Sea Loans at Ugarit

Author(s): Jonathan R. Ziskind

Source: Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 94, No. 1 (Jan. - Mar., 1974), pp.
134-137
Published by: American Oriental Society
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/599741
Accessed: 29-05-2017 21:45 UTC

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms

American Oriental Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal
of the American Oriental Society

This content downloaded from 131.179.58.87 on Mon, 29 May 2017 21:45:31 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
134 Journal of the American Oriental Society 94.1 (1974)

Sea loans at Ugaril*

The sea or bottomry loan was one of the more unusual business loan transactions em-
ployed in Graeco-Roman antiquity. It was used to finance transmarine trading voyages.
The aim of this paper is to present and dicuss the evidence which indicates the existence
of bottomry loans at Ugarit and neighboring states during the second half of the 2nd
millennium B.C.

One of the more unusual business loan transactions to at sea due to pirates, storms, or some other disaster in
have been employed in Graeco-Roman antiquitywhich and there
that was no evidence of negligence or criminal
survived into the Middle Ages and early modern times or fraudulent intent on the part of the borrower, then the
was the sea or bottomry loan, called in Latin the faenus obligation to repay the lender with respect to both the
nauticum1 or traiectitio pecunia.2 This type of loan, whichprincipal and the interest was automatically cancelled.3
was used to finance transmarine trading voyages, was If the cargo was partially lost, repayment of the loan was
distinctive in two ways. First, the creditor assumed the usually on a pro rata or ad valorem basis. It also must be
risk of the loss of the security for the loan which was in understood that the application of the money is seldom
this case the vessel making the trip or its cargo or both, referred to in the Graeco-Roman documents-only that
and, second, the creditor's right to demand repayment of a ship or cargo was being hypothecated, and the loan will
the loan was legally tied to a particular event which had be repayed upon the safe arrival of the ship.
a profit potential, i.e., the safe arrival of the ship and Our sources do not give us any reasons why these extra-
cargo. In ordinary loans, if money was loaned to buy ordinary concessions were extended to the borrower. One
income property, and the buildings purchased with thecan speculate that the shipper could not be expected to
borrowed money burned down, the lender's right to pay money he did not have if his vessel was lost at sea,
demand repayment was in no way diminished, or if a and the shippers were able to convince bankers and
man borrowed money and purchased slaves with the hope financiers that even though far-ranging international
that the slaves' productive capacity would generate in- commerce might have been necessary to a particular local
come to pay off the loan, but the slaves ran away, again,economy, the extraordinary risks to life and property to
the lender could still demand his money. Not so the bot- make a profit navigating the high seas had also to be
tomry loan. Although the specific terms of the contractacknowledged. Therefore, ships would not sail without
varied from place to place and from one people and epochadditional financial protection. Viewed in this light, the
to another, generally speaking, the transaction operated faentLs nauticum may be considered not as a loan per se
in the following manner: A shipowner or lessee of a ship but as a kind of maritime insurance in which the money
would borrow a sum of money to either repair or outfitadvanced to the shipper served as an idemnity against
a ship or to acquire cargo for a one-way or round trip possible loss, and if no loss occurred, the lender could
voyage. The loan was secured by hypothecating the ship, expect repayment at an amount in excess of the customary
the cargo, or both. The obligation to repay the loan or statutory interest rates set for ordinary loans.4 Before
became due within a specified time-usually twenty daysJustinian, the interest rate for ordinary loans was limited
-after the ship and cargo safely arrived at the destina- at twelve per cent with no limit for maritime loans. In
tion stipulated in the contract. If the security became lost528 A.D., the interest ceiling was lowered and maritime
loans were limited at twelve per cent.5
* The core of this article was originally presented as a The most complete statement we have of ancient mari-
paper at the annual joint meeting of the Midwest Branchtime law can be found in the various parts of Justinian's
of the American Oriental Society and the Midwest Section
of the Society forBiblical Literature held at the University 3 For a detailed discussion of the legal implications of
of Notre Dame on November 12-14, 1972. The author is this type of loan, see Walter Ashburner, ed., The Rodian
most appreciative of all comments and criticisms both Sea-Law (Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1909), pp. ccix-
ccxxxiv and B. M. Emerigon, An Essay on Maritime
publicly and privately tendered. Errors that remain are
his own. Loans (Baltimore: Philip Nichlin & Co., 1811), pp. 18-33,
1 Such is the title of the second section of the Digest, 267-292.

