaks all ties with the natal family. The presence of an ul ibbaqqar oath in a formal adoption contract would safeguard against reclaiming; however, this oath is notably absent. It is possible that documents containing this oath exist but have not yet been uncovered. A more tantalizing idea is that the oath clause was intentionally left out because it took the form of a verba solemnia and as such did not need to be recorded in adoption contracts. If this is accurate, then the Code of Hammurapi addresses an oral legal tradition not included in the written contracts. The inclusion of ul ibbaqqar oaths in the CH 185, 187, and 188 represents an effort to protect the adopters. From this point of view, the ul ibbaqqar oath functions as a sort of ancient “title insurance” for the adopters in CH 185, 187, and 188, and by extension to every adopter who adopted children in a like manner. 165 The (verbal) ul ibbaqqar clause would guarantee that the adopters’ right to the children (whom they adopted under special circumstances) could not be contested; as stated, an adoption under the circumstances given in CH 185, 187, and 188 was final. In summary, the laws addressing issues of returning to the father’s house and being reclaimed reveal the following regarding the child’s status within the household. With the exception of CH 186, which is argued to be a god­parentage adoption and therefore not subject to the same rules and stipulations as the standard formal adoption, it appears that returning to the father’s house is a right granted to the adopted child when the adoptive parent breaks the contract. In this case, the child resumes his/her former status in his/her natal household and receives an inheritance from the biological father. This proviso protects the adopted child’s right to an inheritance, something that all free children are entitled to. With respect to the absence of the ul ibbaqqar clause in OB adoption contracts, the answer is not so clear. One cannot say conclusively why this component was not included in the OB adoption contracts of free children, but the fact that the issue of reclaiming is addressed in CH 185–91 suggests that biological parents did try to reclaim their children. It is possible then that the laws in CH 185–91 were written to guard against or limit this practice.

Adoption and Gender The way in which the Code of Hammurapi switches the gender of the subject in the protasis and apodosis within the adoption laws brings the topic of gender to the forefront. CH 185–91 form a section that first identifies the child as a ṣehrum (masculine) and then as a tarbītum (feminine), who can be reclaimed 165.  I am indebted to S. Greengus for pointing out the similarities between the ul ibbaqqar oath and our modern day “title insurance.” The function of the ul ibbaqqar oath as title insurance is even more important in the adoptions of manumitted slaves. It protects the adopter from past claims that may arise concerning the slave.

90

Chapter Two

or return to the father’s house. 166 While tantalizing, this shift in gender does not signify a biological change in the sex of the child or a description of the child as an “other” gender; it is purely grammatical. The purpose of the adoptions with respect to gender, however, does deserve a bit of discussion. Adoptions of boys, such as found in the mārūtu adoptions, appear specifically tied to the need for an heir. When this is the case, the adoptions carefully stipulate the relationship of the adopted child to that of any existing or potential biological children that belong to the adopting father. CH 190–91 also discuss the relationship between the adoptive father, his biological children, and the adopted child(ren). However, in the Laws one cannot be sure whether or not the adopted children are boys. It would seem to make sense that they were boys, seeing as how inheritance generally passed through the males in the family. 167 The ṭuppi martūtu and ṭuppi martūtu u kallūtu documents discussed the adoptions of girls. Here too, gender was important; females were adopted primarily for their marriage potential. Gaining the legal rights to an unmarried woman also mean gaining the rights to her sexuality. Even in the case of non ṭuppi martūtu and ṭuppi martūtu u kallūtu adoptions, such as TIM 5 4, the adoption of a girl was undertaken for the same reasons. As seen in this document, no mention of the natal parents exists in the adoption contract. A single woman adopted the suckling girl presumably because she anticipated needing support later in life. The woman could not expect the suckling girl to grow up and remain unmarried, so here too the potential of the little girl’s marriage becomes important. While gender played an important role in the adoption decision, one must keep in mind the possibility that for some people gender was not the determinative factor in an adoption. Adoptions at birth may have taken place because the adoptive parents could not have children of their own and wished to raise a baby. Adoptions of this sort may also have taken place under more dire circumstances, such as the inability of the birth parents to care for the newborn. In this case, it 166.  As mentioned above, one can understand these terms as age-related, and/or legal statuses. Interestingly, in the CH adoption laws, the nouns appear to have different genders. Ṣehrum is a 3ms noun, and the pronouns used to reference the ṣehrum agree accordingly. Consider the following examples: CH 185: the child is found i-na me-e-šu ‘in his water’, and the father úr-taab-bi-šu ‘raises him’; CH 186: i-nu-ma il-qu-ú-šu ‘when [the father] takes him’; CH 190 and 191: ma-ru-ti-šu il-qe-šu-ma ú-ra-ab-bu-šu ‘(a man) takes him (for adoption) and raises him’. The term tarbītum ‘reared child’ is parsed as a nominal 3fs noun, meaning that the tarbītum, or adopted child, is now identified with a feminine gender. Why is the child given a masculine gender in the protasis and a feminine gender in the apodosis? It is not that the gender of the child is ambiguous, but rather that “the feminine singular is used for the substantival neuter of the adjective” (see paragraph 37b in A. Ungnad, Akkadian Grammar [trans. H. Hoffner; 5th ed.; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992], 44). In other words, tarbītum must be feminine because it describes an abstract concept, ‘one who is raised’, which is then used as a noun meaning ‘adopted’. 167. Of course, there are texts wherein a female does inherit (Paradise, “Daughters,” 203–13; Undheim, Wills, 207–14).

Adoption

91

could be a member of the extended family who stepped in to adopt the child out of necessity, not desire.

Adopted Children as Members in the Household In writing down these matters, the adoption documents and the Code of Hammurapi together sketch out a skeleton of the rights and responsibilities afforded to the adopted child. They state that in most cases the adopted child is like a free child, legally entitled to an inheritance portion of the father’s estate, and socially equivalent with the adoptive father’s other biological children. The way in which they enter the household, through adoption, however, says something about the way in which they are perceived as members of the household. The documents and laws examined above demonstrate that ANE societies thought about adopted children differently from biological children. Because of the attention the legal texts pay to the status and rights of the adopted children, one can assume that adopted children were not naturally perceived of as household members in the same way as biological children. Texts such as HSS 5:60 and HSS 5:67 establish the rights of the adopted child to inherit, but also include the stipulation that, if a biological son is born, he takes the place as the firstborn child and primary heir. The need to regulate inheritance is highlighted in the latter text, which describes in detail how the adopted son’s children fall in the line of succession. With respect to the adoptions of females, the Nuzi texts again highlight that there was a need to spell out how exactly the adopted girl fit into the household. The girl in HSS 19:88, while legally free, had a past wherein she was beholden to someone other than her biological parents. Despite this, the girl is able to be adopted as a free child, and provisions are made for her marriage. The girl adopted for a daughter or daughter-in-law joined the household upon her adoption. However, with this girl, her membership in the household depended on whom she married. This means that the girl’s position was not always the same. She could enter the household like a daughter and have the rights of a daughter. If married to one of her new father’s sons, she would retain this status. However, if her adoptive father chose to marry her to a slave, the girl’s status in the household would change. The position of a servant/slave-wife would be different from that of daughter-in-law. What is clear in all these documents is that the institution of adoption needed to be regulated. From the child adopted ina mêšu, at birth, to the child adopted later in life, entry into and membership within the household needed to be carefully defined. Unlike biological children, membership in the household premarriage was not static but fluid. Thus, the adoption texts create a picture wherein an adopted child could be thought of as a primary son, a secondary son, a daughter, or even a servant, regardless of his or her age or status in the natal family.

C

h a p t e r

T

h r e e

Orphans The previous chapter discussed genuine adoptions, those that were undertaken to expand one’s family for inheritance, old age care, and other such purposes. As witnessed by the texts discussed in chapter 2, the adopted child left the natal family and joined a new family. However, not all children were adopted from their parents. Some adopted children were orphans. In some ways, adopting an orphan was easier because the child had no family ties, and there was no possibility of a parent trying to reclaim the child. In addition, because there were no family ties, the child’s legal and social status was not predetermined but could vary depending on the type of situation into which he or she was adopted. Before examining legal materials addressing the orphan, it is necessary to define to whom exactly the term orphan refers. According to the Old Babylonian lexical list ana ittišu, an orphan was referred to as either ša aba u umma lā īšû ‘the one who has no father or mother’ or ša abašu u ummašu lā īdû ‘the one who does not know father (or) mother’. Biblical texts refer to orphans as the ‫יתום‬ ‘the fatherless’, and most of the references to the ‫ יתום‬in the biblical legal codes appear in conjunction with the ‫‘ גר‬stranger’ and the ‫‘ אלמנה‬widow’. 1 Thus, one could understand an orphan to be a child without a mother or father, or without a father. F. C. Fensham states: “These people had no rights, no legal personalities, or in some cases possibly restricted rights . . . Anyone could oppress them without danger that legal connections might endanger his position. To restore balance to society, these people must be protected.” 2 These people, the stranger, fatherless, and the widow, were the poor par excellence in the ANE. They had no kin network and no means of supporting themselves. As such, it was the duty of the god, via the king, to protect them. The Deuteronomist champions Yhwh as the one who does justice for the widow and orphan and who loves the stranger. 3 In the 1. Exod 22:21, 23; Deut 10:18; 14:29; 16:10–11, 14; 24:17–20; 26:12–13. See also, J. Parker, Valuable and Vulnerable Children in the Hebrew Bible, Especially the Elisha Cycle (Brown Judaic Studies 355; Providence, RI: Brown University Press, 2013), 53–55. 2.  F. C. Fensham, “Women, Orphans and Poor in Ancient Near Eastern Legal and Wisdom Literature,” JSOT 21.2 (1962): 139. 3.  Deut 10:18.

92

Orphans

93

prologue to the Code of Hammurapi, the king is called a shepherd and judge for the destitute. 4 In the Ugaritic Epic of Keret (Kirta), King Kirta is said to “defend the case of the widow and do justice to the destitute orphan.” 5 It would appear that a core value of ANE society was the care and protection of these marginal groups. 6 Practically speaking, the category of orphan can be divided into two groups. On the one hand, there are the children who are involuntarily orphaned, who have lost their parents due to an early death, whose mothers are members of the temple cult, or who have no father. In these cases, the child is often adopted from the next of kin, such as an uncle or older brother. Orphans mentioned in this kind of situations often arrive at their plight in life because the father is out of the picture, or their mother died in childbirth, or their extended family cannot take care of the new infant. On the other hand, there are orphans whose parents voluntarily orphan the child; these adopted orphans are called foundlings.

Children without a Father and/or Mother The first case to be examined concerns the adoption of a child who is called a šilip rēmim. Three possible translations have been offered for this term. The first and earliest translation relates the term to how the child was born; it means ‘pulled from the womb’, either by forceps or by cesarean section. A second reading suggests that it is a regional term from Sippar meaning ina mēšu, ‘in the amniotic fluid’. The third possibility is that šilip rēmim denotes the child’s social status, one with a stigmatized birth. As demonstrated below, the understanding of this term has been the subject of much debate for the last 50 years.

MAH 15.951 In 1960, A. L. Oppenheim published an adoption text from the 23rd year of King Hammurapi’s reign. 7 MAH 15.951 follows the format of the ṭuppi mārūtu ‘adoption for sonship’ texts discussed in chapter 2. It opens with a description of the child being adopted and describes him as a ṣuhārum šilip rēmim ‘a young child 4.  M .Roth, Law Collections from Mesopotamia and Asia Minor (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997), 77; CH 1 27–62, 4 45ff. 5.  “The Legend of King Keret,” trans. H. L. Ginsberg, ANET 142–49. 6.  Scholars have argued that the grouping “widow, orphan, and stranger” is a literary trope used explicitly for its rhetoric in addressing the sociopolitical concerns of the elite class. These concerns are: “didactic, legitimation, and deligitimization” (M. Sneed, “Israelite Concern for the Alien, Orphan and Widow: Altruism or Ideology? ” ZAW 111 [1999]: 498–507). Even if the grouping of terms is a literary trope, these underprivileged classes did undoubtedly exist in biblical Israel and the ANE, and as such, there is a kernel of practical information in textual references to them. 7.  A. L. Oppenheim, “A Cesarean Section in the Second Millennium b.c.,” Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences (1960): 292–94.

94

Chapter Three

pulled out of the womb’. 8 Line 2 states he is the son of the woman Atkalšim. 9 The sign following the mother’s name was identified by Oppenheim as UG7(BAD), the sign used to designate a deceased person. 10 In lines 3–6 it says the man Ibqiiltum adopts the child ana mārūtum from the child’s eldest brother and wife. 11 Line 7 states that the adopter paid the nursing fee for two years. It is unclear whether or not the child is two at the time of adoption, or whether this was an advance payment covering the next two years of nursing fees. Following this, the child’s brother and wife vow not to raise claims against Ibiq-Antum (lines 11–13). 12 The document concludes with the statement that Mār-Ištar (the boy) shall be Iqpu-Antum’s eldest son and heir, even if Iqpu-Antum should have 10 more sons. All parties then swear an oath before the gods. This text created a stir among scholars because it was the first text to describe a child as a šilip rēmim. 13 When Oppenheim initially published the text, he suggested that šilip rēmim referred to a child born through cesarean section. According to Oppenheim, the basic outline of the text appears to be as follows. A man adopts a young boy for sonship from his brother and his wife. The thing that perplexed Oppenheim and later J. J. Finkelstein was why the boy was not adopted from his parents and why he was called šilip rēmim. Oppenheim proposed that the delivery was complicated and the midwives had to make a decision, save the child or save the mother. He states that the term šilip rēmim ‘pulled from the womb’ means either the child was pulled from the womb with forceps, or the child was born through cesarean section. If the midwives wished to save the mother, they would extract the child with forceps, in which case the child would most likely die. A cesarean section, on the other hand, would save the life of the child but likely kill the mother. 14 Oppenheim reasons that, because the 8.  Ibid., 292. 9.  Obermark follows Szlechter and reads lines 2–3: 1 I - ṣ i - k a - al - š i - i[m - t]i š a dUTUn a - ṣir DUMU (?) XXX: ‘born to Isikal-šimti (the slave woman) of Šamaš-nasir son of X’ (P. Obermark, Adoption in the Old Babylonian Period (Ph.D. diss., Hebrew Union College–Jewish Institute of Religion, 1991), 68. 10.  The sign at the end of line 2 can also be read as UGX (BE). Oppenheim’s is not the only possible reading. Finkelstein reads this sign as NU. 11.  Oppenheim, Obermark, and Szlechter read DAM ‘wife’ for NIN ‘sister’ (Oppenheim, “Caesearian Section,” 293; Obermark, Adoption, 68; E. Szlechter, Tablettes juridiques et administratives de la IIIe dynastie d’Ur et de la Ire dynastie de Babylone (Paris: Sirey, 1963), 3. This makes more sense, for the text reads: “the child was adopted from his eldest brother and (his) wife.” 12.  A text from Emar (EMAR 6 no. 256) records a similar situation: some children have recently been orphaned and then adopted. However, there is no ban on reclaiming the children; they may be redeemed if the older brother comes to claim them. 13.  While the child is adopted ana mārūtu and could technically fit into the mārūtu category above, this text is included in the current section because of the curious way in which the child is described. 14.  It is unclear why Oppenheim believes that the mother died after the Cesarean section. Perhaps he is hypothesizing that the medical knowledge needed to save both the child and mother was not available at this time.

Orphans

95

child in MAH 15.951 is alive, šilip rēmim must mean the child was born through a cesarean section. 15 According to Oppenheim’s reasoning, the mother must then be dead. While Oppenheim’s reading hangs together nicely, it is dependent on reading the sign after Atkalšim’s name as UG7(BAD) ‘deceased’, a reading that J. J. Finkelstein called into question. Finkelstein suggests another reading based on two additional texts from the same time and region, BM 78811/12 (Text A) and CT 48 70 (Text B), in which the term šilip rēmim appears. 16 Both of these texts are midwifery contracts. Finkelstein hypothesizes that documents from the region of Sippar use the phrase šilip rēmim to mean ina mēšu. The term “indicates that child had only just been delivered, and that it was being given over to a wet-nurse for the standard period of suckling and rearing.” 17 He reaches this conclusion by identifying the parents in the two additional šilip rēmim texts and determining whether or not they are alive at the time of the birth. Text B plainly states that the parents are alive at the time of the transaction. They are both named as the legal guardians of the šilip rēmim, proving that the mother does not have to be dead for the child to be called a šilip rēmim. Text A, on the other hand, is a bit more ambiguous. It identifies the woman in legal possession of the child as Huššutum, a nadītu ‘priestess’ of Šamaš. Because nadītus take a vow of chastity, one may rightly wonder whether or not she is the real mother of the šilip rēmim. 18 For Finkelstein, it is significant that the adoptive parents in Text A hire Huššutum as a wet-nurse for a period of three years, a job suited for a woman who has just given birth. Based on this, Finkelstein states that one should not rule out the possibility that, while a priestess, she is the mother, for it is the simplest solution. 19 In support of this hypothesis, he points to another text in which a baby 15.  Oppenheim, “Cesarean Section,” 292–93. In this section, he also references Greek and Roman texts that record kings and deities born by Cesarean section. 16.  BM 78811/12 refers to the text (78811) and its case (78812). The case is of great importance because it supplements the information given in the text. The identifications of the cases as A/B follow Finkelstein’s A/B designations (J. J. Finkelstein, “šilip rēmim and Related Matters,” in Kramer Anniversary Volume: Cuneiform Studies in Honor of Samuel Noah Kramer [ed. B. L. Eichler, J. W. Heimerdinger, and Å. W. Sjöberg; Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker, 1997], 188, 190). 17.  Ibid., 194. 18. As Harris succinctly states: “Chastity was the basic characteristic of the nadītu class” (R. Harris, “Hierodulen,” RLA 4 [1972–75]: 392). Because the nadītu was not supposed to have any sexual relations or bear children, a special remembrance ceremony was held for the deceased nadītus during the annual festival to Šamaš (ibid., 391–93). 19.  Finkelstein hypothesizes that if Huššutum were not the mother, then the mother must have been a harimtu, qadištu, or kulmašitu, in other words, a sexually promiscuous woman. Furthermore, for Huššutum to have contact with this lady, she must have been associated with the same cloister as the nadītus of Šamaš. The scenario then becomes: a prostitute has a child, dies in child birth, and Huššutum, the nadītu, rescues it and takes legal possession of the child (Finkelstein, “šilip rēmim,” 191).

96

Chapter Three

girl is identified as the daughter of Huzalatum, the nadītu of Šamaš. 20 The text does not mention the father, and so Finkelstein concludes, “we must therefore assume that it (the paternity) is unknown.” 21 An examination of MAH 15.951 also reveals no reference to the father. Not only is the father unmentioned, but the fact that the brother and his wife are legally responsible for the child suggests that the father here is unknown. 22 Finkelstein suggests that the mother in MAH 15.951 is a nadītu and needed to give up the child. He further suggests that the sign UG7(BAD), written after her name could just as easily be read as NU(!) an abbreviation; making her title NU.BAR or NU.GIG, or kulmašītu and qadištu, respectively. 23 According to Finkelstein’s argument, both Text A and MAH 15.951 record the birth and adoption of a child born to a woman associated with the cult and identified as a šilip rēmim. With respect to the first point, if this woman survived childbirth, she had the ability to decide the child’s fate. She could nurse the child until weaned (Text A and CT 47 46) or give the child into the care of close family members (MAH 15.951). With respect to the second point, the term šilip rēmim was neither a legal nor a technical term, and does not mean ‘child born by cesarean section’ but rather ‘newborn babe’ or ‘newly delivered’. 24 Examining Finkelstein’s conclusions more closely we see that he states UG7(BAD) is not necessarily the correct reading of the sign after the mother’s name. However, Finkelstein’s suggestion NU need not be the correct reading either. Reading NU for UG7(BAD), solves one problem: the šilip rēmim has an older brother, meaning that this boy would not be the woman’s first child. This would eliminate a host of questions concerning the role of the nadītu as a chaste woman within the cult. Even better is P. Obermark’s reading of lines 2–3: 1 I- ṣika-al-ši-i[m-t]i ša dUTU-na- ṣir DUMU (?) XXX ‘(born to) Isikal-šimti (the slave woman) of Šamaš-nasir son of X’. 25 Obermark’s reading solves both of the quesThis argument is problematic because unless Huššutum was a promiscuous woman and had other children of her own, it would be difficult for her to be the wet nurse. Note that while harimtu means ‘prostitute,’ the other two terms do not necessarily imply a woman of loose conduct (CAD Ḥ 101). CAD K lists a kulmašitu as ‘a woman dedicated to a deity’ (CAD K 526), and CAD Q defines a qadištu as ‘a woman of special status’ (CAD Q 50–51). According to YOS 8 125 and VAS 8 92, respectively, the qadištu could marry and have children. CAD Q further states that there is no evidence of her as a prostitute. 20.  CT 47 46:1–4. 21.  Finkelstein, “šilip rēmim,” 191. 22.  In order for Finkelstein’s argument to work, we must assume that at some unknown point after the birth the young boy’s older brother and wife gain legal custody of the child. 23.  Both of these are titles for women connected with the cult. While CAD does not list them by default as connected to cultic prostitution, P. Bird does understand the terms with this meaning. See P. Bird, “The End of the Male Cult Prostitute: A Literary-Historical and Sociological Analysis of Hebrew QĀDĒŠ- QĀDĒŠIM,” in Congress Volume (ed. J. A. Emerton (VTSUP 66; Leiden: Brill, 1997), 37–80. 24.  Finkelstein, “šilip rēmim,” 193. 25.  Obermark follows Szlechter’s reading here (E. Szlechter, TJDB, 7–9).

Orphans

97

tions that Finkelstein’s reading raises, namely, the status of the mother and the relationship between the mother, Šamaš-nasir, and the young child. As for Finkelstein’s second point, that šilip rēmim does not necessarily refer to a child without parents, this also makes sense. Text B makes this clear. However, Finkelstein’s arguments need not imply the child in MAH 15.951 was a new born. Text A identifies the child as PN šilip rēmim. Text B calls the child PN šilip rēmim son of PN. Both of these šilip rēmim are babies for whom nursing contracts are being drawn up, so in these contexts translating šilip rēmim as “new born babe” makes some sense. MAH 15.951, on the other hand, identifies the child as ṣuhārum šilip rēmim. 26 Following Finkelstein the translation would read, “a young child, a new born babe.” This seems rather redundant. Instead, it may be best to read the text as suggesting that the term šilip rēmim points to the child’s status, and ṣuhārum denotes the child’s young age. 27 In reexamining Finkelstein’s texts, C. Wilcke concludes that šilip rēmim does not mean a newborn (ina mêšu) or an age but denotes more of a social status, a “post-adoptive” newborn. 28 For Wilcke, the fact that Finkelstein’s texts are nursing contracts makes it obvious that they refer to an older infant, not one come straight from the birthing waters. The infant in MAH 15.951 also falls into the same general age category—an older infant—because the brother and his wife have paid for two years of nursing. 29 Wilcke adds another text to the discussion, BE 6/1 58. In this text Bur-Adad adopts a child (šilip rēmim) from Ṣihatum, the child’s mother and the man Irbaja. After Ṣihatum’s death, Irbaja brings a lawsuit against Bur-Adad. The outcome of the case leads us to conclude that Ṣihatum was a slave, and therefore her son, the šilip rēmim, was also a slave. At Ṣihatum’s death Irbaja is out a slave and therefore demands that Bur-Adad, who adopted Ṣihatum’s son (his slave), now owes him a slave. The court decides that the adoption was legal, and Bur-Adad may keep the child; however, he must also pay Irbaja for a slave. In BE 6/1 58, there is no mention of a nursing fee, but it appears that the child is still an infant. After considering the different šilip rēmim texts, Wilcke suggests that, because the term šilip rēmim consistently appears with a complicated status, it should be understood as a euphemism for a child with some kind of an “unordentliche Geburt.” 30 The unusual birth could either be due to a social issue (the mother 26.  Note too that MAH 15.951 does not record the name of the child until the end of the document. This is contrary to many ANE adoption texts, which name the child at the beginning of the document. Of course, if Obermark is correct and the child is a slave, then the omission of his name is more understandable (see pp. 148–150). 27.  Note that MAH 15.951:7 states that a nursing fee had been paid for two years. 28. C. Wilcke, “Noch einmal: šilip rēmim und die Adoption ina mêšu: Neue und alte einschlägige Texte,” ZA 71 (1981): 87–94. 29.  Wilcke suggests that the child was breast fed for one year by its mother, and for the remaining two years the child’s uncle and aunt are responsible for feeding it (ibid., 92). 30.  Ibid., 92.

98

Chapter Three

was a priestess or dead) or a medical issue (there was some need to pull the child from the womb). A definition that understands šilip rēmim as a kind of status fits best with the context in MAH 15.951. Reviewing the facts one sees that the child had a mother, but his legal guardians were either his brother and aunt or the master, depending on the reading followed. Because nothing is known of the father, Finkelstein’s suggestion that the paternity was unknown and the mother unmarried seems plausible. On account of this, Finkelstein would have us understand that the child in MAH 15.951 has the same status as the child in Text A. But there is problem with this scenario: these two children do not have the same status. As Wilcke points out, in Text A, the mother of the šilip rēmim draws up the child’s contract, proving that she is in legal possession the child. 31 In MAH 15.951, the mother’s name is recorded, but she plays no active roll. 32 It is puzzling why the mother would be named but not be in possession of her child. If one follows Finkelstein’s suggestion that she is a NU.BAR or NU.GIG, she then needed to give up her child. But this would have to mean the master gave her child to other parties who then gave him in adoption. It may also be, as Obermark suggests, that the mother was Šamaš-nasir’s slave. This would mean that Šamaš-nasir had the right to adopt out the baby to whomever he pleased. A third possibility is that the mother is dead. Stating that the mother is dead does not automatically mean discounting Finkelstein’s or Obermark’s readings. The mother could have been related to the cult or could have been a slave, but this does not mean she was immune to death in childbirth. Whether the mother was living or not, it seems that some unusual social or medical circumstances surrounded this adopted infant’s birth. It is possible, therefore, that the double epithet (ṣuhārum and šilip rēmim) given to the child adopted ana mārštu is meant to reflect this reality. At the time of the adoption, he is a young child (ṣuhārum) who carries with him a status marking the unusual condition of his birth (šilip rēmim).

CH 170, 171 These laws were briefly mentioned above in the discussion of CH 190–91 with regard to what it means to count (manû) a child as part of the family. This section further explores why the “children of the amtum” needed to be recognized by their father and how that may relate to their status. Each of these laws include a phrase relevant to this investigation: “If a man’s wife bore him children and his amtum bore him children and the father during his life said ‘my children’ to the children of the amtum who bore to him, they shall be counted among the children of the wife” (CH 170). “If the father during his life did not say ‘my children’ to the children of the amtum who bore to him, after the father dies, the children 31.  Ibid., 91–92. Note too that in Text B, the parents of the šilip rēmim act as the child’s legal agents. 32.  Ibid., 91.

Orphans

99

of the amtum shall not share with the sons of the wife in the father’s estate, the release of the amtum and her children shall be granted” (CH 171). Both CH 170 and 171 are concerned with the legitimization of an amtum’s children, meaning that her children are considered illegitimate when they are born. According to these laws, they have no father until their father verbally claims them as his own. This indicates that the children born to an amtum have an in-between status: they are slaves born to a free man. However, the same free man’s children by the hīrtim ‘formally chosen wife’ are free. According to CH 170, the children of the hīrtim, automatically receive an inheritance from their father, while the children of the amtum do not. Without formally recognizing the children of the amtum by calling them “my children,” the father is stating that they are illegitimate and have no paternity. However, once he does formally recognize the children of the amtum as “my children,” they are legitimized and taken into his family, and they share in his estate. Without this recognition, CH 171 states that these children remain, legally speaking, fatherless. In this case, the amtum and her children shall be released from the father’s house, and the children of the hīrtim cannot raise claims of slavery against them. This suggests that the amtum’s children enter into society as orphans, with no attachment to a family and no means of future security. Their status as children without a lineage no doubt placed them lower on the social ladder than free children with familial links. 33

Foundling: Cast to the Dogs While today’s Western standards may find it disconcerting, the majority of orphans in the ANE were exposed children. 34 Parents who, for whatever reason did not want their children would “dispose” of them by exposing them. The term for exposure in Akkadian is ezbu, a derivative of the verb ezēbum ‘to cast out’. The Hebrew cognate of this is ‫‘ עזב‬to forsake’. 35 However, Hebrew also uses the verb ‫‘ שלך‬to cast out’ as the technical term for ‘exposed child’. 36 The legal principle behind exposure is that one renounces all rights and obligations to an object by casting it to the outside domain. This is often demonstrated symbolically by stating “I threw x to the dogs,” meaning the object or person “leaves the owner’s legal 33.  It is possible that children could be fatherless but still have family connections. Consider for example, the Levirate laws, in which the father’s brothers were charged to take care of the dead brother’s widow and provide him (posthumously) with an heir. 34.  According to Mesopotamian lore, the Akkadian king Sargon was exposed. Moses and Ishmael were subject to exposure as well. In a letter from Egypt sent by a man to his pregnant wife, he instructs her to keep the child if it is a boy and to “get rid” of it if it is a girl. (A. Deiss­ man, Light from the Ancient East, 1927, 168). Note too that in Greece exposure was also practiced (see p. 103 n. 50). 35.  Ps 27:10, Jer 14:5. 36. M. Coogan, “A Technical Term for Exposure,” JNES 27 (1968): 133–35. Ezek 16:5, Ps 22:11. In Isa 49:14–15, ‫ שלך‬functions as a parallel to ‫עזב‬.

100

Chapter Three

domain and moves to an outside, ownerless and lawless area where the dog roams, which is outside the legal borders of the community.” 37 Despite this, a number of texts refer to the rescue of exposed children. 38 These children are found in the street (ina sūqi), rescued from a well (ina būrti), let go from a raven’s mouth (ina pī ārbi), or cast in a puddle (mâra ušēzibma ina laʾirā[n]īma). 39 The most common phrase to describe a foundling is “the one who was snatched from the dog’s mouth” (ina pī kalbi ekimšu). Children rescued from this fate often have names reflecting their status: Ša-pī-kalbi ‘the one of the dog’s mouth’, ina pī kalbi irîh ‘the one who has been left over from the dog’s mouth’, Sūqā a/Šulâ’a/ Sūqā’ītum ‘he/she of the street’, and Nāru-erība ‘the river has compensated me’. 40 The following survey examines the status of children who were exposed and subsequently adopted.

CH 185 While it was asserted in chapter 2 that CH 185 concerns a child adopted from its parents at birth, other scholarship calls this into question and suggests that, in fact, the child adopted ina mēšû actually refers to an exposed child. In light of this, CH 185 merits revisiting. Based on the assumption that ANE legal documents only mention things pertaining to the legal issue at hand, Malul states: “any ostensible narrative detail in a given document should, after close scrutiny, prove to be technical in nature and to convey a specific legal message in the context.” The phrase ina mēšû can be considered one of these “ostensible narrative details.” Malul argues that the actions preformed after a child’s birth are symbolic of the legal responsibility claimed by the parents. 41 For example, washing and clothing a child symbolizes an intention to keep the child and bear legal responsibility for it. On the other hand, neglecting these actions is akin to relinquishing all parental rights. “Anyone adopting it [the newborn] in this state [ina mēšû] was considered to be adopting an ownerless child, thus acquiring full rights to it. Neither the infant’s natural parents nor any third party were allowed to reclaim the foundling from its adopter.” 42 This idea is based on the sociological theory of core-periphery, which posits that the things in the core (city) are 37.  Malul, “Foundlings,” 104. 38.  In addition to the texts treated here, see Cornelia Wunsch’s treatment of BM 94589 (young boy, ša pī-kalbi, rescued by a couple), BM 65950 (a baby boy, ša pī-kalbi, rescued), and BM 114752 (5-year-old, a former ša pī-kalbi, taken in by the temple and then adopted out to a couple) (C. Wunsch, “Findelkinder und Adoption nach neubabylonischen Quellen,” AfO 50 [2003–4]: 215–19). See p. 103 n. 50 for instances of rescued foundlings in other cultures. 39.  CAD N/1 70b. 40.  M. Malul, “Foundlings,” 105; J. J. Stamm, Die Akkadische namengebung (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1939), 251, 320ff. Some texts, such as BM 94589, describe the child named Ša-pī-kalbi as a slave child. However, in this text it is clear that the child was placed into slave status after it was rescued (Wunsch, “Findelkinder,” 174ff., 215–17). 41.  Malul relies on C. Wilcke, “Noch einmal,” 87–94; and Yaron, “Varia,” 171–73. 42. M. Malul, “Foundlings,” 109.

Orphans

101

things that are within society and possessed by people, while things that exist on the periphery (ownerless areas such as fields and country) are seen as foreign, not belonging to any one or any group of people. Malul argues that this is the hypothetical case that CH 185 addresses. This hypothesis concerning the legal import of ina mēšû is worth exploring. Three texts concerning the hiring of a wet-nurse are instructive in determining the legal meaning of ina mēšû and evaluating whether or not it refers to an abandoned child. In YOS 331, a man adopts a newborn ina mēšû and hires the child’s mother as a wet-nurse. It is unclear whether or not the child was abandoned. The second text, CT 52 103, is a letter in which a man adopts his nephew ina mēšû. The child’s natal family subsequently tries to reclaim the child on the basis that the wet-nursing fee has not been paid. The last text, MDP no. 288, is a statement of a midwife and a priestess concerning the care they provided a child they found abandoned while yet in its amniotic fluid. Based on these three texts and the idea that no narrative detail is included superfluously, it appears that ina mēšû and its fuller phrase ina mēšû u dāmēšu ‘in its water and blood’ can carry a technical legal meaning in the legal literature; it could refer specifically to the adoption of an abandoned baby. While it is possible that in some cases ina mēšû and ina mēšû u dāmēšu could mean that a parent chose to abandon the child, it is just as likely that in other cases the parents had already decided to give the child up for adoption before it was born. In light of CT 52 103, which states that other members of the child’s family adopted it ina mēšû, we should not discount the possibility that the adoptive parents were chosen before or soon after the birth. Therefore, we can suggest that the phrase ina mēšû does not a priori mean an abandoned child in every legal document. It could just as easily mean an adopted newborn child. For example, in CH 185 the phrase ina mēšû need not be understood as legalese for ownerless child (that is, upon adoption you obtain full rights to the child and it cannot be reclaimed), because we know that the ban on reclaiming a child appears to be in force in almost all adoptions. As stated previously, the basic principle behind adoptions was that the child’s parents or guardian gave up legal rights to the child and severed all connections with it. 43 If this is the case, adding the phrase ina mēšû in CH 185 does not change the terms of the adoption. Both those who choose to understand ina mēšû solely as a legal term and those who accept a definition that includes both abandoned child and newborn child, must at least agree that the parents have given up their legal rights and the responsibility for the child.

Nbk. 439 In Nbk. 439, 44 we are told that a mother casts her son ‘to the dog’s mouth’, a-na [pí-i] kal-bí ta-as-su-ku, and that a man subsequently picks up the boy ‘from 43.  See the discussion on CH 185–91, pp. 51–54 and 58–68. 44.  This text dates to the time of Nebuchadnezzar II of Babylon (605/4–562/1 b.c.e.).

102

Chapter Three

the dog’s mouth’, pi-i kal-bi iš-šu-ú-ʾ-ma[. . .]. Unlike the child in CH 185, who is designated a ṣehram ina mēšû, we are not told the age/status of the boy in Nbk. 439. We only know that the child cast to the dog’s mouth is called māra-šu ‘her son’. 45 What does it mean that the mother cast her son to the dogs and that the son is subsequently picked up by a man? One option is that the mother literally threw her son to the dogs. A second option is that this text describes a symbolic ceremony in which the mother puts the child down on the ground and another person picks the child up, thus signifying a legal transfer of the child from one person to the next. In this case, the phrase “thrown to the dogs” functions as a metaphor for the legal transfer. By setting the child down, the mother puts the child into the ownerless realm, the one belonging to the dogs. When the man picks the child up, he claims ownership of the child, thereby removing him from the realm of the dogs. A third option is that no action actually took place. The mother did not throw her child to a dog’s mouth and a man did not then rescue the child from the dog. Instead, the mother gave up her legal rights to the child and gave the child to the man. In this situation, the text would be using the phrase ana [pí-i] kal-bí ta-as-su-ku as a figure of speech, which then functions as a legal formula meaning “I relinquished all rights to this child.” The phrase pi-i kal-bi iš-šu-ú-ʾ-ma[. . .], in turn, would be the legal formula meaning ‘I take responsibility for the child’. Because this is a legal document and there are witnesses present, the phrase ana [pí-i] kal-bí ta-as-su-ku should be understood as either option two or three: as a ceremonial action or a frozen legal formula, not an actual event in which the mother throws the child into the hungry mouths of a pack of dogs. 46 Accepting that the mother has given up her rights to the child, we must ask what legal repercussions this has for the child. Does the child simply enter a new family? Is he adopted with inheritance rights? Does the child remain a free person or become a slave? L. Oppenheim suggests that this text represents a ritual abandonment resulting in adoption. 47 M. Malul advances this argument by explicating how the words “thrown to/picked up from the dogs” act as legal phrases denoting possession. 48 M. Dandamaev disagrees, stating that the text mentions nothing about an adoption, nor does it follow any of the well attested adoption formulas known from the ANE. Instead, he suggests that the man picked up the 45.  Note that in the later periods scribes tended to use the 3ms suffix for both males and females. 46.  This could be an example of what Malul in his 2001 article identifies as “the heavy use of various types of symbolic acts and other ritual processes that actually embody, in clear and concrete ways, various legal and other relationships in the social world . . . the interaction between the “body-physical” and the “body-social” (M. Malul, “Foot Symbolism: Imprinting Foundlings Feet in Clay in Ancient Mesopotamia.” Zeitschrift für Altorientalische und Biblische Rechtsgeschichte 7 [2001]: 353). 47. L. Oppenheim, “Assyriological Gleanings I,” BASOR 91 (1943): 36–39. 48.  Malul, “Foundlings,” 104–5.

Orphans

103

child and made him a slave. 49 This is an interesting suggestion in light of the later Greco-Roman practice where exposed children became a source of inexpensive slaves. 50 However, the lack of an adoption formula does not necessitate that the child became a slave. 51 In fact a lack of an adoption formula in Nbk. 439 should not be surprising, for the man “picking up” and the woman “throwing” do not interact in any way. Literally or figuratively, the woman sets the child down into a neutral space and the man picks the child up. There would be no need to use an adoption formula because there is no direct transfer of the child from one party to the next. One clue as to whether or not an actual ceremony takes place appears in the first line. Here one learns that the text records a list of witnesses to the events. The fact that they are mentioned in the opening lines suggests that they are witnessing a legally binding ceremony in which the rights and responsibilities for the child pass indirectly from the mother to the man. Therefore, the second option, that the text describes a symbolic ceremony and uses the phrase “thrown to the dogs” as a metaphor for legal transfer of the child, seems the best way to understand what is happening in this text. The fact that the child’s mother is called a slave woman could indicate that the mother, and not her master, had control over her child’s future. This could signify that the child had a mixed status, similar to the children in CH 170 and 171. It is therefore possible that the slave woman bore a child to her master and he did not officially claim him as his own. In this case, the child was not recognized and thus remained under the mother’s legal jurisdiction. The existence of a written text and the presence of multiple witnesses may therefore be indicative of a change in the child’s status—he was moving up on the social ladder. Logic dictates that if the boy were simply taken as a slave, there would be no reason to document the event so carefully.

BM 94589 There are many other texts that mention children that have been exposed. While it does not explicitly mention an adoption, the unique circumstances 49. M. Dandamaev, Slavery in Babylonia: From Nabopolassar to Alexander the Great (636– 331 bce) (ed. M. A. Powell and D. B. Weisberg; trans. V. A. Powell; DeKalb: Northern Illinois University Press, 1984), 104. 50. J. Glancy, Slavery in Early Christianity (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002), 8; J. Boswell, The Kindness of Strangers: The Abandonment of Children in Western Europe from Late Antiquity to the Renaissance (New York: Pantheon, 1988), 53–179; W. Harris, “Child-Exposure in the Roman Empire,” Journal of Roman Studies 84 (1994): 1–22; S. Pomeroy, “Infanticide in Hellenistic Greece,” in Images of Women in Antiquity (ed. A. Cameron and A. Kuhrt; Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1985), 207–22; Clement, Paedogogus 3.3:12; Justin Martyr, Apology 27. 51.  It could be that in some cases the child became a slave. For example, Nbn. 990 states that the girl picked up from the street was later included in a dowry. This suggests that the girl became a slave to the one picking her up (Dandamaev, Slavery, 103–4). However, in Nbk. 439 there is nothing to suggest that the child became a slave.

104

Chapter Three

surrounding­BM 94589 make it worth mentioning here as it appears to be an implicit adoption. In this Neo-Bablyonian text, a free woman and a slave marry. After­their marriage, they rescue a child (Nabû-bullissu) from the mouth of a dog in order to raise him. It is noteworthy that every time the child’s name is mentioned it is followed by the phrase “a foundling”: ‘one rescued from the mouth of the dog’ (Nabû-bullissu, tar-bu-ú ul-tu pi-i kal-bi). The text goes on to relate the reason the couple rescued the child. According to the text, if the couple has a biological child, that child will belong to the owner of the husband. To counteract this, they offer Nabû-bullissu to take the place of their child in the owner’s house. In this way, they ransom their biological child by giving Nabû-bullissu to the husband’s owner. This text highlights a few issues. First, a child born to a slave and free woman in the Neo-Bablyonian period was not necessarily “free.” Whether there are additional complicating circumstances surrounding this text and the status of the husband is unknown. As pointed out in the discussion on children in a mixed marriage, a child’s status may be decided on a case by case basis. Second, the child rescued ša pī-kalbi does not automatically have slave status until he is given to the husband’s owner. The couple rescued him and raised him as their own. The fact that they did not have to give the child to the rescuing husband’s owner, but chose to, shows that the child did not have the same status as a biological child; the husband’s owner had no claim to this child. C. Wunsch states that “the foundling’s fate is in [the woman’s] hands. She can decide to make him her free son or a slave.” Through her barter, she officially makes the ša pī-kalbi a slave and her own son free. Wunsch goes on to say that it is possible that the woman rescued the child to make this barter possible. Furthermore, if the couple had a biological son and it died as a young child, before the age it could be given to the husband’s owner, then “at least the foundling would be left.” 52

Foundlings and Footprints In Wunsch’s analysis of Nbk. 439, she comments, “Auf der Rückseite befindet sich der Fußabdruck eines kleinen Kindes, mithin jenes Jungen, der von seiner Mutter ‘vor den Hund geworfen’ worden ist.” 53 Her observation brings to light a curious practice associated with the adoption of a foundling, namely, images of a foot either by itself or with an inscription. These images range from actual footprints to clay models of a leg. Wunsch states that it was common practice to footprint children “thrown to the dogs,” but she does not theorize why this was done. In addition to Nbk. 439, five other examples of foot-printing can be added. The first text, a sale document from Emar (R. 139), states that the parents have come on hard times and decide to sell their children into servitude. 54 Lines 9–10

VI.3.

52.  Wunsch, “Findelkinder,” 175. See also pp. 150–155 53.  Ibid., 220. 54.  Sale document: R. 139. Footprints: Msk. 74.340, R. 78, and O.6766 in Emar VI.2 and

Orphans

105

of the contract say: “And here are their feet: Zadamma, their father, and Kuʾe, their mother, have impressed [their feet] in clay.” The document includes the names of witnesses. Found in conjunction with this tablet are three separate tablets, each imprinted with a footprint. Surrounding each footprint is the statement “this is the footprint of PN,” along with the seals of the same witnesses who witnessed the document. 55 A second example of foot-printing comes from an MA document recording the adoption of a foundling child rescued from the river. 56 This document is unique because it is shaped like a leg. While this is a fictive text and not technically a footprint, it does seem to link the rescue of the child to a specific body part, the foot. Another example comes from ana ittišu 3/III 38–44. This text says, “in the presence of witnesses, he took (or impressed) his foot (in clay), and they sealed the size of his foot with the seals of the witnesses.” 57 This statement follows the section in ana ittišu dealing with foundlings who were adopted. If one follows Malul’s reconstruction, LI 20 offers a fourth example: “If a man rescues a child from a well, he shall [take his feet] and [impress them in clay].” 58 M. Roth’s restoration and translation of LI 20 is slightly different. It reads: “If a man rescues a child from a well, he shall [take his] feet [and seal a tablet with the size of his feet (for identification)].” 59 The final example comes from VAS 6 116, a marriage contract concerning the girl Šēpītāia, whom a woman picked up from the street and raised, and whose feet the woman impressed in clay: PN ul-tu su-ú-qu ta-áš-am-ma tu-ra-bu-ú u še-pe-šú ina ṭi-id-da ta- áš-kun. 60 As these five texts demonstrate, there is some kind of relationship between rescuing a foundling and taking an imprint of its footprints. In addition to these texts, E. Leichty published a footprint without an inscription. He comments that it belonged to a child from Nippur and “may have been made for the purpose of identification [of the child].” 61 This seems to be the common view; foot-printing was equivalent to our modern practice of fingerprinting. Based on this idea, scholars have tried to use the impression of the feet in order to learn more about the children at the time of the transaction. The 55. C. Zaccagnini, “Feet of Clay at Emar and Elsewhere,” Orientalia 63 (1994): 3. Note too that each tablet has a different child’s name on it. 56. S. Franke und G. Wilhelm, “Eine mittelassyrische fictive Urkunde zur Wahrung des Anspruchs auf ein Findelkind,” in Jahrbuch des Museums für Kunst und Gewerbe (Hamburg: Das Museum, 4, 1985), 19–26; Malul, “Foot,” 356. 57. Ibid. 58.  Ibid., 358. 59.  Roth, Laws, 29, 35 n. 5; and CAD Š/2 298b. 60.  Malul argues that tu-ra-bu-d, in this context, means ‘to adopt’ (M. Malul, “Adoption Foundlings in the Bible and Mesopotamian Document: A Study of Some Legal Metaphors in Exod 16, 1–7,” JSOT 46 [1990]: 107). The text is VAS 6 116:6–10 (idem, “Foot,” 357). See also CAD Ṭ 110a. 61. E. Leichty, “Feet of Clay,” in DUMU-E2-DUB-BA-A (ed. H. Behrens et al.; Occasional Publication of the Samuel Noah Kramer Fund 11; Philadelphia: University Museum Press, 1989), 349–56.

106

Chapter Three

easiest piece of information to glean is age. For example, the Emar footprints of the two boys measured 10 cm, and the print of the girl’s foot measured 12.5 cm. Taking these measurements and comparing them to measurements from children living today, scholars have suggested that the girl was 2 years old and that the boys were 1-year-old twins. 62 The footprint on Nbk. 439 has also been examined. Because the footprint is broken above the heel, assigning an age based on the length of the foot became difficult. However, evidence of a bunion on the ball of the foot led may indicate that the child could walk. Based on the bunion and the text of the contract, one can hypothesize that the child was around 2 years old. 63 The interest these footprints have garnered has led to the standard view that the foundling’s footprint is taken not only as a means of identification, but as a sort of title of ownership. 64 However, one can also view the footprints as a symbolic means of transferring status, representing the incorporation of a disenfranchised person into the adoptive parent’s legal sphere. 65 As stated above, when a person decides to abandon a baby, s/he is giving up all legal rights and responsibilities to that child. That child is said to be thrown to the dogs, placed in an ownerless realm. When a second person picks the child up, be it “from the dog’s mouth, a well, a raven, the river, and so on” the rejected child stops being its parents’ child and becomes its adopter’s legal child. Between these two acts, the child is in a liminal state, he is statusless and “up for grabs,” as it were. 66 The possession of the footprint by the adopter “signifies his full right to the adopted foundling and . . . it [the footprint] curbed any claim from any side in the future against the adopter with regard to the adopted foundling.” 67 The footprints of a foundling are thus meant to represent the child’s transition out of a statusless, outcast state. M. Malul was the first to put for this idea, which he based on ANE legal practices and symbolism. In the Nuzi texts, šēpa šūlû (u) šēpa šakānu ‘the act of lifting and planting the foot’ describes the act of taking over a person’s property. 68 Mesopotamian legal symbolism uses phrases such as kī ma šēpišu/qātišu ‘according to his foot/hand’, to represent a person receiving his/her portion of the family estate. 69 According to Malul’s theory, the act of lifting or planting the foot into 62.  Zaccagnini, “Emar,” 2–3. Zaccagnini’s measurements disprove Leichty’s original idea that the children were triplets (Leichty, “Feet,” 356). 63.  Wunsch, “Findelkinder,” 220. 64.  Leichty, “Feet,” 356; M. Sigrist, “Gestes symboliques et rituals à Emar,” in Ritual and Sacrifice in the Ancient Near East (ed. J. Quaegebeur; Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 55; Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters en Departement Oriëntalistiek, 1993), 391. 65.  Malul, “Foot,” 355. 66.  Ibid., 363. 67.  Ibid., 365. 68.  See for example JEN 1:59. See also Paradise, Inheritance, 243ff.; E. Cassin, “Symboles de cession immobilière,” L’Année Sociologique 3 (1952): 107–61, especially p. 120. 69.  Both of these practices are fully discussed in M. Malul, Studies in Mesopotamian Legal Symbolism (AOAT 221; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1988).

Orphans

107

something shows control over that piece of property. When the person lifts his foot, a footprint is left behind. When someone new comes to take control of that property, he plants his own foot in the footprint and takes over or “supplants” his predecessor’s right to that property. Malul states, “What we have here, in fact, is not the foot and its symbolism, but rather the footprint left once the foot is lifted.” 70 In this way then, when an adoptive parent takes the clay footprint he is appropriating the child that was left statusless in the public sphere. While the motivations are similar, the Emar texts and the texts concerning foundlings cannot be grouped together because two different practices are taking place. 71 The foundling texts all clearly state that the child was thrown into and picked up from an ownerless realm. In addition, these texts also specifically mention that the child is adopted by the one picking the child up. R. 139 from Emar has none of these elements. It is a sale document and not an adoption contract. The parents do not throw the children out into nature to fend on their own, but set up a contract with a specific person. Therefore, one must ask why this sale document includes footprints. It is possible that the Emar text represents an atypical sale, one in which the children are being sold because of a famine or other community-wide crisis. 72 Because both parents are listed on the sale document, it appears as if they have legal custody of their children, i.e., they are free children. The sale of free children was only undertaken in times of distress. Thus, it may be that the Emar footprints are taken as a means of solidifying the children’s status. Yes, they were born into the free class, but like the foundlings, they were given up by their parents. Since selling free children into slavery is not a common practice, the clay footprints then represent the owner’s rights to the children, which “supplant” the parents’ rights. In this case, imprinting the children’s feet may represent a relinquishing of the children’s free status so that when the owner takes charge of the children by picking up their footprints, he is in essence picking up statusless children. It is therefore not as though free children are becoming slaves but statusless children are being given the status “slave child.” In this way, the footprints of the Emar children may function similarly to a foundling’s footprints; they are more than a 70.  Malul, “Foot,” 364. 71.  Malul’s conclusions seem plausible; however, one set of footprints, those from Emar, do not immediately fit into his model. The Emar footprints record the sale of children, not the adoption of foundlings. One can argue that even though the Emar footprints are technically associated with a sale document, the impoverished parents were selling their children because they could not support them. Inability to care for the children is the same motivation that led many parents to abandon their children. According to Malul, while the method may be different, the motive in the Emar case is the same and thus the footprints can all be grouped together (Malul, “Foot,” 361). 72.  The Emar texts may be categorized like the Nippur Siege Documents, as documents representing unusual circumstances. See 2 NT 293, 295, 296; L. Oppenheim, “Siege Documents from Nippur,” Iraq 17 (1955): 69–85. See also Emar 83, which records the sale of an unweaned daughter during a famine for nine shekels.

108

Chapter Three

physical receipt of ownership; they represent the transfer of the children out of a statusless position into the legal care of another.

Biblical Texts: The ‫יתום‬ The term ‫ יתום‬is the only word for ‘orphan’ in the Hebrew Bible and is translated as ‘fatherless’. 73 In the biblical law codes, the term ‫ יתום‬never stands alone; it is always coupled with ‫‘ גר‬stranger/alien’ and/or ‫‘ אלמנה‬widow’. Allowing that this grouping represents the poor par excellence, why did the writers choose these three classes of people and, specifically, why include the ‫ ?יתום‬It is understandable that both the stranger sojourning in the land (‫ )גר‬and the widow (‫ )אלמנה‬would be selected to represent the poor. These people do not have any familial or social connections to give them economic backing. However, if ‫ יתום‬strictly means ‘fatherless’, this implies that the child has a mother. It is conceivable that a widow could have dependent children, who would need her support in the absence of a father. If this is the case, why do the legal texts not read “the widow and her orphan children? ” Why do they instead separate the widow (‫ )אלמנה‬and the orphan (‫ )יתום‬into distinct categories? It seems plausible that ‫ יתום‬need not be read solely as ‘one who is fatherless’ but can also be understood as ‘a child who has neither father nor mother’. 74 A child in these circumstances would truly be one of the most wretched members of society, for, having no familial links, this child would be subject to the mercies of the world. 75 Within the legal materials, however, a definition of “fatherless” suffices, for in a patriarchal system the father was the legal representative of the child. Without a father, the child was considered a “legal” orphan, even if his or her mother was still alive and caring for the child.

Synthesis: Status and Social Mobility Children were an important part of ANE society and people would go through various channels to procure a child. As mentioned in chapter 2, inheritance and help in old age feature prominently among the reason to make sure one 73. J. Renkema states that the common definition “fatherless” is based on H. Ringgren’s reading of Lam 5:3, which is a metaphor like Lam 1:1. Therefore, we should allow for a broader understanding of ‫יתום‬, which may mean one who is both fatherless and motherless (J. Renkema, “Does Hebrew ytwm Really Mean: ‘Fatherless?’” VT 45 [1995]: 119–22). Lamentations is not a legal text and is written in poetic form, both which one must take into account when applying definitions based on parallel grammatical structures to legal materials. 74.  There are, of course, some texts where it is clear that ‫ יתום‬means ‘fatherless’. See, for example, Exod 22:24 and Ps 109:9. According to the definition in BDB, there is no clear case where ‫ יתום‬is employed in the context of being parentless (BDB s.v. ‫)יתום‬. 75.  It is plausible that a widow could remarry, in which case the fatherless child would have a stepfather. However, there are no texts that state that the stepfather had to pass his wealth down to a stepchild or even treat the stepchild well. Therefore, the fatherless child was truly in a wretched situation.

Orphans

109

has a child. When adults were not able to have a child, or lost a child, they could easily fill the gap by adopting a child. However, when a child lost a parent, the child, due to the restraints of their age, could not simply replace their parents. As an orphan, a child’s fate remained in the hands of an adult. By modern sensibilities, an orphan is a child who has lost both parents. While this is true in the ANE, a child was also legally considered an orphan if she had lost her father, but not her mother. Without a male guardian, a child was without legal representation.

Status of the sīlip rēmim Orphan The term sīlip rēmim has garnered much interest. The first published appearance of the term, found in MAH 15.951, suggested that it refers to a newborn baby pulled out of the mother, either with the use of forceps or through a cesarean section. Subsequent appearances of the term found in wet-nurse contracts hinted that this term may be a dialectical variant of ina mēšu and used when the mother is linked to the cult as a nadītu. However, upon review of the mother’s status in a fourth text, a different picture emerges. Here, the mother is clearly identified as a slave woman. Logically, the children in each of the five texts must share something in common in order for them to be called a sīlip rēmim. The most likely explanation is that they had something unorthodox connected to their birth that gave them the status of sīlip rēmim. In some cases, it appears that children were called this because they were born to a nadītu, a cloistered woman. In other cases, it may be due to birth through a cesarean section. It may even be that his mother was a slave and his father a free person who did not recognize/count him among his children (CH 171). It is important to note that the texts using the term sīlip rēmim, apply the term to infants, toddlers and young children, thus making it a status-related and not an age-related term. It is also notable that the term sīlip rēmim is applied mainly to orphans—children without a father, and in some cases, children whose mothers are no longer in the picture. Thus, not only are the children stigmatized as orphans, but they seem to carry an additional stigma, one attached to the circumstances surround their birth. This stigma is carried with them as they move through various social circles.

Status of the Abandoned and Adopted Orphan Childless couples had several options when it came to procuring progeny. Chapters 2 and 3 explore one of those avenues, adoption. As previously demonstrated, the status “adopted” is not a singular institution, but varies according to different social and legal situations with respect to how the child is treated. In each society, an adopted child, such as the sīlip rēmim, has the status “adopted” attached to him or her for life. While this does not necessarily impede the child’s forward social movement, it did require that measures be set up to protect the child, such as how and when the child come into inheritance and the circumstances under which he can be reclaimed.

110

Chapter Three

Throughout the ANE the most common method of adoption is the direct transfer of the child from the parent to the adopter. However, this is not always the case. The present chapter addresses cases where the adopted child is an orphan. If the child has a father but no mother, he or she is not considered an orphan because the child has a family from which to inherit as well as a legal guardian. 76 Without such protections, a child’s survival rests upon luck and possibly the moral conscience of its society. When children were intentionally orphaned, that is abandoned, they often acquired sobriquets such as ina pī kalbi irîh ‘The one who has been left over from the dog’s mouth.’ These names are included in the legal texts to emphasize the child’s status (foundling) before the adoption.  77 One could argue that if there were no adoption, there would be no need to give the child’s status. I would expand this to say that even adoption documents that do not include such sobriquets are concerned with the child’s status. For example, with respect to the CH, the terms ṣehrum and tarbītum convey the status of free child and adopted child. One can even say that an adoption document itself attests to the adopted status of the child. Based on the materials at hand, it appears that “adopted” is a base status that could be modified by adding things such as the name, an additional social status, and age of the child involved. This additional information helps to determine the course of the child’s future, for it dictates what legal action might still be taken after the adoption is complete. 78 In the case of the child who was intentionally orphaned, the use of foot-printing and the identification of the child as a foundling help to solidify the child’s status. By virtue of abandonment, all ties to the natal family have been severed and thus the natal family has no recourse for reclaiming the child after the adoption has taken place.

Orphan Children and Membership in the Household When it comes to adoption and incorporation into a new household, orphaned children are in a slightly different position from free-born adopted children. When free-born adopted children enter a household, their rights and responsibilities to their new family are most often clearly delineated at the time of adoption. 79 Free-born children retain their legal rights as free citizens; free-born children are not adopted as slaves. Orphaned children, on the other hand, can be subjected to a much different adoption process. As the texts above demonstrate, orphans can be adopted from their mother, sibling, or legal guardian. In such cases, the adoption is similar to that of the 76.  See CH 170–71. 77.  Malul, “Foundlings,” 109. 78.  Such actions could include: rights to reclaiming, terms of adoption, inheritance, and so on. 79. As mentioned on pp. 77–85 and 91, in some cases (particularly that of the young girl adopted as a ṭuppi marūtu u kallūtu) negotiations concerning the adoptee’s status in the household can continue after the adoption has taken place.

Orphans

111

genuine adoption experienced by a free-born child. The orphan leaves the care of one person/family and is transferred into the care of another. Unlike the child cast to the dogs, in these cases, entrance into the new household occurs in a more or less smooth transition and clarification of the child’s place in the family occurs. If an infant was adopted, the adoptive father would have to hire a wet-nurse for the baby, hence delaying the adoption process. After a period of two to three years, after which the baby was weaned, the adoption could be completed. 80 Delaying the adoption served a practical purpose, as hinted at by CH 194 wherein a child given to a wet-nurse dies. With a high rate of infant mortality, it made sense to wait for a period of time before incorporating the child into the family. A large number of wet-nursing contracts from the Old Babylonian period attest to the fact that mothers were not always deceased when a child was given to a wet-nurse. 81 It appears that Old Babylonian upper and middle class women often gave their children to wet-nurses, thus allowing for the birth of more children in a shorter period of time. 82 While contracts such as CT CT 43 no. 6, CT 48 no. 70, UAZP 243 and VAS 7 no. 37 suggest that both parents are alive, other wet-nurse contracts deal specifically with children who were orphans. Because many orphan adoptions were of babies, it is plausible that there was no room (or desire) for the orphans to “fit” into the existing family structure (MAH 15.951). It seems possible that adoption was an easy and socially acceptable way for family members to relieve themselves of a baby they found themselves unexpectedly burdened with. MAH 15.951 raised the question of the relationship between the mother’s status and that of the child. It was suggested that the mother could be a cloistered woman, in which case she would have to give the child up for adoption. CT 47 no. 46 is a wet-nurse contract drawn up by a nadītu who gives her children to two women to nurse for three years. Taken in conjunction with what is known about cloistered woman, adoption may also have been a way for women, such as the nadītu, to provide for her child and maybe even keep her child in her life (BM 78811 and 78812). In Mesopotamia, the child entered the home of the wet-nurse, not viseversa. However, during the wet-nursing period, the child was still under the legal jurisdiction of the person who gave the child to the wet-nurse. Penalties, such as that found in LE 32, make it clear that the payment given to the wet-nurse is meant to cover her expenses while she raises the child. The wet-nurse thus had a responsibility to the contractor to care for the child’s well-being. CH 194 further clarifies the contractual relationship between the child’s guardian and wet-nurse. 32.

80. N. Sarna, Exploring Exodus: The Origins of Biblical Israel (New York: Shocken, 1988),

81.  See, for example, SCT 42; UAZP 242; VAS 16 no. 80; TCL 1 no. 146; MDP 23 no. 288; CT 43 no. 6, 43 no. 13; ana ittišu 3.3; LE 32; CH 194; CAD M/2 266. 82.  M. I. Gruber, “Breastfeeding Practices in Biblical Israel and Old Babylonian Mesopotamia,” JANES 19 (1988): 79. The population boom experienced during this period in Babylonian history supports this theory (Gruber, “Breastfeeding,” 79 n. 119).

