Laws And Contracts (part 2)

The king also appears as not only confirming grants made by predecessors, but as restoring ancestral property, or temple endowments, which had come into other hands, on suit of the legal descendants of the original owners. Thus, certain land which had come into the possession of Târim-ana-ilishu and Ur-bêlit-muballiṭat-mîtûti, was claimed by [pg 195] Marduk-kudur-uṣur in the reigns of Adadi-shum-iddina and Adadi-nâdin-aḫi, and finally granted him in perpetuity by Melishiḫu. The land which Gulkishar, King of the Sea Land, gave to a goddess had remained in her possession 696 years, until, in the time of Nebuchadrezzar I., the Governor of Bît Sin-mâgir had secularized it. Bêl-nâdin-apli restored it.

Granting of especial privileges

A rather different grant was made by Nebuchadrezzar I. to Ritti-Marduk for his services against Elam. This faithful vassal had been governor of a district on the borders of Elam, but the privileges of his country had been much curtailed by a neighboring King of Namar. They were now restored and apparently augmented. They were, that the King of Namar had no right of entry, could not levy taxes on horses, oxen, or sheep, nor take dues from gardens and date-plantations; could not make bridges nor open roads. The Babylonians, or men of Nippur, who came to live there were not to be impressed for the Babylonian army. Further, the towns of the district were freed from dues to the Babylonian governors. Marduk-nâdin-aḫi in his first year remitted some obligations on an unknown estate.

Temple endowments

Of another kind are the monuments recording the actual endowments of temples by certain kings. A very fine example is the stone enclosed in a clay coffer referring to the endowments of the temple of Shamash at Sippara. It records the restorations made by Simmash-shiḫu, É-ulmash-shâ-kin-shum, Nabû-aplu-iddina, and Nabopolassar at wide intervals. There are, however, no lands concerned.

An illustration

A very archaic tablet in the E. A. Hoffman Collection, the General Theological Seminary, New York City, published in the Journal of the American Oriental Society, which seems to be older than the celebrated Blau monuments and which Professor G. A. Barton would date about [pg 196] 5500 b.c., deals directly with a presentation of land to a temple. In it the area of the land is given in GAN and the sides in figures only, probably denoting the lengths in U. Being written in very archaic, semi-picture writing, and some of the signs not yet being identified with certainty, it will not do to build much upon it. All the sides but one appear to be thirty-six thousand and fifty, that one being thirty-six thousand, while the full area is three thousand and five GAN. This gives the GAR as roughly = fifteen U.

The metayer system

Land was let under a variety of systems of tenure. The metayer system was one of the most common and persistent. The use of this term is justified by the similarity of actual cases to what is known to prevail in Italy, under this name. It is a co-operative system. The landlord not only allows his land to be cultivated for a consideration, but finds the means to meet expenses. He provides bullocks, tools, seed, and many other things, according to the usage of the locality.

Illustrations from the Code

In the Code of Ḥammurabi we have proof of the existence of the system. A man finds his tenant tools, oxen, and harness, but hires him to reside on the field and do the work. Actual examples are rare among the contemporary contracts. But Amat-Shamash, a votary, let out,

“Six oxen, among them two cows; an irrigator, Amêl-Adadi; two tenders of an ox-watering machine, his nephews; three watering-machines for oxen; a female servant who tended the machines; half a GAN of land for corn-growing; to Gimillu and Ilushu-banî. They shall make the yield of the field according to the average (?). They shall cause the corn to grow and measure it out to Amat-Shamash, daughter of Marduk-mushallim. In the time of harvest they shall measure out the corn to Amat-Shamash.”

In spite of several obscurities due to uncertain readings, which render the translation doubtful in places, this must be regarded as a good example of the kind.

[pg 197]

From the Assyrian period

There are fewer data from the Assyrian period, but the frequent loans, ana pûḫi, without any interest, at seed-time or harvest, may be due to this relation between landlord and tenant.

From the Persian period

The best example is to be found in the time of Cyrus, where a certain Shulâ proposes to take the fields of Shamash, in the district of Birili, in the county of Sippara. It was sixty GUR of corn-land. The temple was to find him twelve oxen, eight laborers (literally irrigators), three iron ploughs, four harrows (or hoes), and five measures of seed-corn, which also included food for the laborers and fodder for the oxen. At the end of the year he was to hand over three hundred GUR of corn as the temple share.

Another good example from the time of Artaxerxes I. relates to the assignment of two trained irrigation-oxen and seven GUR of corn for seed by a member of the Murashû firm to three brothers, who undertake to pay seventy-five GUR of corn per annum for three years. It does not appear that they hired the land as well. Here the hirer returns more than ten times his loan as yearly rent.

The system of shares

The usual method of hiring land was on shares. The Code contemplates that this would be for a proportion fixed by contract, either one-half or one-third of the produce going to the owner, in the case of a field or irrigated meadow and two-thirds in the case of a garden. The difference was due to the fact that in the former case the owner furnished the land only, possibly with its water-supply; in the latter case he also furnished the plants. In the contemporary contracts we have but few cases where the crop is shared. In these cases the owner and tenant share equally. The tenant was also to erect a manaḫtu, or “dwelling.” It was needful that he should reside on the [pg 198] property to take care of the crop. This was stipulated for and the clause added that he should hand over the dwelling to the landlord. For such dwellings compare the “cottage in the wilderness” of Isaiah 1. 8.

Duties of tenants

The tenant, of course, was bound to cultivate the land. The duties which fell to his share were “to plough, harrow, weed, irrigate, drive off birds,” but these duties are but rarely stipulated. The Code protects the tenant, however, from any unfair compulsion in the matter, so long as the landlord gets his fair rent.

Fixed rental

Fields were also let at a fixed rent, usually payable in kind. The contracts of the First Dynasty of Babylon give a large number of examples of this sort. The kinds of field are distinguished as AB-SIN, or šerû, and KI-DAN. The average rent for the former was eight GUR of corn per GAN; of the latter, eighteen GUR per GAN. The former class may include land with corn standing upon it, or simply corn-land; the latter land as yet unbroken, or fallow. The latter class seems to have been much more fertile.

This rent later became more fixed because the average yield per area was set down in the lease and the yield in corn was estimated in money according to the ordinary value of corn. Thus the rent is stated to be so much money.

Improving lease

Land was often let to reclaim, or plant. The Code lays down as law what was evidently a common practice. In the case of waste land given to be reclaimed the tenant was rent free for three whole years. In the fourth year he paid a fixed rent in corn, ten GUR per GAN. Land let to be turned into a garden was rent free for four years. In the fifth year the tenant shared the produce equally with the landlord.

[pg 199]

Contracts illustrating this form of lease are quite common in the time of the First Dynasty of Babylon.

Manorial obligations

Freedom from various obligations might be granted by royal charter. In fact, it is from these charters that we know of the existence of the obligations for the most part. The land so freed was called zakû. Land sold is often said to be zakû, and we may suppose it was so because it had once been freed by charter. But this is not quite certain. The charter was granted to a person and his heirs. Doubtless, as long as they held it, it would be free, but it is not clear that they could sell it as freed forever. But we only know that some land was free. On whom then fell the obligations? So far as they were due to the king, they may have been abolished, but such obligations as repairs of the canal banks must surely have been taken up by others. If not, the granting of charters must have been a fruitful source of trouble and distress to the land.

Their basis in the obligation of fair maintenance

The obligations were of various kinds. Some were directly extensions of the duty of a tenant to exercise proper care of the estate. A very prominent duty was the care of the canals. To see that they were kept in proper order was the mark of good government. To allow them to fall into disrepair was probably the result of weak government, or the exhaustion due to defeat in war. But it very soon led to the impoverishment of the country. The Code contemplates the care of the canal banks, or dikes, as the duty of the land-owner adjoining. It holds him responsible for any damage done to the neighbors' crops by his neglect to close a breach, or leaving the feed-pipe running beyond the time needed to water his field. But the canal was also liable to silt up or become choked with water-weeds, and the care of dredging it out was that of the district governor. He might carry out this duty by summoning the riparian [pg 200] owners to clean out the bed of the canal, or by a levy for the purpose. Soldiers, or at any rate, forced labor, might be used. Later, in the time of Nebuchadrezzar I., we find men, hired for the purpose, called ḳallê nâri, or canal laborers.

[pg 201]

XIX. The Army, Corvée, And Other Claims For Personal Service

The levy

There was always a militia, Landwehr, or territorial levy of troops. Each district had to furnish its quota. These are called ṣâbê, or ummanâte. We have no direct statements about them, but a great multitude of references. They were called out by the king, adki ummanâtîa, “I called out my troops,” is a stock phrase. The calling out was the dikûtu. Not easily to be distinguished from this was the šisîtu of the nâgiru. That officer seems to have been an incarnate War Office. It is not clear whether he always acted solely for military purposes. The “levy” seems to have been equally made for public works. The men were “the king's men,” whether they fought or built. The obligation to serve seems to have chiefly affected the slaves and the poorer men, the muškênu. In the Code of Ḥammurabi it was punishable with death to harbor a defaulter from this “levy.”

Forced labor

Claims might also be made for work on the fields. This was called ḫubšu and we know little about it more than that Sargon II. charged his immediate predecessors on the throne with having outraged the privileges of the citizens of the old capital Asshur, by putting them to work on the fields.

The obligation to provide a soldier for the state was tied [pg 202] to a definite plot, or at any rate, to all estates of a certain size. The ilku, or obligation of the land, was transferred with it. In Assyrian times, the military unit was the bowman and his accompanying pikeman and shield-bearer. The land which was responsible for furnishing a “bow,” ḳaštu, in this fashion, was itself called a “bow” of land.