XXII. 4 Charles Summer Lobingier, "The Maritime Law of

2 So, Modestinus, Papinian, Paul, and Labeo. Digest, Rome," The Juridical Review, 47 (1935), 27-28.
XXII, ii, 1, 2, 4, 7, 9. 5 Ashburner, p. ccxvi.

This content downloaded from 131.179.58.87 on Mon, 29 May 2017 21:45:31 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 ZISKIND: Sea loans at Ugarit 135

Corpus Iuris Civilis. The sea loan was only one aspect Phoenicia. While in Athens he was the creditor in a mari-

of maritime law the Corpus touched upon. The ancienttime contract worth a thousand talents.13
Roman jurists also discussed such problems as shipwreck,An indication that bottomry loans similar those em-
ployed in classical antiquity was also known at Ugarit
cargo liability, jettison, slavage, and injuries.6 That
these subjects should be of interest at all to the Roman and neighboring states is evidenced from cuneiform tablets
jurists is most striking when one considers that the excavated at Ras Shamra. In examining the relevant
Romans were not the sea-faring people that the Greeks, documents, we must keep in mind that unlike the practice
Phoenicians, or Ugaritians were. The Roman maritime in Greece and Rome, international trade was not primarily
law was probably an appropriate adaptation of the laws in the hands of private entrepreneurs but was, for the
and usages of the various sea-faring peoples the Romans most part, a royal concern.14 Thus, the parties to mari-
had come to know or conquer.7 Two statements from thetime ventures were usually kings or their agents.
Corpus luris Civilis illustrate this probability. In com- The first document to be considered is a Ugaritic tablet
menting on a shipwreck case, Volusius Maecianus, a juristpublished by Virolleaud.15 Only the second half of this
of the latter part of the second century A.D. cited a pro-tablet of eighteen lines need concern us. The first nine
nouncement in Greek by the Emperor Antoninus Pius lines are a list of persons who entered the house of the
which stated: ". . . let this matter be decided by the mari- king.
time law of the Rhodians, unless our own laws conflict 10. hm?.mat.arb'm 540 heavy (shekels) of
with it. Such the divine Augustus ordained."8 A section kbd.ksp.anyt silver (as the worth of) ships
of the Novellae which deals with the interest rate on mari- d.'rb.b.anyt that were pledged from among
time loans calls this type of transaction "an ancient cus- the ships
tom" (antiqua consuetudo) which the Roman law ought l.mlk.gbl belonging to the king of Byblos,
to respect.9 w.hmim.ksp and 50 (shekels) of silver
The question for us here is how ancient was the custom. 15. lqh.mlk.gbl the king of Byblos took
The private speeches of Demosthenes and evidence from Ib?.anyth (for) the cargo (lit. clothing) of
papyri show that the Greek version of the sea loan did the ships
not differ very much from the Roman. Insofar as these b'rm.ksp from 'Arm. The silver
contracts financed international commerce, they can be mhr.hn is their price.16
considered part of the international law of the time.10 Since the opening lines contain extraneous matter, we
In Athens and other cities special courts were establishedcannot regard this document as an actual sea loan con-
to hear cases arising from sea loans and similar maritime tract. What we probably have here is a memorandum of
transactions.1 The highly cosmopolitan character of a business deal the Ugaritian king made with the king of
these maritime transactions can be seen from a papyrus Byblos. Since the transaction was international in char-
which contains a sea loan contract for a voyage from
Alexandria to Punt and mentions a Carthaginian, an 13 Diogenes Laertius, VII, 1-3, 5, 13.
Elean, a Thessalonikan, and a Massiliote with a Celtic 14 For the role of the tamkidru a mandatti sa Sar Ugarit,
"merchants tributary to the king of Ugarit," see Jack
name as parties to the agreement.12 Also, the "Greek"
M. Sasson, "Canaanite Maritime Involvement in the
philosopher, Zeno, as Diogenes Laertius tells it, was actu-
ally a person of Phoenician descent from the CyprioteSecond Millenium B.C." JAOS, 86 (1966), 134-35 and A.
city of Citium. According to one account, he came to F. Rainey, "Business Agents at Ugarit," IEJ, 3 (1963),
313-21.
Athens as a shipwreck from a trading voyage from
15 Le Palais Royal d'Ugarit V, Mission de Ras Shamra,
6 Lobingier, pp. 18-30. Vol. 11 (Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1965), pp. 129-
7 Ibid., pp. 1-12, esp. pp. 6-8 on the Rhodian Law. 30, No. 106.
8 Digest, XIV, ii, 9. 16 Sasson, in his translation of this document in "Ca-
9 Novellae, CVI, preface. naanite Maritime Involvement," pp. 132-33, maintained
10 See E. Ziebarth, Beitriige zur Geschichte des Seeraubesthat line 13 made no sense and thus opted out for a trans-
und Seehandels in alten Griechenland, Hamburgische Uni- lation that conveys the idea that the king of Ugarit was
versitdt; Abhandlungen aus dem Gebiet der Auslands- buying ships from Byblos. In the light of the sea loan,
kunde, Vol. 30, Reihe A. Rechts- und Staatswissen- I find Virolleaud's translation of lines 10-13 more accept-
schaften, Vol. 2 (Hamburg: F. de Gruyter, 1929), able
pp. except
44- for his preference to render anyt as singular.
58 for discussion. As for the remaining lines of the text, I agree with Sas-
11 Ibid., pp. 45-46. son's rendition but disagree with him as to the basic
12 Ibid., pp. 54-55, 126-27. meaning of the document.