112

Chapter Three

Here, it states that if the child dies, the wet-nurse cannot take in another child without ending the first contract. Note that CH 194 is not as concerned with the child as it is with the breach of contract. It was expected that at the end of the contract the child would be returned to the person(s) that had hired the wet-nurse. 83 These examples show that a baby—orphaned or not—could be part of one household while simultaneously retaining a place (legally speaking) in another household. This dual incorporation lasted for two to three years, until the child was weaned. At this point, the child may have been perceived as viable and reentered the initial household with a different status. 84 For the orphaned child, this could mean the completion of the adoption and entrance into the house as an adopted child. Adoptions also took place wherein a free born child was intentionally orphaned (that is, thrown to the dogs) by the parent(s). In these cases, orphans entered a new household under radically different circumstances. Abandonment, for whatever reason, meant the relinquishment of legal responsibilities for a child before new legal guardianship was established. This meant that the child existed in limbo for a period of time; the child was neither free nor slave nor something in between, s/he was a blank slate. When an abandoned child was adopted or “picked up from the dogs” by another person, that person could choose how to incorporate the orphan into the household. Often, the orphans were “rescued” into a life of slavery. For the abandoned child, no provisions were made for dowries, inheritance, or marriage by their natal family. Their fate, along with their membership in any household, was left to chance. 83.  There was always the threat that an unscrupulous wet nurse would try to abscond with the child and readopt it. For such a case, see G. Boyer, Contribution à l’histoire juridique de la 1re dynastie babylonienne (Paris: Geuthner, 1928), 70–71, lines 1–29. For a brief discussion of this case, see Gruber, “Breastfeeding,” 77–78. 84.  For more on the relationship between ages 2–4 and membership in the household, see pp. 245–246.

C

h a p t e r

F

o u r

Children as Debt-Slaves The preceding chapters examined children who had a particular status because something happened to them that made them different from their peers; they were either adopted, orphaned, or both. The next two chapters continue to examine children who are set apart in the laws and legal texts; they are children who are either temporarily or permanently beholden to ones not their biological parents. Children in this category include debt-slaves, chattel slaves, and day laborers. The latter two categories address children at two ends of the legal spectrum, children who are clearly slaves and children who, while workers, are clearly understood as members of the free class. Debt-slaves, on the other hand, represent a category somewhere in the middle. They are free children who are temporarily beholden to another person; they work in the house of another and may even live there and be subject to the creditor’s own house rules. Socially, they are free in potentia, so that while they may be working to pay off a debt and thus beholden to another family, it is recognized that they are not slaves. Because they are free in potentia, their legal status is not clear cut. Many texts parse out various issues, for example, who can marry off a debt-slave, her father or the debtor. The written documents addressing debt-slaves highlight the fact that the place of these children within the household was often decided on a case-by-case basis. As will be seen in the following texts, debt-slavery could be described in a few different ways: a child was taken as a pledge, distrained, or served as a debt-slave.

The Debt-Slave Child: Mesopotamian Texts CH 117 CH 117 provides for the release of a wife, son, or daughter who is given into temporary slavery on account of the father’s debt. Only immediate family members are mentioned, presumably because family members were the only ones remaining to fulfill the work obligation needed to erase the debt. Also it is noteworthy that the children are listed separately as “son” and “daughter.” While the children are listed by their gender, the text gives no reference to their age; the logograms DUMU and DUMU.MÍ are used, which, like the Hebrew terms 113

114

Chapter Four

‫‘ בן‬son’ and ‫‘ בת‬daughter’, do not signify a specific age. The children in CH 117 could be minors or adults. However, the fact that the children are eligible to work off the father’s debt suggests that, like their mother, they are dependents of their father and therefore still minors. This is emphasized by the wording a-na KÙ.BABBAR id-di-in ù lu a-na kiš-ša-a-tim it-ta-an-di-in ‘he sells his wife, his son, or his daughter for money or gives them into debt service’. The father does the action (that is, selling) and the wife/son/daughter takes a passive role. If the children were adults, they would have their own family units to which they would be attached. From an economic and legal standpoint, the work done by all three members of the family is considered equal; a wife, son, or daughter may be distrained in order­to fulfill the father’s obligation. The law does not specify whether or not there are certain obligations that only a man could fulfill and others that only a woman could perform. CH 117 clearly states that a family member, regardless of age or gender, may only be distrained for three years (MU.3.KAM É ša-a-a-mani-šu-nu ù ka-ši-ši-ma-nu i-ip-pé-šu) and must, in the fourth year, be released (i-na re-bu-tim š-at-tim an-du-ra-ar-šu-nu iš-ša-ak-ka-an).

YOS 8 51 This text indicates that the girl Tabbi-Ištar is being distrained; however, the reason for this arrangement is not given. Based on the use of the verb nepûm ‘to distrain or take as a pledge’, it is most likely that her father is in debt to Ellum, in whose house she lived and worked. Little is recorded about the girl. 1 The only personal information in the text comes from the Sumerian logogram DUMU. MÍ, which describes Tabbi-Ištar generically as the daughter of Dašuratum. While her exact age is not given, a relative age can be inferred from lines 9–13: a-na MU.5.KAM a-na MU.10.KAM [DUMU].MÍ a-na el-lu-lum [lu] a-na-ṣa-ru-ú-ma [a]-na aš-šu-tim ù mu-tu-tim ad-di-nu-šum-ma ‘for 5–10 years I shall keep/guard my daughter for Ellum, for marriage I shall give [her] to him’. 2 The verb naṣāru means literally ‘to guard or protect’, and when used in reference to a woman, it can mean to protect her virginity. 3 The fact that her father will guard her (virgin1.  Nepûm: “to take persons (mostly women) or animals as distress, pledge, to distrain” (CAD N/2 17). For a discussion of pledges and debt slavery at Emar, see R. Westbrook, “Social Justice and Creative Jurisprudence in LBA Syria,” Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient, 44.1 (2001): 22–43. 2.  The phrase ana aššūtim u mutūtim literally means “for a wife and a husband,” and is the phrase used to describe “marriage.” Taking into consideration that DAM in Sumerian can mean either husband or wife, this phrase in Akkadian is most likely a literal translation of the Sumerian NAM.DAM.ŠE. 3.  Consider how naṣāru has been translated with the sense ‘guarding one’s virginity’ in the following texts. YOS 8 51: . . . ana warkât ūmī . . . amtam ana PN [l]u a-na-ṣa-ru-ú-ma ‘for the future I will keep the slave girl safe for PN (and will give her to him in marriage) (oath)’ (CAD N/2 34). KAV 1 2 17 / Ass Code 12: šumma . . . lanīkkime iqtibiašše la tamaggur ta-ta-na-

Children as Debt-Slaves

115

ity) for 5–10 years suggests that Tabbi-Ištar is a minor who has not yet reached puberty or the age at which she can marry. It is possible that the 5–10-year range quantifies the time she is to be distrained, after which she will be mature enough to be married. 4 If Tabbi-Ištar were not a minor, it would be strange for her father not to marry her to Ellum sooner. The oath in lines 6–7, a-na la ṭe-he-e-im [ú] la a-hu-zi-im ‘to not approach nor take’ deserves attention. It suggests that this is not a typical situation. Under normal circumstances, a female debt pledge is not in need of protection from her distrainer. 5 This phrase then can be understood as a decency clause guaranteeing that Ellum will not approach Tabbi-Ištar sexually or take her in marriage. The second oath in lines 9–13 states that Dašuratum has sworn to keep Tabbi-Ištar for Ellum to marry at a later date. The result of these two different oaths is that Tabbi-Ištar is now a promised girl. 6 In 5 to 10 years she will be married to Ellum. It appears as though this marriage agreement emerged out of a business problem: Dašuratum could not pay Ellum for 5 to 10 years, so he agreed to give him his daughter as a pledge. It may be that, in promising his daughter to his creditor, Dašuratum reduced the amount of money he owed. It may even be that the money for her bride price was to be the cancelled debt owed by her father. The two oaths in YOS 8 51, then, may function as the preliminary agreements leading to the riksātum, or solemnization of the marriage agreement at a later date. Marriages in the ANE had many stages, including the deliberative stage, the prenuptial stage, and the nuptial stage. Each of these stages could consist of different parts, such as drinking the bride-ale kirrum ‘beer’, riksātum ‘solemnization of the marriage pact’, paying the terhatum ‘bride price’, and the ahāzum ‘consummation’, to name a few. 7 However, not every step was necessary for the aṣ-ar ‘if a man accosts the wife of another man in the street and says to her “let me have intercourse with you,” but she refuses and continues to be chaste’ (CAD N/2 46). 4.  Most girls obtain puberty in a span of less than five years (B. W. Amundsen and C. J. Diers, “The Age of Menopause in Classical Greece and Roma,” Human Biology 42 [1970]: 79–86; T. Buckley and A. Gottlieb, “A Critical Appraisal of Theories of Menstrual Symbolism,” in Blood Magic: The Anthropology of Menstruation [ed. T. Buckley and A. Gottlieb; Berkley: University of California Press, 1988], 3–50, especially pp. 44ff.). 5.  This phrase is similar in intention to the phrase ‫‘ כמשפט הבנות‬according to the laws of daughters’ in Exod 21:9. Both Exod 21:7–11 and YOS 8 51 reference a future marriage, one as an ‫ אמה‬and the other as an aššatu. In each of these cases, the future bride left her father’s house and entered into her future household before the marriage took place. While it was suggested that the girl in Exod 21:7–11 entered into the household like an adopted daughter and not as a distrainee, the phrase a-na la ṭe-he-e-im [ú] la a-hu-zi-im in YOS 8 51 heralds the necessity for a clause to protect the girl legally from abuse—even from someone as seemingly nonthreatening as her future husband. 6.  A father had a stake in protecting his daughter’s virginity because a virgin would fetch a higher bride price than a nonvirgin. Laws safeguarding a girl’s virginity demonstrate the priority placed on it. LE 26; CH 130; YOS 1 28:40–62; MAL A 55; Exod 22:15–16; Deut 22:13–29. 7. S. Greengus, “Redefining ‘Incohate Marriage’ in Old Babylonian Contexts,” in Riches Hidden in Secret Places (ed. T. Abusch; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2002), 123–39. For

116

Chapter Four

marriage to take place. As long as the bride’s father or guardian verbally agreed to the marriage (riksātum), the rest of the marriage process could consist of as few as two or as many as seven steps and still be considered legally binding. 8 The marriage was official when it was consummated (ahāzum). A daughter remained in the father’s house until her betrothed came to ahāz­um ‘take’ her as his wife. The standard phrase for this is ana aššūtim u mutūtim ahāz­um ‘to take for marriage’. 9 YOS 8 51 does not have the full phrase; instead, the word ahāz­um stands alone. One can ask whether or not it makes sense to understand ahāz­um here as ‘to take in marriage’ because, on the one hand, the full phrase is not used, and more importantly, because “it would be absurd for a person to promise not to marry a girl who is then promised to him in marriage.” 10 R. Westbrook notes that not only is the full marriage phrase is missing, but the use of ahāzum demands a closer look. 11 If one understands Dašuratum’s pledge to keep his daughter for 5–10 years to mean that she is not yet pubescent, then understanding ahāzum to have a sexual connotation does not make sense. It does also not make sense for ahāzum to mean ‘o acquire control over’ Tabbi-Ištar after­ she is released from her servitude. In order to exercise his rights of distress over her again, Ellum would have to raise a claim against her. The standard legal phrase used for this is baqāru, not ahāzum. 12 I suggest that another possibility exists that retains an understanding of ahāzum as both a sexual term and as the final step in the marriage process. According to Dašuratum’s oath, Tabbi-Ištar is discussion of incohate marriage, see C. Wilcke, “Familiengründung im Alten Babylonien,” in Geschlechtsreife und Legitimiation zur Zeugung (ed. E. Müller; Munich: Freiburg, 1985), 285–92. 8.  Without the agreement of the bride’s father or guardian, the marriage was considered void (LE 27; CH 128). 9. This is a literal translation of the phrase, rendering ahāzum as ‘take’ rather than ‘marry’. This translation best conveys the meaning that there is as transfer of possession or control of a person. In a marriage, the bride is moved from her father’s house to her husband’s house (Westbrook, Old Babylonian Marriage Law [Horn: Berger & Söhne, 1988], 10–11). 10.  Ibid., 12. 11.  Westbrook suggests that ahāzum could be taken in hendiadys with ṭehûm meaning ‘to approach sexually’. (This follows CAD Ṭ 74.) It is also possible that ṭehûm could mean sexual intercourse and ahāzum a relationship equal to that of a slave-concubine. His final suggestion is that ṭehûm means ‘to lay claim to’ and ahāzum ‘to acquire control over’ (after she was released from her servitude). Note that, while CAD Ṭ does list ‘to claim’ as a possible meaning for ṭehûm, in the Old Babylonian texts cited the phrase is always la ṭehûm ‘may not lay claim to x’ (CAD Ṭ 75–76, especially 3′b). He ends by stating that we know too little about the document to make any definitive choice between the options, but with regard to ahāzum, “it is clear that a relationship other than marriage is referred to” (Westbrook, Marriage Law, 12). 12.  See, e.g., HSS 5:101.21–25, a marriage contract from Nuzi. šum-ma fŠu-wa-ar-ni-nu páqí-ra-na irtaši-ši mŠa-ar-te-šup fŠu-wa-ar-ni-úz-za-ak-ka4 a-na mI-la-nu i-na-an-din ‘If Shuwarninu [the bride] has a claimant, Sharteshup [her brother representing her] shall clear Shuwarninu and return her to Ilanu [her groom]’. HSS 5:69 and 80 are also marriage documents and contain the same formula. MAL A 48 is also similar to YOS 8 51. The law states that a creditor who wishes to give a distrainee in marriage must first clear her from any other claimants.

Children as Debt-Slaves

117

promised in marriage to Ellum, but this marriage will not take place for another 5 to 10 years, presumably when she has reached a marriageable age. Until this time, Ellum “will not approach or take” his betrothed. He will do nothing improper (ṭehûm), or try prematurely to complete the marriage by bringing her into his house (ahāzum), until Dašuratum deems the time to be right; in other words, Ellum will not elope with Tabbi-Ištar. In the meanwhile, Dašuratum shall keep his daughter (naṣāru) for Ellum. As noted above, naṣāru can refer to protecting a daughter’s virginity. If Dašuratum is protecting Tabbi-Ištar’s virginity, this means that he is responsible for her, as though she is still considered a member of her father’s household. But YOS 8 51:1 states that Tabbi-Ištar is being distrained by Ellum, which means she is working for him and is legally under his control. This creates a confusing situation. Who has legal control over Tabbi-Ištar while she is distrained? In whose house is she living? According to Exod 21:2–11, a debt-slave lives with and is dependent on a creditor. Following this model, Tabbi-Ištar would live with and be dependent on her betrothed before they were married. This reading may help to explain the use of ṭehûm in Ellum’s oath, for it would mean that Ellum agreed not to do anything untoward to Tabbi-Ištar. However, it need not be true in every case that the distrainee must live with the creditor. Perhaps Tabbi-Ištar continues to live in her father’s house while she is Ellum’s distrainee. It may even be that Tabbi-Ištar is no longer serving as a debt-pledge but that in exchange for not holding her in neputim Dašuratum has agreed to give Tabbi-Ištar in marriage. This reading makes more sense and fits better with Dašuratum’s statement to keep (naṣāru) Tabbi-Ištar for 5 to 10 years. It also emphasizes that Tabbi-Ištar is a still member of her father’s household. This document is ostensibly about Tabbi-Ištar, but it says little explicitly about her. Tabbi-Ištar may play a passive role, but that role is considerable. While only a minor, the contract presents her with her full legal and social potential in mind—she is a marriageable virgin. The contract protects this status by guarding her from any abuse at the hands of her distrainer. This may not guarantee her safety vis-à-vis other people, but when the contract is viewed as a preliminary step in a marriage, surely it would be in Ellum’s best interest, as both her creditor and future husband, to ensure that no sexual harm comes to Tabbi-Ištar.

MAL A 48 This Middle Assyrian law pertains to the marriage of a girl serving as a debt pledge. MAL A 48 states that the creditor must ask the girl’s father for permission before giving her to a husband. If the father does not agree, the marriage cannot take place. If the father is deceased the creditor must ask one of her brothers for permission. In this case, the brothers have one month in which to redeem the girl; if they do not redeem her, the creditor is free to give her in marriage. Only if her kinsmen abandon her (that is, do not redeem her) or if her father grants him

118

Chapter Four

permission does the creditor gain control over the girl’s future. By choosing a husband for the girl, the creditor chooses her legal and social position within society. This law suggests that a girl is usually a legal dependent of her nearest kinsman. Despite the fact that she is in service to another household, the nearest kinsman has the responsibility to watch over and protect her interests. Normally, it is the father (or her brothers if the father is not alive) who chooses a husband for his daughter. As stated here, even though the girl is a distrainee, the father still has first priority when it comes to choosing her husband. He must be consulted before any action can take place. Not only this, but the law states the father may deny his creditor permission to marry off his daughter. That a debtor is allowed to deny something to his creditor speaks strongly to the legal position of the girl. It assumes that the position of a female debt-pledge is not equivalent to that of a permanent slave, for here the girl is still legally her father’s dependent.

MAL A 39 This law also discusses a girl who has served as a debt-pledge in her father’s stead. Again, the father’s creditor wishes to marry her off to a man of his choosing. Before he does so, however, the law states that he (the current creditor) must settle any other debts the father has with a previous creditor by paying the previous creditor the amount equivalent to the daughter’s bride price. In other words, the daughter is understood as a commodity. As such, she is worth a certain price and can be moved from person to person depending on the circumstance in question. While her service secured her father’s current debt, the issue then becomes who has the right to her bride price. 13 Presumably, once the daughter completes her term in the current creditor’s house, she will return to her father’s house. 14 Her father will then be able to give her to another creditor or, if she is of age, to marry her off. The price her father gains from her marriage can then be used to pay other debts. This is the issue 13.  While not explicitly stated, it is possible that she is not only securing her father’s debt pledge but working off the interest accrued on the unpaid obligation, or even working to pay her for upkeep. 14.  The situation referred to in MAL A 48 and 39 is similar to that of a person serving as a tidennu in the Nuzi tidennūtu contracts. The tidennu appears to be a person who enters into the creditor’s house to serve as a security for a debt until the actual debt can be paid. Once the debt is paid, the person ceases serving in their position as a tidennu. Eichler states that. while these particular Nuzian contracts “do not explicitly state that the tidennu also secures the loan, this seems to be a logical inference. Thus, the tidennu is also the antichretic security” (B. Eichler, Indenture at Nuzi: The Personal Tidennūtu Contract and its Mesopotamian Analogues [New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1973], 43). In some of the tidennūtu contracts, the tidennu appears as a kind of indentured servant, within the creditor’s house (JEN 4:387). JEN 3:303 suggests that the indentureship can extend to the children and grandchildren of the tidennu (Eichler, Indenture, 45). The institution of tidennu is called amēlūtu at Emar (Westbrook, “Social Justice,” 30–35; Emar 77; AJS 13:35).

Children as Debt-Slaves

119

raised in lines 30–31. By marrying off the girl, the creditor deprives the father of his daughter’s future “monetary” value. Hence, this law stipulates that in this situation the bride price was handed over from the current creditor to the previous creditor, whose claim takes precedence, thereby eradicating all of her father’s debts at once. It is notable that the creditor, not the father, wishes to give the daughter in marriage. The fact that the creditor is legally authorized to do something that would alter the girl’s social and legal status, to give the girl in marriage, suggests that, while she is a debt-pledge, the father’s legal claim to his daughter is diminished; his daughter is under the protection and control of the creditor. 15 However, there is another possibility that would explain the legal power that the second creditor had over the girl—the father may be dead. In this interpretation one may assume that the father gave the girl as a pledge for a second loan, and the second lender was the one currently holding the girl and giving her in marriage. This second lender would then be marrying off the girl in order to collect his money. However, this is not the only interpretation of MAL A 39. Driver and Miles see MAL A 39 and 48 as two laws describing the giving of a debtor’s daughter, who is serving as a pledge in the creditor’s house, in marriage. MAL A 48 describes the proper steps to be taken in this process, while MAL A 39 explains the situation that arises when the girl is wrongfully married off. 16 The main difference between the interpretation given above and Driver and Miles’s interpretation is the understanding of whom the term tādinānu describes. 17 In the first interpretation, the tādinānu is a second creditor. By Driver and Miles’s reading, the tādinānu is a sort of rescuer figure, a family member or friend of the family. 18 They surmise that the girl was living in a creditor’s house and being ill-treated. Because the creditor was mistreating the girl, he forfeits all rights to her and the girl is released of all liability to him. The tādinānu, who has no legal right to the girl, rescues the girl from her mistreatment and gives her away in marriage. In doing so, the tādinānu now becomes liable for the girl. For Driver and Miles, this situation is solved in the last line of MAL A 39. There, it states that the husband (āhizānu) can make himself liable for the girl (that is, for the original debt amount). In this case, the tādinānu is acquitted of all liability for the girl. 19 In either case, various factors could affect a girl’s value (and hence what bride price she would fetch), such as what family she comes from and whether or not 15.  At first glance the father in this law appears as a pawn, as if he had no control over his daughter or say in her marriage. While she may not be her father’s legal responsibility, it is hard to believe that the creditor could force the father to marry off his daughter. It is possible that the father had already given his consent, as in MAL A 48. 16.  Driver and Miles, The Assyrian Laws (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1935), 274. 17.  CAD T translates the term here literally, as ‘the giver’, assigning no explicit role to the man (CAD T 34). 18.  Driver and Miles, The Assyrian Laws, 281. 19.  Ibid., 284.

120

Chapter Four

she is a virgin or free woman. MAL A 39 does not provide any of these details, but as a distrainee the girl most likely holds something of an in-between status vis-à-vis her socioeconomic class. She is not a slave (she has not been sold), but neither is she completely free. While living as a debt-pledge, she is legally bound to the desires of her father’s creditor, but after her service ends she will be free of his lordship. In effect, as with all female dependents, the legal responsibility for the girl rests in the hands of the person in whose house she is dwelling.

Marriage of the Debt-Slave Girl MAL 39 addresses a creditor giving a female debt-pledge in marriage. However, unlike MAL 48, MAL 39 makes no mention of asking the father’s permission before he contracts the girl’s marriage. How can these two seemingly incongruous laws stand in the same law code one after the next? The key lies in the girl’s legal status as spelled out in MAL 48, where she is not a permanent slave but a debt-pledge. While not technically free, she always has the potential, upon completion of her service, to return to her free status. Because of this, she is ultimately the legal dependent of her father/nearest kinsman and not of her temporary master. This is demonstrated by the clause stating that the creditor must first ask permission of the father or, in the case that the father is deceased, give her brothers one full month in which to redeem their sister. MAL 39, then, assumes either that this process has taken place or that the father is dead. An examination of MAL 39 alongside MAL 48 should not raise a question as to how society conceptualized a debt-pledge, that is, was she really a dependent of the father (MAL 48) or the creditor (MAL 39). Instead, one should read them with the understanding that this ANE society had certain ideas about how to give a female debt-pledge in marriage. First, the creditor must ask permission of the father or legal guardian, and second, he must clear any of the father’s previous claims. 20 In both cases, whether the girl is given in marriage by her kinsmen or the creditor, it is important to note that her fate is not in her own hands. The girl is legally and socially the dependent of another person. Not only this, but the responsible party may change with a simple word, from kinsmen to creditor to husband, all without the girl’s input in the matter. What both of these laws highlight is the girl’s status as a legal and social dependent.

MAL C 2 and C 3 These two laws are concerned with the dishonest creditor who tries to sell a male or female debt-pledge for profit, either for money or to pay off his personal 20.  It may seem that these two laws are out of order, that MAL 48 should come first and MAL 39 second. That the laws have a seemingly strange order should not alarm us but merely draw attention to the fact that our Western ideas of congruity were not necessarily intact in the ancient world. Consider, for example, that MAL 47, the law on witchcraft, was placed between the laws concerning a widow and our law about a debt-pledge.

Children as Debt-Slaves

121

debt. In effect, the creditor attempts to sell them as slaves into domestic (MAL C 2) or foreign (MAL C 3) service. Both practices are strictly prohibited, and the creditor is punished. While the law is primarily about the creditor and his punishment, a few comments can be made concerning the male and female debt-slave. The following observation focuses on the phrase that describes the male and female debt-slave: lu DUMU LÚ ú-lu DUMU.MUNUS LÚ ša ki-i KÙ.BABBAR ù ki-i šaparte ina É-šu uš-bu-ni ‘the son of a man or the daughter of a man, who is living in his house, for a silver debt or as a pledge’. First, a debt-slave is described in relation to the father, as the son or daughter of a man. This signifies two things: first, that the son or daughter is serving on behalf of his or her father and, second, that the person in service is still a dependent of the father and therefore is likely a minor. The laws also specify that male and female debt-slaves are treated alike; neither may be sold as a common chattel slave. No matter how long the person is in service or how much control the master exercises over the distrainee within his house, in the big picture the distrainee legally belongs to the father. The distrainees can only function as servants in so far as they are working to secure their father’s debts, not the creditor’s debt. The way in which the children are protected here is similar to the way in which the daughter in MAL 48 is protected. Both laws stress that the children are only “on loan” and strive to guard them against any exploitation, be it slavery or nonconsensual marriage. While MAL 48 allows for a creditor to marry off a daughter, it is only after the father/nearest kinsman has relinquished any claim to the girl. 21 In this case—and this case only—does the legal responsibility for the child shift from the girl’s family to the creditor. Under no other circumstance can the creditor profess to have any legal authority over the distrainee’s future. Because of his/her birth father, the distrainee is still a free person in potentia and will return to the father’s house and his/her original legal status when the service contract is complete.

Children as Debt-Slaves in Biblical Law Exodus 21:2–5 This law concerns the free person who, to release himself from his debts, sells himself into slavery. 22 The first part of this law, which addresses preexisting­ 21.  As noted, the father may have given his consent in MAL 39 too. 22.  See also Lev 25:35–41, Deut 15:12–18, Jer 34:8–16. While in today’s society the word slavery has a negative connotation, C. Meyers argues that in Israelite society slavery was a necessary and productive social institution. In place of banks, welfare, and other state-run programs, slavery helped to stabilize the economy. Debt-slavery provided a humane way to care for the lower portion of society. A person would borrow needed items and then pay off the debt by working—much like the idea of paying for one’s meal by washing dishes. Meyers states that

122

Chapter Four

family­relationships, seems fairly straightforward: whoever enters into slavery single goes out single; whoever enters as a married couple goes out as a married couple. While, it is not clear whether any existing children remain indentured, following the law to its logical conclusion, any children would enter into and come out of servitude with the same status as their parents. Verse 4 states: if a man enters servitude alone and his master gives him a wife, the wife and any ensuing children belong to the master; they do not go out free with the man. Verses 5 and 6 state that the man can choose to stay with his family and remain as a permanent slave. 23 This brief passage uses four different terms for children. The first two terms, ‫ בנים‬and ‫בנות‬, are the generic terms for sons and daughters. The third term, ‫ילדיה‬, is a noun derived from the verb ‫‘ ילד‬to bear children’. The fourth term, ‫בני‬, is a generic plural, which literally means ‘my sons’, but it can also be understood as a collective for ‘my children’, meaning both male and female children. One may ask why four different terms are used to describe the children when one might be sufficient. This can be explained by examining the four terms with regard to the relationships they describe. To begin with, the terms ‫ בנים‬and ‫ בנות‬describe the relationship between two sets of people: the parents and their offspring. Considering these terms in light of the status they connote reveals some interesting observations. Verse 4 states that the wife and ‫‘ ילדיה‬her children’ belong not to the biological father but to the master of the house. The word ‫ילדיה‬, then, demonstrates the close relationship between the mother and the children. Regardless of who the father is, the mother is the one who bore the children (‫ )ילדים‬and they belong with her. If the biological father decides to remain as a slave, he must make a legally binding proclamation: “I love my master and my wife and my children (‫ ;)בני‬I shall not leave to go free” (v. 5). The text switches from ‫ ילדיה‬to ‫ בני‬for a significant reason; the man is speaking. While he did beget the children, the man cannot claim paternity rights to the children. They are not ‫‘ ילדיו‬his children’. Rather, the wife and children legally belong to the master. Therefore, the master is the one who claims paternity rights. The term ‫( בן‬son/child), on the other hand, is a more generic way of referring to the children—one diffused of any legal connotations concerning paternity. Understanding the terms in this it was “usually older, unmarried children, rather than the adults of a household, that would be ‘sold’ to work off an obligation, which is why the manumission procedures reflect the likelihood that the indentured person will become a spouse during the period of indenture” (Meyers, Exodus [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005], 191). 23.  See 1 Chr 2:34–41. Here, Sheshan, who has no sons, marries his daughter to his Egyptian slave. While this appears to be a parallel to the Exodus law, S. Japhet argues that this falls under the legislation of Lev 25:39–54 (“The Israelite Legal and Social Reality as Reflected in Chronicles: A Case Study,” in Shaʿarei Talmon: Studies in the Bible, Qumran, and the Ancient Near East Presented to Shemaryahu Talmon [ed. M. Fishbane, E. Tov, and W. Fields; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1994], 79–91).

Children as Debt-Slaves

123

light helps us determine the social and legal status of the children. As noted above, the generic terms ‫ בן‬and ‫ בת‬could refer to adult children, but in this passage the context suggests that the children are minors. Exod 21:2 states that the Hebrew debt-slave shall go out in the seventh year. Therefore, according to v. 4, if the master gives the slave a wife, in vv. 4 and 5 the terms ‫בנים‬, ‫בנות‬, ‫ילדיה‬, and ‫ בני‬all refer to children under the age of 7. The children belong to the social status “dependent,” and according to v. 4, even though the debt-slave sired the children, both they and their mother belong to the master. In other words, while their father is technically a free man and will be released (unless he chooses to remain), any children sired by him during his indenture are slaves.

Legal Status of the Child in Exodus 21:2–6 In light of the emphasis on family and producing heirs found throughout the biblical text, this law seems a bit strange. Why set up a law wherein the father is separated from his children? Presumably, the phrase “the wife and children shall belong to the master” implies that they would continue to be dependents in the master’s house and that the master would provide for their welfare. 24 But the question still remains, why do the children of the Hebrew slave not legally belong to their biological father, and furthermore, in a patriarchal society, why do they not follow the social status of the father, that of a free person? While it is difficult to know exactly why the children of a male debt-slave became enslaved, it is possible to make some conjectures as to the social situation being addressed. 25 The first thing to note is that the free man placed himself in servitude. This suggests that he was not financially solvent. Thus, a family obtained while in servitude represented another financial burden that he could not adequately handle. Under this assumption, the children and their mother were better off with the master who could provide for them in a way that the Hebrew debt-slave could not. Even though the master gave the woman to the Hebrew servant as a wife, the master still owns her and by extension owns her children. 26 According to the biblical laws, a man must first pay a bride-price before he can marry a woman. 24.  The Elephantine papyri include the archive of Anani, which contains the story of Tamet, an ‫ אמה‬to Meshullam. She marries Anani and has children with him, yet Meshullam, her owner, still provides for her and her children. 25. C. Carmichael asserts that the laws are based on the foundational narratives of the Israelite nation, namely, the adventures of the Patriarchs. He relates the slave laws found in Exod 21:2–6 to the story of Jacob and Laban. According to him, this story is the basis for the release of the slave in the seventh year (Gen 31:41–42) and is the reason the Hebrew slave, who marries and has children during his tenure goes out alone (Gen 31:43). C. Carmichael, “The Three Laws on the Release of Slaves,” ZAW 112.4 (2000): 509–25. 26. C. Meyers, “Daughters (and Sons),” Women in Scripture (ed. Carol Meyers; Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2000), 192. It is possible that the master could choose to emancipate the woman and her children; however, this is pure conjecture. There is simply not enough information concerning the woman and the details of her status.

124

Chapter Four

This legal transaction transfers the responsibility for the woman from her father to her betrothed husband. 27 One can surmise that here the Hebrew slave did not enter into a legal transaction, but rather accepted his wife as a gift; therefore, the legal responsibility for the woman remained with the master. The Hebrew slave did not have legal ownership of his wife. Her marriage did not change her status—she was still a slave and so were her children. 28 The children may be slaves for another reason: namely, their mother is of foreign birth. For example, Maimonides concludes that the woman was not Israelite because the text did not designate her as such. Some scholars see this intermarriage marriage as invalid.  29 They point to documents from Nuzi and the Code of Hammurapi that state that children born to a free person and a slave-woman retain the slave status of the mother and must be adopted by the free person in order for the slave woman’s children to count among the free person’s heirs. 30 Other scholars see the intermarriage as valid but understand that the point of the Exodus law is to preserve the family structure. 31 Accordingly, the fact the parents were of two different ethnicities did not hinder a marriage between them because they were both slaves in the master’s house. The biological father, by nature of his ethnic identity, had different legal rights from his children’s. Therefore, the chil27.  Exod 22:15–16, Deut 22:23–28. 28. S. Japhet notes that the law in Exod 21:2–6 does not tell us the status of the wife given to the Hebrew slave or the Hebrew slave’s children. Therefore, it is possible that the woman given to the slave was a free maiden. Any children born to the slave and the free woman could have a free status and thereby inherit the master’s name and property. On account of this, Japhet suggests that the child does not go free with his/her biological father but stays in the master’s house. Unfortunately, Japhet does not expand on this statement, nor does she mention the reasoning behind her hypothesis. From the context, it appears as if she understands Exod 21:2–6 as describing an adoption where the master of the house has no biological sons of his own and therefore gives his daughter as a wife to the Hebrew slave. The children do not necessarily inherit their mother’s free status but remain bound to the master’s (grandfather’s) household and assume their free status through him (Japhet, “Social Reality,” 89–90). 29. M. Gruber, “Matrilineal Determination of Jewishness: Biblical and Near Eastern Roots,” in Pomegranates and Golden Bells: Studies in Biblical, Jewish, and Near Eastern Ritual, Law, and Literature in Honor of Jacob Milgrom (ed. David Wright, D. N. Freedman, and Avi Hurvitz (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1995), 437–43; J. Van Seters, “The Law of the Hebrew Slave,” ZAW 108 (1996): 534–46. For a discussion on the term ‘Hebrew’, ‫עבד עברי‬, as a social or gentilic term, see ibid., 539; G. Chirichigno, Debt-Slavery in Israel and the Ancient Near East (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993); N. P. Lemche, Ancient Israel: A New History of Israelite Society (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1988); and S. Paul, Studies in the Book of the Covenant in the Light of Cuneiform and Biblical Law (Leiden: Brill, 1970), 44–50. 30.  Gruber, “Matrilineal Descent,” 440. See Maimonides, Mishneh Tora, Qinyan, ʿAvadim, chaps. 6–7; CH 170, 175. Maimonides’ view is predicated on the belief that only a full-blooded Israelite is legally considered an Israelite. Note too that in Abraham’s quest to secure progeny, he begets a son by a slave-woman. However, in order for this son to inherit by him, Abraham must formally adopt the boy as his son (Genesis 16; 21:10ff.). 31.  Van Seters, “Hebrew Slave,” 540.

Children as Debt-Slaves

125

dren either carried their mother’s foreign ethnicity or were considered half-breeds and therefore not allotted the same legal and social rights given to a Hebrew. Though this is thought provoking, there are some issues with these arguments. First, reliance on ANE and rabbinic texts is problematic; the rabbinic texts are all much later than Exodus and represent a different society, and none of the ANE texts offer a direct parallel to the situation found in Exod 21:3–5. 32 All of the ANE texts cited concern the children of a slave wife and a free person, who is the master of his house. The biblical text states that the children belong to a slave wife and her husband, an indentured servant. While technically a free person, he now serves the master of the house. One must take into consideration that the status of the Hebrew man and the rights apportioned to him may have changed when he took on the status of an indentured servant. Exodus 21 gives no proviso for the adoption of the children by their biological father. If anything, because the children are considered dependents of the master, it would make sense for the master, not the Hebrew man, to adopt them as heirs. Second, the biblical text contradicts the reasoning stating that a mixed marriage is invalid. There are many instances in which a woman of foreign origin was married to a Hebrew man. For example, Abraham and Solomon married Egyptians (Gen 16:2, 1 Kgs 3:1), Esau had Hittite wives (Gen 26:34), Moses married a Midianite (Exod 2:16, 21), and Ahab married a Phoenician woman (1 Kgs 16:31). Additionally, the rules of warfare state that men could take the women of the cities they conquered as wives (Deut 21:10–11). Based on this, one should not assume that the marriage between the Hebrew man and the slave woman was invalid or that the children were considered “legally non-Israelites” for ethnic reasons. Another approach is to see Exod 21:2–6 as a case of matrilineal descent. 33 However, it is highly unlikely that this law demonstrates the practice of matrilineal descent. In fact, matrilineal descent goes contrary to other biblical laws, 32. For Gruber’s argument to work, he follows S. Paul’s outdated use of the term hāpiru. Paul states that the Hāpiru found in the Nuzi texts are a group of self-enslaved people. Pressing the analogies between the Nuzi Hāpiru and the ‫( עבד עברי‬Exod 21:2), Paul freely associates the status of the Hāpiru with that of the ‫עבד עברי‬, stating that the ‫ עבד עברי‬is an enslaved part of the population (not a free man who sold himself into slavery). He states, “This [Exodus] pericope, then, with its own unique features, is most likely a later reflex of these Hāpiru documents” (Paul, Covenant Law, 46). For more on the Hāpiru, see L. Stager, “Forging an Identity,” in The Oxford History of the Biblical World (ed. M. D. Coogan; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998), 103–4. 33.  Another case of possible matrilineal descent may be seen with the children of Zeruiah, the sister of David. 1 Chronicles 2 uses another kind of lineage, based on patrilineal descent. However, 1 Chr 2:13–16 states that Abishai, Joab, and Asahel are the sons of Zeruiah; no mention is made of Zeruiah’s husband. This may mean that a kind of “legal materlineality” was instituted by default—perhaps in cases when the woman was never married. See Ps 116:16, “For I am your servant, I am your servant, the son of your bondswoman.”

126

Chapter Four

which stress the importance of the child’s paternity, especially as it relates to inheritance rights. The importance of paternity permeates many types of laws. For example, many scholars argue that the stress placed on both marrying a virgin and not committing adultery (Exod 20:14, Deut 22:13–27) has to do more with knowing the paternity of the child than with the moral/ethical issues of infi­ delity. 34 It is most important for a father to be assured that the child he deems as his inheritor is in actuality his child. In light of the larger context, Exod 21:2–6 should not be understood as supporting matrilineal descent. While the children do reflect the same status as their mother, their status is not determined by hers. Rather, their status has everything to do with to whom they belong. To this end, the status of the children is dependent on the status of the parents’ union at the time of their birth. This is to say, if the parents are both free, the child is also free and belongs to his/her biological parents. If the parents are both slaves, the children are slaves and belong to the slave owner. I would like to suggest a more nuanced way of looking at the biblical law that focuses on the status of the children by determining who can claim the children as dependents. Viewing the children as dependents, a status well attested within patriarchal societies, takes the children out of the realm of property and property laws and places them (as people) in family law. 35 This sort of view also gives the children agency and sees them as actors in their society. On the one hand, they are immediate dependents of their mother, but on the other hand, due to their mother’s slave status, the children are legal dependents of the master of the house. 36 Because of this, the children described in Exod 21:2–6 are in an unfortunately frustrating situation. While they are children of a free person and might thereby enjoy the legal benefits accorded to children of this social status, according to this law they do not take the father’s social status and therefore do not have the legal right to inherit status or property through their biological 34.  Meyers, Exodus, 175–76; T. Frymer-Kensky, “Virgin,” in Women in Scripture (ed. Carol Meyers; Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2000), 195–96. 35.  The concept of children as property is attested at Nuzi and, according to Chirichigno, the fact “the children of such marriages . . . remain the property of the owner is characteristic of chattel-slavery in general” (Chirichigno, Debt-Slavery, 216). However, Chirichigno is quick to note that, despite the similarities, the biblical law is not parallel to the Nuzi documents. The biblical law does not state that the master gave the Hebrew debt-slave a chattel-servant for a wife. Because it does not give any description of the woman’s status, he could in theory give the debt-slave a woman of any status for a wife. See Japhet, “Social Reality,” 86–90. Regarding children in family law, C. Pressler explains the dependency of children and women throughout her book. She states that the family laws in Deuteronomy seek to protect the rights of the dependent family members and uphold the “hierarchical and patrilineal structure of the family” (C. Pressler, The View of Women Found in the Deuteromonomic Family Laws [Berlin: de Gruyter], 111). 36.  The mother both suckles the child and nurtures it. When the child is weaned, the mother continues to care for the child and raise it. One can reason that any economic support the mother gives the child comes indirectly from the mother’s master.

Children as Debt-Slaves

127

father. Instead, they are the legal dependents of their master and therefore, like their mother, slaves in the master’s house. 37

Exodus 21:7–11 Following the laws concerning the Hebrew man sold into slavery, the biblical text discusses how to treat a daughter who enters into servitude. The beginning of v. 7 states that a father sells his daughter as an ‫אמה‬. 38 In order to sell a member of the family, one must be in the position to sell, in other words, be a free man. The fact that she is called ‫‘ בתו‬his daughter’ implies that before being sold she too is a member of the free class. At the end of v. 7 the text states that the girl shall not be set free in the manner of other slaves. This phrase suggests that in this particular situation an ‫ אמה‬is not to be treated like a “normal” slave. Exod 21:8–11 goes on to explain the proper handling of the girl sold as an ‫אמה‬. She could be “designated” (as a wife) for either the master or his son. If the man designated her for his wife but decided he did not like her, he could not sell the girl, but had to let her be redeemed. In other words, the ‫ אמה‬was not treated like a slave; she could not be sold from one owner to the next. The reason for this, given in the end of v. 8, suggests that selling her would be a deceitful act. When the father sold his daughter to the man, the father did so with the understanding that someone in the family would provide for (that is, marry) his daughter. It is possible the father placed his daughter in this position because he could not provide for her or could not afford the necessary dowry for her marriage. The phrase “since he dealt deceitfully with her,” can be understood as referring to a breech in the original transaction between the father and the buyer. 39 Verses 9–11 stipulate the daughter’s status with respect to her various marriage prospects. Verse 9 states how the man should treat the girl if he designated her for his son; he must treat her ‫‘ יעשה־לה הבנות כמשפט‬according to the Law of Daughters’. Unfortunately, this verse is the only time this law is referred to in the Bible. 40 While it is not clear what ‫ יעשה־לה הבנות כמשפט‬means, at the least it 37.  It is possible that the master would give the slave a wife for the very purpose of producing house-born slaves, children born to an unmarried slave woman. Akkadian: wilid bītim (OB), dušmu (NB/NA), ‫( בת ילד‬Meyers, Exodus, 119; Westbrook, “Female Slave,” 220. See also Isa 50:1). Hizquni also makes this point in his commentary (“Hizquni ad Ex 21:4,” in Torat Hayyim [ed. M. Katznelbogen; Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook, 1988]). 38.  See also Neh 5:5 39.  The rabbis disagree on the subject of the phrase ‫‘ בבגד בה‬because he dealt deceitfully with her’. Naḥmanides states that the father dealt deceitfully by betraying his daughter and selling her. R. Ishmael, on the other hand, believes this refers to the master dealing deceitfully with the girl. The master bought her with the understanding that he would marry her, but in fact he did not. Therefore, he cannot keep the girl, and she must be redeemed (I. Drazin, Targum Onkelos to Exodus [Denver: Ktav, 1990], 210). Both rabbis understand the text to place a limit on the rights of the owner (be he father or master) to sell the girl. Once is enough; she cannot be subject to such humiliation a second time. 40.  See pp. 133–134 below for some suggested theories as to the meaning of this phrase.

128

Chapter Four

assures that the girl will be treated with some amount of status and respect, apparently that of a biological daughter. The following verse addresses what happens to the girl when “he” marries another woman. It is unclear from the 3ms pronoun used whether or not “he” refers to the original master or his son. Regardless, the law stipulates that her husband must continue to provide the ‫ אמה‬with ‫וענתה‬ ‫כסתה שארה‬. The first two terms are easily identified: ‫‘ שארה‬her food’ and ‫כסתה‬ ‘her clothing’. The final term ‫ ענתה‬is a hapax legomena and has been translated as both ‘conjugal rights’ and ‘oil/ointments’. 41 Whatever the last term refers to, it is clear that the biblical law is concerned that the original transaction be upheld; the girl must be provided for, even if she is no longer the only wife. According to v. 11, if the man ceases to do these three things, the girl is released from her position as an ‫ ;אמה‬she will go free without any money. The antecedent of “these” in “these three things” is unclear. It could refer to either the three commodities listed or to the three ways in which the contract states the girl should be dealt with: redeemed, married, or set free. 42

Status of the ‫ אמה‬in Exodus 21 The law of the ‫ אמה‬found in Exod 21:7–11 has been understood as the female counterpart to the law of the ‫‘ עבד‬male slave’ in Exod 21:2–5. 43 Exodus draws attention to the difference between the Hebrew slave (‫ )עבד עברי‬and the Hebrew daughter sold (‫ )מכר‬into slavery as an ‫אמה‬. This suggests that there is a difference in their status: how they are treated, who they are, what legal rights they have, and so on. 44 In order to understand this law, the status of this ‫אמה‬ must be explained. 41.  While the meaning of the term is uncertain, Paul offers good evidence for the translation of the last item in the triad as ‘oil’. He cites a comprehensive list of examples from the Laws of Lipit Ishtar, Eshnunna, and Hammurapi, as well as Ur III and OB documents, all of which list food (eprum), clothing (lubušum), and oil (piššatum) as the basic necessities allotted to a woman. According to him, “this threefold provision became somewhat stereotypic” (Paul, Covenant Law, 56–61). 42.  In his comments on v. 11, Rashbam, following rabbinic tradition, suggests that “these three things” are not the three commodities mentioned in v. 10. Rather, the three things refer to not marrying her, not marrying her to his son, and not allowing her to be redeemed. The question then for the rabbis is how can the owner fail to support a person in his household—especially if the owner had married the girl to a member of the household. 43.  From a literary standpoint, the two are often found paired together. See for example, Exod 21:32. 44.  The term ‫ אמה‬does not always indicate an actual female slave, sometimes it is used figuratively. For example, while Ps 116:16 suggests that a son of an ‫ אמה‬is an ‫עבד‬, this is poetry and may have more of a metaphorical rather than literal meaning. It is possible that both ‫ אמה‬and ‫ עבד‬are used here as terms of polite self-abasement, because the speaker is addressing Yhwh. In addition, an ‫ אמה‬need not always refer to a lowly slave woman. Archaeologists have found seals with the words “PN ‫ אמה‬PN.” This is significant because only free people have seals. Therefore, the archaeological evidence appears to support the idea that an ‫ אמה‬could be a woman of high status.

Children as Debt-Slaves

129

The first question is whether or not the ‫ אמה‬is actually sold. On the one hand, selling one’s daughter into a lower social status while at the same time giving her in marriage is not unheard of in the ANE. Two types of ANE legal documents mention a man selling his daughter as a wife. One text is a 7th-­ century b.c.e. Neo-Assyrian marriage contract similar in structure to the documents that record the sale of slaves. In this text, the father sells his daughter to a woman who is buying her as a wife for her son. 45 The sale here seems driven by a motivation similar to that in Exodus: the father had no money for a dowry, so he sold his daughter. The second type of document is the Nuzi ṭuppi mārtūti ù kallūti ‘document of daughter-hood and daughter-in-law-hood’ discussed in chapter 2. 46 In these documents, a father (or the girl’s legal guardian) sells his young daughter into adoption. The documents state that the buyer’s family adopts the girl and when she is of age will marry her to someone in their family. Thus, it is reasonable that the girl in Exodus could be sold. If the girl is sold, the next step is to figure out what she is being sold into. While this law follows the law regulating the male debt-slavery, most scholars agree that the girl is not being sold as a debt-slave. In Exod 21:7–11, there is no time limit given for the sale, and a marriage is contracted. The sale is permanent. When the girl leaves her father’s authority, she moves from the status of free-born daughter to ‫אמה‬. Various interpretations of ‫ אמה‬have been suggested: slave, concubine, “unfrei Frau, Sklaven,” and simply free (that is, not a slave) wife. 47 Each of these interpretations understands that the female needs to be treated like a free born woman, “according the law of daughters,” (‫)יעשה־לה הבנות כמשפט‬. If she is indeed sold, her legal status may change, but her social status before the sale carries over into her life after the sale. On the other hand, no other laws in the Hebrew Bible discuss a free-born Israelite being sold into slavery. J. Fleishman convincingly argues that Exodus uses 45.  Van Seters, “Hebrew Slave,” 542–43. 46.  The first major publication of such documents was E. Chiera, They Wrote on Clay: the Babylonian Tablets Speak Today (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1938). There are also documents at Nuzi called ṭuppi marūtu documents or ‘documents of sonship’. For treatment of this institution and textual examples, see the examples on pp. 69–85 as well as C. Zaccagnini, “Nuzi,” in A History of the Ancient Near East (ed. R. Westbrook; Leiden: Brill, 2003), 594–96; AASOR 10 pp. 7–18; and P. Koschaker, Neue keilschriftliche Rechtsurkunden aus der el-Amarna-Zeit (Leipzig: Hirzel, 1928). See also JEN 9:432, 5:433; AASOR 10 no. 25, 19 nos. 38 and 88. 47.  Paul, Covenant Law, 55. See too Sarna, Exodus: The Traditional Hebrew Text with the New JPS Translation (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1991), 120; C. Carmichael, “The Three Laws,” 509–25; C. Pressler, “Female (and Male) Hebrew Slaves,” in Women in Scripture (ed. C. Meyers; Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2000), 193–94; R. Kessler, “Die Sklavin als Ehefrau: zur Stellung der ʾamah,” VT 52 (2004): 501–12; Chirichigno, Debt-Slavery, 251. For a review of these scholars and their arguments, see my Construction of the “Child” in the Ancient Near East: Towards and Understanding of the Legal and Social Status of Children in Biblical Israel and Surrounding Cultures (Ph.D. diss, Hebrew Union College, 2009), 166–74.

130

Chapter Four

slave-sale terminology as a frame for a polemic. 48 Accordingly, words and phrases such as ‘sell’, ‫מכר‬, ‘redeem’, ‫פדה‬, ‘go free without anything’, ‫כסף אין חנם יצאה‬, and ‘not be freed like the male slave’, ‫ העבדים כצאת תצא לא‬echo the language of sale contracts. This language makes one think that slavery is being discussed, a reasonable assumption given the world in which the text was written. However, the writers of the biblical text were operating under an ideology that says slavery was left behind in Egypt. Thus, selling a free born Israelite daughter is immoral; the law in Exodus 21 is set up to explicitly prohibit such an act. The girl remains free, and gains the status of one who is betrothed. The “purchaser” must protect her legal rights. If he violates these rights, the fail-safes in the law (vv. 8–11) are put into action.

Synthesis: Adopting an ‫ אמה‬for Marriage The law here describes a nonnormative betrothal of a free-born daughter. Whereas the father would normally pay a dowry to the husband, here it appears that the father is experiencing financial hardship. The financial hardship experienced and the less-than-ideal actions it leads to then link the law of the debt-slave in Exod 21:2–6 with that of the free-born daughter in Exod 21:7–11. Because of the father’s crisis, he utilizes another avenue for marrying off his daughter. The key to Exod 21:7–11 is to understand it as a transaction similar to an adoption for the purpose of marriage. While Exod 21:9, does not mention an adoption in the terms of a ṭuppi mārtūti ù kallūti, it is possible that the girl was “sold” to the man with a similar outcome in mind, that is, the transfer of the girl from her natal family to a third party was done with the understanding that the third party would arrange for her marriage. 49 Scholars have noted the similarities between Exod 21:7–11 and other ṭuppi mārtūti ù kallūti contracts but have missed some key concepts because their analyses were based on an old understanding of the mārtūtu ù kallūtu institution. In chapter 2, this institution is examined indepth. A brief review of the conclusions drawn there will lay the foundation for understanding Exod 21:7–11. Previously, scholars understood the mārtūtu ù kallūtu adoption as means of gaining a daughter and daughter-in-law for the purpose of giving her in marriage. 50 However, a close analysis of the mārtūtu ù kallūtu form demonstrates that the purpose of marrying a member of one’s household (himself, his son, or one of his slaves) to an adopted girl was to ensure that the girl remained in the adoptive 48. J. Fleishman, Father-Daughter Relations in Biblical Law (Bethesda, MD: CDL, 2011), 7–92. 49.  See C. Zaccagnini, “Nuzi,” in A History of Ancient Near Eastern Law (ed. R. Westbrook; Leiden: Brill, 2003), 587. However, Zaccagnini does note that the use of the term adoption is largely conventional. 50.  Speiser, “New Kirkuk,” 21ff.; Paul, Covenant Law, 52–53.

Children as Debt-Slaves

131

father’s permanent possession. 51 The adopter wished not to gain a daughter, but to gain access to the girl’s (future) assets and the permanent services of a female dependent. Furthermore, by using the term nadānu ‘to give’ instead of epēšu ‘to make’, the mārtūtu ù kallūtu documents hint that girl is an item up for sale; in fact the adoptive father pays the girl’s father a certain sum not only for the right to give her in marriage, but also to obtain the girl’s permanent service in the household. 52 She does not gain the full status of daughter, like the girls adopted ana mārtūtu, but holds a lower status than free-born daughter in the house. She does not inherit from her new family but remains tied to them for life. In 1935, Mendelsohn compared Exod 21:7–11 to the Nuzi contracts and concluded that they were describing the same institution. However, his arguments were based on the preliminary understanding of these documents mention above. For example, he thought that kallūtu meant bride-ship, not daughter-in-law-ship, and that the documents described a situation wherein parents sold their young girl into slavery under the condition that she be married to the purchaser. 53 With the advances made in the study of the Nuzi documents, it is possible to reconsider Mendelsohn’s comparison with an updated understanding of the mārtūtu ù kallūtu institution. The comparison is made with the understanding that Exodus is describing a situation similar to but not, as Mendelsohn would have us believe, the same as the Nuzi documents. The following comparison demonstrates how the two texts remain similar in structure and function, but differs in their construction of the girl’s status. Exod 21:7 begins “if a man should sell (‫ )ימכר‬a girl.” This is similar to the way the girls at Nuzi were given (nadānu) for sale. Verse 7 then states the girl cannot be emancipated like other slaves. If the status of the ‫ אמה‬is similar to that of the girl given mārtūtu ù kallūtu, then it is because her services within the household are contracted for life. Verse 8 states that, if the buyer designated the girl for his wife but finds her unpleasing, he cannot resell her but must let her be redeemed. The ‫ אמה‬cannot be sold like a slave from one owner to the next. The Nuzi texts, on the other hand, suggest that the girl adopted mārtūtu ù kallūtu could be treated 51.  Westbrook, Marriage Law, 17ff.; K. Grosz, “On Some Aspects of the Adoption of Women at Nuzi,” in Studies on the Civilization and Culture of Nuzi and the Hurrians (ed. D. I. Owen and M. A. Morrison; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns), 149. 52.  See the discussion of JEN 432–33 on pp. 77–82 53. I. Mendelsohn, “The Conditional Sale into Slavery of Free-Born Daughters in Nuzi and the Law of Exod 21:7–11,” JAOS 55 (1935): 190–95. Mendelsohn first identifies the threepart structure of the Nuzi adoption tablets: (1) preamble: statement of sale; (2) conditions of sale (a) to be married to her master (b) to be married to her master’s son (c) to be sold as a wife to a free-born man outside the family (d) not to be given as a wife to a slave, and (e) to be given as a wife to the owner’s slave; and (3) penalty for breach of contract. He then identifies all three of these elements within Exodus 21: (1) preamble, Exod 21:7; (2) conditions of sale, Exod 21:8–11a; (3) penalty for breach: Exod 21:11b.

132

Chapter Four

like movable property, resold and remarried multiple times. 54 Exod 21:8 limits this practice and states that the ‫ אמה‬cannot be sold to ‫‘ עם נכרי‬a foreign people’. This phrase has been translated in different ways. Martin Noth sees ‫ עם נכרי‬as those people outside of Israel’s covenant community, literally foreign people. 55 The end of v. 8 suggests that selling her to an ‫ עם נכרי‬would be a deceitful act because (implicitly) when the father sold his daughter to the man, he did so with the understanding that someone in the family would provide for (that is, marry) his daughter. Selling the girl, then, would be deceitful and a breach of the original transaction between the father and the buyer. 56 Verse 9 states that if the buyer designates the girl for his son, he shall treat her ‫‘ כמשפט הבנות‬according to the Law of Daughters’. Because Exodus does not specify the age of the girl at the time of this transaction but states, “she is designated [for marriage],” one can assume that she is not yet of marriageable age, meaning she is not yet pubescent. 57 What, then, is the girl’s status with relation to her master’s family before her marriage into the family? 54.  For example, texts sometimes state that a slave girl can be given to whomever the owner wishes. Further, if her husband should die, the owner may pass her on to another man. Texts often allow for up to four successive husbands, and one text even states that the slave girl may be remarried up to 11 times (AASOR 16 no. 23 and no. 33. See too JEN 432 and 433). 55. M. Noth, Exodus: A Commentary (OTL; London: SCM, 1962), 197. Noth expands on the works of earlier scholars. See G. C. Chirichigno, Debt-Slavery in Israel and the Ancient Near East (Sheffield: JSOT Press), 249 n. 3; G. Beer and K. Galling, Exodus (HKAT 1/3; Tübingen: Mohr, 1939), 108; and P. Heinisch, Das Buch Exodus: Übersetzt und erklärt (Bonn: Hanstein, 1934), 391; S. Paul, Studies in the Book of the Covenant in Light of Cuneiform and Biblical Laws (SVT 18; Leiden: Brill), 54. See also U. Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Exodus (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1976), 268; and I. Mendelsohn, “Slavery in the Old Testament,” IDB 4:384. This is the only time in the Bible that this phrase appears. Because of this, it is difficult to assign a definitive meaning to ‫עם נכרי‬. The term ‫ נכרי‬appears eight times in the text. In three of these, it refers to people who are non-Israelites (Deut 17:15, Judg 19:12, and 2 Sam 15:19). Job 19:15 states: ‫‘ גרי ביתי ואמתי לזר תחשבני נכרי הייתי בעיניהם‬The ones living in my house, and my maidservants, count me as a stranger, for I am a stranger in their eyes’. This is the only reference that suggests ‫ נכרי‬refers to one outside the family. However, Job is not a legal text, and ‫ נכרי‬refers to one person, not a group of people. Paul’s latter translation would support the idea that the girl was brought into the master’s family as a permanent female dependent. She could not leave his household either through marriage or sale to a “foreign” person. However, one understands ‫עם‬ ‫נכרי‬, it is clear that the girl is not property. In addition, all of these translations suggest that she had a higher status than the Nuzian girls, because she could not be sold. 56.  The subject of ‫ בבגדו‬is not clear. Rashi offers the following two possible explanations. The first is attributed to R. Jonathan b. Abtulemos, who states that the phrase ‫בבגדו בה‬ ‘he dealt deceitfully with her’ refers to the father’s actions, that is, by selling his daughter he betrayed his daughter. In the second explanation, R. Ishmael states that this passage refers to the master who bought her with the understanding that he would marry her but decided not to; therefore, he is not permitted to retain her in his house. 57.  Sarna points out that the rabbis state that a father could only sell his daughter if she were a minor—younger than 12 years and 1 day (N. M. Sarna, Exodus [New York: Schocken, 89 and 120]). See also Rashi’s comments on Exod 21:7.

Children as Debt-Slaves

133

It is possible that the girl in Exodus was transferred into the master’s household in a manner similar to that of the Nuzi girls. The owner, like the adopter in the Nuzi texts, wished both to obtain the right to marry the girl off, either to himself or his son, and at the same time to secure permanently her household services should she marry a family member other than himself. 58 This intention is indicated by stating that the girl was sold as an ‫המא‬. Scholars have hinted at this but have never developed an argument for it. For example, Chirichigno states, “the biblical law also resembles other ancient Near Eastern adoption contracts which established a relationship fully comparable to that of a real daughter.” 59 Sarna comes closest in affirming “The practice with free maidens: the girl was to be raised within the family and given the status of a daughter.” 60 The inclusion of the term ‫ הבנות‬in the phrase ‫ כמשפט הבנות‬suggests the presence of a familial relationship, that of parent to daughter. Commentators such as Rabiya the Elder and Rabiya the Younger, Targum Onkelos, and PseudoJonathan all add “Israel” to the phrase, making it clear that she should be treated the same as an Israelite daughter. 61 While these commentators do not overtly state that she was adopted, they do suggest that she was equal to a daughter in the household. As one treated according to the Law of Daughters, the girl would assume the full rights of a daughter and treated with respect. 62 Exod 21:7–11 appears to be a unique text, because it covers the transition of a young girl into adulthood. Tracing the change in her status throughout the law, one can see that initially she is referred to as her father’s daughter, a girl not old enough to be married. Her father then sells her, she enters into another family as an unmarried girl, and she is given the status of a daughter (and possibly daughter-­in-law). As discussed above, treatment as a daughter gives her legal protection (v. 9). Once she enters her new family, the law states that there are two ways she can leave it, both of which depend on her marital status. Verse 8 states that while she is an unmarried daughter she may be redeemed. After the girl is married, her status changes from child to adult, from daughter to wife. Verses 10–11 state that if her husband takes a second wife, the girl retains her rights to food, clothes, and oil/conjugal relations. While the law mentions these three things as compensation in case an additional wife is taken (v. 10), one can assume 58. Most mārtūtu ù kallūtu texts from Nuzi do not include the possibility of the adopter marrying the adopted daughter. However, JEN 432 is very similar to the biblical text. It states that the adopter may marry the girl to one of his slaves, to his son, or, if he desires, to himself. See the discussion of JEN 432 on pp. 77–80). The relationship between the adopter/buyer and the girl was that of fictive kin. Therefore, there seems to be no reason why the adopter could not marry the girl. 59.  Chirichigno, Debt-Slavery, 247. 60.  Sarna, Exodus, 121. 61. I. Drazin, Targum Onkelos to Exodus (Denver: Ktav, 1990), 210. 62.  Most scholars believe that this law assures the girl some basic rights, that is, she should not be abused or prostituted. See also Lev 19:29 and an Assyrian document found in M. David and E. Ebeling, “Assyrische Rechtsurkunden,” no. 5; Paul, Covenant Law, 55.

