666
marriage, while he remained the slave of his master. He was thus
a slave, a son and a married man at the same time.4.3.3.3 Paternity in the child of a slave concubine vested in her
owner, as one of the incidents of ownership (Emar 177). In RE 82,
the testator adopted a man and gave him her two sons in adoption.
Clauses in the document suggest that the “sons” were in fact the
children of her slave woman whom she married offto her adopted
son (who may himself have been her freed slave and even the bio-
logical father).4.3.3.4 In theory, a slave could not own property (although he
could conduct legal transactions). In practice, a slave could have a
peculium, which he administered for his own benefit. The slave in
ASJ 14:46 received an inheritance from his adoptrix, which would
devolve upon his free children. He was also expressly permitted to
marry offhis sons and daughters, which would have involved tak-
ing and receiving betrothal payments. In Emar 18, all the “house-
hold” that a slave made in the service of his owner was decreed by
the king to belong to his children, who were free.^26 The estate of
the slave’s father (who was free) was to be inherited directly by the
grandsons.4.3.3.5 A slave could act as the agent of his owner in legal trans-
actions. In Emar 21, a slave received a redemption payment on
behalf of his owner.4.3.3.6 Enigmatic clauses in two sale documents punish denial by
a slave of his status (Emar 211; AO 5:12).4.3.4 Termination
4.3.4.1 Manumission
4.3.4.1.1 A slave might be manumitted by his owner. Freedom was
expressed in various ways: “released to (the god) Shamash” (Emar
177; RE 27; TBR 41), “released to maryannustatus” (RE 66), “released
to arawannustatus” (TBR 32), or “may go where he pleases” (RE(^26) For a different interpretation, see Durand, Review.. ., 176.
WESTBROOK_f16–657-691 8/27/03 12:29 PM Page 666