Exemption of certain cities

Some cities claimed for their citizens a right of exemption from “the levy.” In Sargon's time, we find that cities like Asshur had been subjected by Shalmaneser IV. to this service, and Sargon restored their rights. He freed them from dikûtu mâti, šisîtu nagiri, and miksu kâri. The city had not known the ilku dupsikku. Later, we find an officer, Tâb-ṣil-ešarra, complaining that, when he was desirous of doing some repairs to the queen's palace in Asshur, of which city he was šaknu, Sargon's freeing of the city had rendered the ilku of the city unavailable to him.

In the so-called “Tablet of warnings to kings against injustice,” the cities of Borsippa, Nippur, and Babylon are freed from dupsikku and šisîtu nâgiri. This was drawn up in the time of Ashurbânipal, but whether it was original with him is not clear. At any rate, later, under Cambyses and Darius, these cities were again subject to the “levy.”

Classes subject to the levy

This obligation to perform forced labor, or serve in the army, fell on the agricultural population primarily. Indeed, it seems that the men who discharged it might be called upon to do field labor, and it was an aggravation of the insults put upon the old capital Asshur, that its citizens were set to do field labor. On all country estates, there were a number of serfs, glebae adscripti, sold with the estate, but not away from it. These, as the Ḥarran census shows, often had land of their own. But they were bound to till the soil for the owner. They included the irrišu, or [pg 203]

Service at the royal weaving establishments

irrigator, the husbandman in charge of date-plantations, gardens, or vineyards. From these were drawn the men who served in the army as “king's men,” and on public works. They seem to have been liable to five or six terms of service, season's work probably, or campaigns, and then were free. At any rate, the heads of families seem to be free. The daughters as well as sons were subject to service, probably to repair to the great weaving houses in the towns. We read of these weaving establishments from early times. M. Thureau-Dangin has called attention to their occurrence in the Telloh tablets of the Second Dynasty of Ur.

The amounts of wool assigned to different cities to work up are the subject of many tablets. In the great cities, the temples or the palaces were the home of this industry; but quantities of stuff were served out under bond to private establishments to be worked up and returned or paid for. The work on these industries constituted the amat šarrûti, or obligation to serve as “king's handmaid.” It lay also upon slaves. It is doubtful whether the obligation included domestic service. From the second Babylonian Empire we have a host of tablets relating to these weaving accounts. They will be found fully discussed by Dr. Zehnpfund in his Weberrechnungen.

Obligations of slave to the state

The married slave, even in the city, usually lived in his own house. His children were born to slavery, but were usually not separated in early life from their parents. They entered their master's service, and might be sold when grown up. They might learn a trade and so earn a living, paying a fixed sum to their master. They might become agricultural laborers, and so attain a fixity of tenure as serfs. But on all these subject classes, slaves, whether [pg 204] domestic or living out, serfs, and artisans, there lay the obligation to do forced work for the king. After a certain number of terms of service, they were exempt.

Public obligations

The obligations to public institutions which existed in Babylonia in later times have not yet been made the subject of a thorough study. Kohler and Peiser have noted several of the more important indications, and to them we owe what has been done up to the present.

To take a share in the expense of warfare

The most noteworthy obligation was what they call the ḳablu. This has the same sign as so commonly used in the phrase, ḳablu u taḫâzu, for “war and fighting.” But it is also the ideogram for šisîtu, the call of the nâgiru to war or the corvée. There is no doubt that it indicates the levy for war. The rikis ḳabli was the money due from certain persons to furnish a soldier for the war. Thus we have seventy shekels paid to a certain man, in the fifth year of Darius, to go to the city Shiladu. Again, a certain Bêl-iddin had to find twenty-five shekels to pay a substitute to go for him to the presence of the king. Another man paid the wages of a soldier for two years. This was an æs militare. In another case we find the rikis ḳabli for a horseman for a certain troop, for three years. It consisted of an ass worth fifty shekels, thirty-six shekels for its keep, twelve coats, twelve breastplates (?), twelve mušapallatum, twelve leather mîṭu, twenty-four shoes, thirty ḲA of oil, sixty ḲA of bdellium sixty ḲA of some aromatic, all as equipment, ṣiditum, to go to the camp (?). This may be described as æs equestre. So the burgomaster of Babylon paid rikis ḳabli for three years for a certain soldier, receiving the amount from single citizens. How this arose, what dues it was a composition for, and whether it antedates Persian times, are details not yet clear.

To pay dues for the land

Besides the personal obligation to contribute “work,” dullu, a liability for contributions in kind, ilku, dues from [pg 205] the land, existed. We are in the dark as yet as to the exact form these took. In the Code, the ilku, or duty from an estate held as the benefice of an office, was the fulfilment of the functions of the office. The word does not seem to denote contributions. But the word literally is what “comes” of any holding, income, or what is “taken” from it. In a charter of Melišhiḫu, we have a long list of powers which could be exercised by the king's officials over land. They are levies or forced contributions of wood, crops, straw, corn, wagons, harness, asses or men, rights to abstract water from canals, to drink from the water, to pasture herbage, or set on the royal flocks or herds, to pasture sheep, to construct roads or bridges. These are referred to as either a dullu or ilku. The governor is named as likely to demand right of pasture for his flocks and herds or work for roads and bridges. But we are left without information as to the proportion these levies bore to the property. All we can conclude is that the king had a right to impress such things or such labor. Few, if any, other documents are so full and explicit as to the dues exacted from the land, but all these dues are mentioned again, one or two together, in almost all the charters.

The temple tithe

This is one of the most important dues from land. It was paid to the temple. Some are inclined to see it in the niširtu, from which many charters exempt land; but others consider this merely a word for “diminution,” or levy in general. There is no means of deciding yet as to the time at which the tithe first became a fixed institution.

In Assyria

There seems to be no trace in Assyrian times of any payment of a tithe. The tithe rab ešrite, which has been rendered “tithe collector,” is more likely to be a commander of ten, a decurion.

[pg 206]

Common among Neo-Babylonians

The evidence for the existence of tithe in the later Babylonian period is very full. All seem to have paid it, from the king downward. Nabonidus paid, on his accession, to the temple at Sippara, five minas of gold. It was a very large sum, but may have been a sort of succession duty rather than an income-tax. It is curious that we also find Belshazzar named as paying tithe, due from his sister, and that when the Persian army was already in possession of Sippara. This shows that the Persians were friendly invaders and respected the rights of private property and of the temples. Belshazzar also paid tithe, through his major-domo, to Bêl, Nabû, Nêrgal, and Bêlit of Erech.

Often paid collectively

It was paid for a group of persons by one of their company, or perhaps we might say that certain persons collected tithe from their district and paid it in. Thus we have a document recording the payment by one man of the tithe due from a number of shepherds, cultivators, and gardeners, in the city of Maḫâz-Shamshi. In the time of Artaxerxes I., Hilprecht has shown that in some cases “the bow” of land also paid tithe.

Usually in kind

Tithe was usually paid in kind, on all natural products, corn, oil, sesame, dates, flour or meal, oxen, sheep, asses, and the like, but also was liquidated by a money payment. The tablets relating to it are very numerous, but in nearly every case amount to no more than a receipt for its payment.

Tithe became property apparently and was negotiable. So at least appears from Nebuchadrezzar 270. We thus have property in income from land.

Octroi duties

The various dues, miksu, seem to have been a sort of octroi duty. They were levied at the quay, miksu kâri, at the ferry, miksu nibiri. They are only mentioned in the [pg 207] charters, granting exemptions from them, to certain estates or their owners. Closely related to these were the mikkasu, which seem to be some sort of due or tax levied upon all naturalia, and even upon the dues which were paid into the temples. We have frequent mention of them in later times, in the temple accounts.

[pg 208]

XX. The Functions And Organization Of The Temple

The great importance of the temple

The temple exerted an overwhelming financial influence in smaller towns. Only in certain large cities was it rivalled by a few great firms. Its financial status was that of the chief, if not the only, great capitalist. Its political influence was also great. This was largely enlisted on the side of peace at home and stability in business.

Varieties and origin of temple dues

The importance of the temple was partially the result of the large dues paid to it. These consisted primarily of a ginû, or fixed customary daily payment, and a sattukku, or fixed monthly payment. How these arose is still obscure. They were paid in all sorts of natural products, paid in kind, measured by the temple surveyor on the field. Doubtless, these were due from temple lands, and grew out of the endowments given to the temple. These often consisted of land, held in perpetuity by a family, charged with a payment to the temple. The land could not be let or sold by the temple, nor by the family. Such land was usually freed from all other state dues. The endowment was thus at the expense of the state. An enormous number of the tablets which have reached us from the later Babylonian times concern the payment of these dues. They mostly consisted of corn and sesame, or other offerings, and the tablets are receipts for them. In Assyrian times the ginû also included flesh of animals and birds. In some few cases we have long lists of these daily dues, accompanied by precious [pg 209] gifts in addition. The gifts were perishable, but were accompanied by a note specifying them, and the good wishes or purpose of the donor. These notes were preserved as mementos of the donor's good-will.

The temples as owners of rented land

Temples, however, also possessed lands which they could let. They also held houses which they might let. In fact, the temples could hold any sort of property, but apparently could not alienate any. Some lands the temple officials administered themselves, having their own work-people. We have mention of these lands from the earliest times (e.g., the very early tablet referred to above), right down through the Sumerian period. We have almost endless temple accounts, many of which relate to the fields of the temple, giving their dimensions and situation, with the names of the tenants, or serfs, and the rents or crops expected of them. Then, in the First Dynasty of Babylon, we find the lands, gardens, courts, et cetera, of the gods named. We no longer have the temple accounts, but the private business transactions of the citizens, whose neighbors are often the gods themselves, as direct land-owners. In Assyrian times the mention of temple lands is very common. In later Babylonian times there is abundant evidence of the same custom. Dr. Peiser devotes a considerable portion of the introduction to his Babylonische Verträge to this subject. How the temple became possessed of these lands we do not know. We do know of large gifts of land by kings, rich land-owners and the like, but we do not know whether originally the temple started with land. When a king speaks of building a temple to a god, we may understand that he really rebuilt it, or erected a new temple on the site. Before kings, the patêsis did the same. But did a patêsi precede a temple or vice versâ? and did the first founder, or the town, grant the first temple lands?