This content downloaded from 131.179.58.87 on Mon, 29 May 2017 21:45:31 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
136 Journal of the American Oriental Society 94.1 (1974)

acter, the contract itself was probably drawn up in Ak- destroyed accidentally when it struck a wharf. The
plaintiff claimed that Shukku intentionally wrecked the
kadian and does not survive. Under the terms of this
ship.
transaction, the Byblian king borrowed a large sumTheofcaptain of the ship was ordered to swear an
oath, and
money from the king of Ugarit, with an undisclosed Shukku had to make good the worth of the
quan-
ship
tity of ships valued at 540 heavy silver shekels and its cargo. Shukku had either borrowed money
pledged
fromagainst
as security and an additional 50 shekels borrowed the king of Ugarit or was in the employ of someone
who 540
the cargo.17 Whether these 590 shekels, at least did in
oforder to undertake a maritime enterprise in
Asia amount
them of the heavy type, corresponded to the exact Minor, and when it became apparent to Shukku that
of the principal is uncertain. It was customary theamong
obligation would not be met, he tried to sink the ship
the Greeks that the value of the hypothecatedand falsely claim that an accident took place. In this
property
way, Shukku or his employer would be free of the obliga-
be equal to twice the principal in round trip voyages.18
tion to
Needless to say, a loan granted under these terms repay the loan, and they would also avoid possible
could
tempt the borrower to falsely allege a disaster enslavement
at sea to for defaulting on a debt. Evidently, the
captain or
free himself of the obligation to repay the lender, of the
to ship caught Shukku in the act. The precise
status of the anonymous Ugaritian plaintiff is hard to
intentionally destroy the pledged property. Demosthenes'
private speeches disclose both of these abuses,assess.but The
we Graeco-Roman maritime loan contracts often
stipulatedde-
shall dwell briefly on the latter one-the intentional that the lender had the right to place on board
struction of the pledge. Demosthenes, in a speech the"Against
ship an employee called a kermakolouthos whose
job was to see that the interests of the lender were not
Zenothemis" tells, in part, of Hegestratus and Zenothemis
criminally asubverted. The Ugaritian plaintiff might have
who, in a clearly illegal act, hypothecated in Syracuse
ship and cargo that they knew was already pledged been suchbya representative of the king of Ugarit.20 The
someone else in Athens and thus fraudulently obtain motive Shukku might have had in committing this act
money. They thereupon put the cash on a separate ship is also difficult to determine. Flutuating prices of im-
headed for their home city of Massilia. The two men ported goods might have been the causative factor.
In a speech, falsely attributed to Demosthenes, called
planned to sink the illegally pledged ship and thus hood-
wink their Syracusan creditors and leave the Athenian "Against Dionysodorus," we are informed that two Athe-
financiers high and dry. The plan went awry when Hege-nians, Parmeniscus and Dionysodorus, borrowed money
stratus was caught in flagrante before too much damage to go to Egypt to buy grain and resell it in Athens.
could be done to the ship. We see something vaguely Parmeniscus went with the ship and Dionysodorus re-
similar in an account of a court proceeding bearing the mained in Athens. While in Egypt, Parmeniscus learned
seal of Puduhepa, queen of Hatti. As in classical antiquity, from Dionysodorus that number of ships laden with grain
maritime law cases were part of the international law from Sicily put into the Piraeus causing prices to plunge
of the time, and as in classical antiquity, there apparently to such a level that Parmeniscus and Dionysodorus would
were special court proceedings to hear such cases. A never have made enough money to pay back their cred-
transcript of the trial was sent to Ammistamru II, king itors and make a profit. Parmeniscus, therefore, sold his
