A female slave could become her master’s con- cubine. Her children were free (§§ 170-171); and so was she, at her master’s death. If her master chose he could acknowledge her children, and then they inherited equally with the children of his free wife ; but these had first choice in the sharing of his property (§ 170). If she was the property of a free woman who was married, the slave girl might be given by her mistress to her hus- band to bear him children (§ 144). Her mistress retained the right to punish presumption and insolence by degradation to full slavery again ; but the slave girl, if she had borne children to-her master, could not be sold. At his death she was free (§§ 146, 147).
The slave was not always contented with his. lot. He might run away. His captor was bound to bring him back to his master, and was then rewarded by statute with a payment of two shekels ($17). But if the captor kept him in his own house, and did not give him up on demand, he was punished with death (§ 19). So was any one who enticed a slave away from his master (§ 15). The slave seems to have had liberty to go about freely in the city where his master lived, but not to leave the city without his master’s consent ($15). A slave usually had his owner’s name, or some mark by which he could be recog- nized, branded or tattooed on his arm. If a cap- tured fugitive slave would not name his owner, he had to be taken to the ‘ palace’ or governor’s residence, and there put to the question, and so restored to the owner (§ 18). We find from the letters that the officers over the levy claimed, for the corvée, unowned slaves (B? 419). The tattoo- ing of the “slave’s mark was the business of the gallabu, who could also render it irrecognizable again. To do this without the consent of the owner, rendered the gallabw liable to have his hands cut off (§ 226). If he had been deceived into doing this by some one who was judged to have designs on that slave, the gallabu could swear to his imnocence and be let off; but the fraudulent holder of the slave was treated as aslave stealer, and put to death (§ 227). ‘To ‘mark’ a man was equivalent to reducing him to slavery. This might be done to a rebellious child by the Sumerian laws. Also it might be inflicted on a man for slander (§ 127), or on a rebellious or insolent slave (§ 146). A fugitive slave might be put in chains by hismaster. Harbouring a fugitive was punished with death (§ 16).
_ The slaves were probably recruited pe from captives taken in war. We see that certain persons might be bought abroad and brought back by merchants. These would, no doubt, be offered for sale as slaves. But, if they were natives of Babylonia, their relatives, their town temple, or,
590 CODE OF HAMMURABI
CODE OF HAMMURABI
eee
in the last resort, the State, would ransom them ($32). If they had been slaves before, in Babylonia, it seems that they had to be set at liberty on being brought back (§ 280). But the Code may only mean that they returned to their former con- dition. Foreigners, once slaves in Babylonia, captured thence in war, bought abroad by a merchant and again offered for sale by him in Babylonia, if recognized by a former master, might be re-bought by him at the price the merchant gave for them abroad (§ 281). The Code appar- ently aims at excluding a profit on the trans- action, but leaves the price to be settled by the merchant’s oath as to the money paid by him.
There is no trace in the Code, or contemporary documents, of serfs, or glebe adscripti, such as were so common in Assyria and the district: about Harran in the 7th cent. B.C. (see ‘ Harran census,’ Assyriologische Bibliothek, xvii.). The serf seems to have held his lands by inheritance, and had property of his own. The class was largely re- cruited from slaves and town artisans. A sertf’s father is usually named. He was sold with the land, and subject apparently to arth service, Many captives taken in war were settled as serfs, and the Assyrian kings usually assigned lands to the transported peoples. :
The slave proper usually appears as fatherlesgs ; but a number of cases occur at all periods, when parents sell their children. Free men might be sold for debt, or reduced to slavery as punishment for crime. In the latter case they probably became public slaves. Slaves were subject to the corvee, as king’s servants. Even female slaves owed ser. vice to the State—usually work, such as weaving or spinning. It was of great importance to a buyer of a slave whether this duty had been discharged, and he often demanded a guarantee that it was no longer due. It probably was confined to a number of years—six seems likely in the case of the Harran serfs. A great many slaves were skilled workmen ; they were often apprenticed to learn a trade. But in early times the trades were in the hands of free men.
Slaves might be adopted as children by free men and women, usually to care for the old age of one whose own family had already grown up and left the home. Such adopted children became free, and usually inherited their adoptive parents’ property. Further details on the status of slaves, especially in later times, will be found in Meissner, de Servitute, Pries, Leipzig; and 8. A. Cook, The Laws of Moses, ete., ch. vii.