[pg 210]

Their income from private sources

The temples had further a variable revenue from private sources. There were many gifts and presents given voluntarily, often as thank-offerings. The temple accounts give extensive lists of these from the earliest times to the latest. They were of all sorts, most often food or money. But they were often accompanied by some permanent record, a tablet, vase, stone or metal vessel, inscribed with a votive inscription. These form our only materials for history in long spaces of time.

Share of the temple in the sacrifices

Sacrifices were, of course, largely consumed by the offerers and those invited to share the feast. But the temple took its share. The share was a fixed or customary right to certain parts. For one example, the temple of Shamash at Sippara had its fixed share of the sacrifice, taking “the loins, the hide, the rump, the tendons, half the abdominal viscera and half the thoracic viscera, two legs, and a pot of broth.” The usage was not the same at all temples. In the temple of Ashur and Bêlit at Nineveh we have a different list. For the parallels with Mosaic ritual, and the Marseilles sacrificial tablet, see Dr. J. Jeremias, Die Cultus Tafel von Sippar. The list was drawn up by Nabû-aplu-iddin, King of Babylon b.c. 884-860.

Sometimes sold for cash

This was of course a variable source of income, depending upon the popularity of the cult and the population of the district. It was also perishable and could not be stored. It is certain that in some cases this source of income was so large that the temple sold its share for cash. This must be carefully distinguished from the ginû and sattukku mentioned on page 208, which were constant and regular supplies.

The temple as a business institution

The temple was also a commercial institution of high efficiency. Their accumulations of all sorts of raw products [pg 211] were enormous. The temple let out or advanced all kinds of raw material, usually on easy terms. To the poor, as a charity, advances were made in times of scarcity or personal want, to their tenants as part of the metayer system of tenure, to slaves who lived outside its precincts, and to contractors who took the material on purely commercial terms. The return was expected in kind, to the full amount of advance, or with stipulated interest. Also in some cases, especially wool and other clothing stuffs, in made-up material. Definite fabrics, mostly garments and rugs or hangings, were expected back. Some quantity was needed for garments and vestments for temple officials, some for the gods. But a great deal was used for trade. We have references to temple treasuries and storehouses from the earliest times to the latest.

The temple as a place of deposit and traffic

The temples did a certain amount of banking business. By this we mean that they held money on deposit against the call of the depositor. Whether they charged for safekeeping or remunerated themselves by investing the bulk of their capital, reserving a balance to meet calls, does not yet appear. But the relatively large proportion of loans, where the god is said to be owner of the money, points to investment as the source of a considerable income. Here a careful distinction must be made between the loans without interest, or with interest only charged in default of payment to time, and those where interest is charged at once. The latter are banking business, the former were probably only the landlord's bounden duty to his tenant by the custom of his tenure. The temples also bought and sold for profit.

The temple staff

The greater officials, of course, appear often at court. The king was accompanied by a staff of priestly personages. They frequently appear in the inscriptions and on the monuments. His court reproduced that of the gods above. The [pg 212] officials in one answered, man for man and office for office, with those above.

The priestly influence over the king

The king, by his religion, could do nothing without religious sanction. The support of the priestly party was essential. In the more unsettled times they were to a great extent king-makers. To estrange the priests was a dangerous policy always. Besides their immense wealth they had the sanctions of religion on their side. To all men certain things were right, and the priests then had what right there was on their side. A king was under obligation to come to Babylon to take the hands of Bêl-Merodach each New Year's Day. If he did not, he not only offended the priests, but also committed a wrong in the eyes of his people.

Their influence on the whole predominantly ethical

But the kings were often inclined to rely upon conjurers, soothsayers, magicians, and the like. It would be a fatal mistake to confuse these with the priests. The best kings were those who set their face against magic and supported the more rational local or national worships. Sargon II., Esarhaddon, Nebuchadrezzar II., are examples of the latter, while Ashurbânipal is a great example of the magic-ridden kings. Ḥammurabi apparently strove to put down magic. The eternal struggle between the “science” (falsely so-called) of magic and divination on the one hand and the higher claims of religious duty on the other, is the key to much that is misunderstood in the politics of the time. It would be too much to say that the priestly party were always on the side of morality, or that they were not often allied with the soothsayers, but it is certain that what ethical progress there was, was due to them. In religious texts alone have we aspiration after higher ideals. Who can fancy a wizard troubled about ethics?

Honors paid to priesthood

The priest proper, šangû, was a person of the highest rank. He appears very little on the whole. His chief [pg 213] function was to act as mediator between god and man, as over the sacrifice offered.

Additional duties

He had public duties outside his priestly office. He inspected canals. He often acted as a judge.

Their college

There was a college of priests attached to some temples, over which was a šangû maḫḫu or “high-priest.”

Their exact functions uncertain

The general idea that mašmašu, “charmer”; kalû, “restrainer”; (?) maḫḫû, “soothsayer”; surru; lagaru; šâ'ilu, “inquirer”; mušêlu, “necromancer”; âšipu, “sorcerer”; all properly “magicians,” are subdivisions of the general term šangû, is yet to be proved. Except when, in rare cases, the same man was both, the scribes carefully distinguish them. The idea seems to arise from the same modern confusion of thought which starts by calling an unknown official first a eunuch, then a priest. We do not yet fully know the functions or methods of these officials. They remain to be studied.

The warden

The ḳêpu, or “warden,” was over the temple servants. He let the temple lands. He inspected the temple slaves and work-people.

The steward

The šatammu was over the revenues. This name is clearly connected with the šutummu or storehouse.

Certain officials, as surveyors or measurers, scribes, et cetera, may have been of priestly rank and held these offices as well. But as a rule, a man appears with an official title, without our being able to see whether he was a priest or not.

The workmen

The temple kept its artificers, who had board and wages. It had its serfs, or land laborers, not actual slaves, but [pg 214] free except for their duty to the temple. They lived on the produce of their holdings, subject to a fixed, or produce-rent.

There were temple slaves, who performed the menial offices without wages, but were clothed and fed.

Within these classes doubtless came some of those who appear as slaughterers, water-carriers, doorkeepers, bakers, weavers, and the like. A temple also had its shepherds, cultivators, irrigators, gardeners, et cetera; but it is far from easy to determine the exact degree of dependence in each case.

The temple even had its own doctor.

Similarity of the temple to the monastic system

In all these cases we may compare the monastic institutions of the Middle Ages. We are not as a rule able to see whether they were “lay brothers,” or had become “clerics,” as well as “clerks.” But there is no sign of celibacy. Even the priests were married.

Attached to the temple were votaries. In not a few cases the above offices might also be held by women, even such an office as surveyor might be held by a woman. There were many female “clerks.” All the temple staff were maintained by the temple, boarded, fed, and clothed, at the temple expense. But private persons might undertake to keep a definite temple official, perhaps were bound to do so, by the terms of some endowment.

Hereditary rights

The right to serve in certain offices was hereditary in some families. As these multiplied, the office was held in turn by members of the family for a short time, so that it may well be that an individual priest only exercised his functions for a very limited part of the year.

Origin of clan names

Great families took their clan name from their office; for example, the Gula priests in later Babylonian times, or as the mandidu, “measurer,” or “surveyor,” attached to a temple, became a clan name.

[pg 215]

Proprietary rights to share in temple incomes

Hence arose property in temple incomes. That these were considerable we know from the lists of temple accounts. These form the bulk of the earliest documents. From them we learn that each day certain officials received certain allowances, mostly food and drink. From later documents we learn that men apparently not connected with the temple had become lay impropriators of the temple allowances originally intended only for temple officers.

These rights negotiable

The right to receive these was a valuable and negotiable asset. Thus we read of a right to five days per year in the temple of Nannar, sixteen days per year in the temple of Bêlit, and eight days in the shrine of Gula as being the namḫar of Sin-imgurâni and Sin-uzili. This was confirmed to them by a legal decision in the time of Rîm-Sin. We read also of a right to act as šatammu, for six days per month, in the temple of Shamash. In later times the mandidûtu, or surveyorship, to the temple of Anu, Ib, and Bêlit-êkalli, exercised in the temple, storehouse, and field, was sold, shared, and pledged. Another such right was given on condition that it was not sold for money, granted to another, pledged, nor diminished in any way, and should pass to the possessor's daughter on his death. The porter's post at Bâb Salimu was given as a pledge. Shares in these incomes were regularly traded in, sold, and pledged.

Other endowments of office

The position of a priest, or other official, carried with it an endowment. On this point the Code is very explicit for the cases of the ridû ṣâbê and the bâ'iru, officials charged with the collection of local quotas for the army and public works. They were recruiting sergeants, press-gang officers, and post-office officials. The office was endowed by royal grant. They were liable to be called on in the discharge of their duties to make lengthy journeys and be absent from home for a length of time, even years. In their absence, [pg 216] their duties could be delegated to a son, if old enough, otherwise a substitute was put in. They could claim reinstatement within a certain time. But their endowment was inalienable from the office and could not be treated as private property.

Also the great offices at court

Quite similarly the great state officials in Assyria had endowments which were not personal, but went with the office. Thus we learn from the Ḥarran census that certain lands paid rent or crops to certain offices.

These rights maintained by inheritance

In later times the rights to income are very prominent, perhaps solely in virtue of the class of documents which has reached us. Occasionally we are able to learn exactly what they were. For example, the surveyor for the temple of Anu had a right to two GUR of corn, two GUR of dates, fifty ḲA of wheat, six ḲA of sesame, on every eighteen ḲA of land. When the corn and dates were harvested, on one GUR, six ḲA were levied.