of Ugarit in the mid-thirteenth century B.c.19 In this cargo at Rhodes, and Dionysodorus told the lenders that
Akkadian text, the defendant Shukku (citizenship un- the ship was lost at sea. In any event, it is entirely pos-
stated), claimed that the Ugaritian plaintiff's ship was sible that we see in this document as well as in the loan
memorandum discussed above a glimpse of the operations
17 Although this was a considerable amount of money, of the huburu or trading company that was known to
the king of Ugarit was not risking too much of his treasure exist in the late second millenium B.c.21
in this transaction. Ugarit was one of the richest king- In the light of these considerations, a letter written
doms in the area. Niqmadu II of Ugarit paid to the Hittie by the king of Tyre to the king of Ugarit takes on addi-
king Suppiluliumas 500 gold shekels as annual tribute.
See Claude F. A. Schaeffer, Le Palais Royal d' Ugarit IV,
Mission de Ras Shamra, Vol. 9 (Paris: Imprimerie Nati- 20 Ashburner, p. ccxix. Or alternatively a tamkdru sa
onale, 1956), pp. 37-48 for a complete accounting of mandatti ?a gar Ugarit. Least likely is Sasson's suggestion
Niqmadu's tribute obligations. that he was an ambassador (see "Canaanite Maritime
18 Ashburner, p. ccxiii. Involvement," p. 137, note 59).
19 Schaeffer, pp. 118-19, R. S. 17.133. [For this text 21 W. F. Albright, "The Role of the Canaanites in the
cf. also Fensham, "Shipwreck in Ugarit and Ancient History of Civilization," in The Bible and the Ancient
Near Eastern Law Codes," Oriens Antiquus 6 (1967), Near East, ed. G. E. Wright (Garden City, N. Y.: Anchor
21 ff. - Ed.] Books, 1965), pp. 458-59, 482-83.

This content downloaded from 131.179.58.87 on Mon, 29 May 2017 21:45:31 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 STIEGLITZ: Ugaritic Mhd 137

tional
tional meaning.22
meaning.22InInthis
thisletter,
letter,
thethe
Tyrian
Tyrianking
king
assured
assured Similar
Similar techniques
techniquesofofmaritime
maritimefinancing
financing
were
were
known
known
his
his Ugaritian
Ugaritiancounterpart
counterpart that
that
although
althougha Ugaritian
a Ugaritian
shipship in Mesopotamia. A. L. Oppenheim has published a num-
bound
bound for
forEgypt
Egyptran
ranaground
aground during
during
a storm
a storm
in Tyrian
in Tyrian ber of contracts from the Old Babylonian Period referred
waters, the ship and cargo were safe. This letter is more to trade with Dilmun.26 In these documents, the loan speci-
than simply evidence that Tyre and Ugarit were on good fically became payable when the ship safely returned.
terms with one another. Tyrian kings were also merchant These loans differed from the Levantine type in that they
princes,23 and they fully understood the need to protect were unsecured and thus made the venture more risky
investments especially when a ship and cargo were pledged for the lender. The merchant kings of the eastern Medi-
in a high-risk venture such as a sea loan contract. The terranean removed speculative element from an already
high risk enterprise by demanding the hypothecation of
actions of the Tyrian king in personally assuming respon-
the ship and its cargo.
sibility for safeguarding a shipwrecked vessel has a paral-
lel in the Roman maritime law. In a section dealing with The evidence is admittedly scanty, but the interpreta-
shipwrecks, the Digest provides that provincial officials
tions suggested for the texts discussed here seem to
must see that those living along the seashore not lure indicate that the bottomry or sea loan as it was understood
ships to their destruction or loot shipwrecked vessels.24to operate in Graeco-Roman antiquity might also have
The praetor's edict called for severe penalties for thosebeen operative in the commerce of the merchant kings on
who committed such acts.25 the Levantine coast in the second millenium B.c.
JONATHAN R. ZISKIND
22 Virolleaud, pp. 81-83, No. 59. UNIVERSITY OF LOUISVILLE, KENTUCKY
23 I Kings 5: 8-12; 10:11, 22.
24 Digest, XLVII, ix, 7. 26 "The Seafaring Merchants of Ur," JAOS, 74 (1954),
25 Ibid., sec. 10. 8-10.

