702
followed by the words “and it cannot be remitted” (ul iddarar), which
clearly refer to the legal inefficacy of the debt-release decrees con-
cerning these particular loans (AT 29, AT 30, AT 31, AT 38, AT 42).7.4.4 No reference to the duration of the loan is made in our texts;
in fact, as provided in AT 20, it could be the whole lifetime of the
debtor or his heirs.7.4.5 Pledges were usually personal and included the debtor him-
self, his wife, and his children.^22 The provision states “for this money
(lit., silver) the debtor (with his wife and children) will stay in the
creditor’s house as a pledge” (kìma kaspim annîm ana mazzazànim ana
bìt PN wa“ib/wa“bù). We already noted that the pledge is called
“hostage” on one occasion and “slave” in two other texts. It is gen-
erally assumed that these pledges were antichretic in nature. Ultimate
failure to pay back the debt could end in self-sale (as in AT 65
above; evidence for the implicit existence of fixed terms for loans?).
In some cases of self-pledge, an additional surety (qatàtu) was required,
usually chosen from among the debtor’s family. Only one text (AT
23) specifies what motivated such a measure, namely, the possible
flight or disappearance of the pledge (probably including his death
too).7.4.6 Four texts attest to the redemption (pa†àrum) of debtors from
their creditors (bèl ¢ubullim) by a third person. In all cases, the redeemer
is Ammitaqum, the ruler of Alalakh, who pays back the debt and
automatically becomes their new creditor.7.5 Deposit
One reference may come from a litigation document (AT 8), where
the plaintiffclaims the return of a large amount of silver that had
been deposited (paqàdum) by the ruler of Alalakh. Another possible
example can be found in what seems to be a written testimony (AT
119). The declaration apparently reports on a theft of grain that had
been deposited (paqàdum) by the alleged thief.(^22) See Eichler, Indenture.. ., 63–75; Mendelsohn, “On Slavery in Alalakh,” 66f.
WESTBROOK_f17–692-717 8/27/03 12:29 PM Page 702