134

Chapter Four

that it represents a continuation of the things that she is currently receiving as a wife. If her husband stops providing her with these three basic necessities, the law states that the married woman may go free without any money. 63 While the texts at Nuzi do not usually include a release stipulation, they do state that the girl shall not inherit, that is, receive anything, from the adopter’s house. In summary, Exod 21:7–11 concerns a girl with a very complex status. It says from the start that she is an Israelite daughter sold as an ‫אמה‬, a status that seems to signify that she is contracted for a lifetime of household service. But her fate is not as bleak as that of the Nuzi girls contracted in a similar manner. The Israelite law demands that as an ‫ אמה‬the master must marry her into his household. If the master decides he does not like her, he cannot resell her but must let her be redeemed. If the contract is upheld and the girl is designated in marriage, the law states that she is to be treated like an Israelite daughter. 64 Therefore, the girl’s status has three parts: not only is she an ‫אמה‬, but she is treated as a daughter and given as a wife.

Leviticus 25:39–41, 44–45 The law in Lev 25:39–41 concerns an Israelite father and his children who have been sold as debt-slaves to another Israelite. Unlike Exod 21:2–6, the Israelite buyer is not allowed to treat fellow Israelites as slaves but must consider them as hired hands. The case becomes one of employer/employee rather than master/ slave—only there is no payment for services rendered. Like Exod 21:7–11, the father faces financial hardships. However, in Leviticus when the father cannot provide for his family, he indentures ‫ בניו‬along with himself. In this verse and other contexts, ‫ בניו‬is often translated as “his sons.” However, there is no reason to do so here; translating ‫ בניו‬as ‘his children’, to include sons and daughters, makes just as much sense; ‫ בניו‬should be understood here to stand collectively for “the whole family.” It would not be logical for a man to take his sons and leave the mother and daughters to fend for themselves. In a patriarchal society, females were dependent on their male relations to provide them with a living situation. Therefore, if one reads ‫ הוא ובניו‬as ‘he and his sons’, the mothers and daughters would have no way to support themselves. Thus, while Leviticus does not specify that the wife and daughters go with the husband and sons, it is reasonable to assume that the entire Israelite family became the dependents of another Israelite. 65 63.  Sarna does not understand “these three things” to refer to the three physical goods. Rather, he believes “these three things” means that the master did not treat the girl in the three ways described: he did not marry her himself, marry her to his son, or allow her to be redeemed. The woman, according to Sarna, remains an unmarried adult slave in the house (Sarna, Exodus, 121). On this point, Sarna follows Rashi, Rashbam, Saadiya, and Ibn Ezra. 64.  Meyers thinks the ‫ אמה‬is the wife of either the master or of his son. As the wife of the son, she is treated like a daughter-in-law (Meyers, Exodus [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005], 191). 65.  The point here is not whether or not the wife and daughters were debt-slaves alongside the men but rather that the females were dependent on the males for economic support.

Children as Debt-Slaves

135

In contrast to the law in Exod 21:4, in Lev 25:41 the children go free with their father. This means that the children belong to their father and not to their “master.” Two possibilities present themselves based on whether the children were born before or during the indentureship. If the children were born before their father’s indentureship, they enter into debt-slavery with their father, and their status continues to parallel his. If the children are born to the father during his indentured service, they then inherit their father’s free status (they are not seen as “house-born slaves”) and as such go free with him. While the age of the children is not stated, they are most likely young children and dependents of the father, for as v. 41 states, “he shall return to his family,” thereby placing the emphasis on the father. Another difference between the law in Exodus and that in Leviticus concerns the ethnicity of the people involved. Exod 21:2–6 does not give the ethnicity of the buyer; it only states that the slave is a Hebrew. Leviticus makes a point of stating that both people in the transaction are Israelites and therefore kin. Leviticus also makes very clear that the man in financial straits should take the status of a hired hand and not of slave. Perhaps this is another reason why the children go out with their father. Because Leviticus leaves no ambiguity as to the status of the father—he is seen as a free person who works for another free person—the status of his children goes without question; they are free like their father and will go free with their father at the time of the Jubilee. Whereas Lev 25:39–41 states that one may not make a permanent slave of an Israelite, vv. 44–45 state that one can buy a foreigner, any non-Israelite (‫גוים‬ or ‫)גרים‬, for permanent enslavement. Here, the social status of the children’s parents has legal implications. The ‫‘ מבני התושבים הגרים עמכם‬children of the ones dwelling as ‫גרים‬, born in the land’ inherit their parent’s social status, ‫גרים‬ ‘foreigner living among the Israelites’. Not all ‫ גרים‬are automatically slaves; they can be free persons, but when they are enslaved, their social status demands that the enslavement be permanent. This is unlike the Israelite, who can be enslaved as a free person but in the year of the Jubilee is set free.

The Status of the Debt-Slave Child in Leviticus Scholars have proposed various models to understand the relationship between the debt-slave laws in Exodus and Leviticus. The first and most common way is to understand the laws in Leviticus to be a replacement of the laws in Exodus. 66 Alternatively, one could understand the debt-slave law in Leviticus Therefore, if their male relatives were dependents of another Israelite, then by extension the females were also dependent on that third party. 66.  For example, J. Milgrom understood Lev 25:39–43 as a polemic against Exodus 21 (J. Milgrom, Leviticus [AB 3B; New York: Doubleday, 2000], 2224). See also R. Gnuse, “Jubilee Legislation in Leviticus: Israel’s Vision of Social Reform,” Biblical Theology Bulletin 15 (1985): 43–49; A. Phillips, Essays of Biblical Law (ed. David Clines and Phillip Davies; JSOTSup 344; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002); M. Noth, Leviticus, A Commentary (trans. J. E.

136

Chapter Four

as a supplement to the gaps in the Exodus law. Exodus does not discuss the fate and status of Israelite children brought into servitude with their fathers, nor does it address the status of children born in a mixed marriage, one between a slave and a free person. The supplemental theory holds that this gap is precisely what Lev 25:39–41 addresses.  67 Tht third option is to view the laws as part of a larger social structure, a sort of ancient welfare system available to the Israelite paterfamilias in financial straits.  68 In this model, the slave laws in Exodus and Deuteronomy represent the first stage in the process: a man is forced to sell his children as debt-slaves. 69 If this does not alleviate his financial trouble, he can then sell part of his family’s estate (Lev 25:25–28) and take loans (Lev 25:35–38). Finally, if all else fails, the head of the family can sell himself (along with his family) into servitude. 70 With respect to the children’s legal and social status, the bottom line is that according to Lev 24:39–41, the children shall go free with their father when he is released in the year of Jubilee. This means that the children were treated in the same manner as their father: they were considered free and not slaves. Second, it is also quite possible that children who are old enough worked either as hired hands alongside their father or in the house of their temporary master. 71 Because Anderson­; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1977), 192. J. Van Seters, on the other hand, understands the order of the Pentateuch to be Deuteronomy, Leviticus, and then Exodus (“Hebrew Slave,” ZAW 108 [1996]: 545). 67. A. Schenker, “The Biblical Legislations on the Release of Slaves: The Road from Exodus to Leviticus,” JSOT 78 (1998): 23–24, 28. For this theory to work, one must translate ‫ בנים‬as ‘sons and daughters’, parallel to Exod 21:4. This is in contrast to how Schenker translates ‫בנים‬. 68.  Chirichigno, Debt-Slave, 342–43. M. Stol describes a similar system prevalent in ancient Mesopotamia (Stol, “Private Life in Ancient Mesopotamia,” CANE 1:495). 69.  According to Chirichigno, the debt-slaves in Exodus 21 and Deuteronomy 15 are actually children who are still dependent on their father. Exod 21:2–6, 7–11 and Deut 15:12–18 “envisaged cases in which the head of a family, who likely belonged to a nuclear or multiple or extended household, defaulted on his agricultural loans and sold his son (or his son and his wife) [or daughter] in order to pay this loan (Chirichigno, Debt-Slave, 221). 70.  To reach this conclusion, Chirichigno translates the niphal perfect ‫ נמכר‬as a reflexive (ibid., 229–330). He argues more on context than grammar, following the rabbis who took Lev 25:39 as a self-generated sale rather than a forced sale (b. Qidd. 14b). Many English translations take this term as a reflexive as well (Oxford Study Bible, nasb, rsv, njpsv). HALOT also mentions the reflexive as a possible translation for the niphal (HALOT 582. See also M. Noth, Leviticus [OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1972], 182). Milgrom contests this, saying that, all 18 times the verb ‫ מכר‬is found in the Niphal, it is translated as passive. If a reflexive meaning were meant, then the Hithpael form would have been used. Furthermore, if the paterfamilias was able to sell himself, Lev 25:39–43 would not have been necessary; he would have sold himself to a foreigner, with the right of redemption readily available (Lev 25:47–55). Milgrom finds that the debtor had no choice; the creditor could seize him at any time. The term ‫ מכר‬was employed here figuratively as part of the technical slave-trade language (Milgrom, Leviticus, 2220). 71.  In the NB period, a five-year-old child was considered old enough to work (H. D. Baker, “Degrees of Freedom: Slavery in Mid-first Millennium bc Babylonia,” World Archaeology

Children as Debt-Slaves

137

of their ethnicity, the Israelite children in this situation had an uncertain status; they were not totally free citizens, nor were they enslaved for life. The situation implies that the children were permanently the dependents of their father and only temporarily dependents of their creditor. 72 In the case of a child born to a foreign slave, the scenario is a bit more complicated. According to Lev 25:44– 45, the Israelites are given permission to purchase and permanently enslave the children of the “foreigners,” ‫ גוים‬and ‫ גרים‬surrounding Israel. By extension, this means that if an Israelite owns a foreign slave, any children the slave produces are bound to their master’s house. However, it appears that this is only true if both parents are slaves.

Synthesis: Debt-Slavery With the exception of Exod 21:2–5, where the child is born into slavery, the above texts all concern children who are debt-slaves or pledges and who are placed into this position by their father. This means that a father had the legal right to sell his child as a laborer in order to work off debt (as a debt-slave) or to stand as security (as a debt-pledge) until the debt was repaid. 73 As a dependent, a child had no choice but to obey the demands of the father. 74 The above texts can be broken down into two broad categories: those that concern family members in general, and those that speak specifically about a daughter.

Family Members as Debt-Slaves The first group of laws, Exod 21:2–6, Lev 25:39–41, CH 117, MAL C2 and C3, are laws that concern family members who are debt-slaves. This category recognizes a time limit on the indentureship. The earliest of the texts, the Code of Hammurapi, restrains the amount of service time to three years, the shortest span found in any of the texts. According to CH 117, in the fourth year the debtslaves must be freed. Exodus 21 declares that a debt-slave shall serve six years and go free in the seventh. In Leviticus 25, a specific number of years is not given, but 33/1 [2001]: 22–23). See also M. Jursa’s study on the farmers of the Ebabbar temple in Sippur (M. Jursa, Die Landwirtschaft in Sippar in neubabylonischer Zeit [AfOB 25; Vienna: Institut für Orientalistik der Universität Wien, 1995], 8–9). 72. Of course, when the children married, the relationship of dependent/provider changed. They were no longer their father’s dependents but created a new family unit with their own dependents. 73. Genesis 38 describes the use of objects (specifically a signet ring, bracelets, and staff) as pledges (Gen 38:18). 74.  None of the texts analyzed address a situation where the child disobeys the father’s wishes and refuses to be a debt-slave. However, laws such as CH 168 and 169 suggest that a child can commit an offense so grave that the father cuts him off and disinherits him. The biblical laws also give the impression that it was not wise to disobey the commands of one’s father. For example, Deut 21:20 states that the rebellious son will be stoned, and Exod 21:12 and Deut 5:16 command children to honor their father and mother.

138

Chapter Four

rather the law states that the debt-slave shall go free in the Jubilee year. In MAL C2 and C3, there is no mention that the children shall be freed after a certain number of years. Despite this, the law does show cognizance of a limited indentureship. 75 In all of these cases, the child of a free man takes on a temporary slave status with the understanding that he or she will be restored to his or her original status once the period of service has ended.

The Daughter as Debt-Slave The remainder of the laws examined, Exod 21:7–11, YOS 8 51, MAL A 39 and 48, specifically address daughters. These cases share some distinguishing features. Exodus 21 and YOS 8 51 mention the transaction between the father and his creditor. MAL A 39 and 48, on the other hand, were written after the initial transaction took place. In contrast to the previous group of texts concerning family members, none of these texts record an end time for the girl’s service. Exod 21:7–11 is unique among the laws about daughters, because while the literary context suggests that the father has sold his daughter into debt-slavery, the text does not actually describe her as a debt-slave. 76 It does not state that the girl will serve until her father’s debt is ameliorated. In fact, it implies the daughter permanently leaves the house by means of her contracted marriage. As a married woman, she will not be returning to the family. This fact provides some information concerning the girl’s possible age. To state that the girl is designated in marriage assumes there is a period of time between her sale and her marriage where she serves as an ‫אמה‬. The text does not state the length of this gap. However, one can postulate that the girl must be old enough to carry out the duties of an ‫אמה‬. One may also surmise that she is too young to be married when the initial contract is drawn up, otherwise the father could have simply given the girl in marriage without a wait time. Exod 21:7–11 thus seems to refer to a girl under 12 years old. The remaining three texts describe daughters who first serve as pledges and then are married off. In YOS 8 51, the father also arranges for his daughter’s future marriage. Unlike Exodus 21, YOS 8 51 provides no details concerning the terms of the marriage. In MAL A 39, the creditor, not the father, arranges the marriages for the girls. Before the creditor can give the girl away, he must clear any of the father’s previous debts. Again, no provisions are made for the girl should the terms of the marriage contract be broken. This, however, could be on account of the fact that the ends of the MAL laws are illegible. 75.  This awareness is inferred by the fact that it is illegal to sell a debt-slave for profit. The ability to sell a slave as one would sell property is reserved for chattel slaves. Without directly saying it, these two laws make the distinction between a debt-slave (that is, one who cannot be sold to another) and a chattel slave (one who is considered movable property). 76.  As noted above, this law has been traditionally understood as the female counterpart of the law in Exod 21:2–5.

Children as Debt-Slaves

139

Finally, as part of the various marriage contracts, each of the texts in this category demonstrates a concern for the ethical treatment of the girl. Perhaps in setting up a marriage for his daughter, the father hoped his daughter would not be mistreated. 77 Instead of just being the master, the creditor would now take on the role of protecting the girl’s virginity. If a girl were a virgin, she would fetch a higher bride price, something that the creditor would be happy to gain. If the creditor were to marry off the girl, he would have an additional reason to treat the girl well; he would be ensuring his future wife would be well cared for. In both cases, if the creditor/master were to marry the girl himself, or give her in marriage, he would have a vested interest in protecting his new asset. 78 The girl in this second category of texts goes through a variety of legal and social statuses. She begins life as the daughter of a free person. As such, she is a legal dependent of her father. If her father sells her as a debt-slave, or places her as a pledge, she becomes the legal dependent of the father’s creditor until the debt is fulfilled. 79 Unlike the first group of females, in the cases where a marriage­ 77.  Debt-slaves were protected against three kinds of punishments: excessive physical punishment, sexual abuse, and sale abroad (R. Westbrook, “The Character of Ancient Near Eastern Law,” in A History of Ancient Near Eastern Law, ed. R. Westbrook [Leiden: Brill, 2003], 43). The biblical text states that a slave’s life must be revenged if the master beat him to death (Exod 21:20). Evidence of protection from sexual abuse can be found in Lev 19:20–22. This law states that a man who has intercourse with a slave not yet redeemed or freed but ‫נחרפת לאיש‬ must pay a claim and bring a ram as an expiation offering. The term ‫ נחרפת‬is usually translated as designated (note that Exod 21:8 uses the root ‫ יעד‬for ‘designate’). T. Frymer-Kenski suggests that ‫ נחרפת‬may mean pledged, similar to the way the root ‫ ירב‬is understood “so that the law protects girls distrained for their parents’ debts” (T. Frymer-Kensky, “Israel,” in A History of Ancient Near Eastern Law [ed. R. Westbrook; Leiden: Brill, 2003], 1034). 78.  Not much is known about the concept of virginity in the biblical text outside the laws in Exod 22:15–16 and Deut 22:13–29. It could be argued that these texts were primarily concerned not with maintaining the girl’s virginity but with making sure that the paternity of her child was known. A child born out of wedlock or to a prostitute was perceived as fatherless (Westbrook, “Female Slave,” 227). Because Biblical Hebrew does not have one “special” word for virgin that is not also shared with other meanings (that is, ‫בתולה‬, which can mean ‘virgin’ but more often ‘young woman of marriageable age’), it may be that virginity was an implicit but not otherwise stated value. For a description of virgins in the Bible, see Judg 11:39; FrymerKensky, “Virgin,” 195–96; G. Wenham, “Betûlāh ‘A Girl of Marriageable Age,” VT 22 (1972): 326–48. From the Code of Hammurapi, CAD defines the Akkadian cognate, batultu, as having the meaning ‘virgin’ in marriage contracts (CAD B 174). Both B. Landsberger and J. J. Finkelstein reject this definition and state that the term has more to do with an age distinction, that is, teenager (J. J. Finkelstein, “On Some Recent Studies in Cuneiform Law,” JAOS 90 [1970]: 243–56; B. Landsberger, “Jungfräulichkeit: Ein Betrag zum Thema: Beilager und Eheschliessung,” in Symbolae Juridicae et Historicae Martino David Dedicatae [Leiden: Brill, 1968], 41–105). As both scholars point out, the concept virgin is only expressed negatively, as one deflowered, e-nu-gi4-a ša la naqpat (Finkelstein, “Studies,” 355; Landsberger, “Jungfräulichkeit,” 58). CH 130 describes this as ša zikrum la idû ‘one whom a man has not penetrated’, and CH 130 as lamādu, ‘one who has been known’. 79.  Westbrook, “Character,” 41, 43.

140

Chapter Four

was arranged the girl may have been esteemed higher than a typical slave girl and treated with more respect. As for their respective legal statuses, the girl who was a debt-slave worked to satisfy a debt. In most cases a time limit was set for the indentureship. The girl who was a pledge, on the other hand, secured her father’s debt. As a pledge, there was no guaranteed time limit for her release. This relationship of creditor to pledge would continue until the father fulfilled his obligation. In either case, upon leaving their fathers’ houses, they left their fathers’ authority, either temporarily or permanently.

Social Mobility and the Debt-Slave/Pledge With respect to social mobility, the child was moved in and out of the household by the father or legal guardian. Whether or not the child returned to the natal household depended on the gender and terms of the contract under which the child was transferred out of the household. If a child is female, the possibility for marriage arises. With some contracts, the daughter could move out of the house while serving as a debt-slave or pledge for her father and then, within the time of her indentureship, she may become old enough to be married. At this point, the father or creditor had the option of contracting her marriage. With other contracts, the marriage was part of the arrangement under which the girl left her natal household. In these cases, the father was not financially solvent, so the girl’s service to the household became her dowry. For this particular girl, her social mobility was tied to her economic and reproductive status. Regulations and case laws for male children, on the other hand, are not as common in the legal materials. There are two reasons for this. In the first place, females served as debtpledges more often than males. Male children were needed in the fields and to help with the family economic structure. 80 Second, the same issues surrounding marriage did not exist for a male child serving as a debt-slave or pledge. Thus, comparable laws were not needed to regulate the male child serving as debtslave/pledge. For both male and female children, the child’s social status changed from “free child living in natal house” to “child transferred out of the house.” This last phrase is intentionally ambiguous so as to emphasize the gradations of the debt-slave/pledge status and the fluidity within those gradations. 80.  ANE documents demonstrate that families sold women into debt-slavery more often than men (B. Jackson, “Some Literary Features of the Mishpatim,” in Wünschet Jerusalem Frieden: Collected Communications to the XIIth Congress of the International Organization for the Study of the Old Testament, Jerusalem 1986 [Bern: Peter Lang, 1987], 235).

C

h a p t e r

F

i v e

The Slave and Hired Child The previous chapter addressed the category of debt-slaves, children whose legal and social status was in an in-between state. As such, many laws, regulations, and texts were written to address various legal and social issues faced by them. This chapter considers children whose statuses are seemingly more concrete: the slave child and the hired child. While it may appear as if their statuses are relatively static, either “hired freeborn child” or “enslaved child,” a review of the legal sources describing these statuses reveals that the status and perception of these children are not as obvious as one may think. 1

The Slave Child Like adopted children, slave children were permanent members of households in which their parents did not have legal jurisdiction over them. While a slave child may live with his or her mother or father, the parents had no control over what happened to the child, he or she could be sold at the drop of a hat. The slave child led a much different life from the free-born child adopted into a new family, but from a purely legal standpoint, the transfer of a child from one household to the next was not all that different. Like the adoption contract, the slave sale contract includes provisos and prohibitions about who can reclaim the child and under what circumstances. During the Old-Babylonian period, slave sale contracts began to take on a standardized format that looked similar to sale contracts of the time. 2 This form gradually concretized until it reached a set form in the Neo-Babylonian period. 3 The typical Neo-Babylonian contract contains six main parts, some of which can be seen in documents from the older periods: (1) a statement that the owner sells the slave of his own free will, (2) information 1. J. Tenney’s description of the labor system in Nippur furthers this point (J. Tenney, Life at the Bottom of Babylonian Society (Leiden: Brill, 2011). 2.  See I. Mendelsohn, Slavery in the Ancient Near East (New York: Oxford University Press, 1949), 34–38, for examples of slave sale contracts from the Ur III dynasty. 3.  See M. Dandamaev, Slavery in Babylonia: From Nabopolassar to Alexander the Great (636–331 b.c.e.) (ed. M. A. Powell and D. B. Weisberg; trans. V. A. Powell; DeKalb: Northern Illinois University Press, 1984), 181–206.

141

142

Chapter Five

about the slave, (3) the agreed price, (4) a statement of guarantee, (5) witnesses, and (6) a date formula. Unlike the Old Babylonian slave sale contracts, the NeoBabylonian contracts often list the age of the slave that is being sold, particularly if the slave is a child. This small addition makes Neo Babylonian contracts of great interest to the present study. It allows one to compare and contrast the value placed on different ages, which in turn may lend some insight into the way Neo-Babylonian society perceived the various categories of children. The following four texts are representative of the way in which children were sold during the Old Babylonian and Neo Babylonian periods.

Chiera, PBS 8/2 162 This text dates to the Old Babylonian period and records the sale of an entire family: a mother, her daughter, her son, and his wife. The phrase nam-lù-lu7 (amīlūtu) is used to identify the family as slaves, who all belonged to a prominent priest in the city of Nippur. The specific ages of the children in PBS 8/2 162 are not given; however, their relative ages can be deduced based on their marital status. Because the family was sold as a unit, one can assume that if the daughter Ummi- Šenu’a were married, she would have been sold with her husband in the same manner as her brother and his wife. Because Ummi-Šenuʾa is called the daughter of Bištītum and not the wife of anyone, she is presumably unmarried and still under her mother’s care, therefore qualifying her as a child. While exact age is not an issue in this contract, sex does matter; the price of a slave was determined by an individual’s level of potential productivity. All three females are worth six shekels each, while the male is worth seven shekels. Presumably, a male fetched a higher price because he was able to work harder. In the end, this contract tells us less about the legal status of slaves and more about their economic and social status. With respect to their legal status, the fact that they are being sold means they are not free persons. Slaves were considered chattel and therefore moveable property. As such, they represented a blended social and economic status: they belonged to the lowest class of people (slaves) and at the same time to the lowest class of goods (moveable). 4 Economically, a slave’s worth was determined by his or her gender and age; however, in most Old Babylonian slave sale contracts, specific ages were not given. Instead, during this period society appears to have various age categories into which they placed slaves to establish their monetary worth. In this particular contract, PBS 8/2 162, the male was worth more than the females. The slave family was sold from one prominent family to another. It is possible that this slave family was trained to do housework and other such things 4.  Presumably, goods that were considered immovable, such as inherited possessions, estates, or land, were of a higher economic value because they could not be sold outside the family. This is to say that the more permanent the object, the greater its worth and therefore the higher its economic value.

The Slave and Hired Child

143

required by the upper class. The contract ends with the typical formula that the priest and his family shall not raise a claim against the governor and his family concerning the slaves he just sold. The slave transfer is sealed with an oath taken by the selling and purchasing parties.

Nbk. 100 This particular text dates to the Neo-Babylonian period. It states that a woman and her three-year-old daughter are sold for one-half mina and 5 shekels of silver. Both the mother and the daughter’s names are recorded in the contract. However, the two slaves are listed as a unit and not as two separate people. Infants may have been seen as an extension of the mother and not as individuals. Sale documents from the Neo-Babylonian period included the age of the child for purchase-price purposes. That is to say, if the child were very young, his/her value would be added to that of the mother’s and the two would be sold collectively. Consider Nbk. 67 and 832, both of which list a woman and an infant at the breast sold together, or Camb. 334, which records the sale of a mother and her three-month-old child for two minas. 5 These examples imply that young slave children were placed in a different social category from older slave children. Studies suggest that during the Neo-Babylonian period children under the age of five were not considered old enough to work. 6 Five may not be the specific cutoff for entrance into the “workforce” category; it may have been used as an average age or a kind of “ideal” number, in the same way that other numbers, such as factors of 12 and 40, are used in various biblical and ANE texts. 7 The age at when a child was old enough to work may actually have been a range, perhaps four to six years old. If this is true, once children moved into the workforce category they were understood as economically viable persons and their list-prices were written independently from their mothers’. 8 In Nbk. 100, the girl has a name, is three years old, and is sold with her mother. These three things fit with the age-name-workforce hypothesis laid out above. First, she is three years old, specifically a ṣa-hir-tum mar-tum 3 šanati(meš). The verb ṣa-hir-tum or ṣehēru, in Akkadian, means “to become small (in size or 5.  For additional citations of mothers being sold with their babies, see Dandamaev, Slavery, 200–201. Some examples from his record include the sale of a girl and her newborn child for 20 shekels (Moldenke 1 11), a slave woman and her one-month-old baby sold for 1 mina 12 shekels (NRVU 67), and a slave woman and her daughter, a babe-in-arms, sold for 44 shekels (GCCI 2:95). 6.  H. D. Baker, “Degrees of Freedom: Slavery in Mid-first Millennium bc Babylonia,” World Archaeology 33 (2001): 22–23. See also M. Jursa’s study on the farmers of the Ebabbar temple in Sippur (M. Jursa, Die Landwirtschaft in Sippar in neubabylonischer Zeit [AfOB 25; Vienna: Institut für Orientalistik der Universität Wien, 1995], 8–9). 7.  For examples of 12, see Gen 14:4 17:20, 35:22, 49:28; Exod 15:27, 39:14; and Num 33:9. For examples of the 40, see Gen 8:6, 35:20, 26:34; Exod 16:35, 24:18, 34:28; and Deut 8:2. 8.  For example, the girl in Nbn. 196 is four years old, and the girl in Nbn. 693 is six years old. In both cases, the children are sold independently of their mothers and siblings.

144

Chapter Five

quantity), to become few, to be young, to be a minor, to count as a credit, to appear as a credit, to be pressed, at a loss.” 9 In Nbk. 100 the term ṣehēru carries the first of these meanings. She is identified as a minor, one who is a small threeyear-old child. Even though she is young, she, like all slaves, can be bought and sold as an object used for credit. In addition, at three years old the girl may not be old enough to work; hence she is sold with her mother. On the one hand, this emphasizes that she is not yet considered an economically viable person. On the other hand, the record of her name suggests that she has reached an age where she is understood as socially viable. Note that her name is recorded as Ša-Nana-bani and not as “Ša-Nana-bani daughter of Šahnaja.” 10 The latter is the name formula used for free people (PN son/daughter of PN). Instead, line two says (f)šá-ah-na-a u (f)šá-(d)na-a-ba-ni marta- šú ‘Šahnaja and her daughter Ša-Nana-bani’. Writing her name in this way highlights the young girl’s slave status. 11 Therefore, while a community may not recognize a three-year-old child in an economic sense, by giving her a name and recording her slave status they do acknowledge her as a member of their society.

Nbn. 693 This Neo Babylonian text represents a case where a girl is sold independently of her mother and siblings. In line 3, the girl’s name is given as Nana-silim. Because she is sold by herself, one can deduce that she is old enough to survive on her own (that is, not still nursing). Indeed, line 5 states that she is six years old. Lines 4–7 contain three other relevant pieces of information regarding her status. Like the girl in Nbk. 100, Nana-silim is described in Nbn. 693 as a ṣehērtu, a young child, a minor. She is also an object of credit; Šamaš-dannu buys her for 17 shekels of silver. Not only is she called a ṣehērtu, but qallatsunu ṣahirtum ‘their young slave girl’. Note that the 3cpl suffix (sunu) is added to qallu. While this makes sense grammatically, “their young slave girl,” it also reinforces Nana-silim’s subservient position vis-à-vis her owners—she is not just a young slave girl but their young slave girl. Lines 5–7 record a third element that, while not present in all slave sale contracts, was a common occurrence among slaves. The text describes her as [Nana-silim] šá rit-ti-šú a-na šu-mu šá (m)ahi-iá-li-kin u (m)haš-di-iá šaṭ-ra-tu ‘[Nana-silim] on whose wrist is written the name of Ahija-likin and Hašdija (her current owners, the ones selling her)’. Branding was a physical marker of a person’s social status. 12 It marked a particular slave as a person’s property, similar to 9.  CAD Ṣ 121. 10.  The spelling “Šahana” follows Dandamaev’s transliteration. See Nbk. 100 in Appendix A, pp. 277–278. 11.  Note also that her mother’s name is not written with a patronymic. She too is a slave. 12.  For more information on branding in the Neo-Babylonian period, see Dandamaev, Slavery, 229–34. I. E. Gelb claims that the branding of slaves and animals was a widespread practice in early Mesopotamia; however, he does not give any specific textual examples to

The Slave and Hired Child

145

how a farmer marked a head of cattle. This practice helped ensure that the slave would be returned to the master if he/she ran away or were stolen. But more than this, the branding acted as a symbol of the slave’s social class. As Hodder has written: “Symbols do not ‘reflect’ but they play an active part in forming and giving meaning to social behavior.” 13 The absence or presence of an owner’s brand signified to people how they should socially identify a person. 14 The symbol served not only as a mark of identification, but also represented a set of expectations and limitations for social interactions. In this way, as long as a she remained a slave, Nana-silim literally carried with her the mark of her slavery. Nana-silim’s young age makes her case particularly interesting. By making it clear that she is able to work, it suggests that a socioeconomic world view existed in which there was a category of slaves too young to work. 15 Even though she is only six years old, Nana-silim is old enough to work and therefore an asset that could be sold or stolen. To protect their property, her owners had both their names branded on her wrist. Presumably, after her sale, her new owner would rebrand her. Because one cannot easily “erase” a branding mark, physical possession of the sale contract became very important as it would stand up in a court of law against any claims made on Nana-silim by previous owners. In sum, Nana-silim’s social status was written in two places: on paper and on her body. That she was old enough to do work was clear from both the way she was sold (independent of her mother) and by the way her owners treated her (branding). Her position in society, therefore, was established at the young age of six. Socially, she belonged to the class of working-age slaves and therefore, legally, she was subject to the laws pertaining to slaves. support his statements (I. Gelb, “Prisoners of War in Early Mesopotamia,” JNES [1973]: 87). Bakir notes that the Egyptians branded captives taken in war and stamped them with the king’s name (A. Bakir, Slavery in Pharaonic Egypt [Cairo: Imprimerie del’institut FranHais d’archaëologieorientale], 17–34, 110; P. Harris 1 86, 4–6; Med. Habu pl. 28, 40, 42–43). 13. I. Hodder, Symbols in Action: Ethnoarchaeological Studies of Material Culture (London: Cambridge University Press, 1982), 12. 14.  Branding and tattooing (šatāru) were mostly done as a way of marking slaves. The branding referred to here is done by the master as a means of marking his property. See also TAD B3.6.3 and TAD B3.8.6, 9. Kraeling notes that ‫‘ שנית‬marking, tattooing’ is connected to the Babylonian word šintu (E. G. Kraeling, The Brooklyn Museum Aramaic Papyri: New Documents of the Fifth Century b.c. from the Jewish Colony at Elephantine (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1953), 183. See also M. San Nicolò and A. Ungnad, Neubablyonische Rechts und Verwaltungsurkunden, 100ff.; and A. L. Oppenheim, “Assyriological Gleanings II,” BASOR 93 (1944): 14. In some cases, branding was a way of marking those who were dedicated to the services of a particular deity. The širkûtu, male and female temple officials of the Neo-Babylonian and Persian periods, were one such group of people (R. P. Dougherty, The Shirkûtu of Babylonian Deities [New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1923). REN 154 tells us that a widow marked her two little boys with Ishtar’s star to identify them as dedicated to the temple of Ishtar (Dougherty, Shirkûtu, 33). See also Isa 44:5, 49:16; and Ezek 9:4. 15.  It is possible that there was another class, for slaves too old to work. However, exploring this is beyond the scope of the present study.

146

Chapter Five

Camb. 334 This Neo Babylonian contract is unique because it records the sale of an Egyptian woman and her three-month-old daughter. Most likely, the woman was part of the booty Cambyses’ troops brought back to Babylon from his campaign into Egypt in 525 b.c.e.. 16 Upon entering her new land, her captor/new owner assigned the Egyptian woman a Babylonian name. One cannot tell from the text whether her daughter was also Egyptian or half Egyptian, half Babylonian. While the ethnicity or identity of the infant’s father is unknown, it is most logical that the daughter was born in Babylon and not in Egypt as it seems unlikely that a soldier would bother to include a baby in his war spoils. Along the same line of reasoning, it is doubtful that a soldier would bring a pregnant woman back to Babylon with him. Regardless of where the infant was born or who her father was, the text clearly states that she was born a slave and would be treated as any other Neo-Babylonian slave. 17 Like the case of the Babylonian slaves mentioned above, the mother and baby are sold as one unit, demonstrating that foreign slaves were sold in the same manner as native slaves. Camb. 334 lists their price as two minas or 120 shekels. Looking at the price of other Neo-Babylonian slaves, it appears that this price is on the higher end. Prices varied according to a slave’s skills, age, and looks. On average, a male slave cost 50–60 shekels. A female slave cost less, between 30– 40 shekels. Not surprisingly, children cost even less. For example, a young slave girl fetched between 10–19 shekels and a one-month-old baby sold for half a shekel. 18 According to these data, the average price for a mother and baby should be around 1 mina. 19 Nana-ittija and her three- month-old daughter sell for twice this amount. The increase in price may be on account of a few different things. Nana-ittija may have been especially beautiful. It is also possible an increase for exotic value was added into the price of a foreign slave. Finally, the phrasing of the guarantee clause adds to the understanding of the infant’s status. The seller is not responsible for any claims or suits that “she is a royal slave or a free person that may arise concerning Nana-ittja and her daughter.” This clause is awkwardly worded. The first half of the clause seems to be addressing Nana-ittja alone, but in the second part the daughter is added, almost as an afterthought. This may be another hint that unnamed children are not considered a valuable part of society. At three months, this baby is still in the danger zone, and it is too early to consider her as a viable human. One way to understand the clause then is to see it as commenting on the status of the 16.  Other texts speak of foreign slaves from Gandhara (Dar 379:44) and Bactrian (RPNS 4:104). 17.  According to Dandamaev, “the texts give no reason to suppose that the treatment of slaves was to any extent dependent on ethnic extraction” (Dandamaev, Slavery, 111). 18.  Ibid., 200–205. 19.  Also during the Neo-Babylonian period, a mother and her one-month-old son were sold for 1 mina and 12 shekels of silver VAS V35 (= HG 67).

The Slave and Hired Child

147

individuals involved. It begins in the singular because the mother is the primary focus; the baby’s survival into childhood is still in question and therefore the baby is of secondary significance.

Child Slavery and Biblical Law Biblical laws do not specifically pertain to child chattel slaves. Exod 21:2–11 only discusses children of Israelite “debt-slaves,” while Lev 25:39–40 ensures that no Israelite will be a permanent slave. Leviticus 25 does state, however, that the Israelites may own chattel slaves from the children of the ‫‘ הגוים‬foreigners’ surrounding them who were born in their midst (Lev 25:45). One can argue that this is a reference to children as male and female chattel slaves; however, the word for children is the generic ‫ בני‬and so does not necessarily refer to a child. Based on Leviticus as a whole, it appears that in an ideal situation Israelite children were not sold or treated as chattel slaves. Even so, there is no description of the legal and social status of the children of the ‫‘ הגוים‬foreigners’ who were chattel slaves. The dearth of laws referencing Israelites as chattel slaves can be understood in two different ways. On the one hand, it may be that the Israelites tried to portray themselves in an idealized fashion. The Israelites perceived themselves as Yhwh’s chosen people, whom He delivered from Egypt. On account of this, they served Yhwh and could not be sold to anyone else as servants or perpetual (that is, chattel) slaves. While slavery existed, laws such as Lev 25:42 and Deut 15:12 sought to ameliorate the practice of chattel slavery. On the other hand, despite the lack of evidence, a native slave class in Israel may have existed: the biblical texts simply do not say.

Synthesis: Slave Children While these slave-sale texts originate in various time periods and therefore contain some variances, they differ “neither in form nor in wording from any other deed of sale.” 20 That is to say, in both the Old and Neo Babylonian periods society viewed chattel slaves as movable property and sold them as such. Both the Old Babylonian and Neo-Babylonian slave sale contracts contain the same five basic elements. In this way, the contract becomes a symbol of how Babylonian society perceived slaves. The free class chose to use something as common as a deed of sale to reinforce their socioeconomic ideology: slaves have an economic value and therefore can be bought and sold like any other kind of movable property. Moreover, the contracts recording the sale of children are worded in the same way as adult slave sale contracts. This means that in some sense, slave children were perceived in the same manner as adult slaves. No matter what the age, from one month to 99 years old, these slaves were seen as chattel. 20.  Mendelsohn, Slavery, 34.

148

Chapter Five

Status and Names A person’s name was his first means of personal identification and for a slave, it was quite possibly the only kind of identification he/she ever had. 21 Because of this, one should pay close attention to how the names were written down in the contracts. On the one hand, they list the name of the free adult buying/selling the slave as “PN son/daughter of PN,” linking the person to his family (that is, PN son/daughter of PN). 22 On the other hand, contracts never list adult slaves with a patronym. The description of slave children depends upon their age. If the child is still nursing, he/she is listed as the mother’s son/daughter. Note that this is the opposite of how a free person is listed: “PN1 son of PN2” where the PN1 is the subject. In the case of a slave child, the fact that the child’s name comes second, after the mother’s name, objectifies the child as a part of the mother. This emphasizes the notion that a young child is an extension of the mother, a notyet-independent human. It is ironic that a slight difference in where the names are placed can represent such a wide gap in social status. Once the child has been weaned, it is no longer listed in conjunction with its mother, as if the break in the physical bond between the two is symbolized by a separation in their names. The child’s new self-sufficiency is reflected in the way it is identified. Knowing a person’s name was important. It linked past generations to future generations. As K. van der Toorn notes, because a person’s identity is his name, one survived after death through the remembrance of his name. The ancestor cult invoked the dead by their names (šumam zakāru), hence ensuring that they did not perish in the afterlife. 23 Without a name or a link to your ancestors, a person was not a part of society. Thus, the act of naming a child and listing the mother/father after the name was a way of recognizing the child as a member of society. Without a patronym, a person held a different place in society. H. D. Baker states that “children seem to have been named around the age of two to four years, and the mention of an unnamed child with one or both of its parents implies that it is a baby or small infant.” 24 Because children were nursed 21.  Other means of personal identification include the hem of a garment (sissiktu), a lock of hair (šārtu), and a personal seal (kunukku). A seal could include a name, title, and/or picture that identified the sender of the item (CAD K 545). While different from a written name, the impression from a hem of a garment could function like a seal, identifying the contracting party in a legal document (CAD S 323). Sissiktu definition (c) in CAD demonstrates that a piece of a hem (as opposed to its impression), often accompanied by a lock of hair, could be presented as a way to identify someone personally in their absence (CAD S 323; for examples of šārtu used as personal identification, see also CAD Š/2 127). It seems that the people receiving a hem of a garment and/or lock of hair recognized these items to be specific to each person and therefore representative of him or her. 22.  Stol, “Private Life in Ancient Mesopotamia,” CANE 1:487, 491. 23.  K. van der Toorn, Family Religion in Babylonia, Syria, and Israel: Continuity and Change in the Forms of Religious Life (Leiden: Brill, 1995), 52–65. 24.  Baker, “Degrees of Freedom,” 22. Baker does not state whether or not this practice also applies to free children or just to slave children.

The Slave and Hired Child

149

for two to three years, it may make sense that they would not be named until they were able to survive on their own, independent of their mothers. 25 In light of the high rate of infant mortality in the ANE, waiting to name a child may attest to the fact that the child was not seen as a part of society until it had passed some crucial stage in development. 26 At that point in time, the parents would name the child and he/she would be welcomed into society and recognized as a part of the family. While one can make a case in support of Baker’s statement, most scholars hold that free children (and perhaps also slave children) were named at birth. 27 Evidence for such thinking can be found in the names themselves. For example, names often thank a specific god for a safe delivery. 28 Often, slaves were given a name that reflected their status, such as, “I-look-at-her-eyes.” Referring to a slave child without using his/her name may be a more of a status matter; in other words, contracts may not have recorded the name of slave children until they were old enough to be considered economic assets.

Status and Age The Neo-Babylonian slave-sale contracts appear to refine the social designations further, based on the children’s ages. The contracts seem to make a distinction between slave children who are able to work and those too young to work. Sale contracts demonstrate that, on average, children over the age of five are sold on their own. This does not mean that a child over five could not be sold with his or her family; in fact; many texts record whole families of slaves sold together. 29 Rather, once the child has reached an age at which it is independent of its mother (it has stopped nursing), he/she can be sold as a worker. 25.  Stol, “Private Life in Ancient Mesopotamia,” CANE 1:491; Pinch, “Private Life in Ancient Egypt,” CANE 1:376. 26.  On average, two to four children per family survived early childhood. If a child made it past these treacherous years, it had a good chance of living a long life (Stol, “Private Life in Ancient Mesopotamia,” CANE 1:487–88; see also A. H. Goodman and G. J. Armelagos, “Infant and Childhood Morbidity and Mortality Risks in Archaeological Populations” WA 21 [1989]: 225–43; R. Saller, “Patria Potestas and the Stereotype of the Roman Family,” Continuity and Change 1/1 [1986]: 12). For incantations and general beliefs held by the Babylonians concerning the cause of sickness and the precautions families needed to take to safeguard their infants, see K. van der Toorn, Family, 119–25. 27. K. Nemet-Nejat, Daily Life in Ancient Mesopotamia (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2002), 120; Stol, “Private Life in Ancient Mesopotamia,” CANE 1:491; Pinch, “Private Life in Ancient Egypt,” CANE 1:376. The biblical text also supports this idea. See, for example, how Rachel and Leah name their children at their birth (Gen 29–30) and how Isaac is named before his birth (Gen 19:17). 28.  Stamm, “Die Akkadische Namengebung,” MVAG 44 (1939): 22–23 and passim. Names of this sort include “My god has had mercy on me,” “Sin, accept my supplication,” and “Sin had given brothers as a substitute” (Stol, “Private Life in Ancient Mesopotamia,” CANE 1:491). 29.  See, for example, CBS 7219; CT 55 92; YOS 6 73; NRVU 72.

150

Chapter Five

This division of children based on economic worth can be best seen with slave children under two years old. These children were not named in the contracts, suggesting they had no personal identity. For example, Camb. 334 merely calls the baby “Nana-Ittija’s three-month-old daughter.” For slaves, the record of a name may represent entry into society and economic viability. According to the contracts examined above, a child reached this stage in three to six years. For example, in Nbk. 100 the three-year-old girl is described both as the daughter of her mother and by her name, Ša-Nana-bani. From a sociological view point, these slave sale texts point to a progressive understanding of a child’s economic value; a baby was seen as a human with potential value. By age three, a slave child could be named and considered part of the workforce. Thus, the recording of the child’s name may indicate an end to the liminal phase and the recognition of the child as a contributing member of society. The absence of ages in the Old Babylonian slave sale contracts does not mean that Old Babylonian society did not share this concept; they may have had a different way of acknowledging a slave child’s age and transitions, one that was not included in sale contracts. 30

Children of Mixed-Status Marriages The previous section discussed the child born to slave parents. Issues regarding to whom the child belonged were fairly clear; the child belonged to the slave master. However, not all births resulted from the coupling of two slaves or a slave master and his slave. In some instances, a free person and a slave married. When this union produced a child, issues of legal and social status become murky. These children belong to the category “children of mixed status marriage.” The following documents describe various ways in which these children were understood within their societies.

CH 170, 171, 175 CH 170, 171, and 175 describe the status of a child born into a mixed-class marriage; specifically, the mother is a member of the awilu class and the father is a slave. The issue at stake is the legal and social status of the child. To what class will the child belong? With whom does the child live? Who has the responsibility to look after the child and represent it in a legal situation? According to CH 175, the master of the slave (father) cannot claim the child as his possession; the child is a member of the awilu class; she is free. This means that the status of a child born into this union reflects the status of the mother. 31 30.  It is interesting that both the Old Babylonian and Neo-Babylonian contracts identify the baby’s sex, even before the baby’s name is written. 31.  The Elephantine papyri, while from a different time period and geographical location, contain documents that discuss a child born into circumstances of this sort. In one example, Tamet, a female slave, marries a free man and the two of them produce two children. The texts

The Slave and Hired Child

151

CH 170 and 171 address the opposite situation. In these laws, the mother is a slave and the father is her owner (a member of the awilu class). Both laws concern a situation wherein the father has children with his wife and also sires children by one of his slave women. If the father formally recognizes the slave children as “my children,” then the slaves shall inherit alongside his other children. Upon the father’s death, the father’s property shall be divided equally among the children with the caveat that the free-born children get first pick of which share they want. 32 CH 171 states that if the father did not formally recognize the slave woman’s children, they shall not partake in the inheritance. Instead, the slave woman and her children shall be manumitted. The main issue here is inheritance. However, these laws also attest to the fact that the children of a mixed status union follow the status of the mother, which makes sense seeing as how in the ancient world maternity was much easier to prove than paternity. On the one hand, the laws give the father an out by allowing him to choose whether or not to include the slave children as his own. Without these laws, if a man owned a lot of slave women and produced children by her, he would have to provide an inheritance for a large number of children. This could cancel out the benefits of creating a large workforce by fathering many children. On the other hand, these laws also may also have encouraged slave children to be on their best behavior, as it were. In both CH 170 and 171, however, the children of the slave wife are ultimately treated as property that the father could choose to keep or discard.

Speiser No. 39 (= SMN 2074) Speiser no. 39 comes from Nuzi and is part of the archives of Tulpunnaya, a woman of prominent social status. The dispute concerns the legal custody of a child born to Tulpunnaya’s slave, Arrumpa, and his wife Zammini. Zammini and her brother Wantiya come before the judges to claim that the child should belong to its biological parents, namely, Zammini and Arrumpa. 33 Tulpunnaya disagrees. She argues that the child should belong to her, reasoning that anything born to a slave belongs to the slave’s owner. 34 make it clear that the children born to Tamet are also slaves and under the rule of the master— not their biological father—that is, the children receive the mother’s slave status. Of course, one must take into consideration that the Elephantine documents were written well over a millennium after the CH and in Egypt, not Babylon. 32.  While the property may be divided equally, certain items or property may have had more personal or sentimental value. 33.  For the lineage of this family, see Gelb, Nuzi Personal Names (Chicago: University of Chicago Press), 170. 34.  AASOR 16 nos. 30–33 describes the adventures of the girl Kisaya, who also belonged to Tulpunnaya. She was given into Tulpunnaya’s house martūtu u kallūtu ‘for daughtership and daughter-in-law-ship’ and is to marry a slave belonging to her adopter. AASOR 16 no. 30 states: “the belongings of Kisaya shall become the property of her mistress Tulpunnaya.” While the text

152

Chapter Five

The only possible way for Zammini to have legal rights to her child is if she is a free woman. 35 If she were a slave, there would be no question as to the child’s status, and the case would not even come to court. In fact, in order to prevent such a dispute, some documents include a phrase clarifying that the children of two slaves will belong to the owner of the slaves. 36 Therefore, the issue at hand must be that Tulpunnaya’s slave Arrumpa has married a free woman and they produced a child. As both the mother of the child and a free woman, Zammini believes that she should have custody of her child and bear legal responsibility for him. If the ruling were to come out in her favor, the judges in essence would be ruling in accordance with CH 175: a child with a free mother reflects its mother’s status and is considered free. Tulpunnaya is arguing that the father’s status as a slave is the primary factor in the case. Because the slave belongs to her, any part of the slave’s body (that is, the child) also belongs to her. The judges rule in favor of Tulpunnaya. Whether or not this was a common practice is difficult to say. The fact that a document recording the court case exists may suggest that at times cases like this were open to interpretation. Perhaps it was an unusual ruling and given only because Tulpunnaya had a high rank in society. CH 175 above declares children of a mixedstatus marriage free, and that neither the master nor his family can hold a claim of servitude over the children. However, one case is not enough to state conclusively how Nuzian society viewed children of a mixed-status marriage.

1 Chronicles 2:34–41and Leviticus 25:44–45 The narrative in 1 Chr 2:34–41 may represent a biblical example of a mixed marriage. Sheshan, a man without any sons, marries his daughter to his Egyptian slave Jarha. Because Jarha was foreign, this situation is outside the parameters given in Exodus 21; this is not a case of a Hebrew slave marrying a free (Hebrew) woman. Instead, the situation is best addressed by the slave laws in Leviticus 25, which include laws about the status of non-Israelite slaves. Lev 25:44–45 states that “in explicit contrast to the Israelite, a non-Israelite slave is never set free.” 37 does not identify Kisaya’s belongings as anything other than her possessions, it is possible that her children will become slaves. 35.  It does not say if the argument revolves around the statuses of the male and female. However, the arguments made by the two parties suggest that differing statuses was the root of the problem. J. Tenney references an unpublished legal text (Ni. 2885) which a similar situation concerning the status of an emancipated woman’s children by her former owner (Tenny, Life, 127). 36.  See, for example, Chiera-Speiser, “Selected ‘Kirkuk’ Document,” JAOS 47 (1927): 42 no.5 (JEN 751). 37. S. Japhet, “The Israelite Legal and Social Reality as Reflected in Chronicles: A Case Study,” in Shaʿarei Talmon: Studies in the Bible, Qumran, and the Ancient Near East Presented to Shemaryahu Talmon (ed. M. Fishbane, E. Tov, and W. Fields; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1994), 89.

The Slave and Hired Child

153

For the foreigner, slavery is permanent; there is no year of release. Sheshan married his daughter to Jarha precisely because he was a permanent slave and could not leave the household and start his own family. It is possible that Sheshan may have even adopted Jarha as his son, thereby making Jarha the person through whom he would continue his name and line. 38 The adoption issue aside, what is noteworthy for this study is the status of the children coming from this marriage. Leviticus states that the children of the non-Israelite slave “shall become your property: You may keep them as a possession for your children after you, for them to inherit as property for all time” (Lev 25:45b–46). This suggests that any enslaved non-Israelite person shall remain a slave forever. Looking at Leviticus in conjunction with the genealogy in 1 Chronicles, S. Japhet states that it is possible to uncover legislation on the “missing” slave law that would address the status of the children born to one Israelite and one non-Israelite parent. According to Japhet, “it is clear that the child born of this marriage [to Jarha and Sheshan’s daughter] is a free person, who is to carry on the master’s name and inherit his property. The story formulates this fact in the simplest way: ‘And she bore him [to Sheshan] Atti (1 Chr 2:35).’” 39 It is the lineage of Sheshan that is recorded, not the lineage of Jarha. This can be seen in 1 Chr 2:36–41, which mentions the remainder of Sheshan’s line.

Status of the Mixed Marriage Child The cases above examine what happens when a free person marries a slave and the two have children. 40 The first three, CH 170, 171, and 175, are part of a formalized law code written ca. 1750 b.c.e.. The other texts include a private documents coming from Nuzi (ca. 1500 b.c.e.) and biblical case law. One may ask whether or not the format of the document (law code vs. legal documents) indicates the prevalence of mixed-marriages within a society. Does the fact that the Bible and Nuzian society lacked law codes regulating mixed marriages mean that they were rare? Conversely, does the fact that Old Babylonian society regulated mixed marriages mean that they were common? The presence of a law regulating 38. While not stated outright, the passage in 1 Chr 2:34–41 makes the most sense if Sheshan was manumitted and subsequently adopted. 39.  Japhet, “Social Reality,” 87–88. 40.  According to S. Greengus, the Laws of Ur-Nammu 5 states: “If a male slave marries a free woman, one/first male child shall belong to his master . . . the child of the free woman who is not with the master (i.e. belongs to him), shall not be pressed into slavery.” Greengus’s reading is in line with other ANE law codes. I am grateful to S. Greengus for pointing out this mistranslation and offering a corrected reading (personal correspondence). In the Hittite Laws on divorce, all the children go with the free parent, except for one, which the slave parent keeps for him/herself (see HL 31–33; and Westbrook, “Female Slave,” 226–27). During the Middle Kingdom in Egypt, children of female slaves appear to “inherit” their mother’s slave status (Bakir, Slavery, 117; Kahun, pls. 10, 11; and Cairo 20161).

154

Chapter Five

mixed marriages does not automatically assume the conclusion that mixed marriages were a common phenomenon. One may argue that the frequency of such marriage cases in Old Babylonian society prompted a need for a formal regulation. However, understanding a link between the existence of mixed marriages and the existence of laws regulating it assumes that the laws were applied universally, an assumption that scholars have called into question. 41 Written documentation may simply have been needed to regulate those cases that were out of the ordinary or in which specifics varied from case to case. 42 Some scholars believe that there was a standard, oral form of law functioning in society and only those cases that deviated from the norm or needed further clarification were written down and codified. 43 Whatever the frequency of mixed-marriages may have been, the fact is they are not a geographically limited phenomenon. Cases extend from Babylonia to Nuzi to biblical Israel. This means two things. First, it was not unheard of for free and slave persons to have children together. Second, the status of these children fluctuated depending on the time and place of the document. CH 175 states that a child born to a free mother and a slave father follows the mother’s status and is deemed free. The master of the father has no claim to the children. 44 Like CH 175, Exod 21:4 concerns a male slave who marries and has children. However, the father’s status is different in each case. In Exodus, the father is a debt-slave who will be freed in six years, whereas in CH 175 the father is a chattel slave who has no expectation for release. Regarding the status of the mothers, the woman in CH 175 is an awiltu¸ a free woman, whereas the mother in Exodus is a slave. While the situations seem similar—each child has one (potentially) free parent and one chattel slave parent—the status of the children in these two cases greatly differs. The law in Exod 21:4 deems the children slaves who must remain with the father’s master even after the father has completed 41. B. Peckham, “The Function of the Law in the Development of Israel’s Prophetic Traditions,” in Law and Ideology in Monarchic Israel (ed. B. Halpern and D. Hobson; JSOTSup 124; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991), 108–46; M. Roth, Law Collections from Mesopotamia and Asia Minor (SBL Writings from the Ancient World 6; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997), 4ff.; R. Westbrook, “Biblical and Cuneiform Law Codes,” RB 92 (1985): 247–64; R. Westbrook, “Cuneiform Law Codes and the Origins of Legislation,” Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und vorderasiatische Archäologie 79 (1989): 201–22. 42.  As Fishbane states, “many ancient codes regulate only matters as to which the law is dubious or in need of reform or both” (M. Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel [Oxford: Clarendon, 1985], 91). 43.  See the discussion in C. Meyers, Exodus (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 205), 180–81; S. Greengus, “The Old Babylonian Marriage Contract,” JAOS 89 (1969): 512. 44.  CH 176 and 176b both suggest that, upon the husband’s death, the woman shall take half of the profits accumulated after the marriage (that is, their “together property”) for her children. The other half goes to the slave’s owner. The fact that the woman receives money for the children suggests that she retains custody of them. Furthermore, it supports the notion that the father’s owner has no claim over them; the children are free.

The Slave and Hired Child

155

his period of service. The children do not take on the status of their father, but rather assume a permanent slave status. In Exodus, it appears that these children, like their mother, are legal dependents of their father’s temporary master and will remain slaves in the master’s house. Nuzi SMN 2074 suggests that children of a mixed marriage do not automatically follow the mother’s status. The judges in SMN 2074 decide that the child legally belongs to the father’s owner, meaning the child’s status follows the father’s. 1 Chr 2:34–41, on the other hand, can be taken to suggest that the children born to a free woman inherit through her. Because so few cases exist, it is difficult to make any conclusive arguments for the status of children from mixed marriages. It may be that more private documents mentioning children of mixed marriages do exist but have yet to be discovered. As these texts attest, it was not a universal rule that children of mixed marriages reflected their mothers’ status. It was also not a given that the child would automatically become a slave. Rather, just as the texts and the status of the parents differ case by case, so do the legal and social statuses assigned to the children.

The Hired Child If slave children represent one end of the working class spectrum, hired children are at the other end of the spectrum. These are children born into free families, and are thereby free children. Under the legal authority of their parents, they are hired out as laborers. While technically, this class of children falls under the heading “free child,” its placement alongside slave children attests to the fact that, like the slave child, the hired child is obligated to work for someone other than his/her family. 45 Evidence for the practice of hiring laborers can be found in the Babylonian, Hittite, Egyptian, and biblical sources, but the Old Babylonian and Neo-Babylonian sources give the most information about the hire of children. 46 45.  This category does not include adopted children, who are also dependent on people other than their parents and may be obligated to serve their adoptive parents for life. This service is not the same as hired service. The term service in the adoption contracts has more to do with providing for the parent in old age; it is part of the ANE eldercare system. 46.  The Bible records kings hiring mercenaries (2 Kgs 7:6), a person hiring a Levite as a priest (Judg 17:7–12), and regulations for people hiring day laborers (Lev 19:13; Deut 25:15). While there are no extant labor contracts from Hatti, the Hittite laws indicate that free people were hired for agricultural and military work (HL 158, 42). In general, hire was for one month (HL 150, 158), and females received fewer wages than men (HL 158; G. G. Giorgadze, “Two Forms of Non-Slave Labour in Hittite Society,” in Labor in the Ancient Near East [ed. M. Powell; New Haven, CT: AOS, 1987], 251–53). The Egyptian sources suggest that in the New Kingdom female slaves and children were hired out by the day (A. Gardiner, “Four Papyri of the 18th dynasty from Kahun,” ZÄS 43 [1906]: 27–47; R. Jasnow, “New Kingdom,” in A History of the Ancient Near East [ed. R. Westbrook; Leiden: Brill: 2003], 341). For additional information on labor in Egypt, see C. Eyre, “Work and Organization of Work in the Old Kingdom,” in Labor

156

Chapter Five

Hire in the Old Babylonian Period Scholars have uncovered both self-hire contracts and labor contracts dating to the Old Babylonian period. Whereas the latter documents were drawn up by officials with a manager of royal lands to contract workers for the harvest, the former were drawn up by the employer and the person for hire. 47 This section focuses on hiring contracts, wherein a free person could hire out him/herself or his/her dependents. Almost all contracts state that the payment was due at the end of the work term, but at times an employer paid the worker up front. 48 The following is a contract wherein a mother hires out her daughter.

Chiera, PBS 8/2 111 The Old Babylonian contract PBS 8/2 111 states that a man hired a girl from her mother for six shekels per year. It does not give much background information or told the reason for the girl’s hire. However, through a close reading of the text, one can hypothesize the kind of situation being described. The verb agāru, in line 5 means ‘to hire out, rent’ with respect to people, land, and animals. The slave sale contracts do not use this verb; instead they use the terms šīmu ‘to buy’ and nādanu ‘to sell’. As Dandamaev and others note, agāru is used specifically in cases when a free person, because of economic reasons, needs to hire out either him/herself or his/her children. 49 Unlike slaves, these hired people do not belong to a master; they remain free. Because PBS 8/2 111 uses the term agāru, it is not a case of a mother selling her daughter. It is also not a contract for debt-slavery. Were it a debt-slave situation, one would expect to see clauses pertaining to the debt in question. Additionally, while the contract uses the word ahāzu ‘to take’, which can refer to the final stage in marriage, there is no reason to believe that this contract is a marriage contract. The function here of the term ahāzu is to declare when the hire began. Like in the slave-sale texts of the Old Babylonian period, PBS 8/2 111 gives the daughter’s name, Akšaki-idinnam, but not her age. Because the mother draws up the contract on behalf of her daughter, the girl must be a minor. If the girl were married, her husband would likely be her agent. The text states that Akšakiidinnam was hired for six shekels of silver per year and that dEnili-Šarum took in the Ancient Near East (ed. M. Powell; New Haven, CT: American Oriental Society, 1987), 5–48; C. Eyre, “Work and Organization of Work in the New Kingdom,” in Labor in the Ancient Near East (ed. M. Powell; New Haven, CT: AOS: 1987), 167–222. 47. N. Yoffee, The Economic Role of the Crown in the Old Babylonian Period (BM 5; Malibu: Undena, 1977), 109; Westbrook, “Old Babylonian Period,” in A History of the Ancient Near East (ed. R. Westbrook; Leiden: Brill: 2003), 409. 48.  Law Codes addressing self-hire situations include: LE 8–9, 14; and CH 253–57. For further discussion of the hiring process during the Old Babylonian period, see Westbrook, “Old Babylonian Period,” 408ff. 49.  Dandamaev, Slavery, 121; see also I. Mendelsohn, “Free Artisans and Slaves in Mesopotamia,” BASOR 89 (1943): 25–29.

The Slave and Hired Child

157

her on the 6th of Šu-Numun. While this information provides a fixed salary and a start date, the text does not provide an end date. 50 Whatever amount of time she was contracted for, it is possible that this girl’s family hired her out because they were not well to do. Nonetheless, while her social status may not have been top-tier, Akšaki-idinnam legally remained a free child and was therefore compensated for her time and energy.

