A History of Ancient Near Eastern Law

(Romina) #1

   497


4.1.3 Foreigners
A narûpassage reads: “Whensoever in the future, be he Elamite, or
Subarian, or Amorite, or Akkadian, officer, magistrate, who would
come forward and litigate...”^66 This passage suggests that any of
those persons so identified had access to the legal system.
Most narûs prohibit ordering a foreigner (a¢amma) or a stranger
(nakra) to violate the monument.^67 Because these terms for “foreigner”
occur in the same context as “blind man” or “ignoramus,” the impli-
cation clearly is that such persons cannot know any better. Sanction
for violating the monument is to fall upon the (native-born) person
who would take advantage of a foreigner’s ignorance in order to
violate the entitlement. Such action is severely punishable. This implies
that in some circumstances a foreigner might be excused for not
understanding the laws or traditions of the land.
Foreigners might also be identified as “fugitive” (munabittu). In one
text, a craftsman is identified both as “fugitive” and “Hanigalbatian”
(›anigalbatû).^68 The text itself commemorates a royal land grant to
the man, ostensibly in appreciation for services rendered to the king.
But in another text, a man identified as an “Elamite fugitive” fared
quite differently: he was fettered with a heavy copper chain and
assigned, presumably as a slave, to the “apothecary of the house of
the assembly.”^69

4.2 Class


Class distinctions as known from the Old Babylonian law codes are
changed in the Middle Babylonian sources.^70 The abstract term
awìlùtu/amèlùtu “awìlu-ship” or “-status,” denoting full citizenship in
the earlier period, is used mostly in Middle Babylonian to designate
slaves or slave status.^71

(^66) L. 7076 (Iraq Museum) (= Arnaud, “Deux kudurru.. .” 170–72).
(^67) MDP 2 99.
(^68) MDP 2 pl. 20 (= Wohl, “Agaptaha...”).
(^69) D-K 2.
(^70) Brinkman, “Forced Laborers.. .,” 21.
(^71) Ibid. Brinkman’s conclusions are based on his study of temple ration lists, and
he notes that in the Middle Babylonian period, the terminology is potentially a
“legal historian’s nightmare.”
WESTBROOK_f12–484-520 8/27/03 12:27 PM Page 497

Free download pdf