The relation to the state

It is not clear that a temple had any direct duties to the state. Peiser thinks that they collected dues for the state. Certainly they had attached to them the king's storehouses. Certain amounts were paid in for certain state officials. In the Code of Ḥammurabi we see that a temple might be called upon to ransom a member of the town who had been taken captive.

The loaning of money

In certain circumstances the king's officials might borrow of the temples. Thus Nikkal-iddina borrowed of the temple of Bêlit of Akkad a vessel of silver, weight fifteen minas, when the Elamites invaded the land.

Forced loans

Some kings laid hands on the treasures of the temple for their own use. Doubtless this was done under bond to repay. The cases in which we read of such practices are always represented as a wrong. When Shamash-shûm-ukîn sent the bribes to the King of Elam, Ummanigash, he spoiled [pg 217] the treasuries of Merodach at Babylon, of Nabû at Borsippa, and of Nêrgal at Cutha, and this was reckoned one of his evil deeds, which led to his downfall. But if he had been successful and had repaid his forced loans, doubtless it would have been excused, and his memory would have been blessed.

The temple a trading institution

Much confusion is introduced by the fact that we do not know when a temple official acts in his own private capacity and when on behalf of the temple. The deeds, which do not expressly state that the money or property belongs to the god, or the temple, may often be only concerned with private transactions, but were preserved in the temple archives on account of the official position of the parties. But there are plenty of cases, where no doubt exists, to justify us in regarding the temple as acting in all the capacities of a private individual, or a firm of traders.

[pg 218]

XXI. Donations And Bequests

Alienation of property

Alienation of property might be complete or partial. Of complete alienation we may instance donation, sale, exchange, dedication, testament. The latter was rarely complete in Babylonia. Examples of partial alienation are loan, lease, pledge, deposit.

Importance of the fact of ownership

We may note as a common mark of all these transactions the care taken to fix and define ownership. The transfer is “from” A to B. In early times the property is usually first stated to belong to A. Then he is often said in Assyrian times to be the bêlu of it, its full and legitimate owner. The new owner had to be satisfied that A was competent to part with it. This is often made clearer by saying, in later times, that no one else has any claim upon it. Hence arise guarantees against defeasor, redemptor, et cetera. This subject of guarantees is most interesting, though often obscure. The investigation of the varied rights which were likely to interfere with freedom of transfer is most important.

Peculiar forms of assignments

In certain cases we shall find a sort of hypothecation of property, as when it is assigned as security, but not given up. The possession is not free, but it is not alienated. We have also a donatio retento usufructu, which only gives a reversion of the property. Here also certain rights may be reserved against the ultimate possessor.

Another interesting point is that property may be credited to a man, and set off against other liabilities, so that he [pg 219] may never actually be in possession, but only nominally passing it on to others, and even, eventually, it may come back to the first owner, who may never part with it at all.

Restrictions on free gifts

Undoubtedly men were at liberty in daily life to make presents one to another. But the rights of the family were so strong that for the most part all the property of the parents was jealously regarded as tied to the children, or other legal heirs. When a man died, his property was divided according to a rigid law of inheritance. When a woman left her father's house to be married, the father gave her the share of his goods which fell to her, without waiting until his death to divide his substance. In this case she had nothing further at his death. But the property was not her husband's, though he and she shared its use; it was entailed to her children. If she had none, it went back to her father's house: to her brothers, if she had any, or to her father's other heirs. Unless a man legally adopted his natural sons, they did not inherit. Hence neither man nor woman was wholly free to give. But, hedged about with consents and reservations, donations took place.

The conditions of any gift

We have a great variety of types of donation, not always easy to classify, and often obscure, in some details. The common characteristics are that deeds of gift were duly executed, sealed, and witnessed; and that the consents of the parties, whose expectations were thus diminished, or restricted, had to be obtained.

Establishment of a daughter who became a votary

A daughter might be portioned off for marriage and this involved a gift, which might be treated as a donation, but rather comes under the head of marriage-portion, in the chapter on marriage. Precisely the same portioning took place when the daughter either became a votary or was dedicated to the service of a god. Such gifts may be included here. They usually contain a list of property: sharing houses, land, slaves, jewels, money, clothes, household furniture, [pg 220] even pots of honey or jars of wine. As a rule, in our present state of knowledge, nothing that could pretend to be an accurate translation can be given of the items of such a gift, only a general idea of the nature of the whole. Such a gift, however, evidently set the lady up in an establishment of her own, with all she could require for maintenance and comfort for the rest of her life.

Rights in a gift made by a votary

Here these donations split up into separate classes. The recipient might have only a life interest in her gift, or it might be hers outright. The latter case could not be presumed. The heirs of her parents, “her father's house,” would maintain their claim at her death, unless they had specially contracted to waive it. Then the clause was inserted that she might “give her sonship to whomever she pleased,” ašar eliša tâbum aplûtsa inadin. By “sonship” is meant “heirship.” Such cases do not seem common and are probably to be explained as due to the fact that as a votary she had no legitimate heir. It is important to note that there is no hint that, if she died without heirs, the temple would inherit.

Gifts made by a father to a daughter

A modified freedom is allowed by a father who gives his daughter house, land, sheep, slaves, and the like, but limits her power of gift to her brothers. But among them she may “give it to him who loves and serves her.” It is assumed that one of her brothers will care for her and manage her estate and be rewarded by the reversion of it. As a rule, it is only a life interest which the recipient has.

A different sort of gift is where the donor reserves to himself a use of the property as long as he lives, or stipulates for a life allowance from it. These are usually accompanied by formal adoption. The recipient is one who has not already a claim to inherit, but undertakes the care or maintenance of the donor. Such gifts are best classed under [pg 221] adoption, even where the fact of adoption is not stated. When a parent makes an arrangement of this kind with a son or daughter, these were possibly adopted by a previous act. At any rate, it seems likely that such a child was either unmarried or again free to wait upon the donor. But whatever the actual state of relationships, we find a mother giving property to a daughter, reserving the use of it as long as she lives. Similarly a brother undertakes to give one shekel per annum to his brother. Here the grounds of the undertaking are not stated, but a contract to do this is duly sealed and witnessed. Further, maintenance is stipulated for, though the relationship is not stated, nor grounds given. This may not be based upon a gift, but follow the order of some judge, for other reasons.

Pin-money for a wife

The husband might settle upon his wife a fixed amount of property. This was frequently done and was called the nudunnu. It might include a house, two maids, clothes, jewelry, and household furniture. Here the sons are expressly said to have no claim, she may give it to whoever serves her and “as her heart desires.” Probably she was a second wife without children, and is thus secured a life of comfort and the faithful service of her step-sons. As a rule these gifts are best considered under the head of marriage, but they were also free gifts on the donor's part. The wife in any case had her right to inherit with her step-sons, if her husband made no such settlement.

Consent of heirs to the disposal of property

The consent of the legal heirs of the donor to such alienation of their reversionary rights was needed. Thus in one case, when a man gives his daughter a house, his son appears as the first witness. A father and his son give their daughter and sister a house, which she is free to give to her son, “whom she loves.” Had the house merely come to [pg 222] her as her share in the usual way, it must have been shared by her sons. If she had none, then her brother would be the next heir. That she can leave it as she will must be a matter of legal instrument. The brother must consent to the exception to the rule.

Donation in Assyria

In Assyrian times, donation is rarely represented within the group of documents which have reached us. Here is one case:

The household which Bêl-nâ'id gave to his daughter, Baltêa-abate. A house in Nineveh, before the great gate of the temple of Shamash. (Then come the servants, a šaḳu or head man, a washerman, a šaknu, and others, male and female, in all eleven souls.) Dated the fourteenth of Adar, in the Eponymy of Marduk-shar-uṣur. Nine witnesses.

This may be donation, or adoption, or even a marriage-portion.

At all times, a difficulty arises from the phraseology of the deeds of gift. When we are told that “A has given B such and such things,” we do not know the ground of the gift. “To give for money,” nadânu ana kaspi, is the usual expression for “to sell.” In the older documents šarâḳu, “to present,” often occurs, but has in most cases the derived technical sense “to dower,” or “give a marriage-portion.” Hence, we are not able to judge whether what appears as “gift” may not really be “a sale,” or some payment meant to complete the portioning off of a daughter, on marriage or taking vows.

In the Second Babylonian Empire

There are, however, a large number of deeds of gift which have reached us from the Second Babylonian Empire. The characteristic formula may be taken to be ina ḫûd libbišu iknukma pâni ušadgil, “in the joy of his heart (i.e., of his own free will, implying that no consideration was taken per contra) he has sealed and placed at the disposal [pg 223] of.” As a rule, we may suspect these to be “gifts” to which the recipient had a right. Thus, mother to son, brother to sister, man to wife and daughter, mother to daughter, are not free from suspicion. But when a man gives maintenance to wife and son, brother gives dower to sister, father-in-law gives son-in-law arrears of his daughter's dower, and wherever there is a hint that the “gift” was a nudunnû, or a šeriḳtu, we may regard the case as not properly “donation,” but “dower.”

An example

The following example shows the limitations on free gift that still remained in later times. Zêrûtu had married and had a son, Shâpik-zêri. Then he had an intrigue with Nasikâtum, daughter of the Sealand scribe, who bore him a son, Balâṭu. He gave Balâṭu a house, but did not adopt him. After Zêrûtu died, Shâpik-zêri demanded the house as his father's heir. The judges gave it to him and also the deed of gift.

Dedications

The dedication of land to a temple or of a child to the service of a god may be considered as examples of free gift; but they are of a nature deserving separate consideration. We have already noticed some cases of such donations by the kings. We know from the Code that a father might dedicate a child as a votary, and he might portion that child; but this did not bring a free gift to the temple, for the family had the reversion of the votary's property.