Hire in the Neo-Babylonian Period In the Neo-Babylonian period, documents again record cases of children being hired out because his/her family was struggling economically. Neo-Babylonian contracts state that wages were generally paid at the end of the hiring period, but at times they could be paid in two portions, half up front and the other half at the end. 51 Most contracts show hire for one month or one year and mention the exact dates and wages to be paid. For a free person, remuneration ranged between 3 and 12 shekels of silver. 52 The extant number of Neo-­Babylonian labor contracts recording children is limited. However, Dandamaev has collected the following six child labor contracts, three each concerning boys and girls. The following is a synopsis of these contracts. 53 In Cyr 278, a father hires son out to a woman for four shekels of silver per year. VAS 5 15 states that a youth is hired for two months. He is paid two minas of wool and more than 90 liters of barley for his work. In VAS 5 17, a brother hires out younger brother for one month and receives a half shekel silver as payment. VS 6 92 states that the parents hired out their daughter. The length of her hire and the amount of her wages are not given; however, it does state that she receives clothes from her employer. Another contract, BE 8 47, states that a father hired out his daughter as a wet-nurse for one shekel of silver per month. The employer was obligated to pay the girl’s food rations. Finally, in VAS 5 125 a mother hires out her daughter for two years at 12 shekels silver per year. As these contracts demonstrate, the wages, duties, and period of time for a child’s hire could vary, but these children remained part of a group who were “in contrast to slaves and other dependent groups, legally competent members of society enjoying full and equal rights.” 54 50.  In the Neo-Babylonian period, for which wages by age are much better documented, the average wage for a minor was also about 6 shekels of silver per year. An adult received anywhere from 3 to 12 shekels of silver per year, and in some instances as much as 60 shekels per year (Dandamaev, Slavery, 115). 51. J. Delsner, B. Wells, and C. Wunsch, “Neo-Babylonian Period,” in A History of the Ancient Near East (ed. R. Westbrook; Leiden: Brill: 2003), 955–56. 52.  At times, an (adult) person could earn up to 30 shekels of sliver (Delsner, “Neo-­ Babylonian,” 955–56; Dandamaev, “Free Hired Labor in Babylonia during the Sixth through Fourth Centuries bc,” in Labor in the Ancient Near East [ed. M. Powell; New Haven, CT: AOS, 1987], 272). 53.  Ibid., 273. 54.  Ibid., 271.

158

Chapter Five

Status of the Hired Child Hiring out one’s child was not an unusual event. In fact, like the slave-sale contracts, hiring contracts had a standardized format. In other words, through repetitive use it had time to reach a crystallized form. The fact that the form did not change much over the decades indicates that the practice was not taboo. Families routinely entered their children into the workforce to help support the family. As the documents above attest, the period of hire often had a determined start and end date. Furthermore, the hired period could be as short as one month or up to two or three years. This sets the hired child apart from the debt-slave or pledged child, whose work would end when the creditor determined the debt was paid, or in the worst case scenario, when the laws of release came into effect. Hiring a child out did not change his or her free status. However, as can be seen from the documents above, the remuneration and by extension, the social status of child hired out varies considerably. 55 It is likely that the wages paid had to do with the abilities of and/or task assigned to the child. Work for an upper‑class person may have brought in more money, whereas day labor or simple chores for a less affluent family brought in less. Like with adoption and some of the other institutions examined, it is likely that documents of hire only recorded situations in which the parties found it necessary to concretize details. Because of this, it is difficult to tell exactly how the hired child was treated.

Synthesis: The Child Beholden to Another The last two chapters have examined children who were permanently and temporarily bound to the house of a person(s) other than their natal family. In the case of chattel slave children, they may actually live with a parent or other family member but not be their legal dependent. The legal materials attest that children born to one slave parent and one free parent found themselves in a precarious situation. It appears that even if a law determined their social and legal status, gray-zone situations existed wherein a parent or slave master could bring the case to court. As debt-slaves or pledges children held a temporary, non-free status: they enjoy the rights of a free-born child but are temporarily beholden to another person. In some cases, female debt-slaves may never return to their natal family but rather become married either in or after the course of their indentureship. Finally, a child could be hired out to bring in extra income for the family. The examination of all these children and texts supports the conclusion that status is not static but very fluid. Perhaps, then, the best way to understand the status of children as represented in these texts is on a sliding scale with “free” and “slave” at either end and various gradations such as “semi-free” in between. 55.  See H. Klengel, “Non-Slave Labour in the Old Babylonian Period: The Basic Outlines,” in Labor in the Ancient Near East (ed. M. Powell; New Haven, CT: American Oriental Society, 1987), 163.

C

h a p t e r

S

i x

Children in Biblical Israel This chapter shifts its focus away from children living outside the natal family and onto children living as a part of the natal family, specifically as part of the bet ʾav. The bet ʾav, literally, the ‘house of the father’, is the most important family social structure in the biblical text. While other larger structuring units exist, such as the mišpacḥâ ‘clan’ and šēbeṭ ‘tribe’, these units all had at their core the bet ʾav, the family household. Unlike the mišpacḥâ and šēbeṭ, the bet ʾav survived through the period of the monarchy. This is due to the fact that villages, which favored the bet ʾav structure, remained the primary centers of population after the initiation of the Israelite state. 1 One can say that the bet ʾav was the core unit of social structure throughout Israelite history. 2 The bet ʾav functioned not only as an organizational unit, but as a socioeconomic unit. As such, it was concerned with passing on the paterfamilias’s name and property and increasing the family’s production. Thus, children were integral in carrying out the socioeconomic goals of the bet ʾav. 3 Part of living in the bet ʾav is following the rules put forth by the paterfamilias. Children were expected to honor their fathers and mothers. Obedience was mandatory. Disrespecting the authority of one’s parents threatened the well-being and productivity of the bet ʾav. 4 1. D. Knight’s recent study estimates that a high majority of the Israelites retained a traditional premodern agrarian lifestyle even after the rise of the monarchy (D. Knight, Law, Power and Justice in Ancient Israel [Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2011], 70). 2.  On the importance of the household as a structuring unit, see C. Meyers, “Material Remains and Social Relations: Women’s Culture in Agrarian Household of the Iron Age,” in Symbiosis, Symbolism, and the Power of the Past: Canaan, Ancient Israel, and Their Neighbors from the Late Bronze Age through Roman Palestine (ed. W. Dever and S. Gitin; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2003); P. King and L. Stager, Life in Biblical Israel (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2001), 36–40; L. Stager, “The Archaeology of the Family in Ancient Israel,” BASOR 260 (1985): 1–36, esp. p. 29; J. D. Schloen, The House of the Father as Fact and Symbol: Patrimonialism in Ugarit and the Ancient Near East (Studies in the Archaeology and History of the Levant 2; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2001). 3.  The economic value of children and their place in the household has been recently addressed by L. Koepf and N. Steinberg (L. Koepf, “Give Me Children or I Shall Die”: Children and Communal Survival in Biblical Literature [Ph.D. diss., Union Theological Seminary, 2012], especially pp. 45–47; N. Steinberg, The World of the Child in the Hebrew Bible (Hebrew Bible Monographs 51; Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2013]). 4. J. Fleishman, “The Age of Legal Maturity in Biblical Law,” JANES 21 (1992): 35–48, especially p. 43.

159

160

Chapter Six

The previous chapters began to explore various social statuses of children, their social mobility, and how gender affects their position in the household. As can be seen with regard to these previous categories (adopted, orphaned, foundling, slave, debt-slave, and so on) the references in the Hebrew Bible are limited. 5 Fortunately, the references to categories of children in biblical Israel are not limited to the previous categories. 6 Other social categories exist, such as the virgin daughter, the circumcised male, children in the labor force (shepherds, temple servants, water carriers, participators in the domestic economy, and so on), children as inheritors, siblings, half-siblings, and children who meet an untimely death, to name a few. Some of these categories have already garnered scholarly attention, and others are yet to be explored. 7 In order to round out the picture of children in biblical Israel that the previous chapters began, the next chapters pause to examine two more samplings from the Hebrew Bible: half-siblings and sacrificed children. Like the other kinds of children in this book, half-siblings and sacrificed children are nonnormative categories of social status. As such, considerable ink has been spilt describing these statuses in order to explain how they related to the Israelite household. The central issue for the first category, halfsiblings, has to do with inheritance. The relationship between socioeconomic value versus sentimental value also affects this category. With respect to sacrificed children, the authors of the Hebrew Bible need to address a practice that seems to break the first commandment given to humans: be fruitful and multiply. 8 From a socioeconomic standpoint, it is highly counterproductive. Without children, one cannot increase the labor force or have someone to whom to pass on possessions or the family name. With these issues in mind, the current chapter turns to the patriarchs and their families.

Half-Siblings: Children with the Same Father but Different Mothers At the outset, this category may immediately call to mind children who were born into polygamous marriages, marriages between a man and two women of 5.  The biblical law codes do not offer much information concerning children. In addition, there are no extant legal materials from biblical Israel outside the Hebrew Bible with which to interact. 6. For studies examining terminology for children and childhood, rather than social categories, see ibid., 35–48; and Steinberg, The World of the Child, 26–44 and the bibliography therein. 7.  Steinberg, The World of the Child; Koepf, “Give Me Children”; J. Fleishman, FatherDaughter Relations in Biblical Law (Bethesda, MD: CDL, 2011); A. Kunz-Lübcke and Rüdiger Lux, “Schaffe mir Kinder . . .”: Beiträge zur Kindheit im alten Israel und in seinen Nachbarkulturen (Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2006). 8.  Gen 1:28.

Children in Biblical Israel

161

equal status within the household. 9 We find this sort of relationship between Jacob, Leah, and Rachel. Jacob first marries Leah, and then Rachel (Gen 29:21– 30). Gen 29:30 states that Jacob loved Rachel more than Leah. This may lead one to argue that the marriages were unequal, that Rachel had the upper hand in the house. One could also argue the other way, that Leah, the fecund wife, had the upper hand. However, the fact is that Rachel and Leah are both freeborn daughters who are married to Jacob; the two sisters are in a polygamous marriage. Other examples of polygamous marriages are the relationship between Elkanah and his wives Hannah and Peninnah (1 Samuel 1) and between David and his wives Ahinoam, Michal, Abigail, and Bathsheba (1 Sam 18:27; 25:43; 2 Sam 11:27). Polygyny is not the only kind of marriage in which a man has multiple wives; polycoity also describes the marriage of a man to multiple women. In this arrangement, the man has a primary wife and subsequently takes a secondary wife. The secondary wife is of lesser status and usually comes from a lower socioeconomic background. Thus, when Bilhah and Zilpah become secondary wives of Jacob, the marriage relationship changes from one of polygyny to polycoity. So too when Abraham takes Hagar as a secondary wife: Abraham and Sarah’s marital relationship switches from monogamy to polycoity (Genesis 16). Solomon’s marital relationships, whether exaggerated or not, also fall into this rubric (1 Kgs 11:3). The biblical literature includes one other kind of sexual relationships resulting in the birth of children. 10 In serial monogamy, a man has multiple wives in succession. When one wife dies, he takes another wife and sires more children by her. Abraham’s marriage to Keturah upon Sarah’s death falls into this category. 11 When discussing the status of half-siblings with respect to the household and the marriages through which it is structured, the issue of inheritance naturally comes to the fore. The discussions below will, therefore, touch on some issues of inheritance and heirship in so far as these issues can add to the understanding 9.  The discussion of biblical narratives takes a literary, sociohistorical approach. 10.  Here the discussion is concerned with positive or permitted sexual relationships. The Hebrew Bible mentions many other kinds of sexual relationships that are forbidden. See, for example, Gen 9:18–27; Leviticus 19; Deut 22:20–29. Note that the Hebrew Bible does not have a problem with a promiscuous male; it is the promiscuous female that needs to be regulated. The reasoning behind this has to do with economics and inheritance. The female belongs to either the father or husband, and as such does not have rights over her own body. If a virgin has been defiled, her economic worth has been lowered and father is out a portion of the bridal price. Adultery, on the other hand, is problematic for a woman for a different reason; it raises issues of questionable paternity. Because inheritance passed from father to son, it was imperative that a man know for sure which child belonged to him. For a full discussion of a daughter’s relationship to her father, see J. Fleishman, Father-Daughter Relations. 11.  One can also include the relationship between a man and a prostitute. The biblical text does not consider this kind of relationship ideal, but as evidenced by the story of Jephthah, a relationship between the father and a child born of such a union was possible. See J. Fleishman, “The Legality of the Expulsion of Jephthah,” DI 18 (1997): 61–80.

162

Chapter Six

of the half-sibling in the family household with respect to his or her social and legal status. A full discussion of inheritance belongs to a study focused on economic status, as well as one that moves beyond the childhood years. The issue of legitimacy also presents itself. Do children born to women other than the primary wives need to be formally recognized by his or her father? Deut 21:15–17 is a case law for how a man is to treat sons from multiple wives. If he has two wives, one loved and one hated, and the hated wife has the firstborn son, the father must treat him as such. He cannot favor the second-born son of the loved wife over the son of the hated wife. He must acknowledge the firstborn as the firstborn. The word ‫‘ יכיר‬acknowledge’ seems to suggest that a father needed to legitimize or recognize his sons formally in order for them to inherit. J. Fleishman, however, presents a convincing argument in which he concludes there is “no evidence of a legal principle that a person’s biological child was deemed his son or heir only if his father acknowledged him as such.” 12 Therefore, in the cases to follow, all half-siblings and full siblings are eligible for inheritance as legal members of the household.

Isaac-Ishmael: Genesis16, 21 In Genesis 12, God promises a 75-year-old Abraham that he will be the father of many nations. Ten years passed during which Sarah, Abraham’s wife do not conceive. In the 11th year, Sarah takes matters into her own hands and gives her handmaid (‫)שפחה‬, Hagar, to Abraham as a wife (‫ ;אשה‬Gen 16:3). 13 Upon taking Hagar as a wife, Abraham’s marriage moves from a monogamous marriage to one of polycoity. Hagar, a woman of a lower socioeconomic status becomes a second-tier wife. The purpose of the new union is for Sarah to gain a surrogate son through Hagar. Indeed, under this arrangement, Hagar conceives and bears Ishmael on behalf of Sarah (Gen 16:2–4). While Sarah remains the primary wife, Hagar gains the honor of being the wife who has children. Fourteen years later, Sarah finally bears a son, Isaac (Gen 17:17, 19; 21:2). Isaac and Ishmael were thus the first biblical half-siblings. As sons of Abraham, Ishmael and Isaac were both circumcised, Ishmael at 13 days old and Isaac at 8 days old (Gen 17:23; 21:4). In some cultures, circumcision functions as a rite of passage from childhood to adulthood. 14 Throughout the biblical text, however, it serves a different function. It is the marker of the covenant between Yhwh and the Israelite people (Gen 17:11–12). 15 Both children are members of Abraham’s family; both undergo circumcision and become a 12. J. Fleishman, “Did a Child’s Legal Status in Biblical Israel Depend upon His Being Acknowledged? ” ZAW 121 (2009): 367. 13.  Abraham was 75 when God first appeared to him and uttered the covenantal promise (Gen 12:1–4). Ishmael is born to him when he is 86 (Gen 16:16). 14. J. Sasson, “Circumcision in the Ancient Near East,” JBL 85 (1966): 473–76. 15.  More will be said on circumcision below on pp. 173–176, in the section “Entrance into the Household: Marriage and Circumcision.”

Children in Biblical Israel

163

part of the Israelite covenant, but the children have very different social statuses. Despite the secondary status of his mother, as the first born child, Ishmael initially has the rights to inherit as the firstborn. These rights are called into question when Sarah gives birth. As primary wife, Sarah wishes to secure the place of her son, Isaac, as firstborn. 16 Not only does she want Isaac to be firstborn but she desires him to be the sole heir to Abraham’s inheritance. Hence, she requests that Hagar and Ishmael be banished (Gen 21:10). Sarah’s actions suggest that the model of inheritance was that of lineal/vertical heirship wherein one son’s line was privileged over other sons’. Additional sons simply did not inherit. The fact that Sarah pushes Ishmael out of the house also suggests that a competing model of heirship may have existed alongside of the lineal/vertical heirship, that of horizontal heirship. In the latter model, the portion of inheritance rests on birth order. As long as the children all have the same father, it does not matter who their mother is; all are able to inherit. 17 Sarah wanted to make sure vertical heirship was in play and that Isaac would receive everything. Thus, this story demonstrates one way in which socioeconomic status, even for children, is fluid. Ishmael went from being the sole inheritor of Abraham’s estate to receiving nothing, not even a place in the camp. 18 Upon his birth, Isaac, by means of his mother’s status as primary wife, took away the status of firstborn and the firstborn inheritance portion from Ishmael. At this point, it seems that Isaac would share the rest of the inheritance with Ishmael under a horizontal heirship model. However, Sarah saw something happen with Ishmael that caused her to request vertical heirship. 19 What should be noted here is that Sarah, an adult woman, makes decisions that direct the household and affects the environment in which both her biological son and her surrogate son grow up. The decision made by the primary wife affected children in Abraham’s household even after her death. With the command to banish Ishmael, she sealed 16.  The language used throughout Genesis 21 highlights the fact that Hagar is of secondary status in the household. She is no longer called ‘wife’ (‫ )אשה‬but rather ‘handmaid’ or ‘second-tier wife’ (‫)אמה‬. 17.  I am indebted to Naomi Steinberg for pointing out these inheritance models and thinking about them within the context of the Hebrew Bible (Steinberg, The World of the Child, 53). 18.  Abraham does look out for the well-being of his true firstborn and pleads with God to ensure Ishmael’s safety and prosperity after he is banished from Abraham’s household (Gen 21:11–13). 19.  Gen 21:9 states that Sarah saw Ishmael playing (‫ )מצחק‬and at this point decided to have him removed. Many suggestions have been made as to what this verse means. Some rabbinic commentators see a word play between ‫ מצחק‬and Isaac (‫)יצחק‬: Ishmael was trying to be Isaac. Others understand this to mean that Ishmael was making fun of or laughing at Isaac. Another view states that Ishmael shot a bow and arrow at Isaac, pretending to sport with him. A final interpretation states that Sarah saw Ishmael creating shrines on which he offered locusts and incense to an idol. t. Soṭah 6.5–6; Gen. Rab. 53:11; and C. T. R. Hayward, St. Jerome’s Hebrew Questions on Genesis (New York: Oxford, 1995), 174 on Gen 21:9

164

Chapter Six

the socioeconomic status of all children born to Abraham from that point on. Gen 25:1 states that, after Sarah’s death, Abraham remarries a woman named Keturah and has six sons with her: Imran, Jokshan, Medan, Midian, Ishbak, and Shuah. 20 While it appears that Keturah was the primary wife at this point—she is called ‘wife’ (‫)אשה‬, her children do not inherit along with Isaac. Gen 25:6 suggests that Abraham may have had additional children by women unnamed in the text. These women are called concubines (‫)פלגשים‬. Gen 26:5–6 states that Abraham honored Sarah’s wishes to make Isaac the sole heir. He safeguarded Isaac by giving gifts to the other children and sending away Isaac’s half-sibilings to the East. Thus, Abraham’s actions sidestepped any sibling rivalry that may have arisen upon Abraham’s death. Unfortunately, the text concerning these other children is rather laconic. The text leaves a few telling gaps. For example, one cannot tell the precise age at which the half-siblings were sent away. Was it at the same age as Ishmael was when he was banished? It is also interesting that the text says nothing about the circumcision of these children. One is left to assume that Abraham circumcised them on the eighth day. While the Gen 25:1–6 may be laconic, it is not without information. The text’s silence offers some insight into the social status of Abraham’s other children. Like Ishmael, the other children posed a potential threat to Isaac. However, in comparison to Ishmael, these other children appear to be of a lesser status. Twice, Genesis spends time describing the danger of Ishmael to Isaac—once before his birth (Genesis 16) and once after his birth (Genesis 21). The children sired subsequently do not have narratives of this sort attached to them. Perhaps it is because Abraham already knows how to deal with this sort of situation. Or perhaps it is because Sarah, the overprotective mother, is dead. A final possibility may be that the children inherit some of their mother’s social status. If one looks at the social status of Sarah, Hagar, and Keturah and the language used to describe them, one finds that all three women are called “wife” (Gen 11:29, 16:3, 25:1). However, their ranking within the household is made clear by other descriptions. Sarah is the primary wife. She is never anything other than a wife (‫)אשה‬. Hagar is identified first as Sarah’s handmaid (‫ )שפחה‬in Gen 16:3. After her marriage to Abraham, Hagar is still in Sarah’s service and referred to as a handmaid (‫)שפחה‬. 21 In Gen 21, after Ishmael is born, Hagar is called an ‫אמה‬, sometimes translated as ‘slave’. However, this word here is a status marker and refers to one who is lower in status than another. 22 Genesis 25 states that Keturah is a wife, but 1 Chr 1:32 specifically calls her a ‫‘ פילגש‬concubine’. With the way that 1 Chronicles 32 and Genesis 15 refer to Keturah, connecting 20.  Rashi understood Keturah to be Hagar. However, most rabbinic commentators understood Hagar and Keturah to be separate people (Rashbam, Ibn Ezra, Radak). 1 Chr 1:32 also lists Hagar and Keturah as two different individuals. 21.  Gen 16:5–8. 22.  See pp. 128–130 on Exod 21:7–11.

Children in Biblical Israel

165

her directly or indirectly with the term ‫פילגש‬, it seems that, while a wife, she is of an even lesser status than Hagar. 1 Chronicles also makes sure to distinguish Abraham’s six sons by Keturah in another way: while it mentions Keturah’s name, it does not list the mothers of Isaac or Ishmael. Perhaps the readers would not need this information, or perhaps, there was something much different about Keturah’s status and that of her sons, which needed separation from Abraham’s other wives and children. The children by these women seem to inherit some of their mothers’ status. Isaac, while not firstborn, is the child of the primary wife and becomes the primary (sole) heir. Ishmael, Abraham’s true firstborn, inherited Abraham’s status as the progenitor of nations (Gen 21:13, 18). However, because Hagar was of secondary status to Sarah, Ishmael becomes secondary to Isaac. Unlike with Ishmael, there is no reassurance given to Keturah or Abraham that her six sons will produce nations. Her sons seem to be of an even lesser status than Ishmael. Thus, while the sons of Abraham are all his sons, their status and place within the household appears to be related to that of their mother. 23

Jacob: Twelve Sons and One Daughter Jacob’s children came to him through four different women. His marriage began as one of sororal polygamy, wherein the sisters Rachel and Leah entered the union as wives of equal status. 24 They each brought with them one maid (Gen 29:24, 29). In time, Rachel’s maid, Bilhah became Jacob’s wife (Gen 30:3), and Leah’s maid, Zilpah, also became Jacob’s wife (Gen 30:9). Jacob sired children by each of his four wives. Rachel had two sons, Joseph and Benjamin. Leah had Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar, Zebulun, and Dinah. Bilhah bore Dan and Naphtali; Zilpah bore Gad and Asher. The twelve sons went on to become the fathers of the twelve tribes of Israel. Unlike the narrative concerning Isaac and Ishmael, here inheritance and heirship is not lineal but horizontal; Jacob divided his inheritance equally among his sons (Genesis 49). 25 The relationship between the children when they are very young is sketchy. It is unclear whether or not they enjoyed equal standing in the household or understand their status to be differentiated. In order to tease out what little information the text provides, one must examine the relationship between the sisters and their handmaids and their respective places and function within the household. Throughout Genesis 30, Rachel and Leah jockey for prominence in Jacob’s household by means of a 23.  For the economic benefit of multiple children, see Steinberg, 57, 99, 103. 24.  For more on sororal polygyny, see idem, Kingship and Marriage in Genesis (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), 115–34. 25.  Dinah is not included in the inheritance. She is effectively written out of the narrative after the events of Genesis 34.

166

Chapter Six

competition­to bear children. 26 While Rachel remains barren, Leah bears four children (Gen 29:35). At this point, the sisters send Zilpah and Bilhah to sleep with Jacob in their stead. In a sense, Bilhah and Zilphah act as surrogate mothers for Rachel and Leah in so much as they bear children on the sisters’ behalf. That the children of the handmaids are considered Rachel and Leah’s own children can be seen in the language Rachel uses surrounding Dan’s birth. Rachel tells Jacob to sleep with Bilhah in order that Bilhah may “bear on my knees,” ‫תלד על‬ ‫ברכי‬. 27 Rachel is suggesting here that the Bilhah’s child will be her own child.  28 Note too that Rachel and Leah, the primary wives, name the children born to their respective handmaids (Gen 30:5–8, 9–13). Contrast this to Ishmael, who was not named by Sarah. 29 As the Genesis narrative plays out, it is clear that Bilhah and Zilpah’s children have a different relationship to their half siblings than that of Isaac and Ishmael. Like Rachel’s words in Gen 30:3 suggest, the naming process also attests to the fact that Rachel and Leah considered their handmaids’ sons to be their own. From this perspective, one might conclude that all of the sons enjoyed the same social status within the family. However, the matter is not so simple. When Jacob goes to meet Esau, it is clear that the children do not all have equal ranking in the household. When presenting his family, Jacob “divides the children among Leah, Rachel, and the two maids, putting the maids and their children first, Leah and her children next, and Rachel and Joseph last” (Gen 33:1b–2). The pecking order here is clear: Zilpah and Bilhah’s children are less important than the biological children of Rachel and Leah. Furthermore, Rachel’s child trumps Leah’s children. One may also infer from this scene that the children reflect the status of their biological mother, at least with respect to their social status in the household. 30 Jacob favors his son 26.  It is clear from Rachel’s point of view that a competition over children was going on (Gen 30:8). Koepf discusses this competition for children in a case study (“Give me Children,” 72–79). 27.  Gen 30:3. 28.  See also Gen 48:12. Much has been written about the practice of placing or bearing a child on another’s knees. Many scholars consider it an act signifying adoption, such as was common in the ANE. R. Hans-Friedemann, “Auf den Knien eines andern gebären? (Zur Deutung von Gen 30 3 und 50 23),” ZAW 91 (1979): 436; N. M. Sarna, Genesis (JPS Torah Commentary; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1989), 207–8. 29.  Whereas an angel of Yhwh commands Hagar to call the child Ishmael, Abram is the one who names the child Ishmael (Gen 16:11, 15). The text leaves it ambiguous as to how Abram knew the divine decree. 30. See R. R. Wilson, Geneaology and History in the Biblical World (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1977), 185–86; R. Westbrook, Property and the Family in Biblical Law (JSOTSup 113; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991), 136. Naomi Steinberg argues that Jacob’s children do not follow the status of their mothers. Her arguments are based on the place of the child with regard to the household economic system and patterns of inheritance (Marriage and Kinship, 121 n. 9). However, more recently she states the opposite (with respect to Isaac and Ishmael), that childhoods are shaped by “the socioeconomic status of their mothers­

Children in Biblical Israel

167

Joseph more than the rest of his children; Joseph is the son of Jacob’s favored wife. Returning to the presentation scene, the children of Jacob’s primary wives were given more protection in the retinue presented to Esau; they are behind the children of Zilpah and Bilhah, Jacob’s secondary wives. Also notable is the fact that Gad and Asher, the sons by the handmaid of the unfavored wife, receive the most peripheral of the tribe allotments. 31 So while each of the twelve children of Jacob are recognized by him as his children and are part of the covenant community, who their mother is seems to have some effect on how they are perceived with relation to their siblings. Shortly before Jacob presents his family to Esau, Gen 32:23 states that Jacob crossed the Jabbok with his two wives (‫)שתי נשיו‬, his two secondary wives (‫)שתי שפחתיו‬, and this 11 children (‫)אחד עשר ילדיו‬. However, toward the end of Rachel and Leah’s childbearing competition, Gen 30:21 states that Leah bore her final child, a daughter named Dinah. Thus, when Jacob goes to meet Esau, he has 11 sons and one daughter. Jacob has 12, not 11 children. One may argue that Joseph, the youngest child, was not listed because he was still an infant and therefore not understood as part of the family unit. However, we might infer that Joseph must be at least two or three years old from Gen 31:35, the story in which Rachel places her father’s idols in her saddle bags and then claims to have her menses and be unable to rise from her saddle. Even if her words were meant to trick her father, it must have been plausible for Rachel to have her menses. The onset of menses is known to return when a woman stops breastfeeding, when her child turned two or three. 32 In addition, Gen 33:6 states that both Joseph and Rachel bowed before Esau. This would imply that Joseph was counted among the 11 children. Thus, the 11 children in 32:23 refer to the 11 sons of Jacob. Dinah is left out. One may argue that she was too young to have been counted among the children; however, from Gen 30:14–24 we know that she is older than Joseph, so this argument is not logical. 33 The most reasonable explanation is that, as a girl, Dinah was not considered as important as her brothers. This means that, even though she was born to a primary wife, her gender made her less important than both her full and half-brothers. Hagar and Sarah, i.e., the difference between being the son of a secondary or primary wife” (Steinberg, The World of the Child in the Hebrew Bible, 55, 85). 31.  Idem, “Zilpah: Bible,” in Jewish Women: A Comprehensive Historical Encyclopedia [accessed April 13, 2013]. On-line: http://jwa.org/encyclopedia/article/zilpah-bible. 32. M. Gruber, “Breast-Feeding Practices in the Bible and Old Babylonian Mesopotamia,” in The Motherhood of God and Other Studies (ed. M. Gruber; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992), 69–107. 33. Naḥum Sarna speculates on the ages of Dinah and her brothers based on the chronology given in Gen 29–37. He states that the family stayed in Shechem for 10 years and Dinah was 7 or 8 years old when they first arrived. Thus, at the time when the events of Gen 34 took place, Dinah would have been at least 12 or 13, making Simeon and Levi 18 and 19 years old (Sarna, Genesis, 367 n. 1).

168

Chapter Six

Even though Dinah seems to hold the lowest social status within the household, an entire chapter, Genesis 34, explains the circumstances by which she comes of age. 34 But here too, in a narrative ostensibly about Dinah, her character remains undeveloped. Indeed, the text is more concerned with her deflowering and how an exogamous marriage would affect her family. While Dinah’s feelings are not known and her voice not heard, the narrative does offer enough information for one to read between the lines and determine Dinah’s place in the household. By starting her story with a watershed moment, her humiliating encounter with the Canaanite man Shechem and the ensuing marriage proposal, the narrative emphasizes that Dinah’s prime value in the household was sexual in nature. In a patriarchal system, men have control over women’s sexuality. A girl’s womb belongs to her father until she is married. Upon marriage, the right to the girl’s womb is transferred to her husband. While the rights to the unmarried girl’s womb belonged to her father, all the males in her family had an interest in protecting this asset. A daughter’s virginity was of utmost importance, it was perhaps the defining characteristic of her childhood. 35 In losing her virginity before marriage, Dinah decreased her economic value to the family. She could not fetch the same bride price as her fellow Israelites who were virgins (Deut 22:16–17, 28–29). 36 When a girl was married, two economic transactions occurred: a bride price was given by the husband to the father, and part of the family inheritance was given to the girl as a dowry. 37 In societies that practiced endogamous marriages, 34. Genesis 34 is often referred to as “The Rape of Dinah.” However, much ink has been spilt over whether or not Gen 34:2 in fact describes a rape (S. Gravett, “Reading Rape in the Hebrew Bible: A Consideration of Language,” JSOT 28 [2004]: 279–99; Y. Shemesh, “Rape Is Rape Is Rape: The Story of Dinah and Shechem (Genesis 34),” ZAW 119 [2007]: 2–21; E. van Wolde, “Does INNÂ Denote Rape? A Semantic Analysis of a Controversial Word,” VT 52 [2002]: 528–44). The word in question is ‫ענה‬, which in the Piel means ‘to humiliate’. Some authors, such as Anita Diamant and Lyn Bechtel have even suggested that the sex was consensual (Anita Diamant, The Red Tent [New York: Picador, 1997]; L. Bechtel, “What If Dinah Is Not Raped (Genesis 34),” JSOT 62 [1994]: 19–36). 35.  A girl was expected to be a virgin at marriage (Deut 22:13–21). A man wanted to marry a virgin to ensure that any children she had were his. Paternity was a concern for inheritance issues. 36.  “Automatically” is the operative word here. Dinah’s narrative is a bit different because a prince was in love with her and persuaded his father to meet any demand Jacob made in negotiating a bride price (Gen 34:4, 8–12). Had Dinah been in any other normal situation, the likelihood that Jacob would have been offered such a high bride price is low. 37.  The exchange of goods was meant to keep the status differentiation at a status quo. As Steinberg puts it, “they link a man and woman from comparable economic backgrounds,” (Steinberg, Marriage and Kinship, 27. See also J. Goody, Production and Reproduction: A Comparative Study of the Domestic Domain [Cambridge Studies in Social Anthropology 17; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976], 11–15). In a world of arranged marriages where prepubescent daughters could be married off, it is interesting to think about whether or not a girl’s bride price, and hence her economic value, went up once she reached puberty. It is possible

Children in Biblical Israel

169

such as the Genesis narratives describe, the property or money transferred was by default kept within the kinship group. When Jacob agreed to marry Dinah to a Shechemite, he was agreeing to an exogamous marriage. In this situation, two things would happen: Dinah’s dowry would function as her inheritance, and her portion of the inheritance would move outside the kinship group. 38 Looking at her prospective marriage from this point of view emphasizes Dinah’s economic value. If the marriage were to occur, Dinah’s brothers would lose her portion of the family inheritance to an outsider. 39 The outrageous request with which Dinah’s brothers respond, the very fact they insist on circumcision of the entire city of Shechem, demonstrates that the brothers are not happy with the proposed marriage arrangement. They do not want the two clans to intermarry, so they ask that the “outside” clan become an “inside” clan through circumcision, thus making the marriage endogamous (Gen 34:15–16). Their sister would remain one of the group, and so the group would retain her inheritance portion. However, information on Dinah’s status does not end here; reading carefully, one can also see the relationship between Dinah and her brothers. Dinah’s brothers are unhappy with the way Dinah has been treated (Gen 34:7, 13, 31). As the story unravels, it is clear that two of the brothers either did not want or did not expect Hamor and his city to agree to the circumcision mandate. In v. 25, Simeon and Levi kill all the men of the city while they are recovering from their circumcisions. Verse 27 states that the other brothers then join in and plunder the town because Dinah had been humiliated. Jacob responds to his sons’ actions with reproof. Simeon and Levi retort: “Should our sister be treated like a whore? ” (Gen 34:31). Verses 25 and 31 name Simeon and Levi for a specific reason; they are Dinah’s full brothers. As such, they are reacting either from a place of personal anger and disgrace or as the champions of Dinah’s rights. The motivation behind their reaction is significant. The latter case suggests a close relationship between the full siblings. Simeon and Levi feel responsible for their little sister, Dinah, and what happened to her. Dinah, as a female, needs rescuing, and they came to her aid. 40 In the former case, Dinah’s brothers are acting in their own interest; they have no concern for her. She is simply the means by that her price was determined solely on the basis of her family’s status. However, is also possible that a pubescent girl, one ready to bear children, could fetch a higher price. See M. Roth, “Age at Marriage and the Household: A Study of Neo-Babylonian and Neo-Assyrian Forms,” Comparative Studies in Society and History 29 (1987): 715–47; and Roth, Babylonian Marriage Agreements, 7th–3rd Centuries b.c. (Alter Orient und Altes Testament 222; Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker, 1989). 38.  For information on a woman inheriting in an endogamous society, see Steinberg, Kinship and Marriage, 27. 39.  This is the issue at stake for Zelophad’s daughters (Num 27:1–11, 36). 40. Meir Sternberg, “Biblical Poetics and Sexual Politics: From Reading to CounterReading,” JBL 111 (1992): 463–88.

170

Chapter Six

which their honor has been tarnished. The brothers utter the phrase “Should our sister be treated like a whore? ” not out of concern for Dinah but to justify their selfish actions. 41 Through her, their family has been besmirched. So too the statement that Dinah “went out to visit the daughters of the land,” which shifts from an independent and curious Dinah to a sister who was “asking for it.” 42 Either way one reads her brothers’ reactions, it becomes clear that text defines Dinah by her relationship the men in her family. In fact, through this relationship one can understand the text to be stating that, as a virgin daughter of marriageable age, Dinah had both sentimental and socioeconomic value. On the sentimental side, the reaction of her two full brothers, Simeon and Levi, demonstrates that they had more a vested interest in what happened to her than did her half-brothers. In a culture of honor and shame, they were most heavily affected by her actions. Were this not so, the text would not have made a point of naming which brothers killed the Shechemites, nor would it have emphasized that Simeon and Levi were the ones to say “Should our sister be treated like a whore? ” (Gen 34:31). 43 From a place of status, it demonstrates that, even as a child, she is a part of the family economic system. Dinah’s narrative is an example of how, in a kinship group such as Jacob’s, “a person’s identity was determined by her/his relationships to others, rather than grounded in individual autonomy. The self and the family were integrated as having the same concerns, rather than separate concepts.” 44 Dinah’s identity was bound to the family and defined by it. Although Dinah’s narrative may be more about exogamous marriage, her story serves as a valuable case study, for it is the only patriarchal narrative that includes both male and female siblings. As such, it is the only story that attests to the relationship between brothers and sisters. Like most of the biblical texts, the relationship of males and females is told from the male’s point of view. In Dinah’s case, the text gives us the view of the narrator, her full brothers and her halfbrothers. While Jacob’s children stand to inherit under the system of horizontal heirship, it clear that Dinah’s place in the chain is different from her brothers’. From the adult male narrator’s perspective, Dinah’s place in the household is not equal to that of either her full or half-brothers as evidenced by her absence in the presentation scene (Gen 32:23, 33:1–2, 5). As a collective, her brother’s opinion of Dinah can be seen in their reaction to the incident with Shechem. The brothers feel intense anger and speak with guile because Shechem had made Dinah 41.  Danna Nolan Fewell and David M. Gunn, “Tipping the Balance: Sternberg’s Reader and the Rape of Dinah,” JBL 110 (1991): 193–211. 42.  The verb ‫‘ יצא‬to go out’ can have a wanton, sexual, coquettish meaning. See also Akkadian waṣû ‘to exhibit promiscuous behavior’ and Aramaic nafkaʾ/nafkah (‘she who goes out’, ‘a prostitute’; cf. Rashi, “she was a gadabout” (N. Sarna, Genesis, 367 n. 3. Gen. Rab. 80:1 also suggests that Dinah “went out” as a harlot. A girl of marriageable age would not leave the camp unaccompanied. 43.  Here I side with Sternberg, who sees Simeon and Levi as heroes, not as selfish brats. 44.  Steinberg, The World of the Child, 60.

Children in Biblical Israel

171

sexually unclean/disgraced (‫ )טמא‬by sleeping with her; he had committed an outrage (‫ )נבלה‬in Israel. 45 Two of her full brothers took it upon themselves to kill all the men of Shechem. The rest of her brothers followed up on this outrage by plundering everything of value in the town. Once Simeon and Levi had killed Dinah’s future husband, the family lost the rich bride price that Hamor would have paid on behalf of his son, Shechem (Gen 34:12). The act of taking all the flocks, herds, asses, wealth, children, wives, and items in the houses not only created a ghost town and left no witnesses behind but also served to collect what the bride price would have been—many times over! The actions of Dinah’s brothers­, then, emphasized her place in the household economic system. Simeon and Levi’s reaction, however, suggests that they were angered by more than just the fact that their sister had experienced “economic depreciation.” Their actions and reply to Jacob suggest that Simeon and Levi also had a sentimental attachment to her. With their actions, her full brothers both made possible the payment of the bride price while at the same time, in their view, protecting their sister’s honor. A discussion of economic and sentimental value would be incomplete without reference to Joseph, perhaps the most well-known of the twelve sons. Before his birth, Joseph’s mother, Rachel, uttered the line “Give me children; if not, I will die.” 46 Laurel Koepf ’s study examines Rachel’s plea from an economic point of view. She argues that Rachel’s desire for a child had nothing to do with feeling her biological clock ticking but everything to do with wanting to solidify her place in Jacob’s household. 47 A woman’s primary job was to birth children, and her sister Leah was out producing her four to nothing. Joseph’s birth ended Rachel’s period of barrenness and made her a mother, thus allowing her to contribute a child to the household economic system. In fact, Rachel was so excited with her newfound status that she gave her child a name that means “May the Lord add (another son to me).” This name seems to suggest that Rachel perceived Joseph not as a long yearned-for child over whom she could coo but as one who could help built up the bet ʾav and solidify her status in it. Whereas Rachel’s affection toward Joseph is not displayed in the text, Jacob’s affection for his son is more apparent. He is placed last, in the most protected spot of the retinue sent to greet Esau (Gen 33:6–7). Four chapters after this event, the text tells us that Israel (Jacob) loved Joseph best of all of his sons (Gen 37:3). Jacob’s favoritism caused Joseph’s half-brothers to hate him (Gen 37:4). At this point, Joseph is 17 years old. One can surmise that his brothers did not begin to hate him when he was 17, but that constant favoritism over 17 years caused Joseph to have a less-than-peaceful relationship with his older brothers throughout his childhood. As the story goes, Joseph’s brothers throw him into a pit, debate whether or not 45.  Gen 34:7, 13–14. 46.  Gen 30:1 47. L. Koepf,“Give Me Children,” 66–71.

172

Chapter Six

to kill him, and then decide to sell him into slavery. Thus, the Jacob narratives suggest­that sentiment causes people to act violently. Simeon and Levi’s outrage on account of Dinah led them to murder an entire city in order to defend her honor. And Jacob’s affection for Joseph caused his brothers to hate him and remove him (albeit temporarily) from their family.

Synthesis: The Half-Sibling The life of the household revolved around the bet ʾav. Who came in to the household and who left the household, how they came and went, and with what they entered and left affected not only the individual himself but the entire family unit. The narratives about half-siblings are primarily concerned with the entrance of new family members. Each time a person enters into the family, the relationship between the existing family members is affected. The narratives surrounding Abraham and Jacob’s families highlight two ways in which a person can enter the bev ʾav: through birth and through marriage. These same narratives also emphasize that the institution of inheritance is the one most affected by the entrance of new people.

Social Mobility and Inheritance Not only is the bet ʾav an organizational unity, but it is also a socioeconomic unit. As such, it is concerned with passing on the paterfamilias’s name, his land, and increasing the family’s production. A household in the bet ʾav could be created through various kinds of marriages: polycoity, monogamy, polygyny, and so on. Each model of marriage has its own socioeconomic benefits. A monogamous marriage means that there are no half-siblings to contend with when it comes time to divide up the inheritance. Marriages of polycoity and polygyny complicate inheritance matters a little more by bringing half-siblings into the picture. In any kind of marriage, inheritance can occur vertically, favoring one child’s line above the others, or horizontally, when inheritance is related to birth order. Obviously, the more children entering the inheritance line, the smaller the inheritance shares became. The children of Hagar, Zilpah, and Bilhah all enter the bet ʾav as children of the primary wive’s handmaids. While not surrogate births by modern definition, phrases such as “I may have a son by her” (Gen 16:2) and “she may bear on my knees” (Gen 30:3) suggest that the handmaid’s children should be considered surrogate births. 48 Their children were meant to count as children of the primary wife. 49 In the case of Sarah and Hagar, their relationship goes sour (Gen 16:6). 48. E. Spitz, “Through Her I Too Shall Bear a Child”: Birth Surrogates in Jewish Law,” Journal of Religious Ethics 24/1 (1996): 65–97. 49. I. Teitelbaum, “Two Cases of Psychogenic Sterility in the Bible,” Journal of Sex Research 4/3 (1968): 242–46.

Children in Biblical Israel

173

Hagar takes airs, perhaps suggesting she does not conceive of her child as belonging to Sarah. Sarah herself seems to change her mind about Ishmael’s place in the household after an incident he has with her biological son, Isaac (Gen 21:9–10). With his entrance to the household (his birth) Ishmael is considered the promised son of Abraham’s loins (Gen 15:4); he stands to inherit everything from Abraham. However, as previously discussed, Ishmael’s fortunes change when Isaac is born. Now Ishmael has the status of firstborn, and will receive the larger share given to the firstborn. Yet, his status in the household again changes when Sarah advocates for a vertical method of inheritance; Ishmael is disinherited and so exits the household by a word from Sarah (Gen 21:10). Whereas the rocky relationship between Sarah and Hagar affects the surrogate son negatively, the good relationship between Jacob’s primary wives and their maids affects the surrogate sons positively. Dan, Naphtali, Gad, and Asher live with and inherit beside the biological children of Rachel and Leah. Despite the fact that Jacob has 12 sons, the competition for inheritance shares is not the same. Jacob’s sons inherit horizontally, with each son getting a portion of his lands. The more children entering the family, the more children can work the land and contribute to the family economic system.

Entrance into the Household: Marriage and Circumcision In the biblical text a half-sibling is one who has a different mother but the same father. By definition, then, a half-sibling must enter the family through birth. However, the discussion on half-siblings, specifically Dinah, brought up two more ways of entering a household that are worthy of mention here: marriage for females and circumcision for males. In patriarchal societies, when a girl marries she leaves her natal family and moves in with her husband’s family. The narrative in Genesis 34 exemplifies the concerns that happen when a girl enters an exogamous marriage, outside the kinship group. In this case, any property or wealth that she accrues through her inheritance or dowry will move along with her to a new kinship group. The Torah suggests that exogamous marriage was frowned upon. The patriarchs and their sons all take wives from inside the clan. Esau is the exception. Rebekah and Jacob are bitter over Esau’s marriage to Hittite women (Gen 26:34–35), so much so that Rebekah states she is disgusted with her life on account of these women (Gen 27:46). The text does not give any errant or offensive actions on behalf of the Hittite wives. Instead, the text’s silence leads the reader to conclude that their ethnicity is the problem. The issue of inheritance comes to the fore again when Zelophehad’s daughters become old enough to marry. Moses has ordained that in the absence of a son, a daughter can inherit their father’s property, thus perpetuating his bet ʾav (Num 27:1–11). Zelophehad’s daughters are thus awarded his share of the tribal allotment. However, the Josephite tribal heads are concerned that if the daughters of Zelophehad marry outside of the Josephite clan, then the property of their kinsman (Zelophehad­)

174

Chapter Six

will move with them to another tribe, thus diminishing the tribe’s ancestral portion. Here, the outside marriage is defined not by ethnicity but by tribe. Returning to Genesis 34, one finds that Dinah’s narrative offers another perspective on the matter of exogamous marriage. According to the narrative, Hamor approaches Jacob with a marriage proposal. He suggests not only that Shechem and Dinah marry but that the two tribes intermarry (Gen 34:9). Moreover, Jacob and his sons will be able to settle in Hamor’s country and acquire property there (Gen 34:10). Hamor is offering to Jacob the very things central to the survival and perpetuation of his bet ʾav, namely. the ability to build up the paterfamilias’s name through intermarriages, increasing his land through new property holdings, and increasing the family’s economic worth. 50 Hamor appears to offer everything that the paterfamilias of abet ʾav would desire. However, Hamor did not count on the strong intrafamily ties; Dinah’s brothers do not find Hamor’s offer or the impending marriage acceptable. Outsiders shall not be married to insiders. In the case of Dinah, I suggest that this may have been one of the factors motivating Simeon and Levi’s actions. They did not want either Dinah or the inheritance/dowry linked to her to move outside of the kinship group. Besides commenting on exogamous marriage, Genesis 34 raises another issue with regard to kinship. It addresses whether or not non-Israelites can become Israelites and whether an outsider can become an insider. To be an Israelite means to be part of the covenant between God and Abraham. The marker of that covenant is carried by the male: circumcision on the eighth day or as soon as a male enters into the household (Gen 17:9–14). Abraham followed God’s orders and circumcised himself, Ishmael, the home-born slaves, purchased slaves, and every male in his house (Gen 17:23–27). From this, we can infer that one who is circumcised is considered an insider, an Israelite. However, the institution of circumcision was not unique to the Israelites. Egyptians and other West Semitic peoples, such as the Ammonites, Moabites, and Edomites practiced circumcision. However, these groups did not circumcise on the eighth day. Egyptian reliefs and showing circumcision are commonly understood as depicting a rite of passage between youth and manhood. 51 From these reliefs, scholars assign puberty as the age for circumcision in non-Israelite cultures. Other Israelite neighbors did not circumcise. The Philistines, one of the 50.  Jacob could increase his economic holdings by herding larger flocks. Flocks would need room to graze and roam, which Hamor grants in his statement that the “land will be open before you” (Gen 34:10). 51.  King and Stager, Life in Biblical Israel, 43–45; J. Sasson, “Circumcision,” 473–76; R. G. Hall, “Circumcision,” ABD 1:1025–31. Ethnographic studies show that circumcision is also associated with a fertility rite (H. Eilberg-Schwartz, The Savage in Judaism [Bloomington: Indiana University Press], 1990); M. Fox, “Sign of the Covenant: Circumcision in Light of Priestly ‘Ôt Etiologies,” RB 84 [1974]: 557–96; E. Silverman, “Anthropology and Circumcision,” Annual Review of Anthropology 33 (2004): 419–45.

Children in Biblical Israel

175

Sea Peoples, are a group whose primary identity is their foreskin. 52 From Dinah’s narrative, it is clear that some Canaanite groups also did not circumcise. Thus, Israel was surrounded by men with circumcisions and without circumcisions. Because other cultures also practiced circumcision, one must examine what makes Israelite circumcision different. One obvious difference is the timing. Israelites circumcised a child much earlier than their neighbors. Naomi Steinberg posits that in Israelite culture circumcision marks the beginning of a male’s social identity. It brings the boy into the patrilineage of his father and also into the community as a social being. 53 Steinberg suggests that for a male, gender was not assigned until circumcision. 54 According to her argument, the assignment of male gender is marked through ritual. The link between circumcision and assignment of male gender seems too rigid. Steinberg states that when a baby is born it is understood only as a physical body until it is gendered. Gender lines are not that stark. A woman postpartum knows whether she birthed a male or a female baby; the length of her ritual impurity depends on this knowledge (Lev 12:1–5). Here, I would massage Steinberg’s argument a bit and suggest that an Israelite baby with a penis is presumed to be male. He is male in potential and that potential is realized at circumcision. While marker of gender is an educated guess, the text clearly assigns another meaning to circumcision, entry into the covenantal relationship. Genesis states that Abraham circumcised his entire household: himself, Ishmael, his house born slaves, and his purchased slaves (Gen 17:23–27). When Isaac was born, Abraham circumcised him as well (Gen 21:4). The interesting fact here is that not all of Abraham’s household entered the covenantal relationship. The covenantal line was not passed down through Abraham’s male servants but through Isaac, and to some extent, Ishmael. 55 The covenant also did not pass through Keturah’s sons. Circumcision, then, does not automatically equal entrance into the covenant. If circumcision did not equal automatic entrance into the covenant, what else could circumcision signify? One could posit that circumcision was a way for non-Israelites to enter into an Israelite household. Consider Jacob’s son’s response to Hamor when he offered for the Shechemites to intermarry with the Israelites. 52.  See, for example: 1 Sam 17:26; 18:25, 27. 53.  Steinberg, The World of the Child, 68–69. She supports this argument by looking to scholars who discuss later rabbinic interpretation of the biblical tradition. The Talmudic understanding of circumcision is such that “One who is uncircumcised is not only not fully Jewish but also not fully male” (D. Kraemer, Reading the Rabbis: The Talmud as Literature [New York: Oxford University Press, 1996], 123). 54.  Steinberg states that girls, on the other hand, are not gendered or recognized as a social person until 15 days of life (Lev 12:5). She accounts for the discrepancy between recognition of a male and female by stating that “gender is formally ritualized for boys and not for girls” (Steinberg, The World of the Child, 70). 55.  God makes a great nation of Ishmael, but Isaac is the prime inheritor of the covenant and the one through whom the covenantal relationship continues (Gen 21:12–13, 18).

176

Chapter Six

The first thing they said was that intercourse between an Israelite woman and an uncircumcised male was a ‫חרפה‬, commonly translated as disgrace or reproach. To remedy this situation they ask that all the Shechemites be circumcised. Once circumcised, intermarriage can happen. At this point, it seems that circumcision will make the men more civilized. As the story plays out however, Simeon and Levi kill all of the men in order to defend Dinah’s honor (Gen 34:31). But by killing the men, what Simeon and Levi are really saying is that a circumcised Shechemite is not the same as a circumcised Isramelite.  56 Just as the circumcision of a non-Israelite did not automatically afford him Israelite status, the marriage of a non-Israelite to an Israelite did not make one an Israelite. 57 An outsider cannot become an insider.

The Intersection of Social Mobility, Gender, and Inheritance The category of the half-sibling brings to light concerns surrounding inheritance, marriage, and circumcision and the way in which these affect an individual’s mobility within the family. Half-siblings all enter the bet ʾav though birth. Children with a penis are understood as males in potentia, until their circumcision. With circumcision, these children are understood as males who are capable of contributing to the household economic system. For some males, circumcision also meant entrance into the covenant. The biblical text gives no ritual for marking the gender of children with a vagina. One could surmise that they too were seen not as genderless but as children with the potential to become female. Whether their gender is formalized at the end of two weeks or with the onset of menses, is difficult to say. For both male and female children alike, once gender is assigned, how family inheritance gets passed on becomes an issue. At birth, a child not only enters the family, but also enters into the pool of inheritors. Further evidence that an Israelite boy child especially may be considered male in potential, can be found in the rules of inheritance. Firstborn son is a prime status to hold. It means that the child will receive a larger portion than his siblings and inherit his father’s role as head of the family. 58 In Isaac’s case, he inherits under vertical heirship; he receives all of the inheritance and carries on his father’s name. Isaac’s half-brothers receive gifts during Abraham’s 56.  Consider also the case of the male non-Israelite slave. This man lives in and participates in the Israelite household. He is circumcised, but he is not considered the same as an Israelite. He is like a ger toshav (‫)גר תושב‬, the stranger living among the Israelites (e.g., Exod 12:9, 20:10). 57.  Cf. Esau’s marriage to Hittite women, and the unions deemed “intermarriages” by Ezra and Nehemiah (Gen 26:34–35, 27:46; Ezra 9:1–2, 10:1–44; Neh 13:23–31). 58.  Many of the biblical narratives are focused around birth order and the younger supplanting the elder: Cain and Abel, Isaac and Ishmael, Jacob and Esau, Joseph and his brothers­, David and his brothers, and so on. Deut 21:17 describes the double portion given to the firstborn son. See also 1 Sam 1:5, which suggests that Hannah received a portion similar to a firstborn.

Children in Biblical Israel

177

lifetime but not a formal piece of the family inheritance. Jacob’s children, on the other hand, exemplify what happens when horizontal heirship is being practiced. They grow up in a household knowing that each child will inherit a portion from Jacob. As Dinah’s part in the story demonstrates, Jacob’s family assumed she would marry an Israelite. When a foreigner tries to win her hand in marriage, her family is faced with losing not only a daughter to a foreign house but her dowry/ inheritance as well.

Children in the Israelite Household This chapter has examined the status of the half-sibling in the bet ʾav. These children enter the bet ʾav at birth. The children are expected to respect their elders, participate in the household economic system, and marry endogamously. As the narratives of Abraham’s and Jacob’s children demonstrate, children can inherit either under a system of vertical or horizontal heirship. These narratives also reveal that the relationship between half-siblings and their mothers can affect what method of inheritance is chosen. Sarah’s tumultuous relationship with her maid Hagar colors her opinion of Ishmael. To ensure Isaac is considered the firstborn child and inherits as such, Sarah insists on vertical heirship. Ishmael is kicked out of the household, and Keturah’s children are given gifts and sent East. Rachel and Leah, on the other hand, have good relationships with their maids. The children born to Bilhah and Zilpah, while considered slightly lower than Leah and Rachel’s children, nonetheless inherit alongside the children of the primary wives. Ideally, all the siblings will remain in the bet ʾav, leaving it as adults when they either marry or die. However, not all children have ideal situations, and in some cases they leave the household in an untimely fashion. It is on these early deaths that the next chapters focus.

C

h a p t e r

S

e v e n

Child Sacrifice To begin discussing the status of the sacrificed child, one must first understand what the term sacrifice means, what qualifies as a sacrifice, why one sacrifices, and what it means to be sacrificed. Coming from the Latin words sacer ‘sacred’ and facere ‘to make’, sacrifice is directly linked to what Westerners understand as a religious or cultic activity. 1 Sacrifice can be distinguished from offering in that a sacrifice involves a ritual killing. Beate Pongratz-Leisten notes, “Killing, rather than being considered complete annihilation, served either transformative, reordering, or reintegrative purposes when occurring in a ritually controlled environment, a concept alien to Western thought.” 2 Killings of this nature can be categorized as creative or eliminatory. Creative ritual killings are undertaken for a transformative purpose; they serve to create something new out of the death. Individuals found in foundation deposits may be understood in this way. 3 Eliminatory ritual killings seem to be more common in the historical record. These kinds of ritual killings imbue the victim with the impurity facing a particular individual or community. The scapegoat ritual found in Leviticus 16 is an example of an eliminatory ritual. 4 Unlike an offering, all ritual killings take place outside the society’s designated sacred space, and they are meant to dispel evil and restore order and 1.  The category of religion is a modern invention created during the Enlightenment, when people began to understand their personal beliefs and rituals as separate from other realms of experience. There was a need to set apart the “us” Christians from the “them” pagans. Jonathan Z. Smith has noted that this concern arose when Christians went beyond imagining “deities and modes of interaction with them” and began thinking about the many different ways people imagine such things (Jonathan Z. Smith, Imagining Religion [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982], xi). 2. Beate Pongratz-Leisten, “Sacrifice in the Ancient Near East,” in Sacred Killing: The Archaeology of Sacrifice in the Ancient Near East (ed. Anne Porter and Glenn Schwartz; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2012), 292. 3.  References to killing for a creative purpose can be found in the Atraḫasis Epic, Enuma Elish, and 7th-century Assyiran texts (Beate Pongratz-Leisten, “Sacrifice,” 293–94). 4.  In this ritual, the high priest placed his hands on the goat’s head, thus transferring the sins of Israelites to the goat. The goat was then led off into the wilderness to carry away the sins of the people. See also D. P. Wright, The Disposal of Impurity: Elimination Rites in the Bible and in Hittite and Mesopotamian Literature (SBLDS 101; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987).

178

Child Sacrifice

179

harmony. 5 Thus, the very essence of the ritual killing is paradoxical; violence is invoked to maintain order. Another way to understand sacrifice is as a way for society to channel its violent tendencies. By ritually killing objects and legitimizing the killing as commissioned by the divine realm, two things happen: social order is maintained and any nagging social pressures are relieved. Both humans and animals can qualify as a sacrifice. Because the victim symbolically represents the sacrifice, the sacrificer must choose a victim who is as closely associated with him/her as possible. However, in order to maintain social order, the ritual killing as a protective measure must use a victim who is “similar enough to the other members of society to serve as an appropriate target, but must be marginal enough that the killing does not engender actions of revenge.” 6 Ideal victims were those individuals closely associated with the sacrificer but of a lower social class and without a prominent legal status. This point is important for understanding why children were chosen as victims. 7 As minors, they had not reached an age of legal autonomy. By the same token, the younger the individual, the fewer ties to society s/he had. As previously argued, children were not full members of society, nor were they completely engendered. Without question, this is a marginal group within society.

Child Sacrifice in the Biblical Text The biblical text describes three kinds of child sacrifice: sacrifice as a result of a vow or test, sacrifice done in times of community-wide distress (usually in a war context), and sacrifice done as part of a regular religious practice. Within the first group, the Akedah is arguably the most disturbing narrative concerning child sacrifice (Gen 22). Here, Abraham passes a test wherein God asked him to sacrifice his son, his only son, the one whom he loves—Isaac (Gen 22:2). On account of Abraham’s great faith in God, Isaac does not die, but a ram is provided as a sacrifice in his place. This is the text as we have it today. Some scholars that argue traces of an original text exist wherein Isaac is sacrificed. They propose that child sacrifice was so abhorrent to successive generations that the end of the story was changed so that Isaac makes it down the mountain alive. 8 Another equally 5.  Ritual killings are different from offerings. Offerings are a regular part of the cult and take place in a designated sacred space. They consist of things offered to gods or ancestors and serve a communicative function (Pongratz-Leisten, “Sacrifice,” 292). 6. Glenn Schwartz, “Archaeology and Sacrifice,” in Sacred Killing: The Archaeology of Sacrifice in the Ancient Near East (ed. Anne Porter and Glenn Schwartz; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2012), 5. 7.  Other optimal groups from which to choose were prisoners of war, women, and slaves. 8. H. Moltz, “God and Abraham in the Binding of Isaac,” JSOT 96 (2001): 59–69, especially p. 64; F. Stavrakopoulou, King Manasseh and Child Sacrifice: Biblical Distortions of Historical Realities (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2004), 192–93.

