purpose as a formal pledge. Did die choice of a particular formulation affect the possibilities of the creditor to indemnify himself? One might argue that family members and possessions included in both formulae could be summoned, detained or seized in order to enforce payment, while only a formal pledge could be taken along by the creditor to become a possessory pledge. I doubt whether this distinction applies in the Anatolian sphere, even apart from the fact

In purely Assyrian contracts this is different, and the distinction between the liability of the debtor(s) and the security provided by pledging persons or property is clear. What is pledged is mentioned separately and never included in the "debt-formula," and the "rakis- formula" mentions the joint liability of the debtors only. Here only the practical identification of the status of co-debtor and guarantor obtains, but both were still kept apart, as the references in note 53 show.

2. Borrowing by the Creditor

The second consensual type of security, of which I know a dozen occurences,145 occurs in debt-notes where the creditor states: "if the debtor does not pay back (if his term has elapsed), I will enter a merchant's house and I will take silver at interest (at his expense)."146

the debtor, the creditor figures as debtor and is also liable for the

EL 87 (with comments) and in the translation of I 475, is that the defaulting debtor

147 Old Assyrian knows debt-notes where the creditor remains anonymous and is called tamkārum, "the creditor," but there is no proof that they are the loans taken

This responsibility in some contracts is expressed by adding a dative

means of which he established the right to indemnify himself in this

above III. 1.2 and III.1.3).148

This device is rather rare in debt-notes, even rarer than the stipulation of a guarantor, and the debts which it has to secure in general are not very large. Hence, it seems likely that it was a legal instrument to secure for creditors in need of cash (rather traders than bankers and money-lenders) the possibility of collecting small debts quickly and easily, without resort to legal measures, when debtors were late in paying. Some occurrences which speak of "bor-

cern the balance of partially paid debts. In such cases the device offered an efficient way of settling affairs. Contracting a loan at the

ing all the time and hence from time to time (if payments by agents or the silver caravan from Anatolia were late) were confronted with temporary cash problems. For normal and consumptive debts this

The new texts and the new insights obtained from the archival analysis of previously known texts make it necessary to reassess the nature of Middle Assyrian instruments of security, and in particular, the nature of the Middle Assyrian pledge [šapariu). The material basis for such a reassessment was laid between the years 1978-1981 by Saporetti in two articles on the Middle Assyrian private loan documents.4 These articles collect all the then available texts pertaining to loans and debts from the Middle Assyrian period. Several new texts are to be added to Saporetti's list, mostly from official archives.5 The focus of his study was on typology and terminology. Accordingly, the study was essentially "technical" and did not address the basic problems that arise from the texts, such as the legal status of the property given in pledge or the social position of the lenders and the borrowers and their relation to the palace and the rural administration.

The present article is an attempt to analyze the available evidence on security both from a legal and a socio-economic point of view, with an emphasis on the institution of pledge. The discussion is pre-

Since pledges are a means of securing obligations the textual evidence on pledges for any period is in the first place to be looked for in documents recording obligations (Germ. Verpflichtungsurkunden,

Schuldurkunden). In the Middle Assyrian period there are two types of documents that record obligations, the loan document and the promissory note.

First, there is the document of the type "Object has been borrowed by D(ebtor) from C(reditor)," followed by the obligation "D will pay back." These are loan documents in the strict sense of the word (Germ. Darlehensurkunden) because they record an obligation that arises from a true loan, i.e. a transaction in which a thing is given by one person, called the creditor, to another, called the debtor, for the latter's use and enjoyment, but under the condition that such

be borrowed; 2) introduction of the creditor by means of the for-

Second, there is the obligation document of the type "Object, which is due to C from D, D will pay back." These documents are strictly speaking not loan documents but promissory notes (alias debt notes: Germ. Verpflichtungsscheine), although they share some of the

Serua 60, 76?, VAS 19 51, and YBG 12861 (references to obligations in various documents); as well as several contracts which are loosely related to the subject of loans and other financial obligations: KAJ 102, Bi 11, 26?, KAJ 92, 109, 113, UradSerūa 33. Two texts were discussed by Saporetti but not indexed: for KAJ 82 see

tion which has the advantage of showing the archival distribution of the loan documents.

formulary with loan documents and may refer to an obligation arising from a loan.9 Promissory notes are typically used when an oblig-

of a purchaser indebted to the seller for the purchase price. The original obligation (to pay the balance of the purchase price) is con-

In the Middle Assyrian period promissor)׳ notes are occasionally

outstanding debts of temple offerings,12 to pay for the marriage gift,13

of OA and NA documents of obligation.