As a further example of dedication by a private owner, we may take the following:

To the chief priest of a temple

As temple of the god Lugalla (the king) and his consort Shullat, Nûr-ilishu, son of Bêl-nada, has dedicated to his god one SAR of improved land, for his life (salvation), has devoted it to his god. Pî-sha-Shamash shall be the priest of the temple. Nûr-ilishu shall lay no claim to the priesthood. The curse of Shamash and of Sumulâ-ilu be on him who disputes the settlement. Seven witnesses.

[pg 224]

This is total alienation. The donor is not making an indirect provision for himself, but waives all claims to be the chief priest of the temple.

Of children to Shamash

Here is an example of a dedication of children:

Tablet of Ishtar-ummi and Aḫatâni, daughters of Innabatum. Innabatum, daughter of Bur-Sin, has dedicated them to Shamash. As long as Innabatum lives, Ishtar-ummi and Aḫatâni shall support her, and after Innabatum, their mother [is dead], no one among her sons, their brothers, shall have any claim on them for anything whatever. They have sworn by Shamash, Malkat, Marduk, and Apil-Sin. Fifteen witnesses (of whom the first two are probably the brothers, the rest females, probably all votaries of Shamash and members of the convent.)

In another case, a mother dedicates her son to Shamash, with the stipulation that the son shall support her as long as she lives.

To secure divine favor

In Assyrian times we have an example of a dedication of a son to Ninip, by his mother, with consent of her brothers and their sons. A father also dedicates his son to Ninip for the well-being of Ashurbânipal, King of Assyria. This is interesting as showing that the dedicator acquired merit, which he could transfer to another. Both tablets are defective. In another case, Aḫi-dalli, the lady governor of one quarter of Nineveh, purchases a large estate and presents it to some god “for the health of the king.” Votive tablets giving the presentation of various articles to some god are common enough at all periods.

Testaments or bequests

Testamentary devolution of property was not the rule in Assyria or Babylonia, where the law of inheritance was so firmly fixed that it would be naturally illegal. As a rule, children did not inherit under their fathers' will, but by right. However, the Code allows a father to give his married [pg 225] or vowed daughter power to leave her property as she will, and it is probable that he had the same power over at least some of his property. The very frequent cases of adoption, where the adopted child becomes heir, on condition of supporting the parent as long as he lives, and the cases of gift retento usufructu, are a sort of testamentary disposition of property.

This developed with time into something very like testament. But we always have to bear in mind that conditions may have been understood which are not actually expressed.

Later Babylonian examples

Some examples from later Babylonian times will serve to illustrate how near these transactions came to testament. A very interesting case is where a son, probably childless, if not unmarried, and perhaps not in good health, gives his father his property. The document is very involved, but the chief points are these: A married B and they had a daughter C, who married D. The son of C and D is the testator. He leaves to his father D all the property which he inherited from A and B, which they had left to their daughter's son. It consisted of a house, fields, and slaves. He leaves it to his father “forever,” only he is to retain the enjoyment of it as long as he lives. He therefore expects his father to survive him.

Here is another interesting example:

The division which A made with his sons B and C. The benefice of dagger-bearer (official slaughterer) in the Ishḫara temple he assigns to B. The benefice of the shrine of Papsukal in the temple of Bêlit-shami-erṣiti, situated on the bank of the canal, and the sown corn-field on the Dubanîtu canal he gave to his younger son C. All his property out in business he assigned to his mother and his two sisters. Certain dates in the possession of two of his debtors he gave to his two sisters. A fugitive slave, not yet recovered, to his mother and sisters. The house, which by a former deed he had [pg 226] given to his mother and sisters, shall be theirs according to the former deed. As long as his mother lives, she shall enjoy the property formerly assigned her. The benefice of the dagger-bearership in the temple of Ishḫara, which he had formerly assigned to his mother, she has freely intrusted to his son B. As long as she lives, B and C shall live in the house with her. The income of his mother his sons shall enjoy with her. She shall give marriage-portions to his sisters, her daughters, from her own marriage-portion.

This is very like a last will and testament. The man clearly expected to die shortly. He had married and had two sons, but seems to have lost his wife. He had evidently brought his mother and sisters to live with him. He provides for his sons, his mother, and sisters. Evidently his mother is the guardian of the boys. She is expected to leave the boys all the property that was his and to dower the sisters from her own fortune.

[pg 227]

XXII. Sales

Their importance

Alienation of property in perpetuity was a matter for serious consideration, where all property was as much that of the family as of the individual. A change of ownership, particularly in the case of land or house, also directly concerned the neighbors. Hence the deeds of sale are imposing documents. Whether the object sold was a piece of land, a house, or a slave, the same general treatment was accorded to it.

The formal preliminaries

There were the same formalities as in all deeds. First the purchaser approached the vendor and there was an interchange of ideas, often through a third party, prolonged over a considerable space of time. When etiquette had been satisfied and all the preliminary haggling was over, the parties agreed upon a scribe, who was made acquainted with the terms of the sale, already verbally agreed upon, and he set down in the imperishable clay the legal instrument which should bind the parties to their contract forever.

The registration of titles

Undoubtedly both parties took a copy, and it seems clear that a third was deposited in the temple archives as a sort of registration of title. It seems probable that each party sealed the copy held by the other, but this surmise awaits confirmation. As a rule, the same seal seems to have been used for all copies, and the witnesses in early times also affixed their seals. A more exhaustive study must be made before this can be regarded as certain. Even where duplicates [pg 228] exist in our museums, it has been usual to publish only one.

The method of identifying the property transferred and the parties concerned

As a rule, the scribe followed a very definite plan. First he made clear the identity of the property. This was the specification. In the case of land, neighbors were set down, boundaries given, in some cases the size of the plot. In each sale the specification is very important. The personal identity of the parties was usually sufficiently fixed by appending to their names those of their fathers. In many cases, the office or rank held by a party is added. Occasionally the name of the grandfather, or clan-father is added. When either party was a stranger, his nationality, or city, or tribe, is given. As a rule, the same information is attached to the names of witnesses. These notes of personal identity are very valuable, for they furnish means for reconstructing long genealogies, and they throw much light on the intercourse of varied peoples. Babylonia seems always to have had a very mixed population.

Means of protecting the buyer from fraud

Having made it impossible for any mistake to arise as to the property sold or the parties concerned, the scribe proceeded to guard against errors regarding the nature of the transaction. The house or other property “was sold,” “the money paid,” “in full,” and so on. Then he sought to make it clear that there could be no withdrawal from the bargain, nor after-claims raised. There was danger that the family might put in a claim to the property. An illustration of this is a suit brought to reclaim a house sold, which was the claimant's reversion—an actual redemption of ancestral property. From such perils the buyer was protected by heavy penalties on the seller, who in fact engaged to indemnify him.

The legal verbiage

These and many other complicated questions must have long been the subject of consideration in Babylonian legal circles. As a consequence, the scribe usually drew up the [pg 229] deed, in set terms, with a formula consecrated by long use, every turn of which was important.

The following is a good example of the way a scribe drew up a deed of sale:

A specimen deed of sale

Tappum, son of Iarbi-ilu, “has bought two GAN of field, in the Isle, next to the field of Ḥasri-kuttim, and the field of Sin-abushu, son of Ubar-Ishtar, from Salatum, daughter of Apilia, the GI-A-GI (?) and has paid its full price in silver. The business is completed, the contract is valid, his heart is content. In future, man with man, neither shall take exception. By the name of Shamash, Marduk, Sin-mubaliṭ and the city of Sippara, they swore.”

Then follows a list of about twenty witnesses, the names of whose fathers are also given. Usually the date is added. Here, however, it is either omitted or has been lost.

The body of the document in Sumerian

In this particular case the words within quotation marks are written in Sumerian. The variations are slight as a rule, but enough to show that the scribe understood what he wrote and could make correct changes when needful. The use of such a large amount of Sumerian in these deeds, along with Semitic names and specifications, has often been compared to the retention of Latin words in the body of legal documents in European countries, almost to the present day. It will be noted that this portion constitutes the formal body of the document, and might well have been kept ready written, blanks being left to fill in the names and specifications. It is not, however, easy to find proof that this was done in early times.

Later deeds often in Semitic only

Somewhat later, in the time of the First Dynasty, a number of these Sumerian words and expressions are replaced by their Semitic equivalent. Indeed, some deeds are Semitic only. We can by comparison make a fairly complete study of Sumerian legal terms. To some extent this was already done by the scribes who drew up the series of [pg 230] phrase-books called ana ittišu. But many new forms occur in these deeds.

The specifications of the deeds the items of permanent interest

To translate all the contract-tablets would be useless, for all the deeds of sale are exactly alike, except the names of parties, witness, or neighbors, and the specification of the property. The repetitions were necessary, for each deed required an exact statement. But it is sufficient, having once noted the style of document, to call attention to the peculiarities of the specifications.

The earnest money

Common in later Babylonian deeds

Very interesting are the references to earnest money, or the gift presented to close the bargain. As early as the time of Manistusu we find not only a price paid, but also a present given to the seller as a good-will offering. These are of a most varied and valuable nature. As already pointed out by Meissner, in the purchase of a slave for four and a half shekels, a little present of fifteen ŠE, or one-twelfth of a shekel, was thus added. Likewise when another slave and her baby were sold we find that in addition to the price of eighty-four shekels, one shekel is thrown in as a present. I do not recall the occurrence of this custom in Assyrian times, but in the later Babylonian documents it is common. There it is often referred to as the atru, or “over-plus.” Thus we find that in the sale of a house in the time of Nebuchadrezzar III., besides the “full agreed price,” šîmu gamrûtu, of half a mina of silver, the buyer gave one shekel of silver, kî atri, “as an addition,” and “a dress for the lady of the house.” The whole payment thus made of thirty-one shekels was called the šibirtu. So in the time of Darius (?) we find that, in addition to the full price of three minas, five shekels of silver, the buyer adds, kî atri, six shekels of silver and a dress for the lady of the house, making three minas, eleven shekels of silver as the šibirtum, [pg 231] or simply to a price of two minas of bright silver he adds two shekels, kî pî atar, making a šibirtu of two minas, two shekels of bright silver.