180

Chapter Seven

disturbing text concerns the vow Jephthah makes in exchange for a successful outcome in battle (Judges 11). He swears to sacrifice the first thing to cross the threshold when he returns home. The narrative records that Jephthah’s daughter is the first thing to come out of the house and that he goes through with the sacrifice. These two texts describe a test and a vow, respectively, wherein Abraham and Jephthah offer their children to God, not out of desperation, but as an act of loyalty. Texts describing sacrifice made in times of societal crisis consist of texts describing sacrifice done out of sheer hopelessness (e.g., 2 Kgs 3:26–27, 6:24–30; Deut 28:52–57; Jer 19:9). 9 Notably, most of the texts in this category describe parents who resort to eating their children because food is scarce. 2 Kgs 3:26–27, however, presents an interesting case because it describes an unusual form of desperation. The Israelites were warring against the Moabites with so much success that only one town remained fortified. In a last-ditch effort to turn the tide of the battle, the king of Moab offered (‫ )יעלהו‬his first-born son (‫ )בכור‬as a burnt offering (‫ )עלה‬on the wall of the city. The sacrifice worked and the Israelite army was defeated. It is somewhat surprising that this text was included in the biblical text. Not only does it describe child sacrifice as effectual, but it describes the child sacrifice by a foreigner as successful. Moreover, one can only surmise that the sacrifice was made to the Moabite god. 2 Kgs 6:24–30 describes another sacrifice undertaken in despair. Samaria is under siege, there is famine in the land, and people are selling any remaining food for outlandish prices. Two starving mothers enter a pact. The first woman said “Give up your son (‫ )תני את־בנך‬and we will eat him today; and tomorrow we will eat my son. So we cooked (‫ )בשל‬my son and we ate him.” However, the following day the woman of the second son hid her child, refusing to let him be eaten. Here, the text clearly describes a case in which desperate times lead to desperate measures. The language used in 2 Kings 6 echoes the language used in the third category of child sacrifices. The phrase ‫ תני את־בנך‬in particular corresponds to the way in which a parent offers (‫ )נתן‬their son or daughter to mlk (‫ )למלך‬or Baal (‫)לבעל‬. The offering is done by passing the child through fire (‫ העביר‬. . . ‫)באיש‬, burning the child with fire (‫ לשרף‬. . . ‫ )באיש‬or offering up the child (‫)עלה‬. 10 These acts of child sacrifice are highlighted in Lev 18:21, 20:3; Deut 12:30–31, 18:10; Isa 30:27–33; Jer 7:31, 19:5, 32:35; and Ezek 20:25–26. 11 In 2 Kings 6, 9.  For a “childist” reading of the child sacrifice in 2 Kgs 3:26–27 and the child used as food in 2 Kgs 6:24–31 see, J. Parker, Valuable and Vulnerable Children in the Hebrew Bible, Especially the Elisha Cycle (Brown Judaic Studies 355; Providence, RI: Brown University Press, 2013), 103–18, 175–89. 10.  For the alternate renderings of these words and a summary of the arguments stating that these terms do not refer to the literal sacrifice of children, see Stavrakopoulou’s work and the bibliography therein (Stavrakopoulou, King Manasseh, 141–48). 11.  Zevit states that, while possible, the Jeremiah texts need not necessarily refer to throwing live children into a fire. He suggests that the children may have been already dead

Child Sacrifice

181

the women cook, literally, boil the child. Although 2 Kings 6 means to describe the moral depravity reached in times of distress, it does so by using a term that obliquely refers to the sacrifices in the third category, for how does one boil water but with fire. Thus, the child in 2 Kings 6 was, after a fashion, passed over the fire (‫ העביר‬. . . ‫)באיש‬. As such texts demonstrate, the Hebrew Bible is rife with references to child sacrifice of one kind or another. 12 This is somewhat ironic because, as Stuart Lasine points out, sacrificing Israelite [male] children is “cultural and religious suicide, for it is through the children that the covenant with Yahweh is kept alive.” 13 In light of this, one may well wonder why so many texts describe, prohibit, and even seem to command child sacrifice. 14 Many scholars have grappled with this problem. They have taken two basic approaches. The first approach, examines whether or not child sacrifice had a place in Israelite religion. In essence it tries to determine if there is a historical kernel of truth to the biblical references. Scholars using this approach look outward to the cultures surrounding Israel with the presupposition that if neighboring communities practiced child sacrifice and did so in a manner that mirrored the biblical references, then there was a greater likelihood that the biblical texts described a real practice. 15 The second approach views the text from a literary perspective. Instead of looking to outside practices to inform the biblical text, it focuses on the Israelites themselves. While the first approach asks whether Israelite child sacrifice is plausible, the second approach assumes that child sacrifice was happening. It investigates what can be learned from an ideological standpoint about ancient Israelites and their religion. Scholars using this approach are of the opinion that many texts on child sacrifice are polemical. As a polemic, the texts offer a critique on a practice that is deemed inappropriate and pagan. Both the historical and literal approaches provide valuable knowledge concerning how ancient Israelite society thought about its children. In order to situate a discussion of gender and status with respect to child sacrifice in the biblical text, a review of some scholarship that takes these two approaches will be helpful. (of natural causes) or killed in another manner. What Jeremiah then describes is a funeral rite (Z. Zevit, The Religions of Ancient Israel [New York: Continuum, 2001], 550–51. 12. For an extensive list of texts referencing child sacrifice, see Stavrakopoulou, King Manasseh, 141–206. 13. S. Lasine, “Jehoram and the Cannibal Mothers (2 Kings 6:24–33): Solomon’s Judgment in an Inverted World,” JSOT 50 (1991): 35. 14.  For examples of texts describing human and child sacrifice, see 2 Kgs 3:26–27, 6:24– 30; Judges 11, 19; Genesis 19, 22. Examples of texts prohibiting child sacrifice include: Genesis 22; Ezek 20:25–26; Lev 18:21, 20:3; Deut 12:30–31, 18:10; Mic 6:7; Isa 30:27–33; Jer 7:31, 19:5, 32:35. 15.  For a comprehensive overview of the subject and full bibliographies, see Karin Finsterbusch, Armin Lange, and K. F. Diethard Römheld, eds., Human Sacrifice in Jewish and Christian Tradition (Leiden: Brill, 2007); Stavrakopoulou, King Manasseh, 141–48, 207–300.

182

Chapter Seven

Historical Approach to Child Sacrifice Scholars seeking to determine if Israel practiced child sacrifice have combed archaeological remains from the cultures surrounding Israel, namely, the Phoenician, Punic, and Canaanite religious practices. Of primary importance is the evidence from the Phoenician city of Carthage where it has long been thought that child sacrifice regularly occurred. The first reference to ritual child sacrifice at Carthage comes from the Greek historian Diodorus Siculus, who wrote that “there was in their city a bronze image of Cronus extending its hands, palms up and sloping toward the ground, so that each of the children when placed thereon rolled down and fell into a sort of gaping pit filled with fire.” 16 This notion was taken up by later Roman historians, such as Plutarch, Tertullian, Orosius, and Philo after the fall of Carthage to Rome in the Punic Wars. 17 But none of these classical authors ever claims to have seen a child sacrifice or gives a firsthand account from someone who did. 18 Evidence from Carthage does attest to multiple burials of neonates, fetuses, still-borns, and very young children being cremated and buried in an area dubbed the Tophet, which was used ca. 700–300 b.c.e.. 19 In addition to child sacrifice, two more reasons for a concentration of infant burials at the Tophet have been given. 20 The obvious suggestion is that this is a cemetery for babies. 21 However, animals were found along with the young individuals and 16. Diodorus Siculus, Library of History 20:6–7. 17.  Porphyrius, De Abstinentia, 2.56 = Eusebius, Praep. Evang. 16.6. Translation and commentary in C. Clemen, Die Phönikische Religion (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1939). Note that Herodotus, Thucydides, Polybius, and Livy do not mention child sacrifice (M. H. Fantar, L. E. Stager, and J. E. Greene, “An Odyssey Debate: Were Living Children Sacrificed to the Gods? ” ArchOd (November–December 2000): 28–31. 18. Shelby Brown, Late Carthaginian Child Sacrifice and Sacrificial Monuments in Their Mediterranean Context (JSOT and ASOR Monograph 3; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991), 21. In Politics, Aristotle comments knowledgeably on Carthage and its people/practices but is silent on child sacrifice at Carthage. Joseph Azize proposes that, because Aristotle did not mention it, it likely was not occurring (Joseph Azize, “Was There Regular Child Sacrifice in Phoenicia and Carthage? ” in Gilgamesh and the World of Assyria: Proceedings of the Conference Held at the Mandelbaum House, the University of Sydney, 21–23 July, 2004 (ed. J. Azize and N. Weeks; Ancient Near Eastern Supplement Series 21; Belgium: Peeters, 2007), 194–95. 19.  The area was named the “tophet” after the references to a tophet in the Hebrew Bible (L. Stager, “Carthage: A View from the Tophet,” in Phönizier im Western (ed. H. G. Niemeyer; Mainz am Rhein: von Zabern, 1982), 156. New studies of the osteological remains from the burials demonstrate that the preliminary field reports of the mid-1970s excavations at Carthage need reinterpretation. It appears that most of the individuals buried at the site were much younger than originally thought, with more than 50 percent being late-3rd-trimester fetuses (J. Schwartz, What the Bones Tell Us [New York: Holt, 1993], 52–53). For the renewed discussion concerning the tophet at Carthage see, P. Xella, “Cemetery or Sacrifice? Infant Burials at the Carthage Tophet,” Antiquity 87 (2013): 1191–1207. 20. J. Lobell, “Child Burials: Carthage, Tunisia,” Archaeology 64/1 (2011): n.p. [accessed Jan. 9, 2013]. On-line: http://archive.archaeology.org/1101/topten/tunisia.html. 21. Tia Ghose, “Ancient Baby Graveyard Not for Child Sacrifice, Scientists Say,” Live Sci-

Child Sacrifice

183

in some places a commemorative stela to Tanit or Baal Hammon (the divine pair in Phoenician and Punic religion) accompanied the burial. 22 These additional facts could suggest that the Carthaginian “tophet” was a sacred precinct wherein younglings who died a premature death, or who were stillborn were returned by the parents to the gods in hope that they would be (successfully) reborn. 23 While debate remains as to the purpose of the Tophet at Carthage, scholars of Israelite religion agree that child sacrifice to Yhwh was a legitimate part of Israelite religion at some point. 24 However, no evidence of burnt bones has been found in the the Gai Ben Hinnom, where the Hebrew Bible locates a Tophet (Jer 7:31, 32:35) or in other places in biblical Israel. 25 However, because of the multiple prohibitions against child sacrifice (passing one’s child through the fire or burning the child with fire), scholars argue that these laws must have been addressing an actual practice. Otherwise, why would they forbid the practice? 26 Furthermore, while none of the Punic stelae state the child was killed in fulfillment of a vow to the gods, some of them do mention the word mlk. The word mlk found in conjunction with large-scale infant burials recalls the various biblical ence (Sept 19, 2012): n.p. [accessed Jan. 9, 2013]. On-line: http://www.livescience.com/23298 -carthage-graveyard-not-child-sacrifice.html. 22.  For examples of steles, see J. Azize, “Child Sacrifice? ” 187–88. In their study, M. Gras, P. Rouillard, and J. Teixidor examined Phoenico-Punic sites from the 9–6th century b.c.e. and concluded that burial and incineration of human bodies took place away from inhabited settlements. From the 8th century on, the western areas preferred incineration and the eastern lands inhumation. They attribute the incineration sites, tophets, in the west to those of special-status burials regular burials. Likewise, they state that still-born or young infants buried there were not integrated into regular society, and their burials included bird and lamb bones (M. Gras, P. Rouillard, and J. Teixidor, El Universo Fenicio [Madrid: Mondadori España, 1991], 132–37, 152, 167–68). For the renewed discussion concerning the Tophet at Carthage see P. Xella, “Cemetery or Sacrifice? Infant Burials at the Carthage Tophet,” Antiquity 87 (2013): 1191–1207. 23.  For ethnographic references concerning special status of stillborn children or unborn children or children dying young, see pp. 209, 239–244. J. Schwartz notes that “in many societies newborns and very young children are not treated as individuals as older children and adults are” (Archaeology 64/1 [2011]: n.p. [accessed Jan. 9, 2013]. On-line: http://archive.archaeology .org/1101/topten/tunisia.html). 24. S. Ackerman, Under Every Green Tree (1992): 137; M. Smith, The Early History of God and Other Deities in Ancient Israel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 172–78; S. Nidditch, War in the Hebrew Bible (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993), 47. 25.  No archaeological remains attesting to child sacrifice have been found in the land of Israel (A. Lange, “‘They Burn Their Sons and Daughters—That Was No Command of Mine,’ (Je 7:31): Child Sacrifice in the Hebrew Bible and in the Deuteronomistic Jeremiah Redaction,” in Human Sacrifice in Jewish and Christian Tradition (ed. K. Finsterbusch et al.; Leiden: Brill, 2007], 119); Z. Zevit, Religions, 551. Neither the burials at Gezer nor Achzib are crematoriums in this manner (J. Callaway, “The Gezer Crematorium Re-examined,” PEQ [1962]: 104– 17; E. Mazar, The Achziv Burials: A Test-Case for Phoenician-Punic Burial Customs [Ph.D. diss., Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1996]; idem, Phoenicians in Achzib, the Southern Cemetery: The Jerome L. Joss Expedition, final report of the excavations 1988–1990 (Barcelona: Laboratorio de Arqueología, Universidad Pompeu Fabra de Barcelona: Carrera eedició, 2001); and see p. 220. 26. J. Kugel, How to Read the Bible (New York: Free Press, 2008), 131.

184

Chapter Seven

texts referencing child sacrifice and mlk. J. Azize concludes that in Punic inscriptions the mlk is a type of sacrifice, while in Phoenician-Canaanite inscriptions, including those of the Bible, mlk is a deity. 27 This view is not universal; some scholars hold that in the Hebrew Bible lammolekh describes a type of sacrifice, the molk sacrifice. 28 References to a mlk can be found in places such as Lev 18:21, 20:2–4; 2 Kgs 23:10; Jer 32:25. Brown, Driver, and Briggs note in their lexicon that mlk is pointed with the vowels for the Hebrew word “shame” (boshet) in order to denote abhorrence. 29 Whether as a molk sacrifice or as a sacrifice to the god Mlk, the origins of child sacrifice in Phoenician, Punic, Moabite, and Israelite literature likely stem from a common ancestor: a Cannanite Bronze Age ritual. Egyptian reliefs from the Late Bronze Age depict Canaanites throwing children over city walls while besieged by the Egyptian army. 30 They also show inhabitants of the city with upraised arms, apparently praying to the heavens for deliverance. In each relief, a man holds a burning incense brazier in his outstretched hands and a child is thrown over the city walls. The relief of Ramesses II at the temple of Beit el-Wali in Nubia also includes a woman holding a bag of flour in the ritual. Anthony John Spalinger interprets these reliefs as representative of a Canaanite ritual undertaken when the city is under extreme duress. In inhabitants call on the host of heaven (Baal, Adad, or the Queen of Heaven) through the following actions: infants and/or children are sacrificed over the side of the city wall; an incense brazier is lit by a priest; and the heavens are invoked with outstretched hands. 31 Noteworthy here is that the children were not burned with fire but thrown over the wall, which 27. J. Azize, “Child Sacrifice,” 187. Azize follows Eissfeldt’s well-known thesis (1935). For a critique of this thesis, see Stavrakopoulou, King Manasseh, 215–39. Weinfeld argued that mlk should be equated with the god Molech, whose cult in turn was a form of the cult of Hadad, the Assyrian god of the heavens (M. Weinfeld, “The Worship of Molech and the Queen of Heaven,” Ugarit Forschungen 4 [1972]: 133–54). On references to mlk as a god, see Z. Zevit, Religions, 477, 643, 653; and M. Smith, Origins of Biblical Monotheism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 28. For the opposite view, mlk as a type of offering, see O. Eissfeldt, Molk als Opferbegriff im Punischen und Hebräischen und das Ende des Gottes Moloch (alle an der Saale: Max Niemeyer, 1935); and B. H. Reynolds, “Molek: Dead or Alive? ” in Human Sacrifice in Jewish and Christian Tradition (ed. K. Finsterbusch et al.; Leiden: Brill, 2007), 135–50. Reynolds summarizes the history of scholarship on the offering-versus-god debate and discusses in great length what exactly mlk means in the biblical text. 28. O. Eissfeldt, Molk als Opferbegriff; A. Lange, “They Burn,” 113; B. Reynolds, “Molek: Dead or Alive? ” 29.  BDB s.v. ‫מלך‬. 30.  These reliefs were examined by Othmar Keel in 1975 and again by Anthony John Spalinger in 1978 (O. Keel, “Kanaanäische Sühneriten auf ägyptischen Tempelreliefs,” VT 25 [1975]: 413–69; A. J. Spalinger, “A Canaanite Ritual Found in Egyptian Reliefs,” Journal of the Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities 8 [1978]: 47–60). The reliefs belong to Seti I, Merneptah, and Ramsesses II. 31.  Spalinger, “Canaanite Ritual,” 51 and pl. 7. Spalinger relates this ritual to the cult of the host of heaven. He notes that the depictions in the Egyptian reliefs mirror what the biblical texts descry in Jer 7:18, 14:13, 54:17; and Zeph 1:5 (ibid., 53).

Child Sacrifice

185

calls to mind the sacrifice by the Moabite king in 2 Kings 3. In addition to the artistic representation of this ritual, RS 24.266 VI D from Ugarit describes a similar ritual. The tablet is an instruction manual of sorts for what to do when one’s city is besieged. It states that a one should raise one’s eyes to Baal and recite an incantation wherein the person vows to sacrifice a firstborn. 32 Another tablet, DAT II 5 may also reference the ritual of child sacrifice as an appeasement offering to the gods in time of a community emergency. 33 It is tenable that child sacrifice in emergency situations was a part of the ancient Canaanite repertoire. Not only was child sacrifice undertaken in emergencies, but as Mark Smith and others suggest, within an early stratum of Judean Yhwh worship (7th century b.c.e.), Judeans also sacrificed children to the name of Yhwh, and may have done so on a regular basis. 34 The Tophet referenced in Isa 30:27–33 speaks to this. Smith suggests that laws, such as Lev 20:2–5 came later in reaction to the practice of child sacrifice. 35 His view, that child sacrifice was once accepted and later became repugnant, finds support from many other scholars. For example, Armin Lange points out that, in Deuteronomistic texts, child sacrifice is highlighted as one of the key sins causing both the downfall of the Northern Kingdom (2 Kgs 17:17) and the exile of the Southern Kingdom (2 Kgs 21:6, 11–15). He states that “this explanation of the exile as punishment for Judah’s child sacrifices influenced Jewish thought for a very long time (see, e.g., Isa 57:5, 9; Ezek 16:20– 21, 20:31 (MT); 23:6–39; Ps 106:37–38) and is still attested in a 2nd-century b.c.e. apocalypse (see 4QPSDana 13 3 f. par. 4QPSDanb12).” 36 Accordingly, the Deuteronomistic redaction to Jeremiah (specifically, Jer 7:31, 19:5, 32:35) where Yhwh says He did not command these sacrifices implies that people were infact sacrificing children in the name of Yhwh. The development of laws concerning firstborn children also supports the notion that child sacrifice was a part of the Yhwh cult. 37 Exod 13:1–2 demands that every first born (‫ )בכור‬human (‫ )אדם‬and animal (‫)בהמה‬, the offspring who 32. D. Pardée, Ritual and Cult at Ugarit (SBL Writings from the Ancient World 10; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature 2002), 53, 149–50. Also see A. Herdner, “Nouveax Textes Alphabetiques de Ras Shamra,” Ugaritica (7 vols.; Paris: Guethner, 1978), 7:31–38 (text facsimile on p. 33); and A. Herdner, “Une prière à Baal des ugaritains en danger,” in Proceedings of the French Acadamey of Inscriptions and Belles Lettres (Paris: Académie des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres, 1972), 694. 33.  J. A. Hackett, The Balaam Text from Deir ʿAllā (HSM 31; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1980), 80–85; idem, “Religious Traditions in Israelite Transjordan” in Ancient Israelite Religion: Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross (ed. P. D. Miller et al.; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987), 125–36. The Canaanite nature of the DAT culture (Tell Deir ʿAlla) has been demonstrated via the language used in the plaster inscriptions found there (Hans-Peter Müller, “Die Sprache der Texte von Tell Deir ʿAllā im Kontext der nordwestsemitischen Sprachen: Mit einigen Erwägungen zum Zusammenhang der schwachen Verbklassen,” ZAH 4 (1991): 1–31. 34.  Stavrakopoulou, King Manasseh, 283–99. 35.  Smith, Early History, 172–78. 36. A. Lange, “‘They Burn,” 110. 37. M. Smith, “A Note on Burning Babies,” JAOS 95 (1975): 477–79.

186

Chapter Seven

breaks the womb (‫)פטר רחם‬, shall be consecrated to Yhwh. The phrase “who breaks the womb” is absent in Exod 22:28, which states simply that the firstborn son (‫ )בכור‬shall be given to Yhwh. 38 Exod 13:12–13 and 34:19–20 all emend this original law to state that the firstborn son ‫ בכור (אדם) בניך‬must be redeemed. In a final push away from child sacrifice, the Levites become the substitution for the firstborn. According to Num 3:11–12 and 8:16–17, Yhwh has the right to the firstborn sons but takes the Levities as His own in place of the firstborn. Now, instead of redeeming one’s sons according to the regulations in Exod 13:12–13, 34:19–20, a person must pay Aaron five shekels as the redemption price for his firstborn (Num 3:44–49). 39 Thus, by giving the money to another person, and not directly to Yhwh, the dedication of the firstborn is removed one step further from Yhwh and its origins in child sacrifice.

Literary Approach to Child Sacrifice Assuming that child sacrifice was occurring, scholars have examined what the texts are trying to relate about the practice. Let us first consider the discussion about the texts in which a child is consigned to pass through or be burned with fire. Some of the texts link this practice to foreign deities, specifically Molek and Baal. 40 Saul Olyan suggests that there is a smear campaign going on. 41 Yhwh’s statement in Jeremiah, “It [child sacrifice to Molek or Baal] was no command of mine” sounds a lot like a line from Hamlet wherein someone “doth protest too much.” That is to say, people were sacrificing children because He did command it. For the Deuteronomists, this practice was unacceptable. However, the practice of child sacrifice as a part of the Yhwh cult was well-established. Thus, denigration of the practice was done by means of a polemic. By associating the practice of child sacrifice with Yhwh, which some deemed legitimate with the foreign or unacceptable practice of sacrifices to mlk and Baal, the Deuteronomists intentionally distort the terminology and references, thus creating a polemic against child sacrifice to Yhwh. 42 The terms and actions such as those listed in Deut 12:31 38.  While one may choose to read ‫ בכור בניך‬as ‘first born among your children’, I read this phrase in opposition to the firstborn of the cattle and flocks, found in the following verse. 39.  The requirement, redemption, and substitution of the firstborn is behind the Jewish ritual of pidyon haben still practiced by some Jews today (Pesachim 121b, m. Berochos 1). 40. Z. Zevit, Religions, 476, 643, 653, especially n. 7; Weinfeld, “The Worship of Molech”; Stavrakopoulou, King Manasseh, 141–48. 41.  Tactics of this sort are well known in the ancient world. In fact, this is likely what is happening when the Greek and Roman historians are describing child sacrifice at Carthage. By describing the Carthaganians as savage, “backward” people who sacrifice their children, the accounts of the Roman historians make it a lot easier to justify the Punic Wars and the many deaths they caused. See J. Azize, who suggests that the classical writers could have been issuing false reports in a political smear against Carthage (Azize, “Regular Child Sacrifice,” 203). 42.  This is especially evident with respect to passages concerning child sacrifice in Jeremiah. S. Olyan, Asherah and the Cult of Yhwh in Ancient Israel (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988: 13–14, 38–61, 74).

Child Sacrifice

187

and 2 Kgs 16:3, 21:6 (burning a child with/by fire and passing a child through the fire) are conflated in Deutro-Jeremiah. Jeremiah states people build bamot at the Tophet in the Ben Hinnom in order to burn children with/fire (Jer 7:31), to burn the children with fire (while) offering them up to Baal (Jer 19:5), and to pass children through to Molek on the bamot built for Baal (Jer 32:35). Jeremiah plays with the terminology and makes it unclear as to what is happening and to whom the child is being offered. Are they giving their children to Molek or to Baal? Are they offering their children, passing them through the fire, or burning them? The answer is not important to Jeremiah. Instead, Deutro-Jeremiah wants to emphasize that Yhwh surely did not command any of these abhorrent “foreign” practices. By implying this, the Deuteronomists create a veiled polemic against the institution of child sacrifice actually taking place in the Yhwh cult. The Akedah is another example of a polemic against child sacrifice. Instead of an explicit polemic, such as is seen in the historiographical and prophetic texts, the binding of Isaac offers an indirect polemic. 43 God wanted to test Abraham’s faith, so he issued him a command, the most difficult command of all: Abraham was to sacrifice the very son through whom God promised to continue the covenant (Gen 22:2). Because it was meant as a test, the command given to Abraham here is a one-time command, not a commandment such as circumcision that all of Israel shall follow in perpetuity. Examining the Akedah as a polemic, it is clear that God does not intend for the sacrifice to come to fruition. 44 Rather, it is a test and is quickly passed, for when Abraham binds Isaac a ram appears as a substitution. The substitution of the ram here is key because it indicates that, even though God did not intend Abraham to go through with a child sacrifice, he did intend Abraham to go through with a proper sacrifice, that is, an animal sacrifice. Thus, one can conclude that God is not really interested in child sacrifice or he would not have provided an animal substitute. 45 Polemics are a form of commentary on social practices that people deem inappropriate. By calling attention to the baseness of an act, they act as a wake-up call for social change. The social change addressed in the texts discussed above calls for people to stop sacrificing children to Yhwh, for Yhwh does not desire 43. Y. Amit, Hidden Polemics in Biblical Narrative (Leiden: Brill, 1998), 66–72. 44.  Stavrakopoulou, on the other hand, states that we can find traces of the tradition wherein Abraham does sacrifice Isaac. She, like R. E. Friedman, argues that the version we have today covers up the act, which had become repugnant to later editors of the Torah (Stavrakopoulou, King Manasseh, 193–94; R. E. Friedman, The Bible with Sources Revealed (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2003), 65. 45.  There are irony and paradox in the narrative as well. Abraham’s actions are not a response to national disaster, nor are they a fulfillment of a vow (like the texts that follow below). Rather, his actions could cause the very danger and distress that such vows (like Jephthah uttered) and situations of distress arise from, for in offering up Isaac, Abraham is essentially about to kill the covenantal promise. See M. Bauks, “The Theological Implications of Child Sacrifice,” in Human Sacrifice in Jewish and Christian Tradition (ed. K. Finsterbusch et al.; Leiden: Brill, 2006), 65–86.

188

Chapter Seven

child sacrifice. But there is another set of texts in which God appears to destine his people to sacrifice their children, not as food for Yhwh, but as food for themselves. These texts, of course, are the curses that will befall the Israelites if they break the covenant (Lev 26:29, Deut 28:56–57). These curses come to pass when the Northern Kingdom of Israel breaks the covenant (2 Kg 6:24–30). Jeremiah warns Judah this same fate will befall her if she does not keep the covenant (Jer 19:9), but as Lam 2:17–20 demonstrates, Judah did not heed his warning, and her people also wind up eating their children to stay alive. Whether the Israelites actually ate their children or this was an exaggeration, these texts clearly call for social change. In breaking the covenant, the Israelites find themselves under siege by foreign armies wherein God will not protect them and they are ironically forced to become like other nations, killing their children. 46

Children Killed for Other Reasons Until this point, this chapter has focused on the three kinds of child sacrifice as described in the Hebrew Bible. Before closing the discussion, a fourth kind of child sacrifice also must be addressed: infanticide. At the outset, infanticide may seem more like murder, but one might understand infanticide as sacrifice in that the baby is sacrificed (killed) for the betterment of the group. For example, babies who are not healthy may be cast out because they will be too difficult to raise. Their upbringing would require the expenditure of more energy and resources than they would be able to offset as adults (provided they even reach a mature age). Every reason given for infanticide has the well-being of the family at its core. Infanticide and child sacrifice are similar in their motives; however, infanticide belongs to the domestic domain and child sacrifice to the public. 47 Reference to infanticide introduces one of the most well-known biblical characters and a central text of the Jewish tradition: the story of Moses, leader of Israel. 48 Exod 1:15–22 provides the context of Moses’ birth. The Israelites have become too numerous, so Pharaoh decrees all male babies be killed at birth. 49 Pharaoh is furious when Hebrew midwives allow males and females alike to live, 46.  For the use of cannibalism as a call for social change, see S. Lasine, “Jehoram and the Cannibal Mothers,” 27–53; G. Hens-Piazza, “Forms of Violence and the Violence of Forms: Two Cannibal Mothers before a King (2 Kings 6:24–44),” Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion (Fall 1998): 91–104. 47. E. Scott, The Archaeology of Infancy and Infant Death (British Archaeological Reports, International Series 819. (Oxford: Archaeopress, 1999), 81–89. 48.  Moses’ birth and abandonment can also be understood along the lines of the miraculous birth narrative needed to create a nation’s hero. See, among others, D. B. Redford, “The Literary Motif of the Exposed Child,” Numen 14 (1967): 209–18; T. H. Gaster, Myth, Legend and Custom in the Old Testament (New York: Harper, 1975), i; and B. Lewis, The Sargon Legend (Cambridge: American Schools of Oriental Research, 1980). 49.  For a discussion of child sacrifice in “foundation myths” see Stavrakopoulou, King Manasseh, 192–201.

Child Sacrifice

189

and again he decrees that females be allowed to live and the males be killed. From this text, one can gather that male children posed more of a danger to Pharaoh than females. This makes sense from a socioeconomic standpoint. In a patriarchal world, the propagation of a family line depended on the birth of male children. The more male babies born, the more Israelite families would potentially come into being. The birth of male children also meant the birth of more people able to serve in an army. Exod 1:9–10 implies that Pharaoh was afraid of the Israelites’ numbers and to whom they would give their loyalties in times of war. To protect himself, his position, and the Egyptian people, he ordered all male Israelite newborns killed. The story of Hagar and Ishmael also falls into the category of attempted infanticide. Genesis 21 states that Sarah could no longer tolerate her handmaiden’s attitude and asked Abraham to dismiss her. Abraham sends Hagar into the Negev with bread and a skin of water. When the food and water run out, Hagar places Ishmael under a bush and turns away so she will not see him die. Sarah presumably knew she was asking Abraham to send Ishmael to his death. In fact, she says, “Cast out this slave woman with her son; for the son of this slave woman shall not be heir with my son Isaac” (Gen 21:10). She chooses to commit infanticide for the betterment of her family, for Isaac’s sake. Because the issue was Hagar’s son and not Hagar, perhaps Sarah thought Hagar would leave Ishmael to die and then return to camp. God intervenes, as He did for Isaac, and Ishmael is spared (Gen 21:17–20). Ezekiel 16 describes yet another case of attempted in­ fanticide when recounting the rocky relationship between Yhwh and Jerusalem. The relationship­starts when Yhwh picks up baby Jerusalem out of the open field, saving her from the intended infanticide (Ezek 16:5). This part of their narrative is described in three very graphic verses, after which the text moves on. While the motivation of Jerusalem’s (hypothetical) parents to expose her is unknown, the text speaks to a certain unsettling possibility. As Beth Alpert Nakhai states, “the prophet’s blasé attitude toward an act of thwarted infanticide seems startling. One wonders whether that was so because the killing of newborns was a common occurrence in the Judah that Ezekiel knew.” 50 No archaeological evidence for male or female infanticide has been found in Israel. When infants have been discovered in a burial context, they are found placed in jars, under house floors, in cemeteries, and lying next to their parents. 51 However, the discovery of these infants is precisely because they were buried. 50.  B. Alpert Nakhai, “Female Infanticide in Iron II Israel and Judah,” in Sacred History, Sacred Literature: Essays on Ancient Israel, the Bible, and Religion in Honor of R. E. Friedman (Win­ona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2008), 257. Note that the strange fluctuation between the male and female infants and adolescents in contracts and documents recording servile laborers in Kassite Nippur suggest that the population there could have been artificially manipulated (J. Tenney, Life at the Bottom of Babylonian Society [Leiden: Brill, 2011], 135). 51.  See pp. 283–288 and 299–316.

190

Chapter Seven

Infants who were exposed or abandoned were either picked up by another person or left to die. If they were rescued, then they joined a new family unit. If left to die, then one would not expect to find their bones, for animals and the natural elements would destroy their bones. Either result would erase archaeological evidence of infanticide. The only available evidence of infanticide within the land of Israel is thus the biblical narratives recounting the practice. 52

Synthesis: Status and Gender Issues As noted at the start of the chapter, anthropological data testifies that ideal victims for sacrifice were people closely associated with the sacrificer and people who were of a lower social status. Under this logic, children are an ideal choice. The biblical text echoes this sentiment, for there are no memorable narratives about the sacrifice of other marginal groups, such as slaves, prisoners of war, widows, women, and so on. 53 If sacrifice serves as a method of ranking social groups, then the biblical text places children at the lowest end of the social ladder. This classification should not come as a surprise. By default of birth, children were part of their family and community; however, the younger the child, the fewer ties s/he had to these groups. The start of the chapter also discussed the purpose of sacrifice: it was a ritual killing meant to create something new (for example, a foundation or crop) or eliminate something harmful (for example, a siege or illness). Ritual killings happen outside of a designated sacred space, whereas an offering occurs inside a temple, shrine, or other sacred area. The body of the chapter reviewed the way in which the Hebrew Bible describes child sacrifice with respect to the Israelites and their neighbors. It divides the data into three categories: children who were sacrificed as part of a regular religious practice, those sacrificed due to a vow or test, and those sacrificed during time of community-wide distress. This section now combines the anthropological theory with the textual data. It examines the underlying motivations causing a person to sacrifice a child in order to determine how society perceived the children within each sacrificial category. The second half of this synthesis section explores how age and gender affect the status of the sacrificed child.

Motivating Factors and Status In light of the distinction made above between ritual killing and offering, one might ask whether or not the three categories of sacrificed children actually 52.  The narrative evidence finds support in ethno-anthropological studies, if not in the archaeological record. Nakhai draws attention to the long standing practice of infanticide and the reasons motivating it. Historically, children born with birth defects or illnesses, to an unknown father, or to dysfunctional or lower class families have a higher risk of being abandoned (Nakhai, “Female Infanticide,” 258–59). 53.  The possible exception to this is the concubine in Judges 19.

Child Sacrifice

191

qualify as a sacrifice. With respect to the first category, those sacrificed as part of the cult, the texts do not seem to suggest that the sacrifiers’ actions were meant to be either eliminatory or transformative. Rather, those children who passed through the fire to Yhwh, Molek, or another deity might be better understood as offerings. So while scholars initially identified gifts to the deity as offerings, 54 Pongrazt-Leisten convincingly argues that the act of gift-giving more accurately fits an offering. 55 Offerings, as opposed to sacrifices, display a commitment to the deity. 56 On the other hand, both offerings and sacrifice served as a means of communication with the god. For example, the offering of the Assyrian banquet ritual states, “When you are to strew salt on cooked meat [before Belat]-dunani, you say: ‘May [the gods of heaven and the gods of earth accept and listen!’” 57 Unfortunately, the biblical texts do not include this sort of transcript for the ritual of passing a child through the fire. However, it seems likely that the intent behind passing a child through the fire was of a similar nature to that of the Assyrians; the participants wished to get the deity’s attention via their actions. Ethnographic studies show that some cultures understand children as particularly effective conduits of information. 58 Thus, the choice of a child as the victim, over and against a person of another marginalized group could become more significant. An offered child may have been perceived on the one hand as a way to garner the deity’s attention and on the other hand as the best means of transmitting the live participant’s desires to the deity. Perhaps children were used in the Israelite and Canaanite cultic rituals for similar reasons. In presenting an object, either as an offering or sacrifice, the human expected a quid pro quo to be involved; a person offered something associated with himself in order to elicit a favorable response from the gods. The second category of children, those sacrificed through a vow or a test, provides a good example of this mentality. While not discussed above because it is not a literal sacrifice meant to end a life, Hannah’s vow to give Samuel to the temple is an obvious example of a “repayment in kind” mentality. 59 Jephthah’s bargain with God is another example. He vows that, if God gives him military success, in return he will sacrifice first thing to cross the threshold when he arrives home. According to Judges 11, Jephthah wins the war and sacrifices the first thing to come out of 54.  E. B. Tylor, Primitive Culture, vol. 2: Religion in Primitive Culture (New York: Harper & Row, 1958), 461–96; Jan van Baal, “Offering, Sacrifice, and Gift,” Numen 23 (1967): 161–78. 55.  Pongratz-Leisten, “Sacrifice,” 295. 56.  Idem, “Ritual Killing and Sacrifice in the Ancient Near East,” in Human Sacrifice in Jewish and Christian Tradition (ed. K. Finsterbusch et al.; Leiden: Brill, 2007), 9. 57.  Ebeling as quoted in idem, “Sacrifice,” 298. See also E. Ebeling, “Parfümrezepte und kultische Texte aus Assur,” OR n.s. 21 (1950): 129–35. 58. G. Schwartz, “Archaeology and Sacrifice,” 14. He cites M. Ceruti, Llullaillaco: Sacrifcios y ofrendas en un santuario Inca de Alta Montaña (Salta: Universidad Católica, 2003). 59. L. Koepf, “Give Me Children or I Shall Die”: Children and Communal Survival in Biblical Literature (Ph.D. diss., Union Theological Seminary, 2012).

192

Chapter Seven

his house—his daughter. Whether Jephthah makes the vow without thinking about who or what would come out to meet him is difficult to say. 60 What is clear is that Jepthah knows something would come out of the house, and he intends to sacrifice it in a ritual killing. 61 One can also understand Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice Isaac in the Akedah as an example of giving to get. There, Abraham’s faith was put to the test, and Abraham was willing to give his own child in order to obtain God’s approval. The final category of children, those sacrificed in times of communal distress, is perhaps the category most clearly aligned with ritual killing as defined by Prongratz-Leisten and in particular his understanding of eliminatory killings, which were done as means to eliminate or dispel evil from society. It goes without saying that sieges and famine caused by war or drought placed the entire community in dire straits. Thus, the sacrifice by the king of Moab during war (2 Kgs 3:27) and the sacrifice of the cannibal mothers (2 Kgs 6:24–30) during a siege fit the paradigm of ritual killing and the subset called eliminatory killing. These two killings were done outside a designated sacred space, on a wall in public and in the domestic confines, respectively. As eliminatory killings, the children were arguably killed in order to appease the gods. In a world where the gods punished people with whom they were angry, the sacrifices functioned as a plea to end the horrific distress placed on the community. From a human standpoint, the killing of children requires action on the part of the deity. This again demonstrates the quid pro quo rationale with which child sacrifice was undertaken. In 2 Kings 3, the divine responds with a plague directed against the Israelite army, which ends the siege of the Moabite city. The situation in 2 Kings 6 resolves in a slightly different manner. There, the cannibal mother’s did not intentionally offer an eliminatory child sacrifice. However, I suggest that the killing functions in the same manner as an eliminatory sacrifice and thus serves as a kind of unintentional eliminatory killing. According to the narrative, the mothers did not kill the son with the intent to contact the divine; they killed him out of hunger. Their actions serve as a catalyst though which the king realizes the condition of his people and goes into mourning. In the very next scene, the prophet Elisha, the person in the narrative identified as a communicator between God and humans, arrives. The next scene has God scaring the besieging army into running away and ending the siege. The sequence of events here thus suggests that the actions of the cannibal mothers can be understood to function as an unintentional eliminatory killing. 60. S. Valler, “The Story of Jephthah’s Daughter in the Midrash,” in Judges: A Feminist Companion to the Bible (ed. A. Brenner; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), 48–66; R.  Boling, Judges (AB 6A; NY: Doubleday, 1975), 206–1; Stavrakopoulou, King Manasseh, 194–96. 61.  The next section will examine why it is significant that a female, as opposed to male, child crossed the threshold.

Child Sacrifice

193

The three categories of sacrificed children suggest that adults understood a child as a vehicle for transmitting their desires to the gods. As an offering or fulfillment of a vow, the life of the child represented the adult’s commitment to the deity. The sacrifice of a child, who represents the continuation of the covenant between Yhwh and the Israelites, was no small matter. Abraham must believe that if he kills his beloved son God will reward him. Hannah too believes that if she offers the things she cherishes most, God will reward her faithfulness. It is likely other Israelite parents passing their children through the fire to various deities also had the same mindset. Ritual killings, done during communal distress, also present the same presuppositions. Children are killed so that the adults could garner the attention of the gods. On the one hand, one could see these children as heroes, dying for the betterment of their community. While they are young, the sacrificial victims are perceived as important enough to turn the deity’s focus toward the suffering city. On the other hand, their young deaths represent a mentality that says children are both effective and replaceable transmitters of information to the deity. 62 In all three categories, the children are passive. They are acted on by the adults. With a low social status, no personal autonomy, and under the clear authority of their parents, it is no surprise that the biblical text highlights child sacrifice over the sacrifice of any other marginalized individuals, for a child is the easiest person of whom to take advantage.

Gender, Age, and the Sacrificed Child’s Status The biblical texts state that both male and female children of varying ages were sacrificed. One could say this suggests that children were understood as a collective group, or that male and female children were treated with parity in the sacrificial system. However, such sweeping allegations are just that. To understand the role of gender and age as it relates to child sacrifice, one should examine separately the three kinds of child sacrifices described above and the individual cases within those categories. Specifically, one should ask whether gender does play a role, whether age makes a difference, and, if so, what the relationship is between age, gender, and the sacrificed child. Passages discussing children who were passed through or burned with fire use generic language to describe the children: they are sons (‫ )בנים‬and daughters (‫)בנות‬. These terms do not denote specific ages; rather, they describe a relationship. Thus, one must rely on the context to draw conclusions concerning these individuals. Texts such as Lev 18:21, 20:3; Deut 18:10; and Jer 7:31, 19:5, 32:35 all describe a power relationship. Because the texts do not specify that parents are the ones offering the children, one could understand this reference to “sons and daughters” as a metaphor. The sons and daughters of a nation may represent young, disempowered individuals who are being sacrificed by those in positions 62.  Note that it is not a priest or the king or queen of a city who is killed.

194

Chapter Seven

of power, such as priests or members of the legislative body. However, based on the context and the way language is understood to operate, it makes just as much sense to understand the warnings in these texts as issued to parents. Parents are not to offer their children. As has been argued with regard to the Akedah, in order for a parent to offer a child for sacrifice, the child must be fairly young. 63 A teenager or preteen would likely fight or try to run when s/he realized what was happening. Young children, on the other hand, are more easily overpowered so that, even if they did fight, their efforts would be futile. Thus, an educated guess would place the age of a child in one of these regular sacrifices as somewhere between birth and prepubescence. While the question of age is a little murky, gender is portrayed much more explicitly in the passages referencing a ritual of child sacrifice, children in category one. Instead of using the ambiguous term ‫בנים‬, meaning either sons or children, the Hebrew in these texts takes pains to state both daughters, that is, females (‫)בנות‬, and sons, that is, males (‫)בנים‬. Thus, a female child was just as eligible as a male child to fulfill ritual requirements. An interesting question is whether the Israelites understood male and female children as separate but equal, or simply as equal. Did ritual law understand girls and boys as one and the same? Were male children the desired offering, but female children an acceptable offering or vice versa? Or do these texts suggest that, in order to allow all parents to participate in this ritual, the cult found both male and female children acceptable? That is to say, was there originally a preferred gender for child sacrifice that was subsequently changed to include both genders of children to ensure more people could or would participate? Answering this question requires the examination of specific cases. The first group to consider is the firstborn children, the ‫בכורים‬. The arguments above traced the development of the laws concerning the requirement that the firstborn child be sacrificed. Exod 13:1–2 required the offering of firstborn animals and humans. It qualified the term ‫‘ בכור‬firstborn’ with the term ‫‘ פטר רחם‬the one who breaks the womb’. This qualification leads one to wonder whether the text is implying that either a male or female firstborn was acceptable. Texts such as Exod 22:28 seem to be the next stage, stating that the ‫בכור‬ (no reference to the ‫ )פטר רחם‬must be given to Yhwh. Finally, the sacrifice of the firstborn human is no longer required, but redemption and substitution must occur (e.g., Exod 13:12–13, 34:19–20). Here, firstborn is not modified by ‫פטר רחם‬ ‘the one who breaks the womb’, but is qualified with the term ‫‘ בניך‬your son’. If the development of the firstborn laws corresponds to the idea that child sacrifice is an early ritual of the cult that later became abhorrent, then two phrases present themselves. In the earliest stage, where ‫‘ בכור‬firstborn’ means ‫‘ פטר רחם‬the one who breaks the womb’, child sacrifice of both genders appears to be required. I 63.  See W. Zieler, “In Search of a Feminist Reading of the Akedah,” Nashim 9 (2005): 10–26, and the references therein.

Child Sacrifice

195

posit that this stage represents a time or version of the Yhwh cult wherein child sacrifice regularly occurred. This practice remained in some variant strands of the Yhwh cult, and it is what texts such as Lev 18:21, 20:3; Deut 12:30–31, 18:10; and Jer 7:31, 19:5, 32:25 all rail against. In this stage the sacrificial children were of both genders (‫)בכור = פטר רחם‬. Again, this corresponds with the practice we see occurring in Leviticus, Deuteronomy, and Jeremiah, which specifically prohibits sacrifice of sons (‫ )בנים‬or daughters (‫)בנות‬. As the official Yhwh cult developed and began to move away from a state-endorsed practice of child sacrifice, the language used to describe the firstborn also shifts away from ‫ בכור‬meaning ‫פטר רחם‬, a child of either gender who breaks the womb, to ‫בכור‬, meaning a firstborn son. This shift is clear in Num 3:44–49, where monetary redemption comes into play. 64 Thus, the law of the firstborn at its earliest stage, when it indeed required child sacrifice, was applicable to both genders. Perhaps within this law are the origins or rationale for the practice of regular child sacrifice in the Yhwh cult as hinted at in Leviticus, Deuteronomy, and the later prophetic passages. In light of these observations about the development of the firstborn laws and the push away from sacrificing sons, the narratives about Isaac and Jephthah’s daughter gain new significance. These narratives concern child sacrifice through a test and a vow, respectively. 65 Consider the Akedah. Whether or not one understands the narrative as a polemic against child sacrifice or as a test about Abraham’s faith, the fact is that the sacrifice of a son is rejected. God is not interested in Isaac as a sacrifice. Even if, as Stavrakopoulou suggests, traces exist of a tradition wherein Abraham did sacrifice Isaac, the text as it currently stands states that a ram is sacrificed in Isaac’s stead. This line of argument aligns the text with the later laws of the firstborn. Abraham’s firstborn son by Sarah is not sacrificed; nor is he redeemed. His death is substituted with that of a ram. In fact, if Stavrakopoulou is correct that the original tradition ended with Isaac’s death, it would offer even more support for the development of the firstborn laws in the manner presented above. If the Israelite society became uncomfortable with the tradition of sacrificing firstborn sons, the last thing they would want was a narrative that venerated the sacrifice of a firstborn son. Following this line of argument, Genesis 22 is redacted so that it becomes clear that God did not want Abraham’s firstborn son. For the purposes of this book, the most important thing is the attitudes toward children that the biblical text preserves. One can ask, for example, why the laws and narratives move away from the sacrifice of sons but do not appear to shift away from the sacrifice of daughters explicitly. For example, where Genesis 22 64.  See also, K. Finsterbusch, “The 1st Born between Sacrifice and Redemption,” in Human Sacrifice in Jewish and Christian Tradition (ed. K. Finsterbusch et al.; Leiden: Brill, 2007), 107–8. For arguments against a set of laws commanding child sacrifice that were later modified, see M. Bauks, “Theological Implications,” 65–86, especially pp. 77–78. 65.  For arguments that Jephthah was also testing God, see ibid.

196

Chapter Seven

represents a movement away from sacrificing sons, the narratives in Genesis 19 and Judges 11 present the opposite picture: female children are expendable. Lot’s daughters and Jephthah’s daughter are both sexually ripe females. As females on the cusp of adulthood, their social status within society is in flux. Not only will their social status soon change, but their legal status will also change as soon as they are married. They will cease to be property of their father and will become property of the future husbands. Transitions are places of liminality, where a person does not fit into a concrete category. As such, liminal spaces are dangerous. The portrait of the young virgin daughter painted in the biblical text is one of fragility and expendability. 66 As noted above, the sacrificial victims were those without a prominent legal status, of a low social status and closely associated with the one doing the sacrifice. The virgin daughter fits this bill. Practically speaking, sons would be more valuable than daughters in a patriarchal world. If adolescent virgin daughters are expendable, are other females equally expendable? The answer is yes. As Beth Alpert Nakhai convincingly points out, female infants are less desirable than male infants. Unlike their female counterparts, infant males and young males are protected in the biblical text. 67 Moses, Ishmael, and Isaac, are all rescued as young children (Exodus 2; Genesis 21, 22) and the infant firstborn Israelite males are allowed to live. Thus, gender appears to trump age when it comes to an infant’s or child’s status within Israelite society. This should not be surprising in a patriarchal seminomadic society wherein inheritance passes through the male line. From an ideological and theological standpoint, the covenant may also have factored into this ideology because the covenant also passes through the male line. Narratives that discuss the ritual killing of a son during times of communitywide distress support the conclusions concerning the value placed on male children. Baruch Margalit states that King Mesha sacrifices his son in 2 Kgs 3:26–27 66.  A. M. Tapp has argued that an ideology of expendability pervades the narratives concerning virgin daughters in the Hebrew Bible (Genesis 19; Judges 11, 19). In the stories of Lot’s daughters, which is mirrored in the narrative about the Levite’s concubine, and Jephthah’s daughter, a trifold pattern emerges. First a confrontation happens between two men vying over a desired object. The men then respond by offering a virgin daughter. Finally, a solution is reached; the virgin daughters are accepted in place of the originally desired object, and the narrative can move on to the next event. After examining these three narratives, Tapp asks what they can tell us about life outside the text; what historical reality are they addressing? She concludes that these narratives all present an ideology that suggests that, at some point in Israel’s history, virgin daughters were sacrificed. One could file each of the cases under one of the three categories mentioned at the outset of this section: Genesis 19 / Judges 19 can be understood as taking place under extreme distress, and Judges 11 falls under the category of sacrifice to fulfill a vow/test (A. M. Tapp, “An Ideology of Expendability: Virgin Daughter Sacrifice in Genesis 19:1–11, Judges 11:30–39 and 19:22–26,” in Anti-Covenant; Counter-Reading Women’s Lives in the Hebrew Bible [ed. M. Bal; Sheffield: Almond Press], 157–74). 67.  Note that Isaac and Jepthah’s daughter are both identified as the only child, ‫יחיד‬ and ‫יחידה‬, respectively (Gen 22:2 and Judg 11:35). Isaac is saved from a ritual killing, whereas Jepthah’s daughter is not.

Child Sacrifice

197

because it is in line with the laws of Canaanite holy war. 68 The larger cultural context, specifically of Ugarit, attests to the fact that a king was to offer his firstborn son as a plea for help from Baal. This king, Mesha, did offer his son in order to garner divine help and secure a military victory. His sacrifice must have come at heavy cost, for this son was the crown prince. The two children mentioned in 2 Kgs 6:24–30 offer a real-life example of the curses uttered in Deut 28:52–57. That text describes a siege that lasts so long it causes parents to eat “the fruit of your belly, that is your sons and your daughters which the Lord your God has given to you.” Deuteronomy lists both genders: sons and daughters. During the siege in 2 Kings 6, however, the children to be eaten are specifically sons, not daughters. It is notable that the word for the male children in 2 Kings is ‫‘ בן‬son’ and not ‫‘ ילד‬child’, which also means a male child. In light of the discussion surrounding sons and the importance they have within Israelite society, the appearance of ‫ בן‬in 2 Kings 6 is a loaded term. It is also a more intimate way of referring to one’s child. The text seems to say that eating one’s child is bad enough, but if one is reduced to eating a son, then things must be really bad! Returning to the questions posed above, the texts indicate that girls and boys were not necessarily understood as the same under ritual laws. The status of female and male infants and children varied according to the kind of sacrifice being performed: a ritual killing, a sacrifice to fulfill to a vow or test, or child sacrifice during communal distress. The first group of texts concerning regular ritual killings (e.g., Lev 18:21, 20:3; Deut 12:30–31, 18:10; Isa 30:27–33; Jer 7:31, 19:5, 32:35; Ezek 20:25–26) treat male and female children the same. Both genders fulfill the ritual requirement. However the second and third groups of texts, children sacrificed on account of a vow or test and those sacrificed during communal distress, develop a picture wherein male infants and children were prized above female infants and children. In comparison to Genesis 19 and Judges 11, texts such as Genesis 21–22, Exodus 3, 2 Kings 3 and 6 suggest that killing a son was a highly traumatic event. Approaching the question of gender and sacrifice from the stance of birth order, one sees a transformation wherein the status of the firstborn male child becomes prime and his ritual killing a tragedy. Such conclusions are hardly surprising and fall in line with the status of the first born child held throughout the ancient Near East. More notable is that, whereas biblical texts suggest the sacrifice of the firstborn (son or daughter) was once required and desired, ritual requirements were later emended in a way that promotes the primacy of the firstborn male child. Thus, the texts on child sacrifice present a picture wherein age to some degree and gender to a greater degree are determining factors in the perception of children and their expendability. 68. B. Margalit, “Why King Mesha of Moab Sacrificed His Oldest Son,” BAR 12/6 (1986): 62–63, 76.

C

h a p t e r

E

i g h t

Child Burials: An Overview Chapter 7 addresses children who met their death by unnatural means. The next two chapters continue to explore the individual who died as a child or a baby and focuses on those who died primarily of natural causes. Burials of biologically immature individuals offer a concrete set of data for examining how ANE societies displayed the social status of children in death during the Early Bronze Age through the Iron Age (3600–539 b.c.e.). 1 The following chapters concentrate on how relative age affects the presentation of social status in burials, as well as how burials reflect ascribed status and achieved status. Ascribed status describes things over which a person has no control, such as age, gender, and ethnicity. Achieved status, on the other hand, refers to things that pertain to a person’s position in life and are generally dictated by that individual’s society. 2 This chapter offers an overview of child burials in the lands surrounding Canaan in order to present burial patterns found with child burials in the ANE broadly. The overview also serves to situate chapter 9, a case study of child burials in the land of Canaan, within the larger picture of ANE child burials. 3 The burial patterns that emerge 1.  As the previous chapters demonstrate, categories of social status are directly related to the relative age of the child. Because social status is connected to age, and one can determine age from the physical remains, social status can be inferred from the archaeological record. 2.  Recognizing that multiple factors contribute to one’s status in society, a processualplus method of analysis that is flexible enough to account for gender, social variability, rites of passage, spatial relations, and agency is employed throughout the chapter. A brief theoretical background to mortuary archaeology and its employment of processual-plus archaeology can be found in chap. 1. The present chapter also focuses primarily on the sociological aspects of the burials and includes biological information when it is relevant and/or available. 3.  The sites in these two sections are a sampling of the burials excavated in the last 150 years, which in turn reflect only a small percentage of the total number of burials belonging to the EB–IA periods. While it is the goal of this survey to present as much information as possible, it is simply not possible or desirable to include every burial in the ANE. The sites chosen for the survey were based first and foremost on the accessible materials. The information on burials in Canaan was drawn from final and preliminary reports of the major sites, publications of smaller sites by the Israel Antiquities Authority, and personal communication with excavators. The overview of the lands surrounding Canaan was limited to final publications and articles available for major sites in each area.

198

Child Burials: An Overview

199

demonstrate the attitude adults had concerning children in their societies and their perception of a child’s place within the ancient household.

Child Burials in the Regions Surrounding Canaan This overview covers child burials in Transjordan, Syria, Mesopotamia, and Egypt. 4 For each region, major sites are listed with a description of any child burials and their associated grave goods. A brief analysis of the burials from each region follows the description of the region’s sites. This analysis includes a list of burial patterns and any social status that can be inferred from them. The observations made in the analyses will be revisited at the end of the chapter in a larger conversation about burials and a child’s membership in society and the household.

Region One: Transjordan Tiwal esh-Sharqi Tiwal esh-Sharqi is located in the central Jordan Valley, on the north side of the Zarqa River, in the area to the south of Tell Umm Hammad. 5 An elaborate EB IV cemetery was found in 1984, and 37 shaft tombs were excavated in the cemetery between March and May of that year. 6 A minimum number of individuals (MNI) of 41 people, including 12 children, were identified in primary burials. Of the children found, 4 were aged 1–5 years and 8 were aged 5–15 years. 7 4.  As outlined in chap. 1, in order to create some general divisions between children, the term infant is used to refer to those children aged birth–2 years, children to refer to those aged 3–12 years, and juvenile for those aged 13–15 years. The anthropological reports generally refer to those skeletons aged 15+ as “adults.” See P. McGovern, The Late Bronze and Early Iron Ages of Central Transjordan: The Baqʾah Valley Project 1977–1981 (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, 1986), 297; A. Alekshin, “Burial Customs as an Archaeological Source,” Current Anthropology, 24.2 [1983], 140). 5.  The separation of Transjordan and Canaan (Cistjordan) here is purely geographical and is not meant to suggest that the two regions had different cultures. See especially J. N. Tubb, Excavations at the Early Bronze Age Cemetery of Tiwal esh-Sharqi (London: British Museum Press, 1990). 6.  See pp. 319–320 for more information on the archaeological periods and the times periods they cover. 7.  MNI is used when the bones are found disarticulated or as a secondary burial. In these cases, it is difficult to assign each bone to a particular person and calculate the specific number of individuals interred in the burial (P. Smith, “The Physical Characteristics and Biological Affinities of MB I Skeletal Remains from Jebel Qaʿaqir,” BASOR 245 [1982]: 65–74; P. Smith, A.  Nebel, and M. Faerman, “The Bio-Anthropology of the Inhabitants of Middle and Late Bronze Age Yoqneʾam,” in Yokneam, vol. 3: The Middle and Late Bronze Ages [ed. A. Ben-Tor et al. Qedem Reports, Jerusalem, 2005], 383–94).

200

Chapter Eight

Some of the child burials contained a few pieces of pottery or beads, and others contained nothing at all besides the human remains. The excavators comment that the number of children aged 1–5 years is surprisingly low. They suggest 4 different possible reasons for this. The first is an increased postmortem loss of bones. Second, the town may have used a different burial style and different burial location for children. Third, children may have had a different status wherein they were not considered worth burying. Finally, they suggest that people survived infancy in greater numbers than previously assumed. 8

Bab edh-Dhraʾ Bab edh-Dhraʾ is located at the southeastern end of the Dead Sea, east of the Lisan peninsula. 9 The cemetery there flourished during the EB I–EB IV periods. In the EB I period, before the town site was established, pastoralists buried their dead in shaft tombs. 10 In area F, shaft tombs that contained both adults and children were discovered. Two burials, F2 and Chamber A 110 NE, merit special mention, for they include similar child burials. In the first burial, Tomb F2, an infant was found placed in an adult female’s arms. In the second burial, Chamber A 110 NE, an adult male and female were placed side by side, and a 7-year-old child was situated in the female’s arms. The placement of a child in an adult female’s arms suggests that the female in both cases was the child’s mother. 11 Supporting this conclusion is the identification of the woman in F2 as a “lactating female.” 12 Concurrent burial, or at least burial in proximate time to one another, suggests that the women and children died of a similar cause, such as disease or warfare. 13 If the children and females are indeed mother and child, it suggests that the people burying the female and child took care to place a child in his/her mother’s arms. 14 This placement may demonstrate a desire to link the child to its family, even in death. In the later EB II–III periods, the majority of burials were in large charnel houses. Most of the bones found in the charnel houses were extremely 8. J. Henderson, “The Human Bones from Tiwal esh-Sharqi,” in Tubb, Excavations, 102. 9.  See especially R. Schaub and W. Rast, Bâb edh-Dhrâ: Excavations in the Cemetery Directed by Paul W. Lapp (1965–67) (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1989). 10. W. Rast and R. Schaub, Bâb edh-Dhrâ: Excavations at the Town Site (1975–1981) (Reports of the Expedition to the Dead Sea, Jordan; 2 vols.; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2003). Secondary interment was the dominant tradition of burial in EB IA. This changed in EB IB, when successive primary burial became the dominant tradition (Schaub and Rast, Excavations in the Cemetery, 550–51). 11. B. Fröhlich and D. Ortner, “Excavations of the EBA Cemetery at Bab edh-Dhra Jordan, 1981,” ADAJ 26 (1982): 256–58. 12.  Rast and Schaub, Town Site, 66. The excavation report, however, did not detail what criteria were used to identify the woman as lactating. 13.  See pp. 224 n. 17. 14.  The idea that the females and children in F 2 and Chamber A 110 NE are mother and child cannot be verified without DNA testing.

Child Burials: An Overview

201

brittle and disarticulated. 15 Salvageable remains were identified in charnel house A4, where 11 skeletons were identified. One was the skeleton of a child placed over that of an adult, recalling the EB I burials. In the later EB IV period shaft tombs came back into vogue. 16 Seven people were found in tomb A 52, including a child placed to the right of the doorway. Additional child burials were not identified.

Tel es-Saʾidiyeh Tell es-Saʾidiyeh is located east of the Jordan River, halfway between the Dead Sea and the Kinneret. 17 Excavations on the upper mound revealed a town, while excavations on the lower mound uncovered a LBA/early IA cemetery. Fourteen pit graves of children were found within the cemetery. These burials were interspersed among the other pit graves containing adults. Four of the children, two of which were fetuses, were buried with females, presumably their mothers. Notably, the two pits containing females and fetuses contained juglets. 18 Three of the 14 pits contained children buried in jars. Unlike the fetuses buried with females, the jar burials did not include juglets. While the ages of the children in the burial jars is not known, the jars were around 80 cm (32 in) in height, and around 50 cm (19.5 in) at their widest point, meaning that the children placed in the jars must have been quite young. 19

Baqʾah Valley The Baqʾah Valley Project is a survey of the Baqʾah Valley, which is located 15 km northwest of Amman. 20 During the survey of the burial caves, three caves yielding child remains were discovered: Cave A2, Cave B3, and Cave 4. 15.  Schaub and Rast, Excavations in the Cemetery, 319–95. The information concerning the charnel houses published to date focuses on the relationship between the charnel house layout and the town plan and not on the actual finds within the graves. See, for example, M. Chesson, “Households, Houses, Neighborhood and Corporate Villages: Modeling the EBA as a House Society,” Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 16 (2003): 79–102. 16.  Schaub and Rast, Excavations in the Cemetery, 473–89. 17.  See especially J. Pritchard, The Cemetery at Tell es-Saʾidiyeh, Jordan (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1980). In J. Green’s article on the relationship between gender and anklets/bracelets, he records 20 as the MNI of child/infant burials. This number includes the jar burial of one neonate and four additional jar burials (J. Green, “Anklets and the Social Construction of Gender an Age in the Late Bronze and Early Iron Age Southern Levant,” in Archaeology and Women: Ancient and Modern Issues [ed. R. Whitehouse and K. Wright; Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast, 2007], 291–92). 18.  Infants are often found with juglets when buried in jars. Therefore, it is interesting that at Tel es-Saʾidiyeh infants are only found with juglets when buried in pits and with an adult. 19.  For the dimension of the jars, see figs. 25 and 26 in Pritchard, The Cemetery, 64–65. The average length of a newborn child is 19–21 inches. 20.  See especially P. McGovern, Baqʾah Valley.

