shekels of silver, they will take their field back." The possibility of redemption shows that the field had been conditionally sold (it may have been pledged before) by defaulting debtors, with the (theoretical) possibility of redeeming it within five years. Lacking information on the field's size, speculations on the yield of the crop in relation to the size of the debt (plus interest), hence its antichretic value, are impossible. The long duration of the usufruct bought evokes comparison with similar Middle Assyrian contracts, which assured the creditor die factual ownership (and yield) of the field, for a long period, which must have diminished the chances of the original owner of redeeming it. By drawing up a sale contract (and not one of pledging a field for antichretic use) and stipulating a time limit for the possibility of redemption, the problem of the unclear legal status of non-redeemed pledges, mentioned above in connection with pledged persons, was prevented. The field would become the full property of the creditor after the term for redemption had elapsed. In the case of fields this may have been more urgent, in view of the creditor's investments in it.

I V . OTHER FORMS OF SECURITY

Finally, three other forms of security will be briefly discussed: two consensual and registered in the debt-note, one not and a form of legal self-help. Default interest, stipulated in the contract, might also be considered an instrument of security, comparable to antichretic use of a pledge, but it is of a different nature and I will not discuss it.

1. Joint Liability

A special clause, usually called one of "joint liability," appears in debt-notes with a plurality of debtors. In Old Assyrian it appears at the end of the contract and reads: "the silver (etc.) is bound to the person ('head') of whichever of them is salmum and kīnnm" (ina qaqqad šalmišunu u kīnišunu rakis); I call it the "rafo-clause." While the full form is most frequent, a short version without kīnum appears regularly.138 In addition we have formulations of the type šalmam u kīnam

158 There are also two examples with klnum alone (I 500 and kt v / k 160), a few

Since joint liability with more debtors is not a legal norm, doubt may exist when the original contract is not available. The arbitration in EL 328:17-30, concerning a naruqqu-cdipxta[ managed by two

ment between two creditors and one (E.) of two presumably jointly liable debtors concerning debt recorded in two (separate?) tablets, ft may have been concluded because, according to the closely related

is more explicit and states that K.'s respresentatives will inspect the

An example of a debt owed by a group of persons without joint liability, where each is responsible for a proportional share of the debt,

because with only half of the debt being paid the original debt-note could not be returned, but is equally possible that it was necessary to prevent recourse of the creditor who might treat them as jointly liable debtors.

The purpose of the "rafe-formula" can also be served by stating at the beginning of a debt-note that the creditor has a claim which rests on (issēr. . . išû) two or more debtors; I call it the "debt-for- mula." It regularly occurs with Anatolian couples, where the wife is included in the formula as co-debtor. The joint liability may be repeated by mentioning the couple again in a "rafo-formula" added

simple "rate-formula" (similarly EL 67). In A K T 3, 10, on the other hand, a normal "debt-formula" (covering six Anatolian debtors) is followed by an extended "rate-formula," which also mentions "their houses and gates" (i-bētišunu u bābišunu; similarly TG 3, 218 and TPK 1, 138). ICK 1, 41, with several Anatolian men in the "debt-for- mula," ends with a "rate-formula" which now includes "their wives." And this is not all, because both the "debt-formula" and the "rateformula" can be combined with a stipulation about a personal pledge (EL 86, the Anatolian debtors, when defaulting, "will enter the creditor's house") or a guarantor (EL 55 and 226:42). Above (II.2.2) we observed that the difference between being a co-debtor and a guar-

formula." Similarly, a debt resting on a man, a couple, or a whole family together with its house, slaves and fields "and whatever there is" (kt f/k 71, T C 3, 238) is hardly different from one resting on a man or a couple, whereby the "rate-formula" covers the person and

in the "rate-formula" of Anatolian debt-notes were equally vulnerable to forcible measures taken by the creditor on default, their unequal distribution over both formulae becomes understandable, as does the fact that occasionally the enumeration on tablet and envelope are not identical.144 This makes it likely that the variety (at times also confusion) in Anatolian contracts is mainly a matter of formulation

the members and possessions of the indebted household. The use of the term hypothecary pledge seems justified, because none of these Anatolian debt-notes registers a formal pledge (šapartum). The only combination of joint liability with a formal .ra/wfe-pledge (the debtor's daughter) occurs in EL 15, where, however, we have a simple "rateformula" which mentions only the indebted couple itself (salmu-kīnu- formula); no children or possessions. This allows the conclusion that the extended "debt-formula" and/or "rate-formula" serve the same