The notary's fee

Equally interesting are the sums charged as fees to the scribe. This was paid to him expressly for obtaining the seller's seal or nail-mark as a conclusion of the contract. Thus at the end of a deed of sale of a single male slave, executed by three owners by affixing three impressions of the same seal, and drawn up by one scribe, we read “Seven shekels of silver for their seal.” The price was about one hundred and forty shekels. Thus the scribe received a fee of five per cent. on the sale price. The ratio was not constant. It might be as low as two per cent. Thus in the case of a sale of a slave by two owners, who made four nail-marks in lieu of seals, we read “one mina of bronze for their nail-marks.” There was but one scribe, and the price was fifty minas of bronze. Hence we cannot think that this fee was paid for the scribe's seal, as some have done. The seal, or nail-mark, was not “the authenticating subscription by the notary,” but by the seller.

Assyrian deeds of greater length

In Assyrian times the deed of sale was a much longer document. The same general form is observed, but the document starts with a heading giving the information that the seller had sealed the document, or, in the absence of a seal, had impressed his nail-mark. No one but the seller ever seals or impresses his nail-mark. The seller is usually described as the bêlu, or “legitimate” owner of the property made over. Then first after the seal, or in a space left for it, comes the specification of the property. Next it is stated that the buyer has made a bargain and taken the property for so much. But the bulk of the document is devoted to a contract that the seller, his representatives, heirs, and assigns, [pg 232] shall never rescind the sale, or bring any suit to recover possession, under specified and heavy penalties. The wording of these passages recalls most strikingly the imprecations of the kings in their charters upon those who, in after times, should dare to render their gifts inoperative. This grand style is one of the many indications that for the Assyrian period most of the deeds we have were drawn up on behalf of the king's household.

Various interests regarded as having claims which must be distinctly met

It is usually stated that the purchase is complete, the full price paid and delivery of possession made. But in some cases this was a mere conventional statement, and both payment and delivery were delayed. There was to be no return of the goods, no turning back from the bargain; the pleading of a suit of nullity of sale is expressly barred. It is of interest to notice who were regarded as competent, or likely to take action to recover the property. Sons, grandsons, brothers, brothers' sons, are all named. The enumeration clearly included females of the same nearness of kinship. Sisters are actually named. All these relatives are included in the term “his people.” In some cases the šaknu, or governor of the district, is named, especially where slaves are sold, or the estate involved the transfer of serfs. The šaknu clearly had rights over lands and slaves within his district. The transfer of property might act injuriously to his rights. It was usual to stipulate that he had no such rights. How they had been annulled we do not know. Perhaps by some previous charter conferring exemption. The ḫazânu also appears to have had the right to intervene. The country seems to have been split up into districts which were called on to furnish fifty units, each consisting of an archer and a spearman or shield-bearer. Hence, the rab ḫanšâ, or “captain of fifty,” was really in command of a hundred men. Whether this obligation lay on a group of a hundred families or not, it is clear that the transfer of [pg 233] ownership of land might lead to embarrassment of the official. Hence, the rab ḫanšâ was likely to intervene also. There was service on public works also concerned in the matter. Whatever official was bêl ilki, or had right to “the levy,” might intervene. The chief of a certain district was called a rab kiṣir; he was also commander of a section of the army, and he had the right to intervene. Other officials as the šâpiru, ḳurbu, are named, but in all cases the nature of the claim must have been similar. The object of the buyer was to stipulate that the seller should hold him exempt from such claims. How this could be done does not appear.

Occasional use of the oath of confirmation

The oath to observe the contract made between the parties still appears, but is not common. As before, these oaths are of interest, for the light which they throw upon local cults. The gods were invoked as being the avengers of wrong. The decision of the king was also still regarded as a source of vengeance, since he was bound to see right done.

Penalties for the failure to carry out a contract

The penalties most commonly invoked were payments to the treasury of a temple. These were in the nature of forfeits. The sum set down in the deed rarely bears any exact relation to the value of the property, but is merely a large amount. Usually, a sum in both silver and gold is stated, but no relation between the relative worths of the metals can be deduced. The forfeit might take the form of presenting two or more white horses to the god. In a few cases, the penalty consisted in the devotion of a child, usually the eldest son or daughter, to a god. The verb used for “devoting” a child literally means to “burn.” This seems to point to an earlier sacrifice of children by fire. But variants show that it was now used in a more general sense of dedication. The “cedar wood of Ishtar” is named as the spot where a daughter was to be dedicated. Further, [pg 234] other objects might be dedicated as a forfeit. A great bow of bronze to Ninip of Kalḫu is named.

A deterrent penalty was to return the price “tenfold” to the seller. Once or twice the penalty is “twelvefold.” A further penalty was to pay a talent of lead to the governor of the city or state. Very curious is the penalty of being required to eat a mina of some food, possibly a magical compound, and drink an agannu pot of some drink. That this drink was taken from a bowl inscribed with magical formulæ seems to be the best way of reading the signs. The penalty was, therefore, an ordeal. Then, if the contention was right, the plaintiff would be immune; if he was merely litigious, perhaps he would be sick or even die.

Rights of the purchaser

Finally, it is often laid down that, if either party (especially the seller) shall attempt to bring a suit about the property, the judge shall not hear him, or if he insists, he shall lose the action. Throughout it is clear that the buyer tries to make the seller contract to waive all rights to recover his property, but he holds to certain rights of his own. Thus, in the sale of slaves, a clause is frequently inserted which claims a hundred days within which to set up a claim to repudiate the purchase, on the ground that the slave is afflicted with certain diseases, the ṣibtu and bennu, the character of which is not exactly known. Also he bargains that a blemish may be at any time an excuse for annulling the bargain. These really amount to demanding a guarantee from the seller that the slave was free from disease or other undisclosed weakness.

Late tablets include the details of bargaining

The later Babylonian tablets do not illustrate much that is of great interest. They often record the initial verbal discussion. Thus we find that when A bought of B, some phrase like the following is recorded: A said thus to B: “Give me thy property and I will give thee so much silver.” [pg 235] Then we read that “B listened to him and gave A his property and A gave him so much silver.” It is a curious little touch of verisimilitude.

Deferred payments

Sales usually were for the full price, or the agreed price, paid down at once. This is expressly stated. But in the later Babylonian times we have some examples of deferred payment, which may also have been common during earlier periods. Thus, a man sold a slave for fifty shekels and received twenty-five shekels as advance price. The rest was to be paid later. The payment was probably made soon. Thus we find a lady selling four female slaves to a certain man and taking a bond of him to pay four shekels, the balance of the price, on the second of Kislev, a week later. The interval might be two days only; but sometimes a much longer period of grace was allowed—as much as two months and seven days—although the purchase was taken away at once.

Return of purchase on failure to pay

It is occasionally stipulated that if the purchase-money is not paid by a certain date, the object purchased shall be returned. Thus S, having sold B some slaves, took a bond of him that, if B did not pay in a week, he would return them.

Retention of purchase without settlement

A long retention of the thing purchased—especially when it was profitable—without payment, was of course a loss to the seller. Hence, we find the seller of a slave taking a bond of the buyer that, if he did not pay on the date fixed, he should return the slave and his mandattu, or the income which a slave paid to his master.

Fraud

A distinct case of fraud occurs in the sale of a slave belonging to A by his brother B without A's knowledge. To make the matter worse, B had the contract drawn up in A's name. This was doubtless represented to be a case of agency, but there is no conclusive evidence.

[pg 236]

The records of sales found at an early date

One of the earliest inscriptions, the stele of Manistusu, records the purchase of large estates to form a possession for his son Mesalim, afterwards King of Kish. The whole inscription is splendidly published in photogravure in the Mémoires de la Délégation en Perse, Tome II., pp. 1-52. It is divided into a number of sections each recording a separate purchase. One example will suffice as characteristic of all:

A field of seventy-three GAN, its price being two hundred and forty-three and seven-fifteenths GUR of corn, at the rate of one shekel of silver a GUR of corn; price in silver, four minas, three shekels, and one “little mina,” the price of the field, and half a mina, six shekels and a fraction of silver, as a present to close the bargain; one garment for A, son of B, in presence of C, priest of Zamama (god of Kish); one garment for D, son of E. Total, two garments present for the field. Total, two men serfs of the field and food and money for the sons of C, priest of Zamama.

Their varied information

Here are many noteworthy pieces of information. The price of corn is fixed with relation to silver. It remained the same down to late Babylonian times. A present was given in addition to the price, as in many sales even to the latest times. The serfs go with the land. Certain food and money allowances are reserved to the priest C and his descendants. This was probably a territorial charge. Many other points of interest are furnished by the other sections. Thus, among the presents given are numerous vessels of gold, silver, and copper. The garments are of various kinds. The men who receive presents do not appear to be merely the sellers, but also elders of the city or district. This indicates a tribal or district right of control over the alienation of land. The boundaries of the estates are often given and are of great interest for topography. A number of persons are named as witnesses to the separate sales. In one [pg 237] way or another some five hundred persons and about forty places are named. Over forty titles or names of professions are given. Among them we note many familiar in later times, the abrakku, nagiru, patêsi, Šakkanak, as well as a king. We see already judges, merchants, scribes, irrigators, boatmen, carpenters, singers, shepherds, seers, branders, as well as slaves. We read of sheep, asses, goats, oxen. And all this from one inscription. It is a fine example of the kind of information this class of documents may afford. Not least in importance is the fact that many Semitic, as well as Sumerian, names and words occur.