202

Chapter Eight

Caves A2 and B3 date to the LB II period, and both contained a higher percentage of children than adults. Cave A2 contained a MNI of 22 people, including 9 adults, 7 juveniles, 2 children, and 4 infants. 21 Cave B3 had a MNI of 64 people, including 24 adults and 40 children. Of the children in B3, 42% were younger than 4 years old. The excavators attribute the high number of child deaths in the LB period to disease, dietary deficiencies, and a high rate of infant mortality. 22 Cave 4 dates to the IA period. Unlike Caves A2 and B3, the vast majority of burials in Cave 4 were adults: 171 adults were found, as opposed to 48 children. Of the 48 children, the mortality rate was the highest among the children aged 4 months–1 year. Only one neonate was discovered. Based on the information known about infant mortality, the excavators suggest that more neonates and infants should be expected at the site and surmise that they must have been buried outside the cemetery. 23

Tell el Mazar Tell el Mazar and its cemeteries are located in the middle of the Jordan Valley, 3 km east of the Jordan River. 24 Cemetery A is situated 220 m north-­ northwest of Tell el Mazar proper. Like many IA cemeteries, some tombs at Tell el Mazar were found empty, subject to ancient and modern grave robbing. However, there were a number of graves in which skeletal remains did survive. Adults were found in caves, shaft tombs, mud-brick structures, stone pits, coffins, and pithoi. Infants, on the other hand, were found primarily in jar burials. 25 The placement of the bodies within the graves depended on the sex of the individuals. 26 Males were always placed in an extended position, and females in a crouched position. 27 While it is next to impossible to identify the biological sex of young skeletons, this recurring burial pattern—males extended and females crouched—led anthropologists to suggest that the infants in burials 34, 48, and 53 were all females because they were positioned in a crouched position. 28 Another possible explanation that was not explored by Yassine is that the infants were still considered 21.  Ibid., 297. 22.  Ibid., 303. 23.  Ibid., 312–14. For definitions of neonate and infant, see p. 17 n. 9. 24.  See especially K. Yassine, Tell el Mazar, vol. 1: Cemetery A (Jordan: University of Jordan Press, 1984); K. Yassine, “Social-Religious Distinction is Iron Age Practice in Jordan,” in Midian, Moab and Edom (ed. J Sawyer and D. Clines; London: Sheffield Academic Press, 1983), 29–36. 25.  See, for example, Burial 47 (idem, Tell el Mazar, 40). 26.  The sex of an individual can be determined through the measurements of the mandible, crania, and pelvis bones. 27.  For a full description of the burial customs, grave goods, positioning, and dating, see ibid., 8–14. Note that grave goods as well as the body positioning were sex specific. 28. A. Disi, W. Henke, and J. Wahle, “Human Skeletal Remains,” in K. Yassine, Tell el Mazar, vol. 1: Cemetery A (Jordan: University of Jordan Press, 1984), 135ff.

Child Burials: An Overview

203

an extension of the mother and therefore were buried in the same position as the females. The report did not clarify whether the other infants in jar burials were found in an extended position and therefore considered males.

Sahab Sahab is located 12 km southeast of Amman. 29 The burials found in Sahab Cave C offer additional information concerning the burials of children in Jordan during the IA. 30 The cave itself was laid out in the common IA bench tomb style. 31 Against one wall, the excavators discovered multiple large burial jars lying on their sides. 32 They found the remains of males, females, and infants in the jars. Some jars included jewelry and daggers, while others contained no burial goods. To the side of the large burial jars, excavators found a small burial jar that contained a single infant. No burial goods were recorded. The benches along the sides of the cave also held burials. On one of these benches, an infant was found lying over the right arm of a female, presumably its mother. Because many items were scattered over the benches, it was difficult to assign specific grave goods to either the female or the infant. 33 While a variety of methods—large jars, small jars, and bench burials—were used to bury children at Sahab, one commonality exists: the children are buried in the cave along with the adults.

Summary of Child Burials in Transjordan A few general comments can be made concerning the burials in Transjordan as a whole. First, the child burials listed in this section all come from cemeteries and with the exception of the Baqʾah Valley, the excavation reports pointed out that the number of child burials found was relatively low. The reports suggest that the majority of child burials must be located elsewhere. Second, when children are found in the cemeteries, they are always buried with adults and in the same general manner as the adults (in a cist, cave, shaft tomb, or bench tomb). 34 Whereas the number of grave goods assigned to the children was relatively small on the whole, there are some cases in which extra care was given to the body of the child. For example, at Tell el Mazar, Sahab, and Tell es-Saʾidiyeh, infants were first placed in burial jars and then placed with the adults in a cist or cave. 29.  See especially M. Ibrahim, “Archaeological Excavations at Sahab, 1972,” ADAJ 17 (1972): 23–36; K. Yassine, “Social-Religious Distinctions,” 29–36. 30.  Cave C was the only cave in which the age of the interred could be assessed. Often bones from IA tombs, especially those of children, are described as too “fragile and difficult to preserve” (Ibrahim, “Sahab,” 27). 31. E. Bloch-Smith, Judahite Burial Practices and Beliefs about the Dead (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992), 36ff. 32.  Ibrahim, “Sahab,” 31. 33.  Ibid., 32. 34.  See Tiwal esh Sharqi, Bab edh-Dhraʾ, Tel es Saʾidiyeh, the Baqʾah Valley Caves, Tell el Mazar, and Sahab.

204

Chapter Eight

In other cases, infants were situated in a female’s arms, which may mean that the women died at the same time as the children. 35 Based on the fact that the number of child burials within Transjordanian cemeteries is low, and the fact that many of those children placed in cemeteries were given special care, it appears that children were buried in cemeteries when they died at the same time as another family member. Conversely, when children in the Transjordan died alone, be it from dietary deficiency, sickness, or other health problems, they were buried in an area separate from the family tombs. Similar burial trends appear in Canaan, suggesting that Transjordan and Cisjordan share similar cultures. These similarities become evident in the analysis of child burials in Canaan given in the next chapter.

Region Two: Syria/Mesopotamia 36 Ur Ur is located 225 km south of Babylon, near the mouth of the Tigris and Euphrates on the Persian Gulf. 37 During the Old Babylonian period, adults were buried in family vaults underneath the house. Children, on the other hand, were rarely buried in family vaults. 38 Instead, they were buried under the house floor, next to the family vault in small clay coffins. It is not clear what the exact status of children was, but it is clear that it was not the same as that of adults. The only other mention of children’s burials in the excavation reports dates to the NeoBabylonian period. In this period, children were still buried under house floors but in simple inhumations or burial pots. Amulets, as well as bangles, scarabs, and beads were commonly found accompanying the graves. 39 The burial of infants, on the other hand, is well-documented throughout the entire occupation of Ur (Old Babylonian through Neo-Babylonian). Infants were buried under the house floors in one of two ways. The most common method was to situate the body in a clay bowl and place another bowl over the top. A less-common method involved placing the body in a box similar to a “rabbithutch.” 40 No grave goods accompanied the infants. Unlike child burials, infant 35.  We see this at Sahab, Tell es-Saʾidiyeh, and Bab edh-Dhraʾ. 36. The Lebanon Daily Star reported that the 2008 excavations of Sidon uncovered more than 92 graves of children and teenagers buried in jars dating to 3000 b.c.e. (Mohammed Zaatari, “Archaeologists Shed Light on Ancient Canaanite Burial Rituals” [accessed Sept. 4, 2008], n.p. On-line: http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id =1&categ_id=1&article_id=95699). 37.  See especially L. Woolley, Ur Excavations (9 vols.; London: British Museum Press, 1934–76); M. van de Mieroop, Society and Enterprise in Old Babylonian Ur (Berlin: Reimer, 1992). 38.  The term children refers to those aged 3–12. 39.  Ibid., 9:53ff. 40.  Ibid., vol. 7, 8:87, and 9:53.

Child Burials: An Overview

205

burials were almost always placed in the second largest room in the house, away from the family burial vaults. 41 Although the evidence shows that the burial of adults changed throughout the history of Ur, the burial of infants and children remains relatively the same for almost 1,500 years. 42

Kish and Nippur Two other major sites in southern Mesopotamia also record child burials within jars. However, both of these sites are extremely limited in their description of the burials. Nonetheless, they are included in this overview in an attempt to demonstrate the wide-reaching, long-standing practice of burying children in jars. Kish is located 12 km east of Babylon. Kish Cemetery “A” dates to the end of the Early Dynastic period / beginning of the Akkadian period. There, 38 graves were uncovered, four of which belonged to children. One of these, Grave 36, was recorded as a “small child in an urn” accompanied by three ceramic items. 43 Nippur is located on the Shatt-en-Nil canal, 160 km southeast of Baghdad. The report of area WA 50c at Nippur records a small child buried under the floor of a house with a bowl covering its face. Two other jars, dating to the Kassite period, were laid by the child’s head. 44 Other than these few brief words, the excavation reports do not mention anything about children at these two sites.

Nuzi Nuzi is located southeast of Assur, near the Tigris River. In Stratum III (LB), infant jar burials were discovered under house floors. 45 Most burials were in unlined jars which were covered with a single bowl and situated in the ground in an inverted position. Four burials in Stratum III were described as deviating from this pattern. The first of these burials is Group 5 C2. This jar burial was covered with two bowls and placed in an upright position. Jar burial Group 5 C2 also differed in its makeup, for, unlike the other jars used for burials at Nuzi, this jar was lined with 2 cm of clay. 46 No hypothesis has been made as to why this burial was treated differently. The second and third unusual burials are Group 28 G13 and Group 28 G14. These two burials are identical to each other. In each burial, an infant was placed in an oval dish. The dish was then covered with a knobbed lid. The end result was a burial in a vessel shaped like a breast. As for grave goods, a 41.  Van de Mieroop, Society, 37. 42.  Adults are buried in cemeteries, under houses, in vaults, double pots, circular pots, larynxes, or simple pits. See Woolley, Ur Excavations. 43. E. MacKay, Report on the Excavation of the “A” Cemetery at Kish (Chicago: Field Museum, 1925), 13. 44. M. Gibson, Excavations at Nippur: 11th Season (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1975), 73. 45.  R. F.. Starr, Nuzi, vol. 1: Texts (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1939). 46. Ibid., 191–92.

206

Chapter Eight

small vase was found outside each burial, while some glass beads were discovered inside. 47 The fourth unusual burial, Group 16 P 400, was found in the southwest section of Stratum III in the midst of three other jar burials. While the surrounding three jars each contained one infant per jar, the burial in Group 16 P 400 contained 11 infants. Scholars have suggested that the presence of multiple bodies marks this as a foundation sacrifice; however, as R. Ellis has demonstrated, it is highly unlikely that these were part of such a sacrifice. 48 If these are not foundation sacrifices, the presence of 11 infants in one jar is curious. Most jar burials throughout the ANE are single burials, or at the most, double burials. It is possible that these infants all died at the same time through an epidemic of some sort. If this is the case, the infants may have been buried together to separate their diseased bodies from the other infants. 49 We cannot know this for certain without DNA analysis.

Mari Mari was a town in Syria located on the western bank of the Upper Euphrates. The town is best known for its archive, but it also has a well-preserved necropolis that has been published by M. Jean-Marie. 50 The excavation report includes detailed descriptions of the burial style, grave goods, and distribution of children and adults within a tomb type. In addition, the report includes a summary section with graphs and charts pertaining to the MB- and LB-period burials. What follows is a brief summary of the information concerning children, which are referred to as enfants in the report. 51 According to the excavation report, 47.  Ibid., 226–28. 48.  Ellis points out that there is no evidence that the infants were murdered. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the burials were “built-in” to the house as part of the foundation (R. Ellis, Foundation Deposits in Ancient Mesopotamia [New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1968], 35–42). 49.  A recent DNA examination was conducted of the dental pulp from the bodies found in a mass burial pit at Athens. The results suggest that typhoid fever was the cause of the epidemic that swept through Athens. Included in the burial pit were eight pot burials of infants (M. J. Papagrigorakis, C. Yapijakis, P. N. Synodinos, and E. Baziotopoulou-Valavani, “DNA Examination of Ancient Dental Pulp Incriminates Typhoid Fever as the Possible Cause of the Plague of Athens,” International Journal of Infectious Diseases 10 [2006]: 206–14). At the Roman site of Lugnano (5th century c.e.), infants who died from malaria were buried together in a mass cemetery. Furthermore, the children had a cemetery separate from the adult cemetery. D. Soren suggests this separation “may have been due to the fear of physical or supernatural contamination” (D. Soren, “Can Archaeologists Excavate Evidence of Malaria? ” WA 35 [2003]: 193–209). 50. M. Jean-Marie, Tombes et Nécropoles de Mari (Beyrouth: Bibliotèque Archaéologique et Historique, 1999). 51. Because Jean-Marie calls all children enfants, it is impossible to tell when the report is referring to infants and when it is referring to children.

Child Burials: An Overview

207

enfants were primarily buried in jars. 52 In fact, in the Bronze Moyen I, jar burial was the only method of burying enfants. 53 This is different from adults, who were buried in pit graves, jars, sarcophagi, and double pithoi. The grave goods accompanying the enfants could include ceramic bowls, beads, rings, earrings, and bracelets, although some burials included no goods at all. Adults were found with a similar assemblage of grave goods. The main difference between enfant burials and adult burials seems to be the method of burial.

Tel Hadidi Tel Hadidi is located in Syria on the northern end of the Euphrates. 54 Tombs from the EB-LB were discovered there, but unfortunately the tombs had been robbed of their contents. There is, however, some information concerning the EB-MB burials of infants, because during this time people buried infants under house floors rather than in the tombs. The EB IV levels of Area C contained two infants buried in store jars. Jars and cups accompanied the burials. In Area B, five infants were discovered, three of them in a single cooking pot. 55 These burials date to the MB II period. Unfortunately, knowledge of child burials at Tel Hadidi is limited to these few burials.

Summary of Child Burials in Syria/Mesopotamia With the exception of the Mari necropolis, the information available for child burials in Syria/Mesopotamia comes primarily from burials within the various settlements. The preference was to bury infants and young children in some kind of vessel, be it a jar, bowl, or cooking pot. The most common burial pattern was to place a single child or infant in a vessel and cover the vessel with a bowl. When jar burials occurred at a site, they were always discovered beneath house floors. In the few instances in which adults were found buried under house floors, it was in a manner markedly different from those of the infants/children at the site. 56 A similar method of jar burial is found in Canaan and will be discussed in depth in chapter 9. Although many jar burials follow the aforementioned pattern, various other types of jar burials were found, and these may shed some light on the motivation behind the burial of infants in jars. For example, the Nuzi burials found under the floor in “breast-shaped” vessels suggest that jar burials had some sort of connection with fertility. 57 It may be that the burial is meant to display that the 52.  Plain pit burials followed in popularity (ibid., 77, fig. 2). 53.  Marie’s Bronze Moyen I corresponds roughly to the MB IIA period. 54.  R. H. Dornemann, “Tel Hadidi: An Important Center,” in Le Moyen Euphrate: Zone de contacts et d’èchanges. Actes du colloque de Strasbourg, 10–12 mars 1977 (ed. J. C. Margueron (Strasbourg: Université des sciences humaines de Strasbourg, 1980). 55.  Dornemann, “Tel Hadidi,” 226. 56.  Consider, for example, the family burial vaults at Ur. 57.  See the discussion on the “tomb to womb” theory on pp. 240–241.

208

Chapter Eight

mother, either its biological mother or perhaps even “Mother Earth,” will care for the infant in death. 58 It may also point to a hope or belief that the infant will be nourished by the mother and gain strength to be reborn as a future child. 59 Of course, the explanation for burying children under the floor may have been quite simple. It may be that there was an emotional attachment of the family mourning the child’s untimely death. Burying the child within the house would then have provided the family with a permanent link between the household and the child. It appears that the communities in Syria and Mesopotamia made an effort to separate the child burials from the adult burials. Physically, this separation occurred through a specific method of burial, and, at many sites, through a specific placement of the burial within the context of the domestic quarters. It is possible that the physical separation signified a social separation. In this case, the method and placement of the child burials was meant to reflect the child’s social status, to demonstrate that the child was not considered part of the community before a certain age. 60 The relationship between age and social status, as represented by membership in the community, will be explored further in the discussion of child burials in Canaan.

Region Three: Egypt Deir el-Medina Deir el-Medina is on the west bank of the Nile, across from modern day Luxor. Both the site and necropolis of Deir el-Medina date to the New Kingdom (ca. 1539–1075 b.c.e.). The cemetery was extensively excavated by B. Bruyère in the 1920–30s. 61 Bruyère identified five different methods of interring children. The most popular form of burial was the jar or amphora burial. Jar burials most 58. R. Hallote, Death, Burial and Afterlife in the Biblical World (Chicago: Ivan Dee, 2001), 38. Infants were often placed with the heads pointing toward the opening of the jar as though waiting to be rebirthed (Tel Dan, Sahab, Kitan, Nesiba, etc.). 59.  Similar burial practices exist in Canaan. For ethnographic parallels, see discussion on p. 241. 60.  For example, if children were not considered a part of the community until a certain age, this might explain why at Ur the burial methods for adults changed while those of the children remained the same. In other words, children who were not full members of society had a certain status that demanded that they were buried in a different location, such as beneath house floors (L. Binford, “Mortuary Practices; Their Study and Their Potential,” Approaches to the Social Dimensions of Mortuary Practices [Washington: Society for American Archaeology, 1971], 64; L. Steel, “Differential Burial Practices in Cyprus at the Beginning of the Iron Age,” in The Archaeology of Death in the Ancient Near East (ed. S. Campbell and A. Green [Oxbow Monographs 51; Oxford: Oxbow, 1995], 103). 61. B. Bruyère, Rapport sur les Fouiles de Deir el Médineh (1924–1925), Troisième Partie (Cairo: Imprimerie de l’Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale, 1926); idem, Rapport sur les Fouiles de Deir el Médineh (1929), Deuxième Partie (Cairo: Imprimerie de l’Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale, 1930); idem, Rapport sur les Fouiles de Deir el Médineh (1934–1935),

Child Burials: An Overview

209

often contained fetuses, newborns, and placenta, whose remains were wrapped in linen and placed in the jar along with flint, beer jugs, and other ceramics. 62 A second burial method was to wrap the child in a piece of cloth and place it in a reused basket made of rushes. The ends of the basket were then tied in an effort to enclose the body in the basket. This was the poorest of all the burials and was often used for stillborn children. 63 The third method of burial is similar to the second in that it also used a basket to encase the child, but the baskets used in this method were round or oval and included a wicker top. The child was placed in the bottom of the basket and covered with a shroud. If the child was too tall for the basket, holes were cut to allow the legs to protrude. No jewelry was found in either method of basket burial, but in some instances small ceramic items filled with foodstuffs were found along with the child. The fourth method consisted of burying the child in a box or chest specially made to fit the child. 64 Finally, children could be buried in coffins, either plain or anthropomorphic, with jewelry and ceramics accompanying the body. L. Meskell’s recent work on Deir el-Medina, The Archaeologies of Social Life, is pertinent to this study because it highlights the effects that age, sex, and class have on the burials in the necropolis. Meskell states, “The fact the children were often buried on their own lends weight to claims that they were considered individuals and as such warranted their own tombs.” 65 She also points out that children’s tombs in the 18th dynasty were almost never found in the Western Cemetery; this was reserved for wealthy, high ranking adult family members. 66 18th Dynasty child burials were found in the Eastern Cemetery, which was used for children as well as single females and elderly people. Placement in the Eastern Cemetery was determined by age, so that the youngest (neonates, fetuses, placentas, infants) were placed at the bottom of the slope, juveniles in the middle, and adult females at the top. 67 In the 19th and 20th Dynasties, all burials were Deuxième Partie FIFAO 15 (Cairo: Imprimerie de l’Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale, 1937). 62. The placenta was thought of as a twin self and therefore needed a proper burial. Meskell suggests that the inclusion of beer jugs and ceramics point to an adult concept of the afterlife (The Archaeologies of Social Life: Age, Sex, Class et cetera in Ancient Egypt [Oxford: Blackwell, 1999], 170). 63.  The reports do not specify how they know the child was stillborn. 64.  Box burials were also found underneath the house walls of SE VI and in the NE and SW sections of the village (Meskell, Social Life, 171; C. Bonnet and D. Valbelle, “Le village de Deir el Médineh,” Bulletin de l’Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale 76 [1976]: 325; R. Anthes, “Dei Deutschen Grabungen auf der Westseite von Theben in den Jahren 1911–1913,” Mitteilungen des Deutschen Instituts für Ägyptische Altertumskunde in Kario 12 [1943]: 1–72). 65.  Meskell, Social Life, 172. 66.  The wealth and high rank of the people in the Western Cemetery was based on the energy expenditure, contents, and spatial distribution of their graves (ibid., 143). 67.  Note that the Sumerians also had places specially designated for the burials of afterbirths, fetuses, stillborns, and premature babies (Å. Sjoberg and E. Bergmann, The Collection of Sumerian Temple Hymn [Texts from Cuneiform 3; Locust Valley, NY: Augustin, 1969], 92–93;

210

Chapter Eight

placed in the Western Cemetery. During these two dynasties, there seems to have been a move toward standardizing the burial practice so that all burials were homogeneous, demonstrating no concern for the age, sex, or rank of the deceased. 68 A few child burials from Deir el-Medina merit special mention. The first two are burials of highly deformed children, one named Iryky and the other simply known as Burial 1373. 69 These burials are two of the richest child burials found at Deir el-Medina. Extreme care was taken in preparing the body, and many grave goods and foodstuffs were placed with the burial to ensure a good afterlife. 70 According to Meskell, these burials show that the Egyptians treated every child, even the ones that were ill, with respect. 71 Another child worthy of mention is the son T. Jacobsen, The Harps: Sumerian Poetry in Translation [New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1987], 475; J. Westenholz, “Tamar, Qedesa, Qadistu, and Sacred Prostitution in Mesopotamia,” Harvard Theological Review 82 [1989]: 245–65). Later Roman burials also separated the cemeteries of children and adults. Within the child cemetery, the age determined the style of burial. The youngest children were not shown much respect, being buried with little ceremony. Older children were placed in jars or amphorae, and some were buried between roof tiles (Soren, “Can Archaeology,” 197). 68.  Meskell, Social Life, 143ff. 69.  The child, identified as Iryky, had stunted limbs and an unusually large head and torso (Meskell, Social Life, 171; idem, “The Irresistible Body and the Seduction of Archeology,” in Changing Bodies, Changing Meanings: Studies on the Human Body in Antiquity [ed. D. Montserrat; London: Routledge, 1998], 155). The other child, found in Burial 1373, was 80 cm tall and had scoliosis (idem, Social Life, 171). 70.  Iryky was placed in a decorated box that included yellow and black borders and writings in hieratic. The child in Burial 1373 was given lots of jewelry as well as many vessels full of grain, nuts, and bread (ibid.). 71.  While this may be true, we do not know that the motivation for treating ill children was altruistic, in the sense that the Egyptians felt motivated to give the deformed children a rich burial without expecting something in return. It may be that the Egyptians were afraid of the deformed children and thought they were possessed with demons, so they gave the children a rich burial in order to make sure the children made it to the afterlife and would not remain in limbo, bothering the living (J. Allen, Middle Egyptian [Cambridge: University Press, 2001], 94–95; Meskell, Social Life, 120–21; R. Parkinson, The Tale of Sinuhe and Other Ancient Egyptian Poems [Oxford, Clarendon, 1997], 151; Richards, Society and Death in Ancient Egypt: A Mortuary Landscape of the Middle Kingdom [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005], 61–65). In addition, some societies allotted a special status to individuals with deformities. For example, in Egypt, dwarfism was a positive trait and “valued as a divine mark for its religious associations” (V. Dasen, Dwarfs in Ancient Egypt and Greece [Oxford: Clarendon, 1993], 156). Dwarfs were equated with the sun-god Re in his scarab-beetle form. Human dwarfs are seen accompanying the Egyptian elite and their status in the community seemed to parallel the status of mythical dwarfs, that is, they were protective beings who watched over bodily care, clothing, jewelry, and most importantly, young children (ibid., 156–59). In Greece, dwarfs were understood both positively and negatively. In some stories, dwarfs were portrayed as societal rejects, while in other stories they are credited with the discovery of metallurgy and are depicted as protectors of children (ibid., 243). Dasen combines the description of children given by Aristotle and Galen with the depiction of children painted on Classical vases and demonstrates that in the Classical period all children were considered dwarfs. She explains that children were grouped in the same status groups as dwarfs because both had similar physiques and mental

Child Burials: An Overview

211

of a man named Sennefer. This child was found in the Western Necropolis inside the family burial tomb. While the tomb was described as “an opulent burial” with “rich decoration,” the burial of the child was only a simple box. Meskell states, “he [Sennefer] could have easily afforded a more elaborate burial for the child.” This prompts Meskell to suggest that age rather than social status determined the kind of burial deemed appropriate for a person at Deir el-Medina. 72

Lahun The city of Lahun is located at the entrance to the Fayum. The site is home to the pyramid of Senusert II (ca. 1878–1897 b.c.e.), as well as a cemetery and a town. 73 In his excavation of the town, Petrie found infants and small children under house floors dating to the Middle Kingdom. 74 The practice of burying children under floors should not be considered, as Petrie would have us believe, evidence of “a barbaric, foreign people.” 75 Rather, burials under floors appear to be an indigenous practice used during the First Intermediate Period and Middle Kingdom. 76 The dearth of infants and children found within the cemeteries of Abydos, Haraga, and Riqqa suggests that, during the Intermediate Period and Middle Kingdom, the majority of infants and children were probably buried elsewhere, perhaps intramurally, but not in cemeteries with adults. 77 Within the cemetery, Petrie discovered children buried in various ways. Three children were found in open pit graves. Each grave contained a skeleton plus grave goods such as coffins, pottery, stones, and shells. 78 A fourth child was capacities (idem, “‘All Children are Dwarfs’: Medical Discourse and Iconography of Children’s Bodies,” Oxford Journal of Archaeology 27/1 [2008]: 49–62). 72.  Meskell, Social Life, 171. 73.  W. F. Petrie, Lahun II (London: Quartich, 1923). 74. J. Richards, Society and Death, 66. 75. Ibid. 76.  Further evidence of children buried under floors was found at the Middle Kingdom sites of Elephantine and Abydos (C. von Pilgrim, “The Town Site on the Island of Elephantine,” Egyptian Archaeology 10 [1996]: 81–83; M. Adams, “The Abydos Settlement Site Project: Investigation of a Major Town in the Old Kingdom and First Intermediate Period,” in Proceedings of the Seventh International Congress of Egyptologists [ed. C. J. Eyre; Orientalia Louaniensia Analecta 82; Leuven: Peeters, 1998]; J. Wegner, “The Town of Wah-Sut at South Abydos: 1999 Excavations,” Archäologischen Instituts Abteilung Kairo 57 [2001]: 281–308; B. Baker, “Secrets in the Skeletons: Disease and Deformity Attest the Hazards of Daily Life,” Archaeology 54/3 [2001]: 47). 77.  For example, only six children were discovered in the cemetery at Abydos. These children ranged in age from 11 months to 12 years old and were buried in shaft and pit graves with amulets, shells, beads, bowls, lithics, and ceramics (Richards, Society and Death, 97, 101; J. Richards, Mortuary Variability and Social Differentiation in Middle Kingdom Egypt [Ph.D. diss., University of Pennsylvania, 1992], 224–74; R. Engelbach, Riqqeh and Memphis [Publications of the British School of Archaeology 26; London: British School of Archaeology in Egypt, 1915]; R. Engelbach, Harageh [Publications of the British School of Archaeology 28; London: British School of Archaeology in Egypt, 1923]). 78.  Petrie, Lahun II, pl. 45: the Bashaktib Tomb Register. Tombs 749, 793, and 797.

212

Chapter Eight

found interred in a shallow shaft-chamber tomb that contained pottery and a saltwater snail shell. 79 A fifth child, an infant less than 5 months old, was buried near the southwest corner of the pyramid. The infant’s body was found in a box placed in a simple sand pit. A stone bowl and two other dishes accompanied the burial. 80 The grave goods provided for each child are not much different from the grave goods associated with adult burials in the cemetery. 81

Kom el-Hisn Kom el-Hisn is located in the Egyptian Delta, on the western edge of the Nile, halfway between Cairo and Alexandria. 82 During the 5th–6th Dynasties, sites in the Egyptian Delta were abandoned and reused as cemeteries. Kom el-Hisn is one such site. 83 It was first excavated between 1943 and 1952 by A. Hamada and S. Farid, who uncovered 1,200 graves. 84 Unfortunately, they were not meticulous in their record keeping; many details of the burials have been lost. They did, however, note seven basic kinds of burials found at the site, including the “pot burial” of children. 85 The excavators originally dated these burials to the First Intermediate Period (ca. 2184–2055 b.c.e.) or Middle Kingdom (ca. 2055–1759 b.c.e.). However, A. Cagle has redated these burials to the Old Kingdom (ca. 2650–2184 b.c.e.) based both on his new excavations there and his reassessment of the pottery found in the cemetery. 86 The new excavations at Kom el- Hisn found an additional three infants buried in basic pit burials, not pot burials. Cagle’s redating of the cemetery and his new excavations demonstrate that in the Old Kingdom children were buried both in pots and in pits.

Tel el-Dabʿa Tel el-Dabʿa is located in the Delta. 87 The oldest cemetery found thus far is located in Area F/I, stratum d/2. It dates to the MB IIA period, the beginning 79.  Ibid., Tomb 713. 80.  Ibid., 4. 81. Ibid., pl. 45. 82.  Especially in A. Cagle, “Human Burials at Kom el-Hisn” (unpublished manuscript, University of Washington, 2005). 83.  Both Mendes and Tell Ibrahim Awad also follow the same settlement/abandonment/ cemetery pattern (Cagle, “Human Burials”; N. Lovell and I. Whyte, “Patterns of Dental Enamel Defects at Ancient Mendes, Egypt,” AJPA 110 (1999): 69–80; R. Wenke and D. Brewer, “The Archaic-Old Kingdom Delta: The Evidence from Mendes and Kom el-Hisn,” in Haus und Palast im alten Agypten [ed. M. Bietak; Wien: Austrian Archaeological Institute, 1995], 265–85). 84. A. Hamada and M. el-Amir, “Excavations at Kom el-Hisn, 1948,” ASAE 46 (1947): 101–11; A. Hamada and S. Farid, “Excavations at Kom el-Hisn, Season 1945,” ASAE 47 (1947): 195–235; idem, “Excavations at Kom el-Hisn, Season 1946,” ASAE 48 (1948): 299–325; idem, “Excavations at Kom el-Hisn, Fourth Season 1947,” ASAE 50 (1950): 367–99. 85.  It is unclear whether these were cooking pots or jars or another kind of ceramic vessel. 86.  Cagle, “Human Burials.” 87.  See especially E. van den Brink, Tombs and Burial Customs at Tell el-Dabʿa (Wien: Beiträge zur Ägyptologie, 1982).

Child Burials: An Overview

213

of the Asiatic sequence. 88 During this time, F/I d/2 was a residential area to the north and east with tombs to the south. Almost all children were buried in the cemetery; however, one infant was discovered within the domestic area. It was a fetus found buried in the corner of a room in a hemispherical cup. 89 The other instance of a jar burial was a newborn child found placed at the entrance to a pit in a Nile-C “beer jar.” 90 The excavators state that dearth of infants buried in jars is surprising considering that infant jar burials are very common in Middle Kingdom Egypt. 91 Most of the infants and children were buried in small oval or rectangular cist tombs made of mud brick. The cists were then covered with bricks laid over the top. 92 While these burials were in the same cemetery as the adults, the children were buried individually. Tomb F/I-n/21-tomb 1 was a rectangular cist tomb with a gabled roof. An infant was found inside lying in a contracted position. Red color around the body suggests that the infant was originally wrapped in a red burial shroud. Most of the goods were Egyptian (12th Dynasty, 1820– 1780 b.c.e.), including two cups with a red wash and a necklace of faience beads. One of the beads was in the shape of an Egyptian five-pointed star; the rest were globular. In the following stratum, d/1, children were no longer separated from adults, but were buried with them in family tombs. 93 Tomb F/I-m/18-tomb 3 was a tomb with two chambers. The northern chamber contained one male warrior burial, while the southern chamber contained two males, three females, a juvenile, and an infant. It is notable that, even though the infant was buried with the rest of the family, s/he was placed in a small mud brick box in the corner opposite the adult burials. 94 Unlike the previous stratum, in this stratum the grave goods are mostly Canaanite imports. Tomb F/I-m/18-tomb 3 contained Canaanite jars, animal bones, and remnants of food and liquids. 95 88. R. Schiestl, “Some Links between a Late Middle Kingdom Cemetery at Tell el Dab ʿa and Syria-Palestine: One Necropolis of F/I, Strata d/2 and d/1 (= H and G/4),” in The Middle Bronze Age in the Levant: Proceedings of an International Conference on MB IIA Ceramic Material, Vienna, 24–26th of January 2001 (ed. M. Bietak; Wein: Österrichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2002), 329–52. 89.  Schiestl, “Some Links,” 330. 90.  Burial 6007 E, F/I-o/19-Tomb 18. 91.  For example, Abu-Ghalib (H. Larsen, “Vorbericht über die Schwedischen Grabungen in Abu Ghalib 1936–1937, MDAIK, 10 [1941]: 13–14); Lisht-N (F. Arnold, “Settlement Remains at Lisht-North,” in Avaris, the Capital of the Hyksos: Recent Excavations at Tell el-Dabʿa [ed. M. Bietak; London: British Museum Press, 1996], 15); Lahun (W. M. F. Petrie, Kahun, Gurob and Hawara [London: Kegan Paul, 1890], 24); Abydos (Richards, Mortuary Variability, 284; Adams, “Abydos,” 25); and Elephantine (von Pilgrim, “The Town Site,” 81–83). 92.  Schiestl, “Some Links,” 330. 93.  Ibid., 341. 94.  Schiestl notes that the tombs are identified as family tombs purely on the comparison with Egyptian practice of burying relatives together (Schiestl, “Some Links, 332). 95.  Ibid., 343.

214

Chapter Eight

In Area A/II, another cemetery dating to the end of the MB IIA period was discovered. 96 Like in Area F/I, in A/II both infant and child burials were individual interments placed in small rectangular tombs made of mud brick. The tombs were set into a pit and covered with a gabled roof. 97 Tomb A/II-p/14–15 L 415 was a tomb of this sort belonging to a small child. The child had a gold ring placed by his/her ear and an assemblage of ceramics: a red polished juglet with a double handle (imported), two small bowls, cups, two model vessels, and a jar. The assemblage is similar to a nearby warrior burial; however, the items in the child’s burial were all miniaturized versions. 98 A later cemetery was uncovered in conjunction with the Second Intermediate Period town (ca. 1590–1540 b.c.e. or MB IIB/C). The cemetery exhibits a strong Syro-Palestinian flavor in both its architecture and burials. 99 Of the 252 burials discovered, 149 were identified as adults and 103 as children. 100 In the MB IIA period adults were buried in the cemetery, but in the following MB IIB/C period, adults were buried in family chamber tombs under the house floors. 101 Unlike the adults, the child burials in the MB IIB/C periods were almost always placed beneath house floors in a pithos of Palestinian origin. 102 Each pithos was placed in a pit and covered with a bowl or plate. 103 In a few cases, the children were too big for the jars, so they were buried in small tombs under the house floor. These tombs were miniature replicas of the larger family chamber tombs. As with the jar burials, each tomb burial contained only one child buried with or accompanied by beads or pottery. 104

Summary of Child Burials in Egypt Egyptians buried children in a variety of ways: jars, pits, baskets, chests, boxes, and coffins. The burials ranged from simple to complex, from wrapping the child in an old shroud and placing it in a ceramic vessel, to wrapping the child in linen and placing it in a chest that was specially crafted for the burial.  96. I. Forstner-Müller, “Tombs and Burial Customs at Tell el-Dabʿa in Area A/II at the End of the MB IIA Period (Stratum F),” in The Middle Bronze Age in the Levant: Proceedings of an International Conference on MB IIA Ceramic Material, Vienna, 24–26th of January 2001 (ed. M. Bietak; Wein: Österrichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2002), 163–84.   97.  In stratum F only children were placed in these kinds of tombs (van den Brink, Tombs, 20).  98. Forstner-Müller, “Tombs and Burial,” 174. While Forstner-Müller makes no connection, it is possible the two burials were somehow related.  99. Van den Brink, Tombs, 4. 100. Ibid., 94. 101. Ibid., 8–10. 102.  In a few cases, children were found in pithoi made in a local imitation of the Palestinian wares. 103.  Ibid., 19. 104. Ibid., 20. In two cases neonates were found buried with Tell el-Yahudiyeh juglets (ibid., 28).

Child Burials: An Overview

215

Energy expenditure was directly related to the complexity of the burial. Little energy was required for pit and jar burials, while much energy was required to produce burials such as Iryky’s and the gabled cists at Tel el-Dabʿa. At some sites, the method of burial seemed dependent on age (ascribed status), not social rank (achieved status). At Deir el-Medina, for example, the placentas, fetuses, and newborns were buried in reused jars and placed on the bottom slope of the Eastern Cemetery. Older children, on the other hand, were found buried in boxes and baskets higher up on the slope. Regardless of the method of burial, it appears that at every cemetery site there was a concern that the child attains an afterlife. 105 Deformed children as well as normal children were given proper burials including grave goods and food for the journey to the afterlife. Most of the information on burials and burial methods comes from the cemeteries associated with town sites. It is important to note that cemeteries are not always representative of the total population. For example, with respect to the Middle Kingdom, J. Richards calls the number of children found in cemeteries “suspiciously low,” stating that the “published cemetery data record very few infant and juvenile burials.” 106 This means that either the burials of children have not been discovered in the cemeteries or that the majority of children were buried outside the cemeteries. The discovery of children buried within sites such as el-Dabʿa, Lahun, and Abydos suggests that the latter option may well be true. Burial of children outside cemeteries, inside the town site, and specifically under house floors is similar to what is seen in the greater Syro-Mesopotamian region and also in Canaan. 107 Although some Egyptian burial practices, such as jar burials and interments under house floors, are similar to those found in the greater ANE, there are also Egyptian practices that are quite unique. Some of these differences are due to the availability of burial materials. 108 Differences in burial practices may also be related to Egyptian culture and their understanding of the cosmos and the afterlife. 105.  Richards, Mortuary Variability, 58–59. 106.  Ibid., 64, 80. 107.  Redford notes that small children may be buried together with one or more parents. To him, this practice indicates a close relationship between the family members. Burial with parents is similar to what is found in the greater Syro-Mesopotamian region (D. Redford, “Childhood,” in The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt [3 vols.; Oxford: Oxford Univeristy Press, 2001], 1:262). Unfortunately, Redford does not refer to specific sites. 108.  Consider the use of reed baskets. Because of the Nile, reeds and baskets were in plentiful supply, readily available, and inexpensive. True, reeds were not used in Mesopotamia, even though they would have been plentiful along the river banks. For Egyptians, the choice of reeds may involve not only the abundance of reeds but the source of the reeds—the Nile. The Nile was a god who was the source of life for Egypt. Considering the Egyptian belief in reincarnation, the use of Nile reeds may have played some part in helping the child travel to the afterlife where it could then be reincarnated. All these factors, along with the high rate of infant mortality, seem to make basket burials a natural choice. For information on lifespan, see Lovell and Whyte, “Patterns,” 69–80.

216

Chapter Eight

For example, Egyptians buried the placenta because they understood it to “represent the twin self ” and to be “a powerful spiritual force.” 109 The same can be said for the use of coffins and chests on which incantations and spells were written. As Meskell points out, these unique burial practices suggest that for Egyptians every form of human life had all the components of a person: the ka, ba, rn, and so on; therefore, all stages of life, even placenta and stillborn children needed a proper burial to reach the afterlife. 110

Synthesis of Burials in the Regions Surrounding Canaan: Status and Membership This overview has examined the burial practices in the areas adjacent to and within a sphere of interrelationship with Canaan. Within each of the regions examined, age appears to have been a key factor in determining both the method and location of the burial. For example, the smallest children (fetuses, neonates, and infants) were most often buried in jars, while the older children were buried in simple pits or in a manner that mirrored the adult burials. With respect to location, the dearth of children found within the cemeteries led the excavators to conclude that there was a preference to bury the child outside the cemeteries. Burials of children within town sites—and more specifically under house floors— supports this conclusion. Having identified the basic burial patterns, one may now ask how these patterns present a child’s social status. According to Binford, burial style may be a way of marking a child’s social status vis-à-vis their membership in the com­ munity. 111 In the ANE, it appears that jar burials were reserved for infants, people who were not contributing members of the community. Once a child grew older, s/he was no longer buried in a jar but in a manner similar to adults. This transition in burial style could represent a change in the child’s achieved social status that took place when the child became a contributing member of society. The child may have been given a burial mirroring that of an adult to symbolize that the child was in a state of transformation from child to adult. It is possible that 109.  Meskell, Social Life, 170; G. Pinch, Magic in Ancient Egypt (London: British Museum Press, 1994), 130. 110.  Meskell, Social Life, 173. The Egyptians believed that there were five elements to a human being: the body, shadow, ka, ba, and rn. The body functioned as the physical shell and the shadow as its accompaniment. The ba is akin to what we call “personality,” and it lived on after death, moving between the realms of the tomb and living world. The ka is the “life force.” When the ka left the body, the person died. The ka must be sustained with food and drink, both in the living world and the afterlife. The rn ‘name’ was the person’s identity. Without a name, a person was not whole. Therefore, the act of carving out cartouches and obscuring names on monuments served as a way to obliterate a person’s memory (Allen, Middle Egyptian, 79–81). 111.  Binford, “Mortuary Practices,” 6–29.

Child Burials: An Overview

217

the trend to bury a child outside the cemetery, separate from the adults, also reflects the child’s social status with respect to his/her place in the com­munity. 112 Burial apart from the majority of society may demonstrate that the child was not considered a full member of the community before a certain age and therefore not to be buried within it. Burial within the domestic confines may also serve other purposes. It could provide the family with a permanent link to the child’s memory, or ensure that the infant would be reborn into the household. These conclusions will be explored further in the next chapter. 112.  Ibid., 22; L. Steel, “Cyprus,” 199–204.

C

h a p t e r

N

i n e

Child Burials in Canaan The ideas suggested in the preceding chapter serve as background information for the analysis of the child burials in Canaan. The ensuing case study examines further the relationship between age and burial method/location, and expands on the suggestions concerning the ascribed status (age) and achieved status (social status and membership in the community) of the child. The case study draws on both published materials from excavations and unpublished materials supplied by personal communications with excavators in the field. 1 It includes 58 sites, yielding a total of 443 individual child burials. The results of this survey can be found in Appendix C, pp. 299–316. In order to present a condensed yet comprehensive interpretation of how relative age affects the presentation of social status in burials, the study of child burials in Canaan focuses on the relationship between the child’s relative age and burial styles, burial location, interment with adults, and interment with grave goods. 2

The Relationship between Age and Burial Style Tables 1 and 2 address the relationship between relative age and burial style. Table 1 records the different kinds of burials in which children were discovered according to time period. 3 The far-right column of Table 1 tallying the total number­ of instances of each burial type indicates that jar burials are the most popular, 1.  Many thanks to Jill Baker, Emmanuel Eisenberg, Amir Golani, Raphael Greenberg, Aren Maeir, Sarit Paz, and Joe Zias for aiding me in this endeavor. 2.  In order to organize the data from all 443 burials in an accessible and concise manner, the data are presented in a series of tables. Condensed tables are included in this chapter, while more extensive tables presenting additional comparisons between the data points can be found in Appendix B. Under each framing question, relevant data tables are followed by an analysis of the relationships presented in the table. 3.  Because most burials in the survey date to the MB II period, the more in-depth analyses given below will concentrate on this period. Why are there a high number of MB II burials? First, sites with multiple, successive burials commonly reuse the tombs and caves hewn in previous periods, meaning that evidence of earlier burials is often lost or so obscured that no meaningful data remain. Second, some periods have not yielded many burials. It may be that societies during these times buried their dead in places unrelated to occupational sites or that they buried them without concern for their preservation.

218

219

Child Burials in Canaan

Table 1.  Number of Sites Containing Children according to Burial Method and Time Perioda Total Number of Sites Using Each EB I EB II EB III EB IV MB II LB I LB II IA I IA II Burial Method Jar Burial Cave Tomb Cist Pit Coffin Cremationa Total burials

4 1

0 2 1 0 0 0 0 3

0 2 0 0 7

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 1 4 0 1 0 0 6

14 2 7 3 6 0 1 36

2 2 2 0 2 1 0 9

5 2 1 3 2 1 0 14

3 3 2 0 1 0 2 11

5 1 2 1 1 0 1 11

33 14 22 7 15 2 4 97b

a.  These seven tomb types represent seven generic methods of burial. Each type can be further specified. For example, tombs can refer to chamber, shaft, and bench tombs, and each of these variations can differ by time period. Jar burials can refer to burials within complete or partial store jars or pithoi. The objective here is to focus on the large picture, to determine if any large-scale patterns concerning status emerge from the data and not in which time period different societies used chamber tombs. To this end, I categorized burials according to the key term employed by the excavator. If it was called a cave burial, it was recorded as a cave. Because almost all chamber, bench, and shaft tombs share key data points (being outside the site, multiple burials, adults and children buried together), they are categorized together as “tombs.” b.  For adults, as well as children, there is a dearth of EB II–III mortuary remains. As D. Ilan has pointed out, the population of Canaan at the transition between EB II and EB III is estimated to be 150,000. Where then are the remains of the population? Ilan suggests that the bodies may have been cremated in the open and without grave goods. The ashes would be scattered into the wind leaving no trace of the remains (D. Ilan, “Mortuary Practices in Early Bronze Age Canaan,” NEA 65/2 [2002]: 96–99). c.  The total number, 97, represents the number of individual burials examined, not the total number of sites. It should be kept in mind that a site may contain more than one kind of burial. For example, jar burials as well as chamber tombs and cists have been found at Tel Dan.

Table 2.  Number of Jar Burials by Period Method

EB I

Jar Burial 19/18

a

EB II EB III EB IV MB II LBA IA I IA II Total Number of Jar Burials -

-

-

80/77b 8

22

86c

215/209d

a.  The first number is the total found, including adults. The second number is the total number of children. b.  The first number is the total found, including adults. The second number is the total number of children. c.  77 of these are from Tel Zeror. d.  Total number of jar burials / total number of jar burials specifically of children and infants. The other six jar burials belonged to adults or juveniles.

while cremations and coffins are the least popular form of burial. Caves, tombs, pits, and cists fall in the middle. Table 2 focuses on the most popular method of child burial, jar burials. It presents not the number of sites with jar burials but the actual number of individual jar burials that were found in each time period.

220

Chapter Nine

One way to explain the popularity of one burial method over and against that of another is to look at the energy expenditure needed to create each kind of burial. Coffins and cremations are the styles employed the least often. These two methods require two steps to execute. For example, burials in coffins first require the construction of a special receptacle to hold the body. The coffin must then be transported and deposited in a tomb. A good example of this is the LB Sarcophagus 10071 found in a burial chamber at Gezer. 4 This coffin is a plain, chest-shaped box made of stone with handles around its sides and lid. It was large enough to fit 12 skeletons, almost all of whom were children. 5 Cremations, on the other hand, require one first to produce a fire large enough and hot enough burn the body. Once the body is burned, the cremated remains are secondarily deposited in urns, set on the floor of a tomb, or scattered. 6 The group including mass burials in caves, tombs, pits, and cists, requires one step: digging the burial spot. 7 Caves and tombs require the bulk of the work to be done before the first burial. This can include clearing out and hewing the tomb as well as preparing burial benches and repository pits. 8 Once this is done, the cave 4. J. Seger explains how Sarcophagus 10071 was made outside the tomb and then transported into the burial chamber (J. Seger, Gezer V: The Field Caves [Jerusalem: HUC-JIR, 1988], 65). 5.  Ibid., 52. 6.  There are not many examples of cremated children. For example, at Achzib and Tel er-Ruqeish, only cremated adults are deposited in urns. Cremation did not always burn the bones to ashes. Some charred bones remained. An analysis of these bones allowed the anthropologists to assign a relative age to the individual. Macalister thought that the Cave Tomb I.2 at Gezer was a crematorium (R. A. Macalister, “First Quarterly Report of the Excavation of Gezer,” PEQ [1902]: 348ff.). This conclusion has since been disproved by K. Kenyon when she discovered similar burials at Jericho. Noting the state of the osteological remains in relation to the rest of the goods in the tomb, she concluded that these bones were buried and then later burned to make room for more bones (K. Kenyon, Excavations at Jericho I [London: British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem, 1960], 16–25; J. Callaway, “The Gezer Crematorium Re-examined,” PEQ [1962]: 104–17). Various passages in the biblical text seem to suggest that children were burned as a part of a funerary ritual (Deut 12:31; 2 Kgs 16:3; 17:31, 21:6; 23:10; Jer 7:30–32; 32:35. cf. Jer 19:4–6; 7:32). No conclusive archaeological evidence for this practice has been found in the land of biblical Israel. 7. L. Steel states that, because pits and cists required a minimum amount of energy expenditure, they were reserved for children (L. Steel, “Differential Burial Practices in Cyprus at the Beginning of the Iron Age,” in The Archaeology of Death in the Ancient Near East (ed. S. Campbell and A. Green; Oxbow Monographs 51; Oxford: Oxbow, 1995], 202). While this may be true in Cyprus, both adults and children were buried in pits and cists in Canaan. See, for example, Tel Nami, Tel Ridan, Palmahim, Ashdod, and Tel Dan. 8.  Excavators at Tell Bab edh-Drhaʾ sought to determine the energy required to make a shaft tomb and chamber complex. Lapp projected it would take two or three people a month and Ortner projected it would take 15 days of hard work (the number of men was not listed). Schaub and Rast estimate that Ortner’s projection is probably closest to reality (R. Schaub and W. Rast, Excavations in the Cemetery Directed by Paul W. Lapp (1965–1967) [Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1989], 548–49).

221

Child Burials in Canaan

Table 3.  Number of Individual Children buried by Relative Age and Burial Method Cave Tomb Pit Cist Infant (0–2 yrs) Child (3–12 yrs) Juvenile (12–15yrs)

Jar

Coffin Cremation

 8

 8

 7

 0

192a

4

0

16

91

49

18

 11

9

3

 3

17

 3

 0

  1

1

2

a.  This number includes seventy-seven jar burials from Zeror, seventeen from Azor, and seven from Ashkelon Barnea’. See Appendix C. The burials at Zeror and Azor were identified as “baby/child.” The report from Ashkelon Barnea’ states that seven jar burials have been found, but the current number is much higher (A. Golani, “Ashqelon, Barnea’ B-C,” IAA Journal HA-ESI 117 (2005) www.hadashot-esi.org.il/ report). According to Amir Golani, as of June 2007, plus or minus 30 burials of infants have been found at the site in jar and simple pit burials (personal communication).

or tomb is ready for multiple uses over a long period of time. Most pits and cists, on the other hand, are for individual burials and must be newly created every time a body needs to be interred. While digging a simple pit or constructing a cist may not seem like much effort in comparison to the expenditure that is required for the preparation of caves and tombs, we must consider that caves and tombs are hewn once for an entire community or family group. Therefore, when the energy expenditure is considered over a period of time, these four methods (cave, pit, cist, and tomb) all require roughly the same amount of energy. The most popular form of interment throughout all periods (EB I–IA II) is the jar burial. 9 Its enduring popularity is most likely due to a combination of different elements, including energy expenditure. Like cremations and coffins, jar burials are technically a two-step process: the body must be placed in the jar and then the jar must be interred in the ground. However, unlike the coffins and cremation urns, the jars used for burials are store jars. The store jar is a common ceramic form, readily available, and relatively easy to produce. Therefore, the energy expenditure needed for the first step is quite low. The actual burial of the jar, the second step, requires digging a simple pit and covering it with dirt. Like the individual pit and cist tombs, a new hole must be dug for every new jar burial, but a pit for a jar is likely to be much smaller than the pit needed to bury a child or an adult in an extended position. Hence, the total energy expenditure for jar burials in comparison to the other methods is relatively low. Another way to analyze the pattern of burial method is to consider the relative age of the interred child (table 3). Of the 443 child burials surveyed, physical 9.  However, as table 1 demonstrates, the number of burials from EB II–III and EB IV discovered to date is relatively low.

222

Chapter Nine

Table 4.  Child Burials by Location, Number Interred, and Time Period Burial Intramural

Burial Extramural

Number

EB I–III

EB IV

MB II

LB I/II

IA I

IA II

Individual

41a

-

82

7

2

6

Mass

 1

-

 4

-

-

2

EB I–III

EB IV

MB II

LB I/II

IA I

IA II

Number Individual

-

-

26

4

5

8

Mass

4

12

18

6

4

8

a.  30 of these burials were found at EB I Ashkelon Barneaʾ (personal communication with A. Golani).

anthropologists were able to assign a specific age to 58 of the burials. 10 Because only a small sampling of specific ages was available, the children are examined here by general age group so that a larger sample may be considered. Of the 443 children, 46% were found in jar burials. The second highest percentage of children, 26.6%, was found in tombs. Pits contained 13.3% of the children, and cists, coffins, and cremations each contained less than 5% of the children. 11 Table 3 shows that, though infants were found in other kinds of burials, jar burials were by far the most popular method for burial, representing 88% of the total number of infant burials. Children, by comparison, are hardly ever buried in jars (5.6%). Instead, they are interred mostly in tombs (46.2%) or pits (24.8%). The remaining child burials consist of caves and cists (17.3%) and coffins and cremations (6.1%). Like children, juveniles are also found most often in tombs (63%). As with infants, the number of juveniles interred in other burial methods is minimal. Tables 6–12 in Appendix B (pp. 283–288) demonstrate that these patterns are seen in every period except EB III and are most pronounced in the MB II period. 12 In sum, jar burials ranked as the most common way to bury infants, while tombs are the most common way to bury children.

The Relationship between Relative Age and Burial Location An examination of additional aspects of burials, such as the way the bodies were buried and where they were buried, suggests that age affected not only burial method, but burial location. Table 4 represents the location of all types of burials 10.  See table 4 in Appendix B, p. 282, which correlates burial method with specific ages. 11.  For a more detailed analysis of table 4, see tables 6–12 in Appendix B, pp. 283–288. These record the type of burial, age of the child, time period, the body position, and the number of individuals interred in the burial. 12.  No EB III child burials could be found to include in the study.

Child Burials in Canaan

223

by presenting the correlation between individual and mass burials both inside and outside a site. 13 Individual burials inside a site include jar burials, pit burials, and cremations. Across all time periods, 95% of children buried within a site are buried individually. Only 5% are buried inside a site in groups of two or more. When children are buried outside the site, the percentages of mass and individual burials are much closer. Individual burials outside a site make up 45.3%, and burials in groups of two or more constitute 54.7%. With few exceptions, mass burials are almost always found in caves, tombs, pits, and coffins. A number of trends emerge when the information presented in tables 1–2 and 4 is considered together. In EB I, II, and III, the preference was to bury children individually within the site. This trend changes in EB IV. All the children were found in mass burials outside the site. The burial pattern switches back in MB II. The overwhelming majority of children are found buried individually within the site. 14 The burials in the LB I and II periods are almost equally divided between burials inside and outside the site. Finally, in the IA, we see that the majority of children were buried outside the site but that the burials are split almost equally between individual and mass burials. These trends raise two important issues. First, one must determine what caused a person to bury a child outside or inside a site—personal practice or social norm. One must also take into consideration whether or not the choice was meant to reflect the child’s status. While it may seem obvious, in order for a person to be buried within the confines of a settlement site, there must be a settlement in which to locate burials. If people live in tents or other non­ permanent structures, like nomads or pastoralists, they may choose to bury their dead in a cemetery. By choosing to create a cemetery, the society is setting aside an area specifically designated for burials, a site that can be returned to, time after­ time. While this type of society may change its settlement location, the burial location remains permanent, thus ensuring that any cult of the dead or other postmortuary rituals can be carried out year after year. This may be the case with some settlements in the EB IV period. 15 A second variable in burial location may 13.  Individual interments offer the most data regarding the status of children. For example, scholars are able to assess the care and energy expenditure that went into creating the grave and arranging the body. They are also able to establish which grave goods are associated with the child. In mass burials, on the other hand, it is difficult to assign grave goods to a particular body because the goods are often heaped in piles making it difficult to determine which objects belonged to which person. The exception to this is the rare case when jewelry objects are still on the bones. Additionally, mass burials are often secondary burials, meaning that the original burial position of the deceased cannot be determined. Despite these difficulties, information can be gleaned from mass burials that will add to our understanding of the status allotted to children. 14. R. Hallote states that 17% of all MB house sites have infant jar burials under their floors (Death, Burial, and Afterlife in the Biblical World [Chicago: Ivan Dee, 2001], 37). 15.  EB IV continued a cultural link to the preceding periods, and it is traditionally understood to be a period of decline in which there was a return to a rural lifestyle. Mazar identifies

224

Chapter Nine

have to do with a society’s beliefs about the dead and whether or not they were allowed to be buried in the city. For example, G. Barkay, among others, has noted that the Israelites did not bury their dead within the city limits. 16 On the other hand, as the information in table 3 demonstrates, many societies did bury their dead inside the city, even in IA II. 17 R. Hallote offers another suggestion for choosing one burial locale over another. She suggests that status was the determining factor in the location of the burial during the MB II period in the Southern Levant. 18 Hallote’s study divides burials into three locales: interments in a house, near a site/on the slope of the site, and distant from the site.  19 According to her study, each of these three areas included a cross-section of the population—that is both adults and children, male and female. Since election for burial was not generally determined by age, gender or any other visible criterion, it is likely that this cross-section was selected for reasons of elevated social rank. 20

She goes on to say that the burials at the site represent a hierarchy of higherstatus individuals, meaning that those further from the site were lower-status individuals. this period as “EB IV/MB I Period: An Interlude . . . [in which] Palestine was sparsely populated, mainly by pastoralists and village dwellers” (A. Mazar, Archaeology of the Land of the Bible [New York: Doubleday, 1992], 151). Not many EB IV villages or sites have been found, so the likelihood of finding intramural burials is relatively low. However, this pattern is now being altered as recent excavations continue to find EB IV villages at the base of tells. 16.  He points out how one can estimate the borders of IA II Jerusalem based on the location of the necropoli that surrounded the city (G. Barkay, A. Kloner, A. Mazar, “The Northern Necropolis of Jerusalem during the First Temple Period,” in Ancient Jerusalem Revealed [ed. H. Geva; Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1994], 127). 17.  The Philistine site of Ashdod, for example, contains burials from the IA II. There, mass pit burials containing at least 3000 people were discovered within dwellings (M. Dothan, “Ashdod II–III,” ʿAtiqot 9–10 [1971]: 212–14). Of the skeletal bones that could be assigned an age, 771 were aged birth to 15 years, 414 were aged 16 to 19 years, and 1,746 were adults. It is possible that mass burials such as these were a result of warfare or widespread disease. This explanation for mass burials was first put forth by K. Kenyon, who attributed the mass burials in Jericho Tombs H6 H 18 to a plague. See discussion below on MB II Jericho tombs. While the cause of such numerous deaths is not known, it is interesting to note that, in a Philistine city, infants, children, and adolescents were buried in the same manner as the adults. This means that whoever buried these people did not separate the individuals by age or sex but afforded everyone the same status at death. 18. R. Hallote, “Mortuary Archaeology and the Middle Bronze Age Southern Levant,” JMA 8 (1995): 93–122. 19.  She notes that most jar burials were found intramurally and that infant jar burials were generally placed together with adults, no matter where the adults were buried (on slopes of city, intramural, etc.; Personal communication with R. Hallote, September, 2007). 20.  Hallote, “Mortuary Archaeology,” 104.

Child Burials in Canaan

225

Table 5.  Sixteen MB II Sites from Northern Canaana: Relationship between Age, Burial Style, and Location In Site Jars

Pits

Cists

Tombs

71 infants   1 children   3 adults   6 infants   3 children   5 adults   1 infants   3 children   - adult   1 infant   1 child   2 adults

Edge of Site Outside Site 8 infants - children - adults - infants 5 children - adults - infants - children - adults - infants - children - adults

  1 infant   - children   - adults   - infants   - children   - adults   - infants   4 children   - adults   2 infants 11 children 28 adults

a.  The information in table 4 is only taken from northern sites with burials of children.

To determine if there is also a link between status and burial location in the north, data for 16 northern MB II sites were compared in the present study. 21 Instead of focusing on only the burial location, burial method and age of the interred were also considered. If Hallote is correct in her analysis of the Southern Levant, the data, which are presented in table 5, show a different trend dictating intramural burial style in the north during this period. If, as Hallote asserts, burials within the site include a cross-section of age and gender, then we would expect the intramural burials in the MB II northern sites to display a similar pattern. However, this is not the case. The burials in the northern sites do not represent a cross-section of the population, but the majority of intramural burials belong to one age group, infants. As opposed to 79 infants, only 10 adults and 8 children were buried within the site. It is clear from table 5 that in the north the relative age of the interred was a factor in determining their burial location. Furthermore, in contrast to what Hallote’s study shows, in the north there is another visible criterion present in the burials: burial method. Of the 97 burials, 75 were jar burials. 22 Therefore, it appears that intramural burial 21.  For a list of the sites see Appendix B, table 21, p. 290. 22. While table 4 only represents a small number of Northern MB II sites, the trend of placing infant jar burials within a site, specifically under floors of houses, is seen throughout Canaan in MB II. See, for example, Tel Dan, Tel Kitan, Tel Neisba, Aphek, Beth Shean, and so on. See the following discussion and D. Ilan, “Mortuary Practices at Tel Dan in the Middle Bronze Age: A Reflection of Canaanite Society and Ideology,” in The Archaeology of Death in the Ancient Near East (ed. S. Campbell and A. Green; Oxbow Monographs 51; Oxford: Oxbow Press, 1995), 129; R. Gonen, Burial Patterns and Cultural Diversity in Late Bronze Age Canaan (ASOR Dissertation Series 7; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1992), 20. While this practice

226

Chapter Nine

Table 6.  Number of Child Burials according to Burial Location and Method Intramural Extramural Cave

-

23

Coffin

-

 2

Tomb

-

44

Pit

 39

14

Cist

  1

 3

Jar

196

13

Total Burials

236

88

Table 7.  Correlation between Total Number of Child Burials, Including Both Children and Adults, and Burial Location Total # Total # Child Child Burials Burials with Adults Intramural

236

8

Total # Total # Child Child Burials Burials with Adults Extramural

88

47

should not be taken a priori as an indicator of status, because other variables such as the relative age and burial method are important factors in MB II intramural burials at northern sites.

