- 963
temple goods, including agricultural products (AnOr 8 39; GCCI 1
380; YOS 7 115), livestock (Sack 80; YOS 7 7; YOS 17 32), and
precious metals (Nbk. 104; YOS 6 152; YOS 19 97).^226 The impo-
sition of a thirty-fold fine has led to speculation that the provision
in the Laws of Hammurabi that deals with temple theft (8) was being
enforced during this period.^227 Later records reveal even harsher
penalties for temple thieves. Third-century records from Babylon
refer to several persons who were imprisoned and then executed by
burning for stealing temple property.^2288.4.1.2 Penalties for theft of private property varied. Some docu-
ments indicate that only simple compensation was required (BE 9
24; Nbk. 419; cf. PBS 2/1 85). At least one document sets forth a
fine equal to twice the amount stolen (Sack 79).^229 Yet another doc-
ument reveals that the stolen goods were retrieved, the defendant
was put in prison, and his assets were about to be seized and sold,
with the proceeds going to the plaintiff (CT 22 230). Other cases
involving theft of private property were settled out of court, usually
with the settlement payment equaling the amount of the alleged theft
(BE 9 69; PBS 2/1 140).8.4.2 Burglary
Several documents show defendants on trial for entering another per-
son’s house, either by force or with help from an accomplice, and
removing property (AnOr 8 27; Cyr 329; JCS28 45 [no. 39]; YOS
6 108). In these cases, the court heard testimony and examined phys-
ical evidence, but no verdicts are recorded. Thus, it is not clear
whether trespass was an aggravating factor. Those guilty of burglary(^226) Whether the courts actually expected such a large fine to be paid or whether
the fine was imposed simply to force the criminals to pay as much as they could
is unclear. Prisons were in use during this period, and it may have been that thieves
were kept in prison (perhaps this meant a type of servitude) until they or their fam-
ily members were able to pay the fine or, at least, a satisfactory amount. Both the
Eanna temple in Uruk (YOS 7 97) and the Ebabbar temple in Sippar (CT 22 230)
had their own prisons, and there are references to the holding of convicted crim-
inals there (San Nicolò, “Eine kleine Gefängnismeuterei.. .”; see also 8.10.3 below).
(^227) San Nicolò, “Parerga Babylonica VII.. .,” 327–28; and Figulla, “Lawsuit
Concerning.. .,” 100. LH 8 prescribes a thirtyfold fine for theft of an ox, sheep,
donkey, pig, or boat belonging to a temple or the palace.
(^228) Joannès, “Une chronique judiciaire...”
(^229) The subject matter of this document is actually the receiving of stolen goods.
But, since receivers are treated in the same manner as thieves (see 8.4.5 below), it
may be presumed that the thief in this case was also subject to a twofold fine.
westbrook_f26_911-974 8/27/03 1:36 PM Page 963