Method of legally describing real estate

In the case of landed property the deeds of sale usually specify its position. In the case of fields and gardens four neighbors are often specified. Their plots of land then completely enclosed the plot concerned. What rights of access to such a plot existed does not appear, but where the boundaries were low mounds or ridges, it may be assumed that the tops of these were common to all for access and carriage. In towns, more usually three neighbors are named, the fourth side is often said to be on the street. Sometimes four neighbors are given for a house, but then an exit, mûṣû, is specified, which doubtless means a right of way through, or past, another house to the street. When more than four neighbors are named, it is probably the case that on one side the plot was conterminous, at least partly, with two of them. Very commonly only two neighbors are given, one each side. We may then presume that there were streets or lanes both front and back. If we could press the term bîtu to mean “house,” we might conclude from many cases that the old Babylonian cities contained streets of houses, which were one conterminous block of buildings. But they seem in very many cases to have had some open ground, and often gardens were attached.

Importance of these boundary inscriptions

These boundaries are of great interest both from the [pg 238] point of view of population and geography. Were we able to consult all the documents which were once stored in the archives of one great temple, we might map out a city and assign each plot to its owner; and then extend our map and the names of owners to the fields and plantations which lay around the city. For outside the city walls the ugaru or town-land extended to a considerable distance from the city walls. We may even soon be able to determine what was the approximate extent of this margin about the city, a belt of land often called a ḳablu or “girdle.”

Many of the details puzzling

Usually the plots are said to be in a city whose name is given. Thus we conclude the close proximity of Laḫî, Ishkun-Ishtar, Malgia, Ḥalḫalla, to Sippara. Indeed, they were probably conterminous with it. Often the plot is stated to be in some quarter, or ward of the city. For the most part the names of these wards, as for example Gagim, Karim, are difficult to understand. Why or how they obtained these names we cannot tell. It is noteworthy that one ward was called Amurru, “the Amorite land.” Much has been made of this by Professors Hommel and Sayce, but we are still far from clear ideas on the point. With respect to other indications of locality, it must be noted that they are usually at the end of the first line at the right-hand top corner of the tablet, and have suffered defacement more often than any other detail, so that they are often illegible.

Plots often, but not invariably rectangular

From many considerations it appears that most of these plots were rectangular, but it is curious to note that many plans of houses and fields exist which show that this was not always the case. Perhaps it was the irregularity of the outline which made plans necessary and they may be an indirect witness to the rarity of such a feature.

[pg 239]

Plans of houses

As a rule the private houses seem to have been small and to have had a few small rooms. The palaces, or mansions of the great, had much more extensive conveniences. One reads of several specially defined rooms, but their names do not as a rule tell us much of their use. Wash-houses, shops, stables, granaries, and vacant plots, as well as gardens and orchards, are often attached. Apparently one had to leave the house to enter these. The houses were built of brick and their roofs were supported by strong beams. In many plans, while the doorways for internal communication are carefully marked, there seems to be no access from the street. Perhaps this is a peculiarity of the architect's ideas of a plan, the door to the street being understood. At any rate, doors, bolts, posts, and a lintel are frequently named. These were often put in by the tenant and, like the beams, taken away by him. A door might be pledged alone. But it is possible that some houses had no door proper, being entered by steps leading to the roof. This may be the explanation of the oft-mentioned mûṣû or right of way out, either between, through, or over, other house property. When a house had other houses touching it on each of four sides, something of the kind was necessary.

Probably the house did not usually have an upper story; but, perhaps, as a remarkable exception, an “upper house” is occasionally mentioned. There is reason to think that some were in the form of a quadrangle, around an inner court; as there are wells, or fountains, mentioned as being “within the house.” In some parts of the city, at any rate, the block of buildings was continuous. But there were many streets, and canals also, in the cities. The streets, suḳê, were as a rule only narrow lanes or passages. As shown by the excavations at Nippur, houses stood for a long time. When first used, the floors were above the street level, but after the footpaths had been some time in use, [pg 240] they rose to the level of, and finally above, the floor, so that there were steps leading down into the house.

It seems evident that great efforts were made to provide drains for the foundations; and perhaps other sanitary appliances were found in the better class of houses. But we must await more extensive exploration, not necessarily in the more important mounds, before we are able to give a clear account of an ancient Babylonian house.

Description of houses in the contracts of sale

In the sale of a house it was often stated that the house was in good condition. In this respect many particulars might be recited, or the whole summed up in one concise phrase. In the early Babylonian documents no good example is yet published in which all the points are mentioned. We must refer to an example of Assyrian times, where all the chief points occur together. Early Babylonian tablets mention nearly all of these items, but only one or two at a time. Thus we have a note that the beams and doors are sound. Wood was scarce, and a tenant usually stipulated to take away the beams and doors, if he put them in. The fact that a man might pledge a door suggests that the modern theory of interchangeable parts was anticipated in Babylonia, so that a door would as a rule fit any house. [pg 241] What the beams were for is far from clear. To carry screens or curtains of skins over a central court seems most likely. Actual roof-beams were probably included in the “roof” itself, which is mentioned separately from the beams. The threshold, or perhaps, rather, the lintel of the doorway, may be meant; and, with the door-posts, be included under beams. The bolt or crossbar of the door is often associated with these beams.

The streets mentioned as boundaries

Streets are more frequently named as boundaries of a house than in any other connection. The “great street,” or “wide street,” occurs continually. Whether this was the main street of Sippara, or only one principal thoroughfare, is not always clear. Streets are often named after a god; thus the street of Lugal-amgaba, of Ishtar, of Bunene, of Bêlit-nuḫshi occur. They were named after people; Immerum the king, or Kât-Ninsaḫ, whose house adjoined the street named after him. The gate of Sin and his garden are named. Canals, especially the Nâr tupsarrûti, the Nâr Bilîa, are named. Roads, as that to Ishkun-Ishtar, are sometimes given.

A deed of the First Babylonian Dynasty

The following is a good example of a deed of sale at the time of the First Dynasty of Babylon, translated literally and illustrating the usual order of words:

One and two-thirds SAR of land built on,

next to the house of Nabi-ilishu,

and next to the house of Ilushu-ellatzu;

upper end, the house of Ḥaiabni-ilu,

its exit to that of Immarum,

šar irbitim

which is his own also;

from Nabi-ilishu,

Lamazi, the votary of Shamash,

daughter of Kasha-Upi,

by her written order

[pg 242]

has bought,

its full price

in cash has paid.

In future, party with party,

they shall not dispute.

By the name of Shamash, of Marduk,

and of Apil-Sin they have sworn.

Then follow the names of five witnesses, but there is no date given.

Its interesting historical information

The house was in Sippara, since it is known that Nabi-ilishu resided there. The “exit,” that is to say, the front door, opened on the road to the house of Immarum. The scribe means to say that Ḥaiabni-ilu, who was a neighbor, owned the house of Immarum. It appears that Immarum was šar irbitim, “king of the four quarters,” a title often borne by Babylonian kings. There is a great probability then that Immarum was no other than the Immerum, once King of Sippara, in the reign of Sumu-lâ-ilu. It is not necessary to suppose him still alive. This deed was executed in the reign of Apil-Sin, whose father, Ṣâbum, had reigned fourteen years after the death of Sumu-lâ-ilu. Further, one of the witnesses, Sin-ublam, is said to be a son of Immerum.

Thus we may conclude that Immarum, or Immerum—the difference in spelling is slight for these times—King of Sippar, bore the title of “king of the four quarters,” and as such was still remembered in Sippara. The exact meaning of the term has been disputed, but Sippara was a fourfold city: Sippar the great, Sippar Amnânu of the goddess Anunitum, Sippar Edinna, and Sippar Iḫrurum are named in the tablets of this dynasty. Perhaps the four quarters of Sippara are meant.

Lamazi, the buyer, daughter of Kasha-Upi, votary of [pg 243] Shamash, bought another house in the nineteenth year of Sinmubaliṭ, borrowed a quantity of lead in the first year of Ḥammurabi, and bought a female slave in a year of Ḥammurabi's reign, the date of which is not yet fixed. The name Lamazi is common and was borne by several votaries of Shamash whom we know to be daughters of other men than Kasha-Upi. But she may well be the same as the lady who figures without such marks of identity in several other documents. For example, she is named as being a neighbor of Ilushu-ellatzu.

Mention of the business agent

The phrase ina šapiriša, “by her order,” occurs often. It implies that Lamazi acted through an agent, when she borrowed the lead, she acted through a mâr šipri, a messenger and agent. She bought her other house in the same way. This does not imply any disability on the part of women to enter into business, for they were as free and competent to act as men. Nor does it arise from her being a votary of Shamash, for these ladies are concerned in by far the larger part of the transactions recorded at Sippara. It is merely the fact that on these occasions, as was frequently done, Lamazi employed a business agent, who is not named. Her father, Kasha-Upi, is referred to again as buying a house from the sons of Nabi-ilushu, where we learn that the latter was a son of Shamash-ina-mâtim and brother of Kasha-Upi. Lamazi was therefore a niece of Nabi-ilushu.

Mention of the price of a house

It will be noted that the price paid for the house is not given. This is often the case. But more commonly the price is named. As Dr. Meissner has already pointed out, prices varied greatly. Houses in a small provincial town like Tell Sifr naturally did not bring the same price as those in Sippara. But variation was probably even more due to situation and size. The lowest price per SAR was [pg 244] four shekels, the highest thirty shekels. This gives a wide margin.