The Relationship between Relative Age and Interment with Adults The relationship between relative age, burial method, and location, suggests that infants and some children were often buried within a site away from cemeteries. However, burials do exist that contain both adults and children. This third section considers the circumstances under which children were buried with adults. It looks at those burials containing both adults and children to ascertain the whether any patterns develop concerning the ratio of adults to children and the gender of the adults and children. Table 6 records the location, relative to sites, of burials in this survey that include children. For this table, each grave was counted only once, although a given grave may actually contain more than one child. Table 7 examines each is extended to children, adults are rarely found in jars under floors; see Appendix B, table 20, p. 290.

227

Child Burials in Canaan

Table 8.  Number of Burials Where Children Were Buried with One Adult: Correlation between Sex of Adult and Age of the Child Infant Child Juvenile Total # Children Percent Adult Female

2

5

1

8

57.1%

Adult Male

-

-

-

-

 0.0%

Sex Unknown

1

5

-

6

42.9%

grave to establish how many times a child was buried with an adult. As in table 6, each burial is counted once in table 7, although some graves may have multiple children and adults in them. The results presented in table 7 illustrate two points. First, the majority of children were buried individually within the site. Second, when children were buried with adults, it was far more common to find them buried in extramural burials. Table 8 looks at a slightly different relationship between child and adult burials. It examines the number of times a child was buried with one adult. It also considers the sex of the adult that was buried with the child. According to table 8, out of the 55 burials containing both children and adults, only 14 contained a single adult and one or more children. 23 More than half of these adults were positively identified as female. While one cannot say that children were never buried with a single male, it seems likely that this sort of burial was a rare occurrence. The limited data allow for a tentative suggestion that children were associated with females rather than males. For example, it appears that a mother and her child(ren) were buried together when they died at the same time. 24 A particularly touching example of this is found in burial T.15 (IA II) of the Tel ʿIra cemetery. There, a female was found lying on a bench holding a 7- or 8-year-old child. 25 Mother-child burials of this sort were not limited to cemeteries. Consider Tomb F inside the town of Tel el-Farah (N). 26 In this tomb, an adult (female?) and infant were buried together. We assume that, in these cases, the females buried with the infants were the infants’ mothers. Cases such as these may suggest that an effort was made to keep mothers and children close 23.  See table 7. 24.  It may be that society saw a bond between the mother and child that lasted until the child was old enough to have a family of its own. 25. I. Beit-Arieh, Tel ʿIra (Tel Aviv Monographs 15; Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University, 1999). While technically two separate graves, pits 18a and 18b at Palmahim show a similar sentiment. There, pit 18b containing a female adult was cut into pit 18a, which contained a child (Gonen, Burial Practices, 91; Y. Levy, “Palmahim Burial Caves,” ESI 7–8 [1988–89]: 145). 26. J. Mallet, Tell el-Farah II (N) Le Bronze Moyen (Paris: Éditions Recherche sur les Civilasations in Samaria, 1988), 62.

228

Chapter Nine

to each other. 27 However, in order to draw any definitive conclusions, more burials containing children and positively sexed adult skeletons must be discovered. How a society perceived a child and his/her status is evident in not one but two aspects of the burial: with whom the child were buried, as well as with what was s/he buried. This leads to the fourth relationship.

The Relationship between Relative Age and Grave Goods Juglets, bowls, and jars are the ceramic items most commonly found in child burials in each time period. 28 J. Baker draws attention to the fact that there was a set group of grave goods for all Canaanite burials. 29 In her work with the MB– LB tombs at Ashkelon, she found that four pottery forms, as well as scarabs and toggle pins, were present in almost all burials, regardless of sex or age. 30 She deems these items “essential,” as opposed to “personal” or “status”-related items and suggests that they represent a funerary kit. She states that the ceramic forms in the kit are all related to eating, serving, and drinking and were used as part of the funerary banquet. 31 The funerary kits were likely used not only at MB–LB Ashkelon but at many sites from the EB–IA. 32 Although it is not realistic to examine the 58 sites in this survey with the depth that Baker has studied Ashkelon, a cursory overview of the grave goods found at these sites suggests that funeral kits may have been used. For example, the frequency with which jars, juglets, and bowls were found could suggest that 27.  See also the discussion on the Bab edh-Dhraʾ burials, pp. 200–201 above. 28.  For a detailed list of items found in child burials, see pp. 299–316. EB IV is the only exception; no bowls were found at sites with child burials. 29. J. Baker, “The Funeral Kit: A Newly Defined Canaanite Mortuary Practice Based on the MB and LBA Tomb Complex at Ashkelon,” Levant 38 (2006): 1. 30.  Baker identifies the pottery forms as bowls/platters, juglets, jugs/jars, and storage jars (ibid., 2). See also J. Baker, The Middle and Late Bronze Age Tomb Complex at Ashkelon, Israel: The Architecture and the Funeral Kit (Ph.D. diss., Brown University, 2003). 31.  Baker, “Funeral Kit,” 3. See too J. H. L. Ginsberg, J. Healey, “Death in West Semitic Texts: Ugarit and Nabataea,” in The Archaeology of Death in the Ancient Near East (ed. S. Campbell and A. Green; Oxbow Monographs 51; Oxford: Oxbow Press, 1995), 189–90; R. E. Cooley, “Gathered to His People: A Study of a Dothan Family Tomb,” in The Living and Active Word of God: Studies in Honor of Samuel J. Schultz (ed. M. Inch and R. Youngblood; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1983), 47–58; M. Parker Pearson, The Archaeology of Death (College Station: Texas A&M University Press, 2000); W. T. Pitard, “Tombs and Offerings: Archaeological Data and Comparative Methodology in the Study of Death in Israel,” in Sacred Time, Sacred Place: Archaeology and the Religion of Israel (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2002). 32. A. Maeir recognized the presence of a “burial kit” at Tel Hazor. He states, “this ‘kit’ would undoubtedly vary according to the status of both the deceased and the living carrying out the interment” (A. Maeir, “Tomb 1181,” in Hazor V [ed. A. Ben-Tor et al.; Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society and the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1997], 325).

Child Burials in Canaan

229

children may have been given their own funeral kits. 33 In order to test this hypothesis, juglets, jars, and bowls were combined in 7 different possible funeral kit permutations, which can be found in Appendix B, table 34 (p. 296). However, other than some very general observations, the data did not result in a pattern that would suggest a funeral kit consisting of these three items. 34 This does not mean that funeral kits are not present at the 58 surveyed sites, but a separate examination of each site is necessary to determine exactly what any given funeral kit looked like. Another way to approach ceramic items is to focus on their quality rather than their quantity. The quality of a grave good relates to the amount of care given to the burial. Consider the EB I jar burials at Beth Yerah. These jar burials did not contain numerous goods, but the craftsmanship put into the goods reflects how the society related to infants. Three jar burials were found in Beth Yerah Area SA. All of these jars were covered with bowls, one of which was burnished on both the inside and the outside. This is unique because, in general, bowls found at Beth Yerah were only burnished on the inside. Another burial, found in Area GB, was placed inside a strap handle jar. Strap handle jars are rare at Beth Yerah. In addition, the bowl covering the strap handle jar had a hole chipped in its side in order to fit snugly over the top and around the handle. The excavators believe that these bowls, if not the jars themselves, were made specifically for the burials. 35 The Beth Yerah jar burials demonstrate that special care was taken in preparing infant burials; the infants were not simply placed in reused jars and covered with old bowls. 36 This in turn, suggests that the infants at Beth Yerah were deemed important enough to merit the time and energy to prepare the burial. Ceramic items, such as the bowls and jars from Beth Yerah, represent one type of grave goods, the “essential” goods, to use Baker’s term. However, there are also nonessential grave goods, referred to as “personal” or “luxury” items, as noted above. The nonessential items most commonly included in burials are metal jewelry and glass/stone beads—items sometimes associated with the burials of women. 37 Some burials also include weaving implements, again, items associated­ 33.  Baker states that the children at Ashkelon were given their own funeral kits (Baker, “Funeral Kit,” 21–22). It may be that in some cases infants shared the funeral kits of adults. 34.  For example, the bowl, jar, juglet triad appears in four of the six periods. 35.  Personal communication with Sarit Paz. See also R. Greenberg, E. Eisenberg, S. Paz, and Y. Paz, Beth Yerah: The Early Bronze Age Mound, vol. 1: Excavation Reports 1933–1986 (Jerusalem: IAA, 2006). 36.  This is different from the Egyptian sites, where infants were buried in reused jars. 37.  See, for example, ʿEnan, where the males were buried with daggers and the females with stone beads and metal jewelry (E. Eisenberg, “A Burial Cave of the EBA IV (MB I) Near ʿEnan,” Atiqot 17 [1985]: 59–74), or T. 20 Megiddo, where an older girl was buried with a beaded necklace (P. L. O. Guy, Megiddo Tombs [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1938], 74).

230

Chapter Nine

Table 9.  Jericho Tomb G 73 (MB II) Skeleton/Relative Agea A/childb B/adult

Grave Goods 2 combs 2 combs, a dried pomegranate, a large jar, a dipper juglet, bowls and lamps

a.  Kenyon identified the skeletons in each of the tombs alphabetically and referred to the grave goods as belonging to skeleton A, B, C, and so on. b.  Kenyon referred to relative ages of the skeletons as adult, adolescent, child, and infant.

with women. 38 In a few cases, burials with children include knives or daggers. These items are commonly associated with men. If males and females were buried with gender-specific items, one may consider whether various societies tried to portray the child’s gender through the use of grave goods. To understand the possible relationship between grave goods and gender, one must compare the grave goods found in child burials with those of adult burials. The best way to do this is to examine the grave goods in those burials that contained both children and adults. 39 The Jericho MB II tomb complex offers a clear example of the relationship between people and grave goods. Concerning these burials, K. Kenyon states, “in most cases the individual burials were provided with toilet implements, usually combs, juglets which presumably contained scent or oil, alabaster juglets and often small wooden boxes decorated with bone inlay.” 40 These toilet implements were located near the individual. On the body itself, toggle pins and scarabs were commonly found. 41 Unfortunately, Kenyon’s statement is ambiguous, and it is difficult to determine to whom she was referring as the individuals in the “individual burials.” By individuals, does she mean children, adults, or both children and adults? In many cases, Kenyon did not differentiate between the skeletons, and most of them were not subjected to anthropological analysis. There are, however, four MB II tombs (G 73, P 17, H 18, H 6) 38.  For a detailed list of grave goods, see pp. 297–314. Concerning Tomb 1122, P. L. O. Guy states, “The number of spindles and whorls found suggests that one [burial] at least was a woman” (ibid., 20). 39.  This exercise is limited by the accuracy of the excavation reports. Not every site in this survey includes detailed information concerning what items were associated with which people. For example, sometimes the burial goods were heaped in a pile and could not be assigned to one specific person. Other times, the burials were found in a highly disturbed state. In still other cases, the excavators were interested simply in the object and not where it was found. Various examples of all three limiting factors can be found in the reports from Efrata, Megiddo, Hazor, Gaza, and Beth Pelet. 40. K. Kenyon, Jericho I, 266. The tombs all had multiple successive burials. Therefore, the “individual burials” Kenyon speaks of should be understood as one of many people buried within the tomb. 41.  Ibid., 266.

Child Burials in Canaan

231

Table 10.  Jericho Tomb P 17 (MB II) Skeleton/Relative Age Individual Grave Goods A/child R/child S/child B/adolescent M, O / adults G, J, K / adults L/adult

none none none none one toggle pin each scarabs scarab and beads

Table 11.  Jericho Tomb H6 (MB II) Skeleton/Relative Age A/adult B/adult C/child D/child

Grave Goods toggle pin (left breast), leather wrapped around the pelvis, alabaster juglets, a basket, wooden cups, a comb, and wooden boxes with bone inlaya scarab and toggle pin on the right shoulder necklace of barrel-shaped beads scarab (left hand) and necklace with a scarab pendant

a.  The leather suggests Skeleton A wore a belt or kilt at the time of burial.

for which burials of both children and adults are recorded. 42 An examination of these four tombs will help determine whether there is a relationship between grave goods and gender as well as grave goods and age at Jericho. The first MB II tomb, Jericho Tomb G 73, contained one adult and one child. 43 Table 9 shows that both the adult and child received grave goods but that the adult received a much more elaborate spread than the child. The second tomb, Jericho Tomb P 17, contained 18 individuals, all of whom were buried simultaneously. 44 Of these 18, 3 skeletons were identified as children and one as an adolescent. Kenyon states that most of the ceramic grave goods in 42.  In these four MB tombs, Kenyon specifically mentions children. According to the anthropological report she gave in Excavations at Jericho II: The Tombs Excavated in 1955–58 (London: British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem, 1965), Tomb P 17 was the only tomb in which the immature bones were analyzed. According to A. Yasur-Landau, Tombs J 42 and G 33 also contained children and are unique among the mass family burials because they contain the burials of individual children. B. Rosen, on the other hand, states that J 42 included two bodies, but we are not told if they are both infants (B. Rosen, “A Note on the MBA Cemetery at Jericho,” TA 22 [1995]: 70–76; A. Yasur-Landau, “Socio-Political and Demographic Aspects of the MB Cemetery in Jericho,” TA 19 [1992]: 235–46). 43.  Kenyon, Jericho II, 447–50. 44.  Ibid.,359. The 18 skeletons were identified alphabetically as skeletons A–R.

232

Chapter Nine

Table 12.  Jericho Tomb H 18 (MB II) Skeleton/Relative Age A/adult L/adult M/infant D/child E/child G/child H/child 6 additional childrena

Grave Goods toiletry: a wooden box with bone inlay, five combs, and the remains of a wig toiletry: alabaster bowl, a wooden box with bone inlay, a wig, multiple combs, and a faience bottle two scarabs scarab, crystal bead, necklace of faience, and carnelian beads toggle pin hennaed wig, comb, and juglet juglet none

a.  No letters were assigned to these children in the final report.

Tomb P17 were communal but that some skeletons had personal items. 45 The distribution of items can be seen in table 10. Interestingly, personal items were only associated with the adults. The third tomb, Jericho Tomb H6, also contained mass simultaneous burials. 46 A total of four skeletons were identified. Skeleton A was placed on a low platform or “bed” in the center of the tomb and had the most elaborate assemblage of grave goods. From the special treatment given to this adult, Kenyon hypothesizes that he was probably the paterfamilias. The second adult was found at the head of the bed. Kenyon assumes this was the wife. Two children, skeletons H6 C and H6 D, were also found. Table 11 shows that necklaces were given to children, while scarabs were given to both adults and children. Toiletries and toggle pins were reserved for adults. Jericho Tomb H18, the fourth tomb, was laid out in much the same manner as H6. A single adult was placed on a bed with additional skeletons situated on the ground surrounding the bed. 47 No personal items were found on the adult lying on the bed, but an elaborate toilet kit was found next to it. An elaborate toiletry was also associated with the adult lying on the ground. As table 12 shows, only five children had grave goods associated with them. Considering the information from these four tombs, it does not appear that the people at Jericho tried to assign children a gender by burying them with 45.  The tomb contained a table laden with foodstuffs, serving dishes, drinking vessels, and other ceramics. 46.  There are six mass simultaneous burials at Jericho, which stand in contrast to more common multiple successive burials. Kenyon attributes these burials to a plague of some sort that affected the whole family (idem, Jericho I, 267). 47.  Tomb H18 was badly damaged by a “roof-fall” (ibid., 488).

Child Burials in Canaan

233

Figure 1. Number of Child Burials with Ceramic Grave Goodsa

Figure 1 Key: Jglt = Juglet, Pir = Piriform Juglet, Dip = Dipper Juglet, SJ = Store Jar, Imp = Imports a.  For the list of sites containing child burials and both ceramic and personal grave goods, see Appendix C, pp. 297–314.

gender-specific grave goods. The grave goods associated with adults are relatively the same; they were buried with similar personal items and toiletry kits. Kenyon suggests that the adults on the bed were male and the adults on the floor were female. If her hypothesis is correct, no clear distinction is made between the goods given to the adult males and females. 48 There does, however, appear to be a relationship between age and grave goods, for children are buried with different types of grave goods than adults. Whereas most of the bodies in the tombs had personal items associated with them, only the adults had toiletry kits. This suggests that children held a different social status from the adults. Therefore, Kenyon’s statement that “individual burials were provided with toilet implements,” seems to apply only to adults. 49 For example, infants were buried only with scarabs, while children were buried with beads and necklaces. 50 One exception to this is the child in Tomb 18 identified as Skeleton H. This child was found with a wig, comb, and juglet—all items found in adult toiletries. As these are only some of the items found in the adult toiletries, it may represent a “mini-toiletry” set. The same may be said for Child E in tomb H 18, the only child buried with a toggle pin. The presence of these typically adult items may signify that these children had a status somewhere between adult and child. As the MB II Jericho tombs suggest, the types of grave goods given to a person are related to their relative age. Out of the 440+ children included in 48.  No anthropological analysis appeared in Kenyon’s report. Until an analysis has been carried out, Kenyon’s conclusions concerning the biological sex of the individuals should be not be considered the final word. 49.  Ibid., 266. 50.  These were Tomb H6, Child and Child D; and Tomb H 18, Child D.

234

Chapter Nine

Figure 2. Number of Child Burials with Personal Grave Goods

Figure 2 Key: T. Pin = Toggle Pin, R/E =Ring/Earring, B/A = Bracelet/Anklet, B/S = Bone/Shell, P/A = Plant/Animal Remains, Scar = Scarab, F/A = Faience/Alabaster, Kn/Fl = Knife/Flint.

this survey, only 94 children have grave goods specifically associated with them. Of these, 52 are infants (birth–2 years) and 42 are children (3–12years). Based on the excavation reports, only 38 children are clearly buried without any grave goods. This means that in 300+ child burials, the relationship between the burials and the grave goods is difficult to discern. The fact that this latter group is so large means that the information in figs. 1 and 2 and the conclusions drawn from them are based on only a small sample of the child burials. 51 Figs. 1 and 2 show the relationship between relative age and grave goods. Comparing infant burials to child burials demonstrates that the number of times piriform and dipper juglets, jars, jugs, bowls, imports, beads, and plants/animals appear is almost equivalent for both infants and children. The same is not true for the other categories. For example, infants were buried with store jars, juglets, and bracelets/anklets more often than children were. Children, on the other hand, were buried more frequently with scarabs and rings/earrings and bones/ shells than infants were. Moreover, faience/alabaster, knives/flint, toggle pins, and lamps were only found in child burials. This implies that the main difference between the grave goods for infants and children appears in the nonceramic, or personal, goods. 51.  New excavations and further research into previously published sites will increase the database and allow the conclusions drawn here from the 94 burials to be verified. “Previously published sites,” refers to sites that are published but do not readily assign grave goods to specific burials. Further research on these sites would include combing through field notes, diaries, photographs, and plans of the burial sites to determine if goods could be assigned to specific skeletons. It may be that this information was not recorded; however, it may also be that this information was simply not included in the final published reports.

Child Burials in Canaan

235

In analyzing the nonceramic goods, the concept of the burial kit is useful. It was mentioned above that an in-depth analysis of many sites is needed to establish whether a kit is present at every site and in every time period. Although this analysis is not possible in the present context, fig. 1 shows that some ceramic items routinely accompanied infant burials: bowls, juglets, and store jars. As noted above, Baker has identified these items as part of the funerary kit at Asheklon. She states that the ceramic items in the funerary kit were used in the funerary ceremony, which included a ritual banquet. The purpose of the ritual banquet was twofold. Some of the food would be eaten by the living, and “a portion . . . was ‘served’ to the deceased and placed into the tomb with him/her to provide sustenance for the spirit during its journey into the next world.” 52 Because infants cannot eat solid foods, it seems unlikely that people prepared elaborate banquets for their burials. While they may not be for a banquet, the presence of store jars, bowls, and juglets in infant burials must still be explained. Approaching these three objects from a practical angle offers another solution: only one of these items, the juglet, was part of an infant’s funerary kit. The bowls covering the store jars must function differently in jar burials, but it is difficult to say precisely how. 53 It may be that the bowls were used simply as a means of sealing the jar. As for the store jars, we should understand them to be a receptacle for the deceased and not part of the funerary kit. 54 The presence of juglets, however, is significant, for although infants do not eat solid foods, they do drink milk and other liquids. 55 It seems possible that the juglets, which accompany a majority of infant burials, represent a miniature funerary kit provided for the infant. If the purpose of the kit was to provide food for the journey to the afterlife, then the most useful item to include in an infant’s burial kit would have been an item that contained nourishment for an infant—a juglet. The fact that infants, like adults, were provided with the appropriate means to reach the afterlife suggests that, while it may not have been understood as a member of the community, the infant did have some kind of social persona. 56 Table 13 further examines the nonceramic, or personal, items listed in fig. 2, charting them according to the time period of the burial and relative age of the 52.  Baker, “Funeral Kit,” 7. See also Yasur-Landau, “Socio-Political,” 235–46. 53.  Baker suggests that funerary kits included bowls and platters as serving trays (“Funerary Kit,” 5). 54.  This is how jar burials in Cyprus are interpreted (Steel, “Cyprus,” 200). 55.  Juglets, which likely contained liquids, were frequently found accompanying the numerous jar burials discovered at Tel Dan (A. Biran, Dan I: A Chronicle of the Excavations, the Pottery Neolithic, the Early Bronze Age and the Middle Bronze Age Tombs [Jerusalem: Nelson Glueck School of Biblical Archaeology, Hebrew Union College–Jewish Institute of Religion, 1996], 248 and table 4.2). 56.  See the discussion of social persona on pp. 242–243. For a discussion of jar burials and social persona at Tel Dan, see ibid., 253.

236

Chapter Nine

Table 13.  Number of Child Burials with Personal Grave Goods: Relationship between Time Period and Relative Age EB I–III

EB IV

MB II

LB I–II

IA I–II

Infant Child Infant Child Infant Child Infant Child Infant Child

Toggle Pin

-

-

-

-

-

2

-

-

-

-

Ring/Earring

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

2

1

3

Bracelet/Anklet

-

-

-

-

-

-

9

-

6

2

Bead

4

-

-

-

2

4

1

4

3

3 -

Bone/Shell

1

-

-

-

-

1

-

2

-

Plant/Animal

-

-

-

-

1

1

1

1

-

-

Scarab

-

-

-

-

3

7

1

1

-

1

Faience/Alabaster

-

-

-

-

-

1

-

1

-

-

Knife/Flint

-

-

-

1

-

1

-

-

-

-

a

a. G. Philip has successfully demonstrated that weapons found in a funerary context should be considered objects of status and entitlement and not related to ethnicity or political power (G. Philip, “Warrior Burials in the Ancient Near-Eastern Bronze Age: The Evidence from Mesopotamia, Western Iran and SyriaPalestine,” in The Archaeology of Death in the Ancient Near East [Oxford: Oxbow, 1995], 140–54). The burial represented in table 13 was found in a family tomb (T. 1514), which contained the final interment of two adults and one child. The dagger was placed under the legs of the child. This is unique in that it suggests that the dagger was associated with the child and not the adults. It could also mean that the dagger was representative of the entire family’s status (W. M. F. Petrie, Ancient Gaza II, pl. 1:20).

child. 57 Although there is very little evidence of documented nonceramic grave goods from the EB period, the following periods show a consistent predominance of bracelet/anklets in infant burials and the prevalence of bone/shell and rings/ earrings in child burials. As for scarabs, fig. 2 reveals that more scarabs were found in children’s burials than infants’, but table 13 shows that this is true only in MB II. In later periods, the number of times infants and children are buried with scarabs is almost identical. Likewise, the number of beads and plant/animal items appear to be similar for infants and children. Nonetheless, table 13 illustrates that certain objects were likely associated with certain ages throughout the various time periods. 58 57.  For a similar examination of the ceramic items, see Appendix B, table 34, p. 296. R. Avissar suggests that minature objects found in sites may be toys made by children for play (R. Avissar, “Children and Childhood in the Land of Israel” [paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Schools of Oriental Research, Boston, 2008]). While this survey did not detail minature objects found within a child’s grave, it should be noted that the presence of such objects may indicate that children were buried with toys they created. 58.  It has been demonstrated that scarabs served as a symbol of protection and good luck. As such, they may be included in burials for apotropaic reasons (Baker, “Funerary Kit,” 21; A. Ben-Tor, Scarabs and Design Amulets: A Glimpse of Ancient Egypt in Miniature [New York: NFA Classical Auctions, 1991], 1; C. Andrews, Amulets of Ancient Egypt [Austin: University of Texas, 1994], 6–7).

Child Burials in Canaan

237

Table 14.  Number of Nonceramic Grave Goods per Child Infant Child 1

10

11

2

 4

 8

3

 3

-

4

-

 2

5

-

-

6

 1

 3

The preceding tables that examine the grave goods found in child burials do not take into consideration that some burials contained more than one item associated with a given individual. A. Maeir points out that the number of personal items (including jewelry and toiletries) buried with an individual may not only reflect the status of the deceased but also indicate the level of social development in his/her society. 59 Figure 2 demonstrates that, in comparison with the later periods, the EB period contains very few personal grave goods. So far, the latter point of Maeir’s comment seems to be true for child burials. As time progresses and societies become more complex, we find a greater number of personal items included in burials. 60 However, his first point needs to be considered: does the number of personal items in a burial reflect a person’s status. Of the 52 infant burials and 42 children burials containing grave goods, 62% of infant burials and 47% of children burials contained personal items. 61 Of the 42 children buried with personal items, 24 were buried with either one or 2 items, 5 were buried with 3 or 4 items, and 4 were buried with 5 or more items (see table 14 above). Because only 9 of the children were buried with more than 2 items, it seems likely that the number of personal items placed in a burial did indeed reflect the child’s status. 62 Age also affects the number of items placed in burials, which in turn reflects the child’s communal status. 59.  Maeir, “Tomb 1181,” 325. Yasur-Landau makes a similar argument, stating that personal items are “preferable for the study of status and wealth” (Yasur-Landau, “Socio-Political,” 240). 60.  MB II has the highest concentration of objects, but it is also the period for which we have the most data. 61. While Baker argues that toggle pins should not be included among personal items, they are included in this study. They represent the stage when a child is no longer dressed as an infant but wears clothes similar to adults. Therefore, it seems toggle pins fit better in the personal rather than the essential grave goods category. 62. Consider Maier’s comment: “Undoubtedly, the actual amount of such artifacts interred with each individual was dependent on that person’s status, and could therefore vary substantially” (Maier, “Tomb 1181,” 325).

238

Chapter Nine

A comparison of the infants and children in table 14 reveals that both the number of children with grave goods and the number of grave goods per burial tend to be consistently higher in child burials than infant burials. This is significant because the infants included in this survey outnumber the children. It may be that, the older a child became, the more apt s/he was to receive a burial rich in personal items. One other aspect of personal grave goods merits exploration: their origins. Examining their origins will help to determine the energy expenditure that went into providing the grave goods. For example, most of the substances that were used to make jewelry are not native to Canaan, and so they reflect a wide trade network. Beads were made of faience, carnelian, and gold; rings were bronze and iron; and earrings were made of silver, electrum, and gold. Of this group, only bronze is found locally. 63 Because Canaan was limited in its natural resources, luxury items were imported from the surrounding regions. Gold came from Egypt, Nubia, or Arabia; carnelian from Mesopotamia or Arabia; silver from Asia Minor or the Taurus Mountains; and iron from Syria, Asia Minor, or Gilead. 64 Importing these objects from the surrounding regions may only have been the first step, for we do not know if the objects were imported as jewelry or as raw ore/stone. 65 Whether the objects came to Canaan as raw materials or in a finished form, the energy expenditure needed to obtain various kinds of jewelry was relatively high. In light of this, we would expect the jewelry to belong to people of high social rank, in other words, people who could afford to purchase luxury items. 66 However, the jewelry currently under discussion belongs not to adults but to children—to deceased children. One may expect an adult to be buried with jewelry he or she owned in life. It is difficult to say with the same certainty whether the jewelry a child was buried with was considered their personal property or the parents place their own jewelry in the child’s grave. It is even possible that parents purchased the jewelry specifically for the burial. Unfortunately, the burial record cannot provide the answers to these questions. 67 63.  Bronze and copper were both mined around Feinan, Timnaʾ, and Beersheba (P. King and L. Stager, Life in Biblical Israel [Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001], 165). 64.  Ibid., 165–71. 65.  Metal workshops have been found at Deir ʿAlla, Tel Qasile, Tel Dan, Timnaʾ, and the Negev, thus proving that the technological know-how for refining ores was present in the Levant (ibid., 165–67). 66.  See also A. Alekshin, “Burial Customs as an Archaeological Source,” Current Anthropology 24/2 (1983): 142. 67.  It is possible that children of a higher social status were given burials with multiple metal and unique objects. It may also be that some people believed in burying their children with expensive grave goods and others did not. However, without written explanations left by the family of the deceased, it is difficult to know the precise motivation behind the burial practices. We must also take into consideration that some graves were robbed.

Child Burials in Canaan

239

Synthesis: Social Status and the Burial Record This chapter examined how the status of children is indicated in the archaeological record and, specifically, how relative age affects the presentation of social status in burials. The presentation of social status is a combination of ascribed status and achieved status. Age and gender fall under the category of ascribed status. Grave goods, method of burial, and location of burial relate more to the child’s achieved status. Considering all these elements, as well as the presence of adults within a burial provides a relative picture of a child’s status as presented by their burial. 68 The findings in this chapter demonstrate that the burials of children are most often affected by their ascribed status (age), rather than their achieved status. This is not surprising because achieved status represents status obtained through talents, choices, actions, efforts, activities, and accomplishments. Children, by virtue of their young age, are either not old enough or are not allowed opportunities to advance themselves personally. This is not to say that children did not participate in activities that could in the future contribute to achieved status. It may be that adults simply did not perceive children as their social equals and therefore did not recognize the achieved status of children. Regardless, aspects of child burials that suggest a higher social status, such as the quality or quantity of grave goods, are most likely a reflection of the families into which the children were born and not a reflection of a status achieved by the children.

Social Status and Membership in the Community While excavation reports record child burials, few seek to explain why a particular method was utilized. This should not be surprising because, on a site‑bysite basis, the burials do not necessarily present any patterns. Furthermore, the primary purpose of a report is to present the data, not to analyze them. However, when hundreds of child burials are examined together, distinct patterns emerge that can be analyzed. While most children are not recovered in the burial record, those that are create a distinctive pattern with respect to age, location, and method of burial.  69 Infants are overwhelmingly found within a site in singleinterment jar burials, whereas children are buried extramurally in interments similar to those of the adults in their community. One explanation for this pattern may have to do with the size of the individual being buried. Because most jars were not large, they lent themselves to the burial of smaller individuals. 70 In fact, sometimes the infant was too large to fit into the jar, necessitating that the neck of the jar be broken off before the body

p. 9.

68.  Alekshin, “Burial Customs,” 138. 69.  Most children are not found because they have very brittle and friable bones. See 70. R. Hallote, “MBA Levant,” 102.

240

Chapter Nine

was inserted. 71 At other times, the jar was broken in half lengthwise. This usually occurred with the burials of smaller children. The child was placed on the bottom half of the jar, and the top half was then situated over the child. 72 Logically, the larger the individual, the more difficult and awkward a jar burial becomes. At some stage in a child’s growth, jar burials become impractical, and it was easier to place the body in a larger receptacle such as a pit, cist, cave, or tomb. However, this answer is too simple, for it approaches the pattern with the assumption that jar burial is the normative practice, and tombs, cists, pits, and so on were the deviations. Instead, we must consider that pits, caves, tombs, cists, and so forth are the normative means of burial. If this is the case, another reason must to explain why a majority of infants were buried in jars. It is possible that societies saw jar burials as a return to the womb. The layout of chamber- and rock-cut tombs can be understood as replicating the female reproductive system: “burial chamber/jar = womb; entry = cervix; corridor, shaft or dromos = birth canal.” 73 Ethonographic studies demonstrate a link between the tomb and womb. Among contemporary peoples, the Bara of Madagascar also see a link between the burial and reproduction, accompanying burial rites with rituals portraying various stages beginning with intercourse and ending with the birth of the deceased into another world. In their culture the tomb is both the next world and the living womb. 74 It seems reasonable, then, to suggest that, within Canaan, there existed a cosmology that understood death and burial either as a sort of “return to Mother Earth” or as a passage to the netherworld, which would be a place of rebirth. 75 This theory can be envisioned particularly well with regard 71.  Ilan, “Mortuary Practices,” 126. 72.  Ibid., 129. 73.  Ibid., 135. Ilan also points to various ethnographic data, such as the Zulu tribes, demonstrating that this concept is still present in African societies. See M. Bloch and J. Parry, Death and the Regeneration of Life (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982), 24–25; R. Huntington and P. Metcalf, Celebrations of Death: The Anthropology of the Death Ritual (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 115–16. This theory has also been suggested for the tombs of ancient Egypt (J. Romer, Romer’s Egypt [London: Joseph, 1982], 167). The omega-shaped or Hathor-wig headrest found in the First Temple Period burial caves at the École Biblique has also been understood as a symbolic representation of the uterus/womb. The omega shape is associated with the Mesopotamian birth goddess Nin-hursanga. Keel suggests that the omega shape was a symbol for the uterus (O. Keel, “The Peculiar Headrest For the Dead in First Temple Times,” BAR 13/4 [1987]: 50–53). This omega-shaped symbol is also found throughout the Bronze Age in Mesopotamian art, on MBA scarabs from Tel el-Farah (N), Tel Jerishe, and Jericho and on an LB plaque from Hazor. However, G. Barkay points out that the omega-shaped headrest appears only this one time, in the Iron Age École Biblique burial caves, and should not be equated with a Mesopotamian goddess (G. Barkay, “Burial Headrests as a Return to the Womb: A Reevaluation,” BAR 14/2 [1988]: 48–50). 74.  Huntington and Metcalf, Celebrations, 115–16. 75.  The sentiments presented in Job 1:21 and Gen 3:19 can be understood along these lines. D. Ilan understands Gen 3:17–19 slightly differently. He states that it is related to fertility:

Child Burials in Canaan

241

to jar burials. The infant fits snugly in the jar, much like a fetus in a womb. 76 In many cases, the infant was found with the head toward the opening of the jar, as though waiting to be birthed. 77 Using the “tomb as womb” theory, one can hypothesize that jar burials were chosen as a symbolic way of returning the small life back to the womb—the place where it was safe, nurtured, and protected from the harshness of the outside world. The association of the jar burials with the mother and her womb may also be related to a belief that the child would be reborn to the family in a subsequent birth. 78 Ethnographic parallels from various cultures point to a belief that a special form of burial would result in infant rebirth. Tribes in both Borneo and Malaysia bury infants under the house floor in order to encourage the child to be reborn. 79 Both tribes in West Africa and the Huron Native Americans bury infants in the road so that, if a woman walks over them, “they may secretly enter her womb, and . . . she may give them life again.”  80 The relationship between fertility and death is seen in ANE textual materials as well. For example, the Ugaritic Baal Epic (I AB ii 31–28) depicts the murder of the god Mot in agricultural terms, and in the Egyptian myth of Isis and Osiris, Isis conceives the god Horus from the dead body of Osiris. 81 “death was probably perceived as a debt owed to the earth; bodies were returned to the earth to ensure its fertility” (Ilan, “Mortuary Practices, 135). 76.  Hallote, Death, 38. 77.  Tel Dan, Sahab, Kitan, Nesiba, and so on. 78.  A belief in rebirth may have been a way to cope with the death of infants. Similarly, M. Golden suggests that mourning mothers were an integral part of Greco-Roman life who allowed society to carry on and continue to multiply when faced with the devastating realities of the death (M. Golden, “Mortality, Mourning and Mothers,” in Naissance et petite enfance dans l’Antiquité (ed. V. Dasen; Fribourg: Academic Press, 2004], 156–67). Jews have similar coping rituals today in the recitation of kaddish yatom, “the mourners kaddish,” and the period of sitting shiva after a death. 79. G. Appell and L. Appell, “Death among the Rungus Momogun of Sabah, Malaysia: The Dissolution of Personhood and Dispersion of the Multiple Souls and Spiritual Counterparts,” in Journeys of the Soul: Anthropological Studies of Death, Burial and Rebirth Practices in Borneo (ed. W. Wilder; Borneo Research Council Monograph 7; Philips, ME: Borneo Research Council, 2003), 41–121; M. Amster, “Gender Complementarity and Death among the Kelabit,” in Journeys of the Soul: Anthropological Studies of Death, Burial and Rebirth Practices in Borneo (ed. W. Wilder; Borneo Research Council Monograph 7; Philips, ME: Borneo Research Council 2003), 251–308. 80. A. Mills and R. Slobodin, Amerindian Rebirth: Reincarnation Belief among North American Indians and Inuit (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1994), 46; J. E. King, “Infant Burial,” Classical Review (1903): 83. 81.  Pritchard, ANET 140. The story of Osiris is not found in any coherent piece of literature until Plutarch’s Moralia. The origin of Plutarch’s story of the death of Osiris, and the Egyptian conception of his nature and attributes, may be gathered from the Hymn to Osiris found on the Stela of Amenmose (Louvre C 286). For an English translation, see The Great Hymn to Osiris, in Hymns, Prayers, and Songs: An Anthology of Egyptian Lyric Poetry (ed. S. Hollis; trans. J. Foster; SBL Writings from the Ancient World 8; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995), 48–53.

242

Chapter Nine

Even if a belief in rebirth was the motivating factor behind the use of intramural jar burials, the fact that infants were buried differently from the other members of the community suggests that infant deaths were understood to be different from those of children and adults, who were buried in a similar fashion. Perhaps by separating out the infant burials, the community was suggesting that infants were perceived as having a different social status from the rest of the society. A person’s status in the living community is based on his/her social persona, which is a “composite of social identities maintained in life and recognized as appropriate for consideration at death.” 82 These social identities include age, sex, social status within a social unit, and membership in the community at large. 83 Hertz has suggested that the mortuary ritual will differ according to two things: an individual’s status in the community and participation in what he calls the “society of souls,” in other words, membership in the community. 84 “For those who are not full societal participants at the time of death, minimal rites of incorporation into the ‘invisible society’ [society of the dead] are given.” 85 Examples of individuals who are not full society participants when they die include the elderly who are no longer a part of the community and children who have not yet become “members of the visible society.” 86 The method and location of jar burials suggests that Canaanite infants were not considered full members of the community, because they were not buried like other members of the community. 87 This is not to say that infants did not have a social persona. As Ilan states, “the patterns observed in jar burials (and especially the accompanying offerings) indicate that infants maintained a social persona of some kind, albeit an ephemeral one.” 88 This concept finds support in the ethnographic literature as well. For example, in the case of the Huron, it is understood that the “infants were accorded different mortuary status because they were not regarded as entire individuals.” 89 Binford argues that the totality 82. L. Binford, “Mortuary Practices: Their Study and Their Potential,” in Approaches to the Social Dimensions of Mortuary Practices (ed. J. Brown; Memoirs of the Society for American Archaeology 25; Washington, DC: Society for American Anthropology, 1971), 17. 83.  Binford, “Mortuary Practices,” 14–15. 84. R. Hertz, Death and the Right Hand (trans. R. Needham and F. Needham; Glencoe, IL: Free Press, 1960), 86. 85.  Binford summarizing Hertz’s argumentation (Binford, “Mortuary Practices,” 7). 86. Ibid. 87.  This theory can be applied to jar burials in general, not just infant jar burials. It may be that the older children and adults buried in jars are also not considered full or “normal” members of the community. These children and adults may have had diseases or severe handicaps that caused their society to associate them with infants or at least to perceive their social status as different from the majority of the population. 88.  Ilan, “Mortuary Practices,” 133. 89.  Mills and Slobodin, Amerindian Rebirth, 46. Other cultures, such as the Punan Bah and Kelabit of Borneo and the Rungus of Malaysia, also perceived the mortuary status of infants differently from adults. These peoples all buried newborns and infants separately from the adults

Child Burials in Canaan

243

of an individual’s social persona determines the level of community participation in the burial and the degree to which the ritual disrupted daily life. 90 With the case of infant jar burials, community participation is most likely limited to the family, and the degree to which daily life is disrupted is relatively low. 91 Both of these factors reinforce the idea that the infants buried in jar burials were not full members of the community. It is possible that infants entered the community at different times. This idea finds ethnographic parallels in some African tribes. For example, the Beng of West Africa do not recognize an infant as a person until the umbilical cord stump falls off. Even then, the infant is not thought to be fully in this world and a member of the society. When the umbilical stump falls off, the infant/child enters a liminal space where s/he is half in wrugbe (the spiritual world from which it emerged) and half in this life. 92 The process of permanently leaving wrugbe takes each child a different amount of time. However, by the age of 7, all children have completed this process. Similarly, the range of specific ages (roughly birth to age 3) represented in jar burials suggests that in Canaan this transition from nonmember to member occurred at different times. This transition may be based on when the child starts to contribute to the community, for a person’s life was divided into segments based on what one could contribute economically, not by chronological years. 93 It may be that infants and children were buried in jars until they became members of their community, in other words, until they were able to contribute in some way to their household. 94 of their community. The Punan Bah buried the children in the hollow of a tree to encourage rebirth, while the Kelabit and Rungus buried the children under the floor of the house (W. Wilder, ed., Journeys of the Soul: Anthropological Studies of Death, Burial and Rebirth Practices in Borneo [Borneo Research Council Monograph 7; Philips, ME: Borneo Research Council, 2003], 99, 144, 167, 266). 90.  Binford, “Mortuary Practices,” 21; see also p. 19, table 1, and p. 22, table 4. 91.  Consider, for example, the opposite end of the spectrum—the burial of a king. His burial may require the entire village/town to turn out and to cease work for the day. See the discussion on child burials in ibid., 22. 92. A. Gottlieb, “Do Infants Have Religion? The Spiritual Lives of Beng Babies,” American Anthropologist 100 (1998): 122–35. 93.  See pp. 143–144 and 159 n. 3. See also K. Kamp, “Where Have all the Children Gone? The Archaeology of Childhood,” Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 8 (2001): 14ff.; J. S. Derevenski, “Where Are the Children? Accessing Children in the Past,” ARC 13 (1994): 9, 13. 94.  According to the Talmud, a child was accorded an adult burial once he or she was old enough to walk, around the age of two. At this point the child had a full place in society and the family, and “his loss was felt as much as the loss of an adult” (Hallote, Death, 167). In rabbinic times, infant mortality rate was quite high. Because of this, Hallote suggests that parents paid little attention to infant deaths as a way of “getting on with things” and not dwelling in the past (ibid., 166–67). Hallote does not cite which rabbinic sources or portion of the Talmud she bases this information on. Babylonian Talmud, Moed Qatan 24a, states that a deceased infant younger than 30 days old would be carried out in someone’s arms and buried in the presence of

244

Chapter Nine

While a “membership in society” theory may account for burials conforming to the general burial trend, there are deviant burials. For example, not every infant is placed in an intramural jar burial. One possibility may involve the circumstances surrounding the infant’s death. It may be that infants were buried in intramural jar burials primarily when the infant death occurred in isolation. By contrast, when an infant died at the same time as another family member, the infant was buried in the same manner as that family member, in a cist, tomb, cave, etc. These burials include the infants and children buried in their mother’s arms.  95 In addition, it is possible that all ANE societies did not conform to a single view on the status of infants and, specifically, at what point they were considered members of the family/household/society. 96 Some societies may have understood this membership to begin at birth and not at a point when the infant was able to offer economic contributions. These people may have chosen to bury their infants in the family tomb. It may also be that infants were buried in tombs only when they died at the same time as another member of the family. While a “membership” theory does not by default exclude the possibility that various societies may have different beliefs concerning the meaning and use of different burials, it offers the best explanation for the differences between infant and child interments in the burial record. three people. No condolences or benediction were required due to the immaturity of the infant. If the infant was between 30 days and 12 months old, the burial would be in a case, which would be taken out of the house in someone’s arms. People were required to pay condolences and a benediction was recited. After the infant reached 12 months, the burial would be on a bier. The public was required to show their distress and if the child was publically well-known, the public was encouraged to take part in the funeral. 95.  At Tel el-Farah (N) an infant was buried in its mother’s arms. This practice can be seen in burials outside Canaan as well: Tell el Mazar, Tell es-Saʾidiyeh, and Bab edh-Dhraʾ. In some instances, children in other age categories were buried with adults. See pp. 292, tables 23–25. Only 14 burials here fall into this category. Eight of the adult skeletons were positively sexed as female, none as male, and six could not be positively sexed. 96.  A “membership” theory does not by default exclude the possibility that various societies may have different beliefs concerning the meaning and use of jar burials. Some societies may have understood this membership to begin at birth and not at a point when the infant was able to offer economic contributions. These people may have chosen to bury their infants in the family tomb. It may also be that infants were buried in tombs only when they died at the same time as another member of the family.

C

h a p t e r

T

e n

Conclusions According to the texts and archaeological data, a child’s membership in the ancient Near Eastern household is directly related to her social status, and in particular, her ascribed status. Within ascribed status, social age and gender play a key role. These in turn dictate various means by which a child can move in and out of a household. From the textual side of things, most of the documents regulated cases that are out of the ordinary or cases in which specifics vary. For example, one slave child may have a different status from another slave child depending on gender, age, circumstances surrounding the birth, the parents’ legal status and so forth. While the texts highlight the life circumstances affecting the child’s status, archaeological evidence offers a concrete, visual representation of a child’s status through the material evidence found in a burial. As such, the study of either the textual or the archaeological realia offers only a partial picture of the child in the ANE. Combining these two corpuses of data reveals the most complete picture currently available. The integration of the two corpuses also reveals overarching patterns concerning the way a child fits into the household. The following pages offer a synthesis of these patterns, beginning with a child’s membership in the household and then moving on to the various factors affecting his membership.

The Child as Member in Potentia An infant is considered a member of the household or society in potentia. This is different from being born into the house as a nonmember. A nonmember implies that the infant is an outsider. Instead, the evidence suggests that an infant is on something of a membership track leading toward full membership. The age at which an infant becomes perceived as a member of the society varies, but it seems to be sometime between the ages of 2 and 4 years old. The mortuary evidence reflects this through the unique use of jar burials for individuals primarily from the ages of birth to 2 years. Some 3- and 4-year-olds are found in jar burials, but by in large, by age 5, young individuals begin to be buried in a manner similar to the adult members of the community. Potential membership can also be seen in the slave-sale documents. Documents record individuals under the age 245

246

Chapter Ten

of three as being sold with their mothers, as though the two were an inseparable unit. The way in which the documents record the infant’s name emphasizes his status. For example, very young infants are often not named but simply described as the female slave’s baby. From a practical standpoint, ages birth to 3 correspond to the period of breastfeeding, whether slave or free. An infant could not be sold separately from her mother until she was weaned. The dependency of an infant on the mother reinforces that they are members in potentia. They are a part of the society and household into which they are born, but their membership is not yet fully realized. One way to think about a child becoming a member in the household and to a larger extent in society is through an item associated with and used by children today: a page of a coloring book. Coloring books contain pictures of a similar theme, all of which have the potential to be colored. The way in which the line drawings are filled in depends on who is coloring them. If one presents a picture of a person to three different children, the same picture will be colored in with three different color schemes. One child may color the person with light skin and another with dark skin, and another may think outside the box and give the person purple skin. The way in which the person is colored has to do with the perception each child has of how the picture should look. That perception may even change from day to day. The coloring book page is a useful metaphor for the journey toward membership that an infant undergoes. The infant, like the page of the book, is part of a larger entity—a household and a society. As the infant grows up, she gets “colored in.” However, the way in which she is colored in is not arbitrary; various factors primarily relating to ascribed status dictate the color scheme. This corresponds to how society perceives the infant. As the infant grows into a child, some of the colors become darker, more permanent as her social status solidifies. At the same time, other colors are added as even more aspects of her social status become apparent and previous parts of her social status change. For the purposes of this analogy, the infant transitions from a member in potentia to a child and a member of society when the entire picture has at least some color on it. This is not to say that the colors cannot still be modified, for social status and the kind of membership individuals have constantly changes as they grow.

Social Statuses and Gender As the metaphor of the coloring page demonstrates, what kind of (potential) member a child is depends on factors affecting his social status. Perhaps the most significant factor is a child’s legal status. While many studies talk of a person being either free or enslaved, the documents previously examined demonstrate that these terms should be understood as part of a continuum. True, there are children who can be categorized as undisputedly free or slave. These are the children born

Conclusions

247

to two free parents and who live with their natal family, and the children born to two slave parents, respectively. Many other children exist in a gray area: they are partly free and partly enslaved. Consider the adopted child whose life in the new household depended on the stipulations in the adoption contract. A girl could be perceived as a daughter, a provider of elder care (serving the adopter in his old age), or a servant. Consider also the debt-slave who is free but temporarily indentured, or the foundling who is legally statusless until picked up and adopted. As these examples show, a child’s legal status is not static but fluid. There are many degrees of free and many degrees of slave. The previous paragraph describes a broad picture of legal status. Another way to envision a child’s legal status is to look at what status a child has at a particular time in her life. This more narrow vision aligns with the status presented by the individual documents as they give an impression of the child’s life. They define what rights the children have based on the decisions made about them by the adults in their lives. Children are defined as hired workers, debt-slaves, adopted children, foundlings, half-siblings, slaves, children of unusual births, orphans, sacrificed children and first born children. As the previous chapters demonstrate, each social status includes a distinct set of characteristics associated with a particular status. Tying the categories of together, however, are the social ages of the individuals: infant or child. Social ages unify the categories in another way too. When examined in relation to other social ages, it is clear that children have a social status lower than that of adults. A natural by-product of this is the way the children are portrayed in these categories of social status; they have little personal autonomy and are presented as passive. In addition to age, some of these social statuses are highly influenced by the child’s gender. The texts suggest that ancient societies understood gender as something that was both ascribed and achieved. It was ascribed in as much as infants with penises were boys who would grow up to be men. As such, they were taught to do the things that men do and eventually they achieved the gender of male. The same for infants with vaginas; they were girls who would grow up to be females. Thus, gender, like membership, is part of a process that begins as soon as the child is born. In some cases, the texts record rituals, such as circumcision, as markers of the gendering process. Even so, it is not one event that marks a child as fully gendered, but a combination of different actions, events, and choices. The way a child fit into the household depended on the child’s sex, which in many cases is equated with gender or potential gender. For example, the adoption documents and Genesis narratives emphasize the importance of a male heir. This means that the head of a household puts considerable effort into obtaining a son. When multiple sons are part of the family’s household, the texts take measures to safeguard and solidify the place of each son in the inheritance. For example, Abraham ousts his sons by Hagar and Keturah in favor of his son with Sarah in order to maintain a vertical inheritance system. Jacob’s household, on the other

248

Chapter Ten

hand, operates on horizontal heirship, which means Jacob’s sons are all welcomed within the natal household. Adoption texts address this situation by including clauses to deal with the birth or adoption of subsequent sons into the adoptee’s new family. These clauses clarify the adoptee’s place in the inheritance line. Sex also plays a significant role for the sacrificed, adopted, and debt-slave child. Chapter 7 explores the relationship between the particular kind of sacrifice and the sex of the sacrificed child. With respect to the ritual sacrifice—children passed through the fire—it appears that both sons and daughters are eligible and satisfactory victims. The required sacrifice of the firstborn and eliminatory sacrifices, however, favor male children. Firstborn sacrifices actually demonstrate a progression. The earliest version of the Yhwh cult, that equating ‫‘ פטר רחם‬one to break the womb’ with ‫‘ בכור‬firstborn’, suggests that both male and female children are to be sacrificed. As time moves forward, the cult requires the sacrifice of the firstborn son and finally does away with sacrifice altogether, requiring redemption instead. Narratives such as the Akedah and Jephthah’s daughter show the increasing value placed on male firstborn children and an ideology of expendibility with regard to female children. Because the male firstborn was so valuable, eliminatory sacrifices worked best with males, and male firstborn children in particular. Again, the superiority of (firstborn) sons ties into the way in which a household passed down inheritance. Even though male children are perceived as more valuable than female children, female children do have value. Their value is tied up in marriage potential. Because a female has the potential to marry, whether it be immediate or in the future, debt-slave and adoption contracts are different for females. When contracts were drawn up for girls, they often included provisos detailing what will happen when the girl reached a marriageable age. Here again, inheritance shows up, this time as dowries and bride prices are considered. The biblical text suggests that marriage outside a kinship group is frowned upon, for any inheritance passed through the woman’s dowry would be lost. Debt-slave and adoption contracts and laws, on the other hand, do not comment on endogamous versus exogamous marriages. Instead, these contracts concern themselves with who can marry off the girl and to whom she could be married. While the general form of the contracts was the same as that of a boy’s contract, a girl’s contract included additional clauses regarding marriage. Debt-slave and adoption laws also differ according to sex. Again, more ink is spilt on behalf of female debt-slaves and adoptions because their situations include the possibility of marriage and transfer of monies postcontract. The laws and contracts need to specify to whom the monies belonged and who was responsible for the girl.

Membership and Social Mobility For the most part, ascribed status has the greatest impact on the child’s life. The figures 3–7 lay out the various permutations of social mobility according to

Conclusions

249

Figure 3.  Basic Life Cycle Natal family household → Death by natural cause (male/female) Natal family household → Marriage (female)

the categories of social status discussed in this study. Figure 3 has the simplest structure, that of a freeborn child. This child lives in the natal family household and leaves the household via marriage or death. Eventually, all people leave the physical household through death; therefore, with the exception of the sacrificed child, the movements described below are limited to movements between households. The large number of extant documents of adoptions attests to the need to control how exactly an individual entered and exited a household. Figure 4 describes a formal adoption. In a formal adoption, a child exits the natal household and enters the adopter’s household. As stipulated by the written or oral contract, the legal responsibility for the child transfers from the father to the adopter at the time of the adoption. If an infant is adopted, provisions are made for hiring a wet-nurse. Figure 4 includes the wet-nurse in parenthesis because, while she cares for the child, the child does not formally become a part of her household. The child’s sojourn in her house is limited to the time set in the wet-nurse contract. During this period, the nurse is responsible only for the child’s well-being; the legal responsibility for the child lies with the adopter. Figures 5–7 address variations on the formal adoption. In fig. 5, a god­ parentage adoption is shown. The line depicting the movement of the child has an arrow at either end. The two-way arrow symbolizes the possibility of back-andforth movement between households. In some godparentage adoptions, the child would not leave the natal household, while in others a child may live with the godparents part of the time. Responsibility for the child’s upbringing, regardless of in which household the child physically dwelt, fell to the godparents. Figure 6 shows a rare case in which a child is reclaimed. There, the child moves out of the natal household into the care of the adopter, and then back into the natal household. In this way, the reclaimed child’s movement almost parallels that of the debt-slave child who also spends time outside the natal household only to return later. In fig. 7, one sees an arrow on either side of the word limbo. The word limbo represents the statusless position of the foundling once she has been cast to the dogs. Once the parent gives up the legal rights to the child, the child exists in an area outside the social and legal norm. At this point, she belongs to no one. In the best case scenario, someone will pick her up and bring her to a new household. When she is picked up, she once again enters society, but as foundling. She then enters the new household and is understood by society as such. Chapter 4 addresses debt-slave children and chapter 5 groups together slave children and hired children. All these children work for someone other than their parents and participate in a household economy other than their natal

250

Chapter Ten

Figure 4.  Formally Adopted Child Natal family household → (Wet-nurse’s house) → Adopter’s household

Legal responsibility

Figure 5.  God-Parentage Adoption Natal family household ↔ Adopter’s household

Figure 6.  Adopted Child: Reclaimed Natal family household → Adopter’s household → Natal family household

Figure 7.  Adopted Child: Foundling Natal family household → limbo → Adopter’s household

family.­The chapters also explore the various social and legal statuses describing debt-slaves, slave children, hired children, and children of mixed marriages within the laws and documents. They demonstrate that a multiplicity of legal and social statuses exist within each category of children. The most honest perception of these children understands that free and slave are two ends of a sliding scale of statuses. If free is at one end of the spectrum and slave at the other, a child can move back and forth between the two statues. The different documents and laws regarding the debt-slave, pledge, hired child, child of mixed marriage, and slave child all sound like variations on a theme. They attest to the fact that the statuses free and slave are not static but fluid. Figure 8 highlights what happens when a parent uses his child to pay off a debt or act as surety for the debt. The free-born child enters another’s household and is temporarily beholden to a person or family other than her own natal family. The laws concerning female debt-slaves recognize that situations may arise in which a girl becomes of marriageable age while a debt-slave or pledge. They also address who is able to give the female in marriage. The concern is less for the girl and more for figuring out who, the father or the lender, should get the bride price and who, the father or the lender, will pay the dowry. While some debt-slave contracts include provisos arranging a girl’s marriage during the period of indentureship, the understanding is that, if no proviso exists, she will return to her natal family. For a boy, the movement is different; he is expected to return to his natal family and take his place in the inheritance line. The hired child does not necessarily reside in another’s household; therefore, the child technically remains a member of his natal household. The legal respon-

Conclusions

251

sibility for the child also lies with the natal family. This said, the child regularly leaves the natal household to participate in the household economic system of another family. As a free-born person, the hired child is compensated for his work. Figure 9 maps out the relationship between the two households. Again, a two-way arrow shows that the child enters and exits two different households. The work he does as a hired child contributes to his boss’s household, while the money he earns contributes to his natal family’s household. The hired child is perhaps the only normative case in which a child can move freely between households on a regular basis. If the hired child represents the child with the most freedom of movement, the slave child describes the other end of the spectrum. Variations in status aside, the mobility of the slave child is bound to the master. Hopes of moving out of the master’s household and shaking the slave status are almost never realized as a child. Emancipation is generally awarded to adults. In rare cases, children could be emancipated alongside their mothers. The other way a slave exits the household is through sale. 1 This method is well documented and appears to be a common occurrence. When sold, the legal responsibility for the child transfers from one slave owner to the next. Children in a mixed marriage experienced the kind of social mobility that came with their legal status. If a child born to free and slave parents retains the legal status of the free parent, then the child’s movements in and out of a household followed fig. 3. If the child is considered a slave, then the child follows movements similar to fig. 10. As mentioned above, inheritance was a driving factor in producing sons, and to a lesser extent, daughters. Inheritance also affects the way half-siblings fit into the household structure. The biblical texts explored in chapter 6 exemplify two common methods for passing on inheritance. The first method, vertical heirship, passed the inheritance through one son. As the biblical text exemplifies, the chosen son is not always the firstborn son; Isaac was Abraham’s second son. The legal and social status of the boy’s mother can affect the method of inheritance. Ishmael’s mother was subservient to Isaac’s mother, who fills the primary wife position. Under vertical heirship, additional male family members are shut out so as to eliminate competition with the chosen or favored son. Hence, Keturah’s and Hagar’s children are sent away from the family household. The trajectory of these additional sons can be seen in the second line in fig. 11. With the case of Jacob’s sons, however, things are different. The children in his family inherit along horizontal heirship. Because there is no competition to become or remain the sole heir line, all children in Jacob’s family—half and full siblings—enjoy life as part 1.  A slave could also leave the household by running away. J. Tenney has identified three cases in which slave children from Kassite Nippur left the household in this manner. Because one was listed as a male child (GURUŠ.TUR.TUR) and the other two as nursing male and female infants (pirsu and pirsatu), he concludes that they were related to the other individuals listed in the documents and, hence, that they did not run away of their own volition (J. Tenney, Life at the Bottom of Babylonian Society [Leiden: Brill: 2011], 109).

252

Chapter Ten

Figure 8.  Debt-Slave or Pledge Child Natal family household → Another’s house as debt-slave → Natal family household Natal family household → Another’s house as debt-slave → Marriage

Figure 9.  Hired Child

Natal family household ↔ Hired child in another’s household ↑ Legal household/responsibility

Figure 10.  Slave Child Natal family household (part of) master’s household → Another master’s household Natal family household (part of) master’s household → Emancipation

of the natal family. From a purely inheritance-minded point of view, the children of the secondary wives are considered no less than that of the primary wives. However, as explained in chapter 6, Jacob personally ranked his sons according to his relationship with their mothers. Operating within the bet ʾav model, Jacob’s sons and Isaac remained attached to the paterfamilias’s household until his death. At that point, the heir titled firstborn would assume control of the bet ʾav. 2 The movements of these sons can be found in the first line of fig. 11. Under certain circumstances, children were sacrificed in the ancient Near East. Chapter 7 addresses this situation as described in the Hebrew Bible. A person living in the 21st century may think that, if a child needs to be sacrificed, then the child for the job is any child that does not belong to you. However, this assumption is incorrect and plays into modern Western ideals concerning the value of children and sentimental attachment to them. As pointed out in chapter­ 7, the best kind of sacrifice victim is one that is both personally close and of lower social standing than the person offering the sacrifice. One’s own child actually best fits this description. This is not to say that a child was not valued or that parents did not have an emotional attachment to the child; as mentioned above, children—and sons in particular—were highly desired in the ancient world.  3 In fact, the reason for choosing one’s own child is precisely because of the child’s value. The mentality is quid pro quo. When the deity is offered some2.  Reuben was Jacob’s firstborn son. However, Rueben lost the status of firstborn when he slept with his father’s wife, Bilhah. The second and third sons, Simeon and Levi, were not qualified to be paterfamilias because they lost their father’s blessing on account of their actions with Shechem. Thus, Judah, the fourth-born son, receives the blessing to carry on the family. 3.  See L. Koepf, “Give Me Chidlren or I Shall Die”: Children and Communal Survival in Biblical Literature (Ph.D. diss., Union Theological Seminary, 2012), 9–52.