10 Promissory notes that record a true loan are listed in Appendix B. Most loans listed in Appendix Β are government loans, i.e. loans that were granted by official

of obligation, the scribe may add the phrase "this grain (etc.) he received on exchange

but also in their manner of securing recovery of the debt. Only obligations arising from the transaction of a loan were secured by charging the debtor's property, albeit not necessarily so, because there are true loans without such security, as we will see below. Obligations arising from transactions other than loans never mention property as security; they are secured only very rarely and by means other than charging the debtor's property.20

As pointed out above, loan documents are the major source for evidence on loans in general, and pledges in particular, but references to debts and pledges are found, as a matter of fact, in a variety of contracts from the Middle Assyrian period. Thus, references to loans, debts, and sometimes also pledges, can be found in receipts, sales of real estate, sales of title deeds to credit, annulments of debts, interim settlements of accounts, renewals of debts and miscellaneous undertakings. This evidence is summarized in Appendix G, with the pledged loans highlighted by an asterisk following the number of the text.

Summarizing the available evidence on debt and security from the

3) references to loans, debts, pledges and debt notes in contracts of

the Middle Assyrian pledge (.šapartu) is based on the evidence from

for loans in the Middle Assyrian period it is important to further differentiate between the types of true loans that existed in this period. The different types of loans that existed in the Middle Assyrian

20 See further below.

Among the approximately one hundred private loan documents from the Middle Assyrian period thirty-six are secured by the prior arrangement of a pledge (kī/ana šaparte),21 twenty by a subsidiary lien on various parts of the debtor's property (kattû),28 thirteen by still another form of property lien which could be established either dur-

ukâl-liens is found in sale contracts and annulments of debts (see Appendix C.3 and C.4). The choice between the possible ways of securing a loan must have depended on die conditions under which the loan was made, and on the socio-economic circumstances of both debtor and creditor, fn this respect, an archival study of loans may

Third, we occasionally find a security instrument in loans with default interest which were granted for short periods of one to thirteen

in more detail below. Security for loans, whether pledge, ukâlAitn or kattû-lien, is remarkably lacking, for instance, in those cases where the debtor had agreed to perform certain agricultural services for the creditor under threat of penalty (= type 4),35 and in governmental loans (see s.v. type 6). It is also absent from the loans listed under type 5: the lien on the debtor's assets that is provided for in these loans was not a preliminary arrangement to secure the repayment of the loan, but rather a means of penalizing the defaulting

It is often hard to say why in certain cases a loan needed to be secured by pledge or lien whereas in others, in which the same conditions for repayment seem to have existed, no security had been claimed by the creditor. We may cite three examples to illustrate this point. Loans with the accrual of interest after the date of repayment (= type I) were sometimes secured by pledge, kattû-lien or both pledge and kattû-lien; These loans were mainly short-term, for one to seven months, or until harvest time, and only rarely for longer periods, namely for either twelve,37 thirteen38 or twenty-four months.39 However, such short-term loans could also be made without any apparent form of security (= type 5.1). Another example of such dis-

back the borrowed tin and seven harvesters within six months; if he failed to do so, he was to pay interest and deliver harvesters for reaping, probably in addition to the ones he had borrowed and not

112 was not secured by any means. Finally, there is the case of loans

on the debtor's assets which was provided for in this case, was nevertheless postponed until after default on the loan. Consequently it functioned as a means of

the debtors property in order to satisfy his claim of repayment. In some instances this right was secured by a pledge (Germ. Verfallspfand)

his claim from whatever property was available at the time the debt matured (= types 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 5.5).

Finally, as for the lack of security in obligation documents from the public sector it should be noted that creditor and debtor often worked closely together, the debtor being the employee or subordinate of the creditor. Their mutual acquaintance may explain why liabilities could exist between them without security. This point is illustrated by e.g. KAJ 120.41 When both sides did not know each other well enough the creditor may have required recommendations, as for instance in KAJ 118 where private individuals received straw, probably as a loan, from the palace but only after the steward of

NA period, does not seem to have played an important role in the MA period. We find some evidence that points in this direction in only a few administrative documents from the public sector, and possibly in one private loan.43 None of them use the OA and NA tech-

who probably had to supply the listed item. However, only one of these individuals is mentioned at the end of the document as being responsible for ensuring the total delivery of the goat-skins: pāhat

repayment is borne by Ninuäyu in KAJ 92,46 an unwitnessed receipt of sheep by the latter from an official. Ninuāyu is called mušallimānu (lines 9-10), i.e, "the one responsible for full repayment (in this case)," whereas in other similar cases we may assume that other persons were liable.47 In still another document the person who receives corn from the governor is also responsible for the clearance of this corn,

als representing their family or village.50 The "responsibility for depositing the (borrowed) corn on the heap," however, is borne by one individual only, who is also among the debtors and whose seal is found on the tablet: pāhat še?um ana karme tabāke Tūra-Adad nasi (lines

ter he handed over a slave instead of the horse. The role played by Isme-Ninurta may have been the one of guarantor, although the text does not explicitly say so and other interpretations are possible.53

The rate-formula has been interpreted as granting the creditor security by means of the debtors' joint liability54 but this may be doubted as far as the MA evidence is concerned. In OA and OB contracts the rate-clause is clearly a clause regarding joint responsibility of the debtors because it always occurs in loans that were granted to more than one debtor. The repayment of the borrowed commodity was bound (rate) to that person of the debtors who was

the document is too fragmentary to determine the context in which the expression occurs.