Ugaritic
Ugaritic Mhd
Mhd--the
theharbor
harborofof
Yabne-Yam
Yabne-Yam
? ?

The
The paper
paper discusses
discussesthe
theevidence
evidence
mainly
mainlyfrom
fromUgarit
Ugarit
andand
Amarna
Amarna
tablets
tablets
whichwhich
suggests
suggests
that
that the
the toponyms
toponymsMhdaZMa-ha-du
MhdaZMa-ha-du in in
texts
texts
from
fromUgarit
Ugarit
are are
identical
identical
withwith
the toponyms
the toponyms
Muhhazu
Muhhazu (Amarna
(Amarnatablets)
tablets)and
and
Egyptian
Egyptian M('i)hs
M('i)hs
all all
of of
which
which
maymay
referrefer
to the
to harbor
the harbor
of of
Yabne-Yam at the coast of Canaan.

In a detailed study published some years ago, E. Y.

HIurrian mahazi are here equated with Ugaritic (syl-
Kutscher1 demonstrated convincingly that the hapax
labic) mahha(du) 'harbor, port'. Thus, the Ugaritic
legomenon mah6z (Ps. 107:30) meant 'harbor, port'
and in
Hurrian terms turn out to be the cognates of Biblical
Biblical Hebrew. His conclusions, based on the ancient
madhz confirming the fact that this term was used to
Versions as well as evidence from other Semitic languages,
designate the harbors of Canaan at least as early as the
were later strikingly confirmed by the discovery of multi-
Late Bronze age.4
lingual vocabulary lists at Ugarit. Among these lists
was found the following entry:2 KAR = ka-a-ru = ma-ha-
zi = ma-ah-ha-[du !].3 Sumerian KAR, Akkadian karu and a loan-word from Canaanite or is itself the origin
is either
of the West-Semitic term. It seems unlikely that Ugaritic
1 Leshonenu 8 (1937), pp. 136-145. Now, see his remarks
mahha(du) and Hebrew mahoz (< * mahdzu) can be derived
in Leshonenu 34 (1969-70), p. 5 ff. from the root 'hd/z 'to hold, seize'. On the other hand,
2 Cf. Ugaritica V (1968), pp. 242-243. Ug. Mahd/Mihd (proper and common noun) is, no doubt,
3 J. Nougayrol, ibid., proposed that the missing last from this root. Note also R. Borger, "Hebriiisch
derived
syllable be restored as [zu]. It seems more probable,
MHWZ (PSALM 107,30)," Ugarit- Forschungen 1 (1969),
however, both on phonetic grounds and in light of theI wish to thank Prof. W. W. Hallo for calling this
1-3.
discussion here to restore [du]. See E. Y. Kutscher,
study to my attention.
Leshonenu 34 (1969-70), 5ff., who also argued for 4this
Note the use of this term in much later periods:
restoration, as well as M. C. Astour, JESHO 13 (1970),
Neo-Punic mhz is translated in a bilingual inscription
120 note 4. Most interesting is the Hurrian mahazi "KAI
which124:2) by the Latin FORUM 'commercial center'.

This content downloaded from 131.179.58.87 on Mon, 29 May 2017 21:45:31 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms