392
5.3.2 Where the adoptee was under the authority of parents, a
prior contract with the latter was necessary whereby the parents first
relinquished their authority. Where the adoptee was an independ-
ent adult, he himself would be a party to the contract, as well as
its object. The contract noted either that the adoption was “with
his consent” (ina migri“uBIN 2 75:2 = Charpin, Clergé.. ., 162–64)
or that the adopters adopted him “from himself ” (itti ramàni“uTJA
28:1 = ibid., 5–7; Sum. ki.ní.te.na YOS 8 120:2).5.3.3 An infant foundling could be adopted unilaterally, provided
it had been abandoned, not merely lost (UET 5 260). The law codes
applied evidentiary presumptions: If the child was found with its
amniotic fluid still on it, that is, without the normal post-natal ablu-
tions, it was deemed abandoned (LH 185). If on the other hand, at
the time of adoption, the child was searching for its parents, it was
deemed merely lost and could later be reclaimed by the natural par-
ents (LH 189).^885.3.4 Adoption was by no means confined to childless couples or
to the sphere of family affection. Its widespread use derived from
two advantages that it gave. From the point of view of the adopter,
it was a way of ensuring support in his old age. Theoretically, this
was the duty of a son, but where no son was available or even where
it was merely more convenient, an outsider might be adopted for
this purpose.^89 The manumission of a slave with a duty to support
the former owner (see 4.4.5.1 above) was most often combined with
adoption of the slave, who was then doubly bound by the duties of
the contract and of sonship.^90 For the adoptee, it was a way to
acquire an inheritance share. The two could be combined in a busi-
ness arrangement: an elderly person adopted an adult who would
support him in return for a share in his inheritance, sometimes even
with immediate assignment of the share. The level of support was
often specified as quantities of rations—grain, wool and oil, the three
staples.^91(^88) Yaron, “Varia.. .”; Malul, “Adoption.. .” 106–10; Westbrook, “Adoption
Laws. ..,” 195–97; cf. Wilcke, ““ilip rèmim.. .”; Veenhof, ““ilip rèmim.. .”
(^89) See Stol, “Care of the Elderly.. .,” 59–84.
(^90) E.g., CT 4 42a = UAZP 23.
(^91) See Stone and Owen, Adoption.. ., 2–5, 8, Table 3.
WESTBROOK_f10–360-430 8/27/03 12:26 PM Page 392