Š! s.v. salmu mng. 2a2־' pp. 259-260.

three attestations),61 and slightly more common in die case of nkâl- liens (three out of fourteen attestations).62 Furthermore, pledge of real estate clearly prevailed over pledge of persons. One could pledge members of one's family, such as a son ( KAJ 17; cf. the kattû-lien on the debtor's sons in KAJ 41), wife (KAJ 28, 31, 60), or children (KAJ 61, 66; cf. the kattû-lien on the debtor's children in KAJ 16 and KAJ 46), or one's sister and her daughter (TR 3021). It is remarkable that except for a few examples none of the texts mentions the pledge of slaves; I know of only two examples of pledged slaves.63 It could either mean that the property of slaves in private

prove ownership.04 Moreover, it should be kept in mind that the normal sale of slaves could in fact represent irredeemable conveyances of pledges.55 There is only one example of the pledge of an animal (KAJ 65).

his house or his farmstead (pasnm). For details see Appendix A. For the pledge of persons and animals, see below. As for the kind of property that served as pledge

same amount of field together with a farmstead, orchard, threshing-floor and well secured a loan of 36 minas tin and 3 homers corn (KAJ 162, sold "for the full price"). A slave and children had been pledged to secure a loan according to KAJ

of a kattû-lien regard the debtor's field and house; three texts also include the debtor's

threshing-floor (VDI 80:71). Two texts are broken at the relevant passage (KAJ 26

to ascertain whether the Middle Assyrian sapartu or ukâl-Ìien was given to the creditor at the moment the loan was contracted (possessory pledge) or remained with the debtor until the loan was repaid (hypothecary).

take as a pledge." The most elaborate formula is found in KAJ 27 and KAJ 35 where three verbs are used (nasāqu, sabātu/leqû and kullu).

Some of these verbs are indicative of the nature of the security, whereas others are not. Indeed, verbs like ušābu/šūšubu and eterrusu no doubt refer to antichretic security, which were in the creditor's possession from the onset of the loan and used by him as the equiv-

misleading: many examples cited under paragraph b) "referring to holding a pledge or serving as a pledge" actually refer to the act of pledging itself—because they are found in that part of the contract that records the pledging of property. Consequently,

no need to redeem the pledge before foreclosure of the loan if we assume that the pledge was hypothecary and hence not in the creditor's possession. Only at foreclosure would the pledge become possessory and needed to be redeemed. The latter was possible only if the debtor paid the borrowed capital and the interest, since the accrual of interest had taken effect. It is the latter case which is explicitly regulated by the contracts.

It was impossible for the debtor to redeem his property after fore-

property in lieu of the interest, because the property was then either sold or the status quo was to be continued. AO 19228, for instance, describes the following procedure: a) after eight years the debt matures and the debtor has to pay the tin in order to redeem his encumbered property (lines 15-17); b) if the debtor does not have the necessary tin to repay his debt, he can sell the encumbered property to the creditor (lines 1899;(20־ c) if the debtor does not pay the tin nor sells the property, the status quo is extended for another period (kt

(lines 13-15); if not, the threshing-floor was to become the creditor's property without the possibility of redeeming it (lines 16100.(20־ KAJ 13 is less elaborate but clearly states that "after six years he will repay completely the borrowed tin and redeem his field," (line 27). The other loans of the type 3 lack such specifications and it is there-

Finally, in loans of type 2, which stipulate sale of the encumbered property to the creditor after the date for repayment has passed, the debtor could not redeem unless he had paid the borrowed capital

that he held as security. It was still the debtor who had ownership thereof: he could

another creditor as security, but practically speaking, such an act by the debtor is prohibited according to A O 19228 line 24.

100 More on VDI 80:71 below.

and ukal-lien were not applicable to the amortization of the loan. At most the charged property substituted for interest, but in those cases in which capital and interest had to be paid before redemption, even this was not the case and the pledge or ukâl-Mtn, therefore, were no more than a (general) security for repayment of the loan.