Conclusions

253

Figure 11.  Half-Sibling Natal family household → Death Natal family household → Kicked out of natal family

Figure 12.  Sacrificed Child Natal family household → Sacrificed

thing valuable, it is in turn spurred into action. Thus, the parents who welcome the child into the household are the same people who choose to escort the child out of the household. The movement of the sacrificed child is shown in fig. 12. Each of the tables above describes a single category of children and the way in which those children were positioned in the household. However, not every child in the ANE fits into only one category. There may be cases in which a child born of a mixed marriage is subsequently adopted, or the rare case of an adopted child who is reclaimed and then subsequently adopted by another family. Furthermore, depending on the category in question, the entrance and exit from the household can be different for female and male children. The goal here is not to offer every possible permutation for every category of children. Instead, the point is to demonstrate that entrance into and exit from a household is fluid in nature. In focusing on the social aspect of the household, the “who,” this study has demonstrated that children in the ancient Near East experienced a variety of statuses and degrees of membership within a household. Each of the statuses and social ages contributes to how they manifest this membership. In turn, the household is shown to contain a complex system of memberships into which the children are socialized and through which they are engendered. The preceding pages color this picture of the child by suggesting the ways their own societies envision them as part of the household. It suffices to say, the ANE perception of children is multifaceted; children were a highly valued commodity, and those in charge of them carefully monitored their movements. One final note: this study discusses children from the outside in, that is, the ways in which a child’s society perceived him. Agency theory recognizes that, as representatives of society, adults present minors in texts and archaeological realia as they perceived them, a depiction that is necessarily one-sided. But by gathering together data from different times, places, and corpuses, a child’s voice can be heard and agency reinstated. In this way, the book answers the call to concentrate on a traditionally marginalized group within scholarship and bring forth some of those otherwise silent voices in society.

A

p p e n d i x

A

Cuneiform Texts Old Babylonian Period: Code of Hammurapi CH 117 šum-ma a-wi-lam e-hi-il-tum iṣ-ba-ma DAM-sú DUMU-šu ù DUMU.MÍ-sú a-na KÙ.BABBAR id-di-in ù lu a-na ki-iš-ša-a-tim it-ta-an-di-in MU.3.KAM É ša-a-a-ma-ni-šu-nu ù ka-ši-ši-ma-nu i-ip-pé-šu i-na re-bu-tim š-at-tim an-du-raar-šu-nu iš-ša-ak-ka-an If an obligation seizes a man and he sells his wife, his son, or his daughter for money or gives them into debt service, three years they shall be distrained [i.e., serve] in the house of their purchaser or their creditor and in the fourth year their release shall be secured.

CH 170 šum-ma a-wi-lum hi-ir-ta-šu DUMU.MEŠ ú-li-súm ú GEMÉ-sú DUMU.MEŠ ú-li-súm a-bu-um i-na bu-ul-ṭi-šu a-na DUMU.MEŠ ša GEMÉ ul-du-šum DUMU.MEŠ-ú-a iq-ta-bi it-ti DUMU.MEŠ hi-ir-tim im-ta-nu-šu-nu-ti wa-arka a-bu-um a-na ši-im-tim it-ta-al-ku i-na NÍG.GA É A.BA DUMU.MEŠ hiit-tim ù DUMU.MEŠ GEMÉ mi-it-ha-ar-iš i-zu-uz-zu IBILA DUMU hi-ir-tim i-na zi-it-tim i-na zi-it-tim i-na-ṣa-ak-ma i-li-qé If a man’s first-ranking wife bore him children and his female slave bore him children and the father during his life (formally) declares (about them) “my children,” to the children of the female slave who bore to him, they shall be counted among the children of the first-ranking wife. After the father dies, the sons of the first wife and the sons of the female slave shall equally divide the property of the father; the heirs of the first-ranking wife shall choose first and take the inheritance share.

CH 171 ù šum-ma a-bu-um i-na bu-ul-ti-šu a-na DUMU.MEŠ ša GEMÉ ul-du-šum DUMU.MEŠ-ú-a la iq-ta-bi wa-ar-ka a-bu-um a-na ši-im-tim it-ta-al-ku i-na NÍG.GA É A.BA DUMU.MEŠ GEMÉ it-ti DUMU.MEŠ hi-ir-tim ú-ul izu-uz-zu an-du-ta-ar GEMÉ ù DUMU.MEŠ-ša iš-ta-ak-ka-an DUMU.MEŠ 254

Cuneiform Texts

255

hi-ir-tim a-na DUMU.MEŠ GEMÉ a-na wa-ar-du-tim ú-ul i-ra-ag-gu-mu hiir-tum še-ri-ik-ta-ša ù nu-du-na-am ša mu-said-di-nu-ši-im i-na ṭup-pi-im iš-ṭúru-ši-im i-li-qé-ma i-na šu-ba-at mu-ti-ša uš-ša-ab a-di ba-al-ṭa-at i-ik-ka-al a-na KÙ.BABBAR ú-ul i-na-ad-di-in wa-ar-ka-sa ša DUMU.MEŠ-ša-ma If the father during his life did not (formally) declare (about them) “my children” to the children of the female slave who bore to him, after the father dies, the children of the female slave shall not share with the sons of the wife in the father’s estate, the release of the female slave and her children shall be granted. The children of the wife shall not raise claims of slavery against the children of the female slave. The wife shall take her dowry and the marriage settlement (which her husband gave to her in a written document) and she shall dwell in the house of her husband, for as long as she lives she shall enjoy it, she may not sell it for money and her own estate shall belong only to her children.

CH 175 šum-ma lu ÌR É.GAL ù lu ÌR MAŠ.EN.GAG DUMU.MÍ a-wi-lim i-hu-uz-ma DMUM.MEŠ it-ta-la-ad be-el ÌR a-na DUMU.MEŠ DUMU.MÍ a-wi-lim a-na wa-ar-du-tim ú-ul i-ra-ag-gu-um If either a servant of the palace or a servant of a bondsman marries a daughter of a (free) man and children are born, the owner of the slave shall not raise claims of slavery against the children of the daughter of the (free) man.

CH 185 šum-ma a-wi-lum ṣe-eh-ra-am i-na me-e-šu a-na ma-ru-tim il-eq-ma úr-ta-ab-bišu tar-bi-tum ši-i ú-ul ib-ba-aq-qar If a man takes a young child at birth [lit., in its waters;, i.e., its amniotic fluids] for adoption and raises him, that reared child shall not be reclaimed.

CH 186 šum-ma a-wi-lum ṣe-eh-ra-am a-na ma-ru-tim il-qé i-nu-ma il-qu-ú-šu a-ba-šu ú um-ma-šu i-hi-a-at tar-bi-tum ši-i a-na É a-bi-šu i-ta-ar If a man takes a young child in adoption and when he takes him he [that rearling] seeks his father and his mother, that reared child shall return to the house of its father.

CH 187 DUMU GÌR.SÌ.GA mu-za-az É.GAL ù DUMU MI.ZI.IK.RU.UM ú-ul ib-ba-aq-qar

256

Appendix A The child reared by a courtier who is a palace servant or a child of a sekretim shall not be reclaimed. 1

CH 188 šum-ma DUMU.UM.MI.A TUR a-na tar-bi-tim il-qe-ma ši-pí-ir qa-ti-šu uš-tahi-sú ú-ul ib-ba-qar If a craftsman takes a young child in order to raise him and teaches him his trade, he shall not be reclaimed.

CH 189 šum-ma ši-pí-ir qa-ti-šu la uš-ta-hi-sú tar-bi-tum ši-i a-na É a-bi-šu i-ta-ar If he does not teach him his trade that reared child shall return to the house of his father.

CH 190 šum-ma a-wi-lum ṣe-eh-ra-am ša ma-ru-ti-šu il-qe-šu-ma ú-ra-ab-bu-šu it-ti DUMU.MEŠ-šu la im-ta-nu-šu tar-bi-tum ši-i a-na É a-bi-šu i-ta-ar If a man takes a young child in adoption and raises him, but does not count him with his (biological) children, that reared child shall return to his father’s house.

CH 191 šum-ma a-wi-lum ṣe-eh-ra-am ša a-na ma-ru-ti-šu il-qe-šu-ma ú-ra-ab-bu-ú-šu É-sû 2i-pu-uš wa-ar-ka DUMU.MEŠ ir-ta-ši-ma a-na tar-bi-tim na-sa-hi-im panam iš-ta-ak-an DUMU šu-ú re-qú-sú ú-ul it-ta-al-la-ak a-bu-um mu-ra-bi-šu i-na NÍG.GA-šu IGI.3.KAM IBILA-šu i-na-ad-di-iš-šum-ma it-ta-la-ak i-na A.ŠÀ GIŠ.KIRI6 ù É ú-ul i-na-ad-di-iš-šum If a man takes a young child for adoption and raises him and he established his household, and afterwards he has children of his own and decides to disinherit the reared child, that child shall not leave with nothing. The father who raised him shall give him as his inheritance 1/3 of his property and he shall go. From the field, orchard, or house [i.e., from the family plot] he need not give to him. 1.  This translation reads GÌR.SÌ.GA as Akkadian girseqû. It is also possible that this person was a eunuch, and therefore unable to beget children of his own (P. Obermark, Adoption in the Old Babylonian Period [Ph.D. diss., Hebrew Union College–Jewish Institute of Religion, 1991], 102ff.). 2.  The stonecutter wrote BA instead of sú.

Cuneiform Texts

257

Old Babylonian Period: Private Documents BE 6/1 58 3 1.  a-na ši-li-ip re--im 2.  ša KI Sí-ha-tum AMA. A.NI-šu 3.  ù I-rí-ba-ja DUMU Sin-re-me-ni 4.  I Bur-dAdad DUMU Sin-re-me-ni 5.  il-qú-ú 6.  wa-ar-ki Sí-ha-tum a-na ši-ma-ti-ša 7.  il-qú-ú 1 I-rí-ba-ja 8.  a-na I B[u]r-[dAdad ir-gu-um-ma] 9.  [a-wi-lu]-[ú] a-wa-ti-šu-nu 10.  [i]-mu-ru-ú-ma 11.  [tup-p]a-am ša i-na ši-li-ip-[tim]? 12.  [(x)] il-qú-ú U.Rd. 13.  1 Bur-dAdad ub-lam-ma 14.  1 SAG.GIME?-[tam] 15.  [k]i?-ma SAG?. GIME?-[t]im 16.  [(x)] na-da-nam 17.  [iq]-bu-šum 18.  [ú-ul] [i]-ta-ar-ma 19.  I [I-rR-b]a-ja a-na ši-li-ip -im 20.  x [x x x ú-u]l [i-ra]-ga-am 21.  MU dŠamaš dMardu[k S]a-am-su-i-lu-na 22.  ú URU Sippirki it-mu-ú

BE 6/1 58: German Translation Wegen des “aus dem Mutterlieb Gezogenen,” den von Sihatum, seiner Mutter, und Irbaja, dem Sohn des Sin-remeni, Bur-Adad, der Sohn des Sinremeni, genommen hatte, erhob Irbaja, nachdem Sihatum gestorben war, gegen Bur-Adad Klage, und daraufhin überprüften die Bürger ihre Angelegenheit. Deshalb brachte Bur-Adad die Urkunde, derzufolge er (das Kind) beim Herausziehen (aus dem Mutterlieb) genommen habe, und darauf sagten (die Bürger) ihm, daß er eine Sklavin anstelle der Sklavin geben solle. Irbaja wird wegen des “aus dem Mutterlieb Gezogenen” . . . nicht noch einmal Klage erheben. 4

3.  Transliteration and German translation by C. von Wilcke, “Noch einmal: šilip rēmim und die Adoption ina mê-šu Neue und alte einschlägige Texte,” ZA 71 (1981): 89. 4.  Many thanks to Johanna Bodenstab for her help cross-referencing the German translation and the following English translation.

258

Appendix A

BE 6/1 58: English Translation Regarding “the one pulled from his mother’s flesh,” whom from Sihatum, his mother, and (from) Irbaja, Son of Sin-remeni, Bur-Adad, Son of Sinremeni, had adopted. Irbaja brought a suit against Bur-Adad after Sihatum had died, and thus the citizens investigated the matter. Because of this, BurAdad presented the certificate according to which he adopted (the child) while pulling him (from his mother’s flesh), and thus (the citizens) told him, that he should give a female slave to replace the female slave. Irbaja will not bring another suit regarding “the the one pulled from his mother’s flesh.”

BM 78811 = Finkelstein Text A 5 Hammurapi 33 1.  IdNIN.PIRÌG-a-bi ši-l[i-í]p re-mi 2.  KI Hu-uš-šu-tum 3.  1 Nu-úr-dŠamaš a-na ma-ru-tim 4.  il-qé-e-šu 5.  ŠE.BA Ì.BA ù SÍG.BA 6.  ga-am-ra-am ma-ah-ra-at 7.  li-ib-ba-ša DÙGab

8–17. Witnesses 18.  MU ÍD Ha-am-mu-ra-pí 19.  šu-mu-uh 6-ni-ši

BM 78811 = Finkelstein Text A: Translation Nin.pirig-abi, an infant drawn from the womb, was taken (in adoption) from Huššutum, the nadītu of Shamash. She received the barley, oil, and wool allowance in full. Her heart is satisfied. Witnesses. In the 33rd year of Hammurapi.

BM 78812 = Finkelstein Text A Case 7 Hammurapi 33 1.  IdNIN.PIRÌG-a-bi 2.  ši-li-íp r[e]-mi-im 3.  KI Hu-uš-šu-tum SAL+ME dŠamaš DUMU.MÍ Ib-ni- dŠamaš 4.  1 Nu-úr-dŠamaš DUMU Ib-ni dŠamaš ŠEŠ-A-NI 5.  J. J. Finkelstein, “Šilip rēmim and Related Matters,” in Cuneiform Studies in Honor of Samuel Noah Kramer (ed. B. Eichler, J. Heimerdinger, and Å. Sjöberg; Kevelaer: Butzon & Berker, 1976), 188. 6.  Finkelstein notes that uh is a variant and synonym for the expected nuhuš-. 7.  Finkelstein, “Šilip,” 188.

Cuneiform Texts

259

5.  a-na ma-ru-tim il-qé-e-šu 6.  ŠE.BA [Ì.B]A ù SÌG.BA 7.  ša MU-3-KAM ga-am-ra-am 8.  ma-ah-ra-at 9.  il-ib-ba-ša DÙGab

10–21. Witnesses 22. DUMU.MEŠ Ib-ni- dŠamaš ŠEŠ-A-NI

(left edge) MU ÍD Ha-am-ma-ra-pí šu-mu-uh 8-ni-ši

BM 78812 = Finkelstein Text A Case: Translation Nin.pirig-abi, an infant drawn from the womb, was taken in adoption from Huššutum, the nadītu of Shamash, daughter of Ibni-Shamash, by her brother Nur-Shamash son of Ibni-Shamash. She has received in full the barley, oil, and wool allowance for 3 years. Her heart is satisfied. Witnesses. In the 33rd year of Hammurapi.”

PBS 8/2 107 Nippur: Enlil-bani 1.  1 DUMU.NITA.GAB 2.  Í-lí-a-wi-li MU.NI.IM 3.  DUMU A-a-ar-tum 4.  ki A-a-ar-tum AMA.NI.TA 5.  ù E-re-iš-tum NIN. A.NI 6.  Ia-si-ru-um 7.  ù AMA.dEN.ZU 8.  [NA]M.DUMU.NI.MEŠ 9.  [ŠÚ].BA.AN.T[I].EŠ 10.  [KU] NAM.BULÙG.GÁ.NI.ŠÈ 11.  [X GÌN] KÙ.BABBAR 2 MA.NA SÌG 12.  Ia-si-ru-um 13.  ù AMA.dEN.ZU 14.  a-na A-a-ar-tum 15.  ù E-ri-iš-tum 16.  IN.NA.AN.SUM 17.  Ia-si-ru-um 18.  ù AMA.dEN.ZU 19.  [KI A-a-ar-tum] 20.  [ù E-re-iš-tum Ì-lí]-a-wi-li 8.  Finkelstein notes that uh is a variant and synonym for the expected nuhuš-.

260

Appendix A

21.  i-[ṣa-ba-a]t-ma i-ta-la-ak

22–30. Witnesses 31–33.  dEn-lì-ba-ni [. . .] X [. . . M]U XX KI (?) RA 9

PBS 8/2 10: Translation Concerning the suckling male baby, Ili-awilim by name, the son of Ayartum: From Ayrtum, his mother, and Erištum, her sister, Yasirum and AmaSin have taken (him) in adoption as their son. Yasirum and Ama-dSin shall give to Ayartum and Erištum X shekels of silver and 2 minas of wool as a gift for having raised him. Yasirum and Ama-dSin shall take Ili-awili from Ayartum and Erištum and be allowed to depart. Dated to Enlil-bani.

Chiera, PBS 8/2 111 Rîm-Sim 1.  1 DINGIR En-lì-šar-ru-um 2.  KI Si-ma-at-DINGIR.EN.ZU AMA. A.NI 3.  1 Ak-ša-ki-id-din-nam 4.  MU.ÁM 6 GÍN KÚ.BABBAR 5.  i-gú-ur-ma 6.  ITI ŠU.NUMUN.A UD.6.KAM 7.  i-hu-sa3

8–12. Witnesses 13–15. [Ri]-im-30 LUGAL Date (broken)

Chiera, PBS 8/2 111 Translation: Enlil-Šarrum has hired Akšaki-idinnam from Šimat-dŠin, her mother, for the price of 6 shekels of silver per year. In year IV.6 he took her. 10 Witnesses. Dated to the reign of Rîm-Sim. d

Chiera, PBS 8/2 162 (Burraburiaš, Nippur?) 9.  Chiera restores lines 31–33 as: MU dEn-lìl-ba-ni [bád?] MU.GUR.dEn-ki-ra [MU.E] Ú. He notes that this is a new date formula for the Isin Dynasty. The restoration, however, is somewhat doubtful (Chiera, OB Contracts, 118). 10. For translations of month names at Sippar, see S. Greengus, “New Evidence on the Old Babylonian Calendar and Real Estate Documents from Sippar,” JAOS 121 (2001), 263. Greengus states that it is anachronistic to represent the Sumerian month names of the BARAG.ZAG.GAR series in Akkadian. Instead, we should render them as Roman numerals. Month names should only be given in Akkadian when the name of the month is spelled out syllabically in a text.

Cuneiform Texts

261

1.  SAL ŠU.GI SAL Bi-ši-tum 6 GÍN.KÚ.GI GIN7.NAM 2.  SAL.TUR SAL AMA-dŠe-nu-a DUMU.SAL. A.NI 6 GÍN.KÚ.GI GIN7. NAM 3.  GURUŠ. TUR R.DINGIR-gu-la DUMU-a-ni 7 GÍN.KÚ.GI GIN7.NAM 4.  SAL.TUR SAL Tu-kul-ti-DINGIR-gu-la DAM. A.NI 6 GÍN.KÚ.GI GIN7. NAM 5.  4 nam-lù-lu7 ša 1 Gi-mil-lim LUGAL-NE.NE.KE4 6.  GUDA dNIN.LÍL.LÁ 11 DUMU ú-ba-a-a 7.  1 dIM.LUGAL.DINGIR.MEŠ DUMU Be-lí-e-mu-qá-a-a 8.  LÙ.SAG NIBRU.KI-di-ni GÁ.DUB.BA.A NIBRU.KI 9.  IN.ŠI.IN.ŠÁM 10.  ŠÁM.TIL.LA.BI.Š 11.  1/3 MA.NA 4 GÌN.GUŠKIN I[N.NA.AN.LAL] 12.  UD.KÚR.ŠO 1 Gi-mi[l-lum] 13.  GUDA DINGIR.NIN.LÍL DUMU 1 Ú-ba-a-a 14.  IBILA.BI Ù IM.RI. A.BI 15.  A.NA.ME. A.BI 16.  1 DINGIR.IM-šar-DINGIR.MEŠ-šù DUMU 1 Be-lí-e-mu-ga-a 17.  LÙ SAG 1 NIBRU.KI.di-ni 18.  PISAN.DUB.BA.A NIBRU.[KI] A 19.  INIM.NU.GÁ.GÁ.AM 20.  INIM.NU.GI.GI.ÁM 21.  MU dEN.LÍL dNIN.LÍL dNIN.URTA dPA.TÚG 22.  ù Burraburiaš LUGAL-e 23.  UR.BI. IN.PAD.DA.NE.EŠ

24–26. Witnesses 27. ITI Šu-numun-na 28. MU.24.KAM-ma 29.  Bur-ra-bu-ia-áš LUGAL-e 30.  NA.KIŠIB 1 Gi-mil-lim GUDA dNIN.LÍL.LÁ 31.  DUMU 1 Ú-ba-a-a

Chiera, PBS 8/2 162: Translation An old woman, Bištītum, worth 6 shekels of gold; a young girl UmmiŠenuʾa, her daughter, worth 6 shekels of gold; the young man Warad-dGula, her son, worth 7 shekels of gold; the woman Tukulti-dGula, his wife, worth 6 shekels of gold; a total of four slaves belonging to Gimillu, their master, the anointed priest of dBiblis, the son of Ubaya, which Adad-šar-ilani, the son of Beli-emugaya, and the governor Nibru-dini, the archivist in the city of Nippur, have bought. For their whole price they have paid 1/3 mina and four shekels of gold. In the future, Gimillu, the anointed priest of Ninlil, his 11.  For other readings of this sign, see RLA 9 453, which suggests muliltu.

262

Appendix A heirs and his family, as many as there are, shall not speak a word or advance a claim against Adad-šar-ilani, the son of Beli-emugaya, and the governor Nibru-dini, the archivist in the city of Nippur. Both of them have sworn by Enlil, Ninlil Nin-ruta and Nusku, and the king Burraburiaš.”

CT 48 70 = Finkelstein Text B 12 Hammurapi 9 1.  1 Na-am-ra-am- ša-ru-ur 2.  ši-li-ip re-mi-im 3.  DUMU A-hu-wa-qar 4.  ù Na-ru-ub-tum 5.  a-na E-ri-ba-am 6.  ù Zi-ir-pa-a 7.  a-na te-ni-qR-im 8.  id-di-nu- šu 9.  ŠE.BA Ì.BA SÍG.BA ša MU.3.KAMàm 10.  ma-ah-ru li-ib-ba- šu-nu ṭà-ab

11–24. Witnesses 25.  MU ÍD Ha-am-mu-ra-pí-hé-gál

CT 48 70 = Finkelstein Text B: Translation Namram-šarur, an infant drawn from the womb, son of Ahumwaqar and Narubtum, to Eribam and Zirpa for nursing they (his parents) have given him. They (Eribam and Zirpa) have received in full the barley, oil and wool allowance for three years. They are satisfied. Names of 14 witnesses. The 9th year of King Hammurapi.

MAH 15.951 Babylon: Hammurapi 23 1.  [1] ṣu-ha-ru-um ši-li-ip re-mi-im 2.  1 DUMU At-ka-al-ši-im UGx(BE) 13 3.  TA dUTU-na-ṣir [ŠEŠ].GAL.[A].[N]I 4.  ù Ta-ri-iš-ma-tim DAM. A.NI 5.  1 Ipqu-an-tum DUMU EŠ-ma-gir 6.  a-na ma-ru-tim il-qí 12.  Finkelstein, “Šilip,” 190. 13.  The transliteration above follows Oppenheim’s reading (A. L. Oppenheim, “A Cesarean Section in the Second Millennium b.c.,” Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences (1960): 292–94). Finkelstein thought this line should be transliterated as: 1 DUMU At-ka-alši-im NU (Finkelstein, “Šilip”). Obermark follows Szlechter and reads lines 2–3: 1 I - ƒ i - k a - al š i -i[m-t]i ša dUTU-na-ƒir DUMU (?) XXX (Obermark, Adoption, 68).

Cuneiform Texts

263

7.  1 GIN KÙ.BABBAR ù te-ni-q MU.2.KAM 8.  ŠE.BA IBA SIG.BA 1 Ipqu-an-tum 9.  a-na dUTU-na-ṣir ù Ta-ri-iš-ma-tim 10.  i-di-in ma-ah-ru [li-ib-ba-š]u-nu ṭà-ab 11.  dUTU-na-ṣir ù Ta-ri-iš-[ma-tum] 12.  ú-ul i-tu-ru-ma 13.  ana Ipqu-an-tum ú-ul i-ra-ga-mu 14.  10 ma-ri li-ir-ši-ma 15.  1 DUMU-EŠ4.DAR-ma a-píl-šu ra-bu-um 14 16.  [M]U dUTU dA-a dAMAR.UTU ù Ha-am-mu-ra-bi 17.  IN.PÀ.DÈ.MEŠ

18–22. (Witnesses) 23.  ITI AB.È.A 24.  MU URU BÀD ZIMBIR.KI

MAH 15.951: Translation Ibiq-iltum, the son of Sin-magir, took in adoption [lit., for sonship] the young child (the one) pulled from the womb, the son of Atkalšim (deceased?) from his oldest brother Šamaš-nāṣir and his sister [wife?] Tarīšmātum. Ibiq-iltumm gave 1 shekel of silver and the nursing expense for two years (namely) barley, oil and wool, to Šamaš-nāṣir and Tarīš-mātum. They have received them and are satisfied. Šamaš-nāṣir and Tarīš-mātum will not make additional claims against Ibiq-iltum. Even if there should be 10 (more) sons (to Ibiq-iltum), Mār-Ištar is his eldest and his heir. They have taken the oath by the gods Šamaš, Aya, and by King Hammurapi. (18–22) Witnesses. (23–24) Month and year date.

TIM 5 4 Tell Harmal: Ibalpiel II (?) (Edited: Obermark, Adoption, 106–7) 1.  I SIKIL.TUR.RA DUMU.SAL.GABA 2.  KI fNa-ra-am-tum DAM A-li-ma-si-qí 3.  ù Pu-la-su-um DUMU. A.NI 4.  1Na-ra-am-ti-dA.A DUMU.SAL 5.  1Lu-bu-um 6.  ŠU.BA.AN.TI 7.  1fNa-ra-am-ti-dA.A 8.  a-na 1fI-sú-ur-tum DUMU.SAL. A.NI 9.  ú-ul DUMU.SAL. A.NI i-qá-ab-bi-ma 10.  i-na É-tim ù i-ga-ri-im 14.  Szlechter reads line 15: 1 DUMMU PA (?)-DA (?) a-píl-šu ra-bu-um.

264

Appendix A

11.  i-te-e-el-li 12.  1fI-sú-ur-tum 13.  a-na fNa-ra-am-ti-dA.A AMA. A.NI 14.  ú-ul um-mi i-qá-ab-bi-m[a] 15.  ú-ga-la-bu-ši-ma 16.  a-na KÙ.BABBAR i-na-ad-di-nu-ši 17.  ba-qir i-ba-qa-ru 18.  2. MA.NA KÙ.BABBAR a-na LÚ Ì.LÁ.E 19.  ù li-ša-an-šu i-la-ap-pa-at

20–27. Witnesses 28.  MU 2 GIŠ.TUKUL KÙ.GI dIM.RA 29.  KISIB Ib-ni-dINNIN

TIM 5 4: Translation (1–6) A sucking daughter from Naramtum, the wife of Alimasiqi and Pulasum, her son, Naramti-Aya, daughter of Lubum, has adopted. (7–11) If (in the future) Naramti-Aya should say to Isutum, her daughter, “(You) are not my daughter,” she will forfeit her estate. (12–16) If (in the future) Isurtum should say to Naramti-Aya, her mother, “You are not my mother,” she (Naramti-Aya) will shave her (Isurtum) head and sell her (as a slave). (17–19) Who ever raises a claim will pay 2 minas silver or his tongue shall be torn out. 15 (20–27) Witnesses. (28–29) Year and Date.

YOS 8 51 Rim Sin 1.  [SAL] 16 Ṭá-ab-bi-Ištar 2.  [DUMU.MÍ] Da-šu-ra-tum 3.  El-lu-lum ip-pu-ši-ma 4.  [aš]-šum Ṭá-ab-bi-Ištar 5.  [DUMU.MÍ] Da-šu-ra-tum 6.  1 KÁ DINGIR-MAH a-na la ṭe-he-e-em 7.  [ú] la a-hu-zi-im 8.  [ni]-iš DINGIR iz-ku-ru 9.  [U4].KÚR.ŠÈ a-na MU.5.KAM a-na MU.10.KAM 10.  [DUMU].MÍ a-na El-lu-lum 11.  [lu] a-na-ṣa-ru-ú-ma 12.  [a]-na aš-šu-tim ù mu-tu-tim 13.  ad-di-nu-šum-ma 15.  Obermark notes that the threat to tear out the tongue is commonly found in OB legal documents. The verb used in this text, lāpatu, rarely seen in this kind of threat. The more common verb is šalāpu (Obermark, Adoption, 107). 16.  This sign may also be read [aš-šum].

Cuneiform Texts

265

14.  Da-šu-ra-tum 15.  [MU Ri]-im-Sin LUGAL IN.PAD

16–23. Witnesses 24–26. Date

YOS 8 51: Translation Ellum has distrained Tabbi-Ištar, daughter of Dašuratum. Concerning Tabbi-Ištar, daughter of Dašuratum: he [Ellum] had sworn an oath at the gate of “the Great Goddess,” not to approach her and not to take her. Dašuratum swore an oath by King Rim-Sin: “For five or ten years I shall look after/preserve my daughter for Ellum, for marriage I shall give [her] to him.”

Nuzi: Adoption Contracts HSS 5:60 Nuzi 1.  [ṭup-pi] ma-ru-ti ša 2.  [1 E]-he-el-te-šup DUMU P[u-hi-i]a 3.  [1 Zi]-gi DUMU Ak-ku-ia a-na 4.  [DUMU]-ti i-te-pu-uš ù 5.  [mi-n]u-um-me-e Á.ŠA 6.  [É].MEŠ-tu4-ia ma-na-ha- tu4-ia 7.  [ka-l]u-um-ma-nu-ia 1-en mimmi-ia 8.  [a-na] 1 Zi-gi SUM –din šum-ma 9.  [DUMU]- šu ša 1 E-he-el-te-šup it-tab-šu 10.  [ù] 2-ni-šu HA.LA i-liq-qí 11.  ù 1 Zi-gi te-ir-te-en-nu 12.  šum-ma DUMU.MEŠ ša 1 E-he-el-te-šup 13.  la it-tab-šú ù 1 Zi-gi-ma e-wi-ru 14.  ù 1 E-he-el-te-šup ma-ra na-ka4-ra 15.  ša-na i-na muh-hi 1 Zi-gi la i-pu-uš 16.  a-du4 1 E-he-el-te-šup bal-ṭu4 17.  ù 1 Zi-gi i-pal-la-ah-šu 18.  TÚG i-la-ba-aš-šu ma-an-nu-um-me-e 19.  i-na bi-ri-šu-nu ib-bá-la-ka4-tu4 20.  1 MA.NA KÙ.BABBAR 1 MA.NA KÙ.GI 21.  ú-ma-al-la ṭup-pí i-na 22.  EGIR šú-du4-ti i-na bá-ab a-bu-ul-li 23.  ša7-ṭi-ir

24–33.  Witnesses and Seals

266

Appendix A

HSS 5:60 Translation: Tablet of adoption of Elheltešup son of Puhia: Zigi, son of Akkuia, for sonship is adopted. Whatever of my lands, of my buildings, of my earnings, of my everything, one [share] of my all to Zigi I have given. If a son shall be begotten [naturally] by Elheltešup, then a double portion he shall receive and Zigi shall be second. If a son is not begotten [naturally] by Elheltešup, then Zigi shall be heir. Elheltešup shall not adopt a strange son in addition to Zigi. As long as Elheltešupi lives, Zigi shall clothe him with a robe. Whoever breaks the contract shall pay 1 mina silver and 1 mina gold. Document written after the proclamation in the gate. Witnesses and seals.

HSS 5:67 Nuzi 1.  ṭup-pi ma-ru-ti ša [1 Zi-gi] 2.  DUMU Ak-ku-ia DUMU-šú 1 Še-en-[ni-ma] 3.  a-na ma-ru-ti a-na 1 Šu-[ri-he-ilu id-din] 4.  ù 1 Šu-ri-he-ilu 1 Še-en-ni-[ma] 5.  mi-nu-um-me-ia À.ŠA.MEŠ-ti an-[nu-ti] 6.  ma-na-ha-ti-šú mi-im-ma SUM-šú 7.  1-en NÍG.ŠÚ a-na 1 Še-en-ni-ma SUM-din 8.  šum-ma DUMU-šú ša 1 Šu-ri-hi-ilu it-tab-ši 9.  GAL 2-ni-šú HA.LA i-liq- qì 10.  ù 1 Še-en-ni-ma te-ir-te-en-nu ki 11.  GÌR HA.LA.MEŠ i-liq- qì 12.  a-du-ú 1 Šu-ri-hi-il bal-ṭu4 13.  ù 1 Še-en-ni-ma i-pal-la-ah-šu 14.  im-ma-ti-me-e 1 Šu-ri-hi-ilu 15.  ù 1 Še-en-ni-ma e-wi[-ru]-ma e-pu-uš 16.  ù MÍ Gi-li-im-ni-nu a-na aš-šu-[ti] 17.  a-na 1 Še-en-ni-ma SUM-din šum-ma MÍ Gi-li-im-ni-nu ú-la-ad 18.  ù 1 Še-en-ni-ma aš-ša-ta ša-ni-ta la i-ha-az 19.  ù šum-ma MÍ Gi-li-im-ni-nu la ú-la-ad 20.  MÍ Gi-li-im-ni-nu LÚ.SAL ša KUR nu-ul-i-[a-ú] 21.  a-na aš-šu-ti a-na 1 Še-en-ni-ma i-liq-qì 22.  ù še-ir-ri-ši Gi-li-im-ni-nu [la] u-ma-ar 23.  mi-ni-um-me-e DUMU.MEŠ ša ŠÁ MÍ Gi-li-im-ni-nu 24.  [1 Še]-en-ni-ma ú-la-[ad ù] 25.  [mi-nu-um-me]-e À.ŠA.MEŠ É HI.A [mi-im-ma] 26.  [šum-šu a-na] DUMU.MEŠ na-ad-nu 27.  [šum-ma ma]-ra la ú-la-ad 28.  DUMU.MÍ ša MÍ Gi-li-im-[ni-nu]

Cuneiform Texts

267

29.  À.ŠA.MEŠ É HI 1-en NÍG i-liq-qì 30.  ù 1 Šu-ri-hi-ilu ma-ra ša-ni-[a-na] 31.  i-na muh-hi 1 Še-en-ni-ma la i-pu-uš 32.  ma-an-nu-um-me-e i-na 33.  be-ri-šu-nu- ib-ba-[la-ka-tu] 34.  1 MA.NA KÚ.BABBAR 1 MA.NA KÚ.GI SA5 35.  ù MÍ Ia-la-am-pa a-na GÉME.MEŠ a-na 36.  1 Gi-li-im-nu na-ad-du ù 37.  ù MÍ ša-ti-im-ni-nu a-na a-bu-ti DÙ 38.  a-du bal-ṭu4 i-pal-la-ah-šú 39.  MÍ Ša-ti-im-ni-nu [—] la i-he-ib-pí 40.  šum-ma MÍ Gi-li-im-ni-nu ú-la-ad-ú Še-ni-ni-ma 41.  aš-ša-ta ša-ni-ta i-ha-aza 42.  qa-an-na-šú ša SAG-ma ú-uṣ-ṣí

43–51. Witnesses 52. IGI Na-an-na-tah DUB.SAR 53. DUMU.MEŠ Ri-hu-tù ša 1 Zi-gi i-na Á.ŠA É.HI.MEŠ 54.  ša 1-en NÌ la i-qar-ri-ib-šu ṭup-pí 55.  šu-du-ti ša7-ṭi-it 56–60. Seals

HSS 5:67: Translation Tablet of adoption of Zigi, son of Akkuia; his son Šennima for sonship to Šurihilu he has given. As for Šurihilu, to Šennima all these lands, his earnings, whatever they are, one portion to Šennima he has given. If there shall be a son of Šurihilu [naturally], he shall be firstborn; a double portion he will receive and Šennima shall be second, he shall receive according to the ability of his inheritance share. As long as Šurihilu lives, Šennima shall fear him. When Šurihilu dies, Šennima shall be inheritor. Giliminnu has been given to Šennima as a wife. If Giliminnu bears a child, then Šennima shall not marry a second [wife] and if Giliminnu does not bear a child, then Giliminnu shall take a Lullu woman as a wife for Šennima. The young child Giliminnu shall not send away. All of the sons Giliminnu bears to Šennima, all the lands, buildings, whatever they are, they shall be given to the sons. If there is no son born, the daughter of Gilininnu will receive one portion of the lands and buildings. Šurihilu shall not adopt a second son in addition to Šennima. Whoever breaks the contract, 1 mina silver and 1 mina gold he shall pay. Yalampa has been given to Giliminnu as a handmaid. Šatimninu has been assigned for supervision. As long as she lives, she [Yalampa] shall serve her, and Šatimninu [?] shall not break/annul. If Giliminnu bears (children) to Šennima and he marries another wife, she shall take up her bundle and leave.

268

Appendix A

HSS 19:88 Nuzi 1.  ṭup-pí ma-ar-tù-ti ša 2.  1 MÍ Ka4-an-za-e DUMU.MÍ Na-a-a 3.  DUMU.MÍ-sú 1 MÍ A-zu-a-aš-še 4.  a-na ma-ar-tù-ti a-na 5.  1 MÍ Pá-an-ta-ra DUMU.MÍ Tú-ra-ar-til-la 6.  ù a-na 1 Ta-a-a DUMU Še-er-ta-mi-lu 7.  it-ta-din-na-aš-ši-nu-ti 8.  MÍ Pa-an-ta-ra ù 9.  1 Ta-a-a 20 GIN KÙ.BABBAR.MEŠ 10.  ki-i te-er-ha-ti-šu ša 11.  MÍ Pa-an-ta-ra ù 12.  a-na 1 Ka4-an-za-e SUM-nu 13.  1 Pa-an-ta-ra ù 1 Ta-a-a 14.  MÍ A-zu-a-aš-še a-na 15.  aš-šu-ti i-na-an-din 16.  ù KÙ.BABBAR-šu i-liq-qì 17.  šum-ma 1 A-zu-a-aš-še 18.  pí-ir-qa ir-ta-ši 19.  1 Ka4-an-za-e ú-za-ak-ka4 20.  a-na 1 MÍ Pa-an-ta-ra 21.  ù a-na 1 Ta-a-a i-na-an-din 22.  ma-an-nu-um-me-e i-na be-ri-šu-nu 23.  KI.BAL-tu4 1 MA.NA KÙ.BABBAR 24.  1 MA.NA KÙ.GI ú-ma-al-la 25.  ṭup-pu i-na EGIR-ki šu-dú-ti 26.  i-na URU KÙ.GI-na-DUMU ša-ṭì-ir-mi

27–33. Witnesses 34. ŠU Eh-li-pa-pu DUB.ŠAR

Seals HSS 19:88: Translation Tablet of daughtership of Kanzae, daughter of Naia: her daughter Azuašše for daughtership to Pantara, daughter of Turartilla and to Tya, son of Sertamilu she has given them. Pantara and Tya have given 20 shekels of silver as the bride-price of Azušše to Kanzae. Pantara and Tya will give Azušše as a wife and her silver they will receive. If Azušše has a claimant, Kanzae shall clear her and to Pantara and Tya she shall restore her. Whoever among them breaks [the contract], 1 mina silver and 1 mina gold he shall pay.

Cuneiform Texts

269

Document written after the proclamation in the city of Huraṣinamar . . . by the hand of Ehlipapu the scribe.

JEN 432 Nuzi Obverse: 1.  [ṭup-pí ma]-ar-tu-ti 2.  [ù] ka-lu-ti ša 1 A-kib-til-la DUMU A-ri-ip-har-ra 3.  [DUMU.MUNUS]-sú MÍ Wa-še-el-li 4.  a-na DUMU.MUNUS-ti ù a-na kal-lu-ti 5.  a-na 1 Ta-ak-ku DUMU En-na-ma-ti it-ta-ad-nu 6.  1 Ta-ak-ku MÍ Wa-še-el-li 7.  ha-aš-hu-ú-mi a-na aš-šu-ti 8.  [a-na] LÚ ÌR-šu a-na-din 9.  ha-aš-hu-ú-mi a-na LÚ ša [a-na-ma-ru-ti] ša ip-šu a-na-din 10.  ù šum-ma ha-aš-hu 1 Ta-ak-ku-ma 11.  a-na aš-šu-ta [it]-ta-ha-az-zu 12.  40 GÍN KÙ.BABBAR.MEŠ ha-ša-hu-še-en-nu   a-na 1 A-kib-til-la a-šar 1 Ta-ak-ku il-te-qi 13.  mi-nu-um-me-e še-ir-ra-šu 14.  ša uš-tu ŠÀ-bi ša MÍ Wa-še-el-li 15.  ša ú-uz-zu-ú a-na 1 Ta-ak-ku 16.  LÚ ú GÉME.MEŠ-tu4 ù lu-ú ÌR.MEŠ-du 17.  ù ar-ka-az-zu ša MÍ Wa-še-el-li 18.  a-na ša 1 Ta-ak-ku-ma 19.  [ú MÍ W]a-še-el-li 20.  [adi baltat uš]-tu4 21.  [É ša 1 Ta-ak]-ku la ú-uṣ-ṣú

Reverse: 22.  [šum-ma MÍ] Wa-še-el-li pi-ir-qà 23.  [ir-ta-ši] 1 A-kap-til-la 24.  a-bu-šu ú-za-ak-ma 25.  a-na 1 Ta-ak-ku i-na-an-dì-nu 26.  ma-an-nu i-na bi-ri-šu-nu 27.  ša i-ba-ka-tù1 MA.NA KÙ.BABBAR 28.  1 MA.NA KÙ.GI SA5.MEŠ 29.  tup-pi i-na KÁ.GAL ša URU Dur-ša 30.  ša-ti-it

31–39. (Witnesses) 40–14. (Seals) 42. ù EME-šu ša 1 A-kib-[til-la x] pa-ni IGI.MEŠ an-nu-ti iq-ta-bi 43.  40 GÍN KÙ.BABBAR te-ir-ha-[as-su]

270

Appendix A

44.  a-šar 1 Ta-ak-ku el-te-gi

JEN 432: Translation Tablet of daughter-ship and daughter-in-law-ship of Akibtilla son of Aripharra whose daughter Wašelli for daughter and daughter-in-law-ship to Takku son of Ennamati was given. Takku: “As for Wašelli, if I desire, I will give (her) to [my] slave for a wife; if I desire I will give her to an adopted son.” And if he desires, Takku shall take her as a wife (for himself). Forty shekels of silver, the h.-silver 17 to Akibtilla from Takku he (Akibtilla) shall receive. Any of the children who come out from Wašelli (which she bears) belong to Takku as either a maidservant or male servant and that which comes after her (her estate) belongs belongs to Takku. And Wašelli, for as long as she lives, from the house of Takku she shall not depart. If Wašelli shall acquire a claim against her, Akibtilla, her father, shall clear (her) and give her to Takku. Whoever among them breaks the contract, 1 mina silver and 1 mina gold they shall pay. Document written in the gate of the city of Durša.

(Witnesses and Seals) “His statement, which Akibtilla spoke before these witnesses: ‘40 shekels silver, the bride price from Takku he has received.’”

JEN 433 Nuzi Obverse 1.  ṭup-pi ma-ar-tù-ti ù ka-lu-ti 2.  [š]a 1 Ta-a-a DUMU Pil-ahe-MEŠ-šu 18 3.  MÍ Nu-hu-ú-a ma-ra-az-zu 4.  [a-na] ma-ar-tù-ti ù ka-lu-ti 5.  [a-na] 1 Tar-mi-til-la DUMU Šur-ki-til-la SUM-din 6.  ù 1 Tar-mi-til-la a-na DAM-ti a-na 7.  [ÌR]-šu i-na-an-din šum-ma ha-ši-ih 8.  [i-na] bá-a-bi i-na-an-din-ma ù KÙ.BABBAR-šu 17.  This translation follows CAD and translates hašahušennu, “h.-silver.” This is a Hurrian word. “Money is a form of silver normally used only for payments involved in marriage transactions and in ‘loans’ or sales of slave girls” (CAD Ḥ 136). It is also found in Nuzi texts documenting the adoption of young girls. Understanding this as related to šennu ‘brother’, Speiser believed this to mean “brothership” money in his discussion of AASOR 26 (AASOR 10 pp. 24–25). Cassin disagrees and suggests that it is the silver paid to the father or guardian of the young girl in compensation for the loss of his rights over her (E. M. Cassin, L’adoption à Nuzi [Paris: Adrien-Maisonneuve, 1938], 304). 18.  Gelb notes that Nuhuia is the daughter of Ta-a-a and the granddaughter of Nûr(NE)ahhē pl-šu (I. Gelb, Nuzi Personal Names [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1943], 107).

Cuneiform Texts

271

9.  [i]-li-iq-qì šum-ma 1 ÌR-sú BA.BAD 10.  ù a-na ša-a-ni a-na DAM-ti i-na-an-din EGIR-sú 11.  ù ma-nu uṣ-ṣú ša MÍ nu-hu-ú-a ša 1 Tar-mi-til-la-ma 12.  ul-tu É-it 1 Tar-mi-til-la 13.  MÍ Nu-hu-ú-a a-dì-I TIL.LA 14.  ù la ú-uṣ-ṣi ma-an-nu 15.  ša i-na DAL.BA.(AN).NA-šu-nu KI.BAL-tu4 16.  1 MA.NA KÙ.BABBAR 1 MA.NA KÙ.GI MÁL 17.  šum-ma MÍ Nu-hu-ú-a i-na É-it 18.  1 Tar-mi-til-la la-am mu-ti-šu [it-it ša-ni] 19.  i-it-ti-ku 19 di-nu ana-a-[ki] 20.  e-mid še-ir-ri-ti-šu ša MÍ [Nu-hu-ú]-a 21.  GÉME.MEŠ ù ÌR.MEŠ ù 1 Tar-mi-til-la 22.  IMERU ŠE.MEŠ ù 10 GÍN KÙ.BABBAR ha-ša-hu-še-en-nu 23.  ki-ma te-ir-ha-ti-šu ša MÍ Nu-hu-ú-a a-na 24.  1 Ta-a-a SUM-din ù 25.  i-ta-bal

Reverse 26–34. (Witnesses) 35. IGI A-ki-ip-ta-še-en-ni DUB.SAR 36.  [tup]-pi i-na EGIR šu-du-ti i-na pa-ni 37. 1 Ti-e-eš-ur-hi LÚ ha-za-an-nu ša-ti-ir 38–41. (Seals)

JEN 433: Translation Tablet of daughter-ship and daughter-in-lawship of Taya, son of Pilahešu, whose daughter Nuhua for daughter and daughter-in-lawship to Tarmitilla son of Šurkitukla was given. Tarmitila may give (her) for a wife to his slave. If he desires, he may sell her and take the money. If his slave dies, then to another he may give her for a wife. That which comes after her (her estate) and whoever comes out of Nuhua [i.e., children] belong to Tarmitilla. As long as Nuhua lives, from the house of Tarmitilla she shall not go out. Whoever among them breaks the contract, 1 mina silver and 1 mina gold they shall pay. If Nuhua, while in the house of Tarmitilla, lies with another before her husband, the punishment of fornication 20 shall be imposed on her. Nuhua’s young children (be it a girl or boy) shall be a maidservant or a male servant. Tarmitilla has brought an imer (donkey load) of grain and 10 shekels of silver as the h.-money, equal to that of the bride price of Nuhua and Taya has taken it. 19.  PN2 lām mutišu i-it-ti-ku (CAD N 197). 20.  CAD N, 197: nâku: “to have illicit sexual intercourse, to fornicate.” See also AASOR 16 nos. 4:8, 10, 15, 21 and HSS 19:3.13 (i-na-ak-ši).

272

Appendix A Seal of Akiptašenni, the scribe. Document written after the proclamation before Tešurhi the town crier.”

JEN 440R (Transliterated and Translated by M. P. Maidman) 21 Nuzi 1.  ṭup-pí ri-ik-sí ša mEn-na-ma-t[i] DUMU Te-hi-ip-til-la 2.  it-ti mHu-lu-[uk]-ka4 DUMU Im-pur-t[ù] 3.  aš-šum fPu-hu-ya DUMU.MÍ Mu-šu-ya 4.  ri-ik-sà ir-ku-us 5.  ù i-na pa-an-nu-um-ma fPu-hu-ya 6.  ma-ar-tù-ti ù kál-lu-ti 7.  i-na É mTe-hi-ip-til-la x [?] 8.  [ù i]-na-an-na mEn-na-ma-ti 9.  [a!?-na? D]AM-ti a-na mHu-[lu]-[uk-ka4 i-din] 10.  ù mHu-[lu]-uk- ka4 a-n[a mEn-na-ma-ti] 11.  il-te-en [ṣú]ha-a[r-ta/tu (ú) š]u-un-šu 12.  fKu-up-p[é (x)?] 13.  a-na te-er-[ha-t]a i-din 14.  [ù]? fKu-u[p]-pé ha-di mE-na-[ma]-ti [x LÚ] i-[na-an]-din ha-di 15.  [a-na] [xxx] i-na-an-din 16.  ha-[di a-na] DUMU-šu i-na-an-din 17.  [šu]m-ma 1 LÚ i-ma-at a-ma [ša]-ni-i i-na-an-din 18.  [šum]-ma ša-ni-[ta] i-ma-at a-na [ša]-aš-ši [i-na-an]-[din] 19.  [ù-ma-ad f]Ku-up-pè ú-la-a[d (x)] 20.  [DUMU.MEŠ ÌR.MEŠ ù DUMU.MÍ.MEŠ] GEMÉ.MEŠ 21.  [ ] [x i-na [ ] 22.  [ ] [x] [ ] 23.  [ ] [x] 24.  [a-di-(i) mE-na]-[ma-ti] bal-ṭu4 25.  [mHu-lu-u]k- ka4 [i-pá-la]-ah-šu 26.  [ ] [x] fPu-[hu]-ya 27.  [ù? mHu-l]u-uk-ka4 iš-[tu É] mE-na-ma-ti 28.  [ ] [x] DU il-qú-ú [ù]? DUMU.MEŠ ù DUMU.MÍ.MEŠ ša mHu-lu-uk-[ka4]

29–45.  Witnesses and Seals

JEN 440R: Translation (1–4) Contract tablet of Enna-mati son of Tehip-tilla. He made a contract with Hulukka son of Impurtu regarding Puhuya daughter of Mušuya. 21.  M. P. Maidman, “Joins to Five Published Nuzi Texts,” JCS 42 (1990): 71–85; see also J. M. Breneman, Nuzi Marriage Contracts (Ph.D. diss., Brandeis University, 1971), 70–72. Here he collates together JEN 440 and JEN 638.

Cuneiform Texts

273

(5–9) Now formerly Puhuya (dwelt?) in the household of Tehip-tilla in “daughtership” and “daughter-in-law-ship”; and now Enna-mati [has given] 22 (her) as wife to Hulukka. (10–13) And Hulukka has given as bride price to [Enna-mati] one servant girl named Kuppe. 23 (14–16) Now as for Kuppe, if it please Enna-mati, he may give (her) to one (?) man, if it please him, he may give (her) to . . . 24 if it please him, he may give (her) to a son of his. (17–18) Should the first man die, he may give (her) to a second, should the second (!) die, he may give (her) to a third. (19–21) And should Kuppe bear many?? (children) [the sons shall be slaves and the daughters] female slaves [in? Enna-mati’s? household] (22–23) . . . (24–25) As long as Enna-mati lives, Hulukka [Kuppe?] 25 shall reverently serve him. (26–28) . . . Puhuya [and?] Hulukka have taken . . . from the household of Enna-mati and ⟨have . . . -ed⟩ the son and daughters for Hulukka. (29–25) Witnesses and Scribes

SMN 2074 26 (Speiser No. 39) Nuzi 1.  fTu-ul-pu-un-na-a-a mārat Še-el-lu-un-a-a 2.  it-ti fZa-am-mi-in-ni mārat I-la-ab-ri-ia-aš 3.  ù it-ti mWa-an-ti-ia mār I-la-ab-ri-ia 4.  aš-šum še-ei-ri-šu ša fZa-am-mi-in-ni 5.  ša a-na mAr-ru-um-ba warditi 6.  ša fTu-ul-pu-un-na-a-a [l]u? wa-al-du 7.  i-na di-ni a-na pa-ni daiānimeš 8.  i-te-lu-ú-ma ù um-ma 9.  fTu-ul-pu-un-na-a-a-ma 10.  še-ir-ri-šu ša fZa-am-mi-in-[ni] 11.  a-na mAr-ru-um-ba (sic) wardi-ia 12.  wa-al-du-mi ù lišānemeš-šu-nu 13.  ša fZa-am-mu-ni ù ša 14.  mWa-an-ti-ia a-na pa-ni daiānimeš 22.  Breneman reads um-te-ši-ir ‘relinquished’. 23.  Breneman reads imêra? ‘donkey’ and not suharta/tu ‘servant girl’. 24.  Breneman reads wardi, “slave.” 25. While Maidman’s transliteration of line 25 states that Hulukka is the one to serve Enna-mati, it would make more sense if the text read “Kuppe, the adopted girl, is to serve Ennamati as long as he lives.” 26.  Transliteration taken from Speiser, AASOR 16 no. 39.

274

Appendix A

15.  iq-ta-bu-ú a-an-ni-mi 16.  a-na mAr-ru-um-pa wardi 17.  ša fTúl-pu-un-na-a-a wa-al-du-mi 18.  i-na di-ni fTu-ul-pu-un-na-a-a 19.  il-te-e-ma ù še-ir-ri-šu 20.  ša fZa-am-mi-in-ni 21.  [ša a-na] mAr-ru-um-[ba] [wa-a]l-du 22.  . . . . . . r[i]-el-[te-qì]? 23.  . . . . . . . . -ši 24.  . . . . . a-na amtiti 25.  Five Seals

SMN 2074 (Speiser No. 39): Translation “Tulpunnaya, daughter of Šeltuamminni, with Zamminni, daughter of Ilabriyaš and with Wantiya, son of Ilabriya, concerning the children of Zamminni who were (in reality) born to Arrumba the slave of Tulpunnaya, in a lawsuit they have appeared before the judges. Thus says Tulpunnaya: The children of Zamminni were born to my slave Arrumba.” And the oral declarations of Zamminni and of Wantiya spoke before the judges: “Yes! To Arrumba, slave of Tulpunnaya they were born.” In the lawsuit Tulpunnaya came up (won) and the children of Zamminni and who to Arrumba were born . . . [x] took.

Middle Assyrian Laws MAL A 39 VAT 10000 Col. V 26.  šum-ma LÚ la-a DUMU.MUNUS ša a-na mu-te 27.  it-ti-din šum-ma pa-ni-ma 28.  a-bu-ša hab-bu-ul ki-i ša-par-te 29.  še-šu-baṭ um-mi-a-nu pa-ni-ú 30.  it-tal-ka i-na UGU ta-di-na-a-ne 31.  ša-a MÍ ŠÁM MÍ i-šal-lim 32.  šum-ma a-na ta-ad-a-ni la-áš-šu 33.  LÚ ta-di-na-na i-laq-qí 34.  ù šum-ma i-na lum-ni ba-lu-ṭa-at 35.  a-na mu-bal-li-tá-ni-[ša za]-ku-at 36.  ù šum-ma LÚ a-hi-za-a-[nu ša]-a MÍ 37.  lu-ù ṭup-pa ul-ta [x-x] –ú-šu 38.  ù lu-ú ru-gu-[um-ma-n]u-a 39.  ir-ti-ši-ú-n[i-e]š-šu 40.  ŠÁM MÍ ú [. . . . .] 41.  ù ta-di-na-a-nu [. . . . .]

Cuneiform Texts

275

MAL A 39: Translation If a man should give one who is not his daughter to a husband, if previously her father was in debt and she was dwelling as a pledge (in the creditor’s house) and a prior creditor steps forward, he (the prior creditor) shall receive the price of the woman in full from the one giving the woman in marriage. If he has nothing to give, he (the prior creditor) shall take the giver. And if she was saved from a calamity, she is clear before the one who saved her. 27 And if the one who marries the woman causes either a document to be . . . for him or they raise a claim against him, the price of the woman . . . and the one giving . . .

MAL A 48 VAT 10000 Col. 7 32. šum-ma LÚ DUMU.MÍ LÚ hab-bu-li-šu 33.  ša-a ki-i hu-bu-ul-le 34.  i-na É-šu us-bu-tu-ú-ni 35.  a-bu-ša i-ša-ah-a-al 36.  a-na mu-te i-id-da-an-ši 37.  šum-ma a-bu-ša la ma-gir la-a id-dan 38.  šum-ma a-bu-ša me-e-it 39.  1-en i-na ŠEŠ.MEŠ-ša i-ša-ah-a-al 40.  ù šu-ut a-na ŠEŠ.MEŠ-ša i-qab-bi 41. šum-ma ŠEŠ i-qa-ab-bi 42.  ma-a a-ha-ti a-di 1 ITI UD.MEŠ a-pa-tar 43.  šum-ma a-di 1 ITI.UD.MEŠ la-a ip-ta-tar 44.  be-el ha-di-ma ú-za-ak-a-ši 45.  a-na mu-te i-id-dan ši 46.  [. . .] i 47.  [. . .] dan-ši 48.  [. . .] 49.  [. . .] 50.  [. . .] šu-nu 51.  [. . .] šu-nu 52.  [. . .] šu

27.  The term lumnu, meaning ‘misfortune, evil fate’, is often found in magic and omen texts. The definition ‘catastrophe’, is much rarer. In addition to this text, which CAD translates: “If she has been saved from disaster, she is free (of claims and belongs) to the one who saved her,” the term lumnu is found in TCL 9 110. Line 7 of that text reads: lum-nu mādu ina nār Ulai nītamar ‘we have experienced a great calamity on the Ulai river (many boats have sunk)’ (CAD L 237). The term zakuat, comes from the verb zakû, meaning ‘to clear’. Used in legal documents the term refers to clearing claims resulting from private obligations in real estate or the sale of slaves. MAL 39, then, is unusual as it refers to an obligation of a different nature. Here it seems to imply that the one saving the girl’s life has a claim on her life. This claim must be cleared before the girl can be given in marriage.

276

Appendix A

MAL A 48: Translation If a man (wishes to give in marriage) the daughter of his debtor, who as a debt pledge is dwelling in his house . . . he shall ask her father and give her to a husband. If her father does not agree, he shall not give her. If her father is dead, he shall ask one of her brothers. That one shall talk to her (other) brothers. If a brother says: “In one month I shall redeem my sister,” if in one month he does not redeem her, the creditor, if he desires, shall free her of the claim and give her to a husband . . . according to . . . he shall give her.

MAL C 2 VAT 10093  8. [šumma LÚ lu DUMU LÚ] ú-lu DUMU.MUNUS LÚ ša ki-i KÙ.BABBAR ù ki-i  9.  [šaparte ina É-šu uš]- bu-ni a-na KÙ.BABBAR a-na LÚ ša-ni-im-ma 10.  [iddin u mamma šaniamma] ša i-na É-šu uš-bu-ni id-din 11.  [ubta’erušu] i-na KÙ.BABBAR-šu qa-as-su el-el-[li] 12.  [. . .]-x šu a-na EN mìm-mu-ú i-dan 13.  [x ina haṭṭāte im]-ah-hu-sú-šu 20 UD.MEŠ ši-par LUGAL e-pa-aš

MAL C 2: Translation “If a man sells to another man, either the son of a man or the daughter of a man, who is living in his house, for a silver debt or as a pledge or whoever else is dwelling in his house (he sells), they shall prove and convict him, his silver he shall forfeit and give as a present . . . to the owner of the property he shall give its x; they shall strike him [x blows with rods] and he shall do 20 days in the king’s service.”

MAL C 3 VAT 10093 14.  [šumma LÚ lu DUMU LÚ] ù-lu DUMU.MUNUS LÚ ša ki-i KÙ.BABBAR ù ki-i ša-par-te 15.  [ina É-šu usbuni] a-na KUR ša-ni-te a-na KÙ.BABBAR id-din 16.  [ubta’erušu ukt]a-i-nu-šu i-na KÙ.BABBAR-šu qa-aṣ-su e-el-li 17.  [. . . x-šu ana EN] mì-mu-ú id-da-an 18.  [x ina haṭṭāte im]-ma-hu-ṣu-šu 40 UD.MEŠ ši-par LUGAL e-pa-aš 19.  ù šum-ma LÚ ša iddinu]-ni i-na KUR ša-ni-ti mé-et 20.  [napšate umal]-la LÚ aš-šu-ra-ia-ú ù MÍ aš-šu-ra-i-tu4 21.  [ša ana ŠÀM gam]-er la-qé-ú-ni a-na KUR ša-ni-ti [inad]-din

MAL C 3: Translation If a man sells to another man either a son of a man or a daughter of a man, who is living in his house, into a foreign land for silver or as a pledge, they shall prove and convict him, his silver he shall forfeit and give it (back) to the owner of the property. He shall give its x to the owner of the property.

Cuneiform Texts

277

They shall strike him [x blows with rods] and 40 days in the king’s service he shall do. And if the man (or woman) he sells dies in foreign land, he shall make full payment of a life. He may sell into a foreign land either an Assyrian man or an Assyrian woman, who for full value he had taken.

Neo-Babylonian Period: Private Documents Camb. 334 (Translated by M. Dandamaev) Iddina-Nabu son of Mušezib-Bel has voluntarily sold to Itti-Marduk-baltu son of Nabu-ahhe-iddin descendant of Egibi his slave woman (qal-latsu) Nana-ittija and her daughter of three months, an Egyptian from his booty of the bow, for two minas of silver as the full price. Iddina-Nabu has received the silver, the two minas, the price of Nana-ittija and her daughter from the hand of Itti-Marduk-baltu. Iddina-Nabu is responsible for false claims for vindication suits (or) for claims that she is a royal slave (or) a free person which may arise concerning Nana-ittja and her daughter. Witnesses (names of 4 persons), scribe (name). Babylon, the 22nd day of (the month) Kislimu, the 6th year of Cambyses, king of Babylon, king of lands. This is in addition to the debt of 240 kur of dates which Iddina-Nabu(!) owes Itti-marduk-balatu.”

Nbk. 100 (Transliterated and Translated by M. Dandamaev) Nebuchadnezzar 1.  (m)Ib-na-a apil-šú ša (m)šum-ukin ina hu-ud lîb-bi-šú 2.  (f)š