V I . M A T U R I T Y AND D E F A U L T

If the loan was not paid back at the agreed time, the creditor could recover his capital by means of a sale from the debtor's assets. In the optimal case the loan had been secured by some form of lien from the outset under the condition that upon default the charged assets were to become the permanent property of the creditor, without the possibility of redemption.

In addition, the existence of Verfallspfa71d is implied by those sale doc-

some annulments of debts.103 It almost always concerns real estate.104 The clause regulating the transfer of the encumbered property to the creditor's ownership contains formulations which are reminiscent

(considered) acquired and taken (into possession).105 There is no contesting (the transaction). He (= the debtor) has received the price of

101Cf. Koschaker 1928: 102-105.

102KAJ 150 (Koschaker 1928: 102 n. 2 and 103-104), KAJ 162 and K A V 211.

threshing-floor, well, sons and daughters; in short, all his property, and all this will

are (isabbat) ukâl, which, as we saw above, are typically used to describe the creation of a lien. Consequently, these texts provide for the establishment of some kind of general lien on the debtor's property, not during the basic term of the loan but at its maturity, upon default. Thirdly, the debtor could be pressed to pay after the date of repayment had expired by the combination of the accrual of in-

No real sanction existed for the delinquent debtor in the loans of

decided by the debtor. If he preferred neither to pay nor to sell, the status quo was maintained. The creditor must have gained satisfaction in a different way, which will be examined in the next paragraph after we have considered two more issues that are related to the collection of debts upon default.

better the social environment in which loans (including secured loans) were granted. In particular it would tell us about: the social position of the lenders and their relation to the government (palace); the social position of the debtors and the organization of the rural com-

scope of the present paper. The following discussion is limited to a choice of texts that contain evidence on the socio-economic conditions of some of the loans. In particular they inform us of the circumstances that could lead to debt slavery or other forms of servitude.

When economic hardship hit a person, his family or his village, he could either borrow corn from government stocks or enter in the service of a wealthy individual. Two texts from Urad-Sertia's archive show the practice of granting loans, from government stocks, to the rural population in their times of need.132 A recurring phrase in these texts brings out the fact that the loans were made for the benefit of

gives it to the member(s) of his village "in the absence of any of his own" (ina lā šuāte, lines 15133.(17־ The texts show the economic distress of the northern rural communities outside the capital Assur in years of low rainfall and consequent crop failure. As Postgate pointed out in his commentary on nos. 5556־ these were not cases of individual improvidence, but a general agricultural crisis forcing families and entire villages to borrow by the threat of starvation. Moreover, they show that the government could take advantage of the general agricultural crisis by granting the loans under what seem to be harsh conditions.134 The debtors had not only to repay the corn and a

132KAJ 101 (= Urad-Šerūa 55) and VAS 19 47 (= Urad-Šerūa 56). See also AynardDurand 1980: 41 and n. 50.

133KAJ 91 is similar to KAJ 101 and VAS 19 47 in so far that it concerns the

loan of corn, animals and harvesters from an official. It differs from the other two documents in so far that it does not specify that the borrowed commodities were taken from government stocks (sa pit/pitte hašīme) and were to be given to the family or village of the borrower in view of their destitution (ina lā šuāte). Cf. Postgate 1988: 143-144.

134 So Postgate 1988: 145.

hundred percent interest on it within a fixed time,135 but also, so it seems, to put the harvesters who were borrowed to work at harvest time, and to herd the borrowed sheep. Moreover, the borrower in KAJ 101 had to charge "his field and his house, all his unencum-

port" (ana usītīšu)137 and did not bear interest. In contrast, Saporetti believes that the loan was granted to help finance some commercial activity.138

As for the phenomenon of debt slavery, there is plenty of evi-

lies gradually became impoverished, even to the point that family members had to be given in pledge but could not be redeemed.139 The presence of the original loan documents with the statement of security in the archives of the creditor proves that the loans had not been paid back and consequently the encumbered property or persons had not been redeemed. It seems that, in general, many of the loans in the Middle Assyrian private archives have not been repaid, and the documents were probably kept in the creditor's archive because of the security mentioned—especially when it involved real estate, as was actually the case in most secured loans. It is also pos-

mithāru is to be paid before expiry of the due date. For the expression ana mithār

tor (1. 13). The creditor, Uqur-abi, did not fix a date for repayment

meant that the woman was to serve Uqur-abi. The latter could also

As pointed out above, the reason for a person's impoverishment

Assyrian period was often at the expense of smaller landholdings. Small farmers were deprived of their means of living and were hardly able to make both ends meet unless they entered into the service of the landed gentry. They may have stayed on their original farm but had now become part of a growing group of poor agricultural workers in the service of others, also known as "villager of so-and-so"

(ālāiu).