An Assyrian deed for sale of a house

While there are many examples of the sale of houses in Assyrian times, they do not as a rule exhibit any important peculiarities. The best example comes from Erech and may be taken as a representative specimen:

The house of Ina-êshi-eṭir, son of Nabû-eṭir, a well-built house, furnished with door-frames, a roofed house, the door and crossbar of which are firm, in the quarter of Bît Kuzub-shamê-erṣiti, which is in Erech; upper side next Sulâ, Nabû-nâṣir and Bêl-aḫê-erba, sons of Eṭeru; lower side next Ereshu, son of Shama; upper end next Ṣillâ, son of Nabû-aḫiddin; lower end next Ereshu, son of Nabû-bêlâni; on each side the house of Ina-êshi-eṭir, son of Nabû-eṭir, more or less, so much as there is, for one mina fifteen shekels of silver, as price, he has intrusted to Ereshu. It is given, received, paid for, freed. An exception to the sale cannot be taken, there is no going back, neither shall implead the other. Hereafter, in future, in days to come, neither brothers, sons, family, relations on either side of the house of Ina-êshi-eṭir shall arise and lay claim or cause claim to be laid on this house, shall alter or complain saying [the usual pleas are understood here but omitted]. If so, he shall pay twelvefold. At the sealing of this tablet were present [then follow the names of five witnesses]. Dated in the twentieth year of Ashurbânipal. Ina-êshi-eṭir has impressed his nail-mark in lieu of a seal.

Various parts of the house

This example contains a full description of a house. The specification is rarely so full. But doors are always named, as many as six, in one case. Most of the Assyrian deeds of sale mention various adjuncts of the house. Thus the tar-baṣu or “court” is named. This was perhaps an attached walled enclosure.

It is the name given in the Code to the fold where sheep and oxen are kept. Vines might grow in it, and butter was kept there. A bît kutalli, or out-house, is named. Often bît rimki, or “wash-house,” is also mentioned. This [pg 245] was a chamber within the house, and may be rather meant for lustration, than for ordinary washing. One house had three of these rooms. Sometimes there was a bûru, a “well,” or cistern, within the house. A “shop,” or bît ḳâtâti, was often attached. Stables, bît abusate, are named. What is meant by bît irši is difficult to determine, perhaps some chamber fitted with beds and couches. The bît akulli had a well in it, but what it was is not clear. The bîtu elîtu may be an “upper story.” If so, most houses were one-storied only.

The burial-vault

Another interior apartment is called a kimaḫḫu. This has usually been taken to be a “tomb.” We know that the old Babylonian kings were buried in the palace of Sargon. But this was when the palace was no longer the abode of the living. Ashurbânipal's charter to his faithful general and tutor-in-arms, Nabû-shar-uṣur, seems to contemplate that general's being buried in the palace, though this is not certain. However, the explorations of Nippur demonstrate the existence of vaults for burial, built over with brickwork. It may be that such vaults did exist within the house, and were sold with it.

A “portico,” bît mutirrêti, is named once. Beside the “great house,” bîtu dannu, or bitannu, a “second house,” bît šanû, is mentioned. The exit from the house, mûṣû, a way to the street, was often named, being very important where the house was bounded on four sides by others.

Block houses in Nineveh

Most of the houses, of which we have deeds of sale, were situated in Nineveh itself. Occasionally, the house is shut in by more than three others, most often only by three. Then the fourth side is said or implied to be on the street. [pg 246] Hence, we may be sure that in parts of Nineveh, there were continuous blocks of houses, on each side of a street. Sometimes, however, we have a garden, or orchard, as one boundary.

Size not mentioned

Contrary to the practice in Babylonia, the size of the house is rarely given. We have the size of the bîtu akulli given, in one case, as forty-three cubits long and twenty cubits broad. What seem to be the dimensions of an ordinary house were twenty-two by fourteen cubits.

The usual cost

Houses in Assyria sold for from half a mina up to twelve minas; but as long as we are so ignorant of the form, nature, and dimensions of the house and its adjuncts, the information is of very little interest.

Side buildings

A number of other buildings or parcels of land were sold with houses or separately. Thus, we read of a papaḫu, or chamber, which was beneath an adjoining beer-shop. The beer-shop is often mentioned, and was a state-regulated institution.

Unimproved land

A term which was long somewhat of a puzzle, the ki-gallu, usually written Ê-KI-GÀL, or Ê-KI-DAN, is shown definitely by the Code to be a plot of uncultivated land. This might be rented for cultivation and was not necessarily poor land, for it was expected to yield ten GUR per GAN. But it might also lie in a city bounded on four sides by houses, or, as often, by three houses and the street. It was then, of course, a building site. Its price was usually about two shekels per SAR, but might be as high as eight shekels per SAR.

Granaries

Another common object of sale was a building called Ê KISLAḤ, shown by the Code to be really a “granary,” or barn, read maškanu. These are usually in the city, and the prices paid for them varied from one-third of a shekel [pg 247] to fifteen shekels per SAR. They might be surrounded by houses on all four sides, or by a canal, road, and street.

The term bîtu means not only “house,” but “field”

These examples serve to show that bîtu as often denoted a “plot” of land as a “house.” In Assyrian times we find the same usage. A fairly common object of sale is what I take to be a “fuller's field,” or a “bleaching ground,” bîtu ḳaḳḳiri pûṣê. It was usually in the city, of small size, given in cubits each way, or a trifle over a homer in area. It was near a stream. It sold for a very high price. Once we find half of it used as a garden. It seemed to have been fenced in. Unfortunately, no one example is perfectly preserved; and the deeds are of no special interest beyond the peculiar nature of the plot.

Sales of gardens

The gardens in the time of the First Dynasty of Babylon are generally said to be planted with dates, and sold for “full” price. Once two shekels are given for a garden of fifteen SAR.

These sales less frequent in Assyrian times

There are not many examples of these sales in Assyrian times, but they give some welcome information. There is nothing peculiar about the sale formula. The only interest is in the specifications. The garden is usually said to be planted with the iṣu tillit, almost certainly “the vine.” Hence, we may regard them as “vineyards.” The number of plants in them is often given, being as high as two thousand four hundred. Of other plants grown in a Babylonian garden we can recognize with more or less certainty in The Garden Tablet, garlic, onion, leek, kinds of lettuce, [pg 248] dill, cardamom, saffron, coriander, hyssop, mangold, turnip, radish, cabbage, lucerne, assafœtida, colocynth.

Other gardens are said to be kirû urḳîtu, “vegetable gardens.” In later times the date-plantations are continually in evidence. Beyond the specification, “planted with dates,” and certain obscure references to the condition of the crop at the time of sale, there is nothing to be noted.

Sales of fields: in First Dynasty of Babylon

The sales of fields are very numerous. They were usually situated outside the city walls, in the ugaru, or townland. They were not, however, reckoned outside the “town.” For the town extended beyond its walls, like a parish in England; and was bounded, as a rule, by adjoining towns. In the case of Sippara, many of these ugarê are named; but as a rule, the names do not explain themselves. Thus, Azarim, Ḥiganim, and Shikat Malkat may be named after persons or temples. Other names, like Shutpalu, Nagû, Iblê, Tapirtum, may well be significant. Certainly, Ebirtim appears to mean “across” the Euphrates. Once the field is said to be in Sippara, once in Ḥalḫalla, but we cannot press these statements to mean “within the walls” of those cities. Usually, the boundaries of a field are four other fields, with now and then a road, or canal. The price per SAR varied from one-thirtieth of a shekel to more than a mina. Very frequently, indeed, the price is simply said to be “full.”

In Assyrian times

The fields in Assyrian times are often mentioned. Nearly always when a field, eḳlu, is sold, it is somewhere else referred to as bîtu, or plot, usually of so many homers in size. There is nothing distinctive about the sale formula. The specifications give most interesting and valuable data as to the topography of the land around Nineveh. The accessories of a field may be named. Sometimes it was corn-land, šê zêr, part was tabrû, “open land,” part adru, enclosed by [pg 249] a wall or fence. Pits or wells, canals or ditches, courts or folds, occur frequently as adjuncts of a field.

Great estates

Larger estates are built up of the simple elements which we have noted. Sometimes the estate was so large as to be styled a “city,” alu šê. These “cities” are generally called after the name of some one, probably a former owner. But the number of people sold in them does not justify the use of any larger designation than “hamlet.” A large estate, with a few people on it, obviously its bailiffs and the serfs of its landlord, constituted the alu. Hence, this term, like bîtu, must have a wider signification than that usually given it. Such hamlets were, doubtless, the germs of future cities, but the term evidently denotes simply a settled abode of a group of people.

Plans of estates

From very early times the Babylonians drew plans of estates, which are in many ways very instructive. The seated statue of Gudea, found by De Sarzec at Telloh, has a plan of his city upon a tablet on his lap, accompanied by a scale of dimensions or a standard of length.

Professor Oppert, Dr. Eisenlohr, M. Thureau-Dangin, and others have discussed at length the plan of a field, which has the sides of several plots given in linear measure and the areas in square measure. From this was obtained a great variety of results regarding the relations between the measures.

[pg 250]

XXIII. Loans And Deposits

Records of loans of an early period

In the first epoch there are many examples of loans. The characteristic word ŠU-BA-TI, or ŠU-BA-AN-TI, which means “he has borrowed,” has been used as a title and they are often called ŠUBATI tablets. They are the receipts given for the loans by the borrowers. Here is an example:

“Sixty GUR of corn, royal quality, from L have been received by B.” Date. Seal of borrower.

In place of corn we may have money, dates, wool, or almost anything. Sometimes a date for repayment is given. In the examples there are usually no references to the interest to be paid for the loan. They may be regarded as advances made to temple tenants, or serfs, to be repaid at harvest from crops.

Their value for chronology

The greatest value of these tablets lies in their dates. The dates are usually events. Many of these have already been collected and registered, especially by Dr. H. Radau. But there is even more to be done, when further examples are published. Many tablets contain two dates referring to loans contracted at different times. By this means the sequence can gradually be determined. The seals are also of great interest and often of value, as may be seen from Dr. Radau's work.

Second Epoch. Repayments in kind or its stated equivalent

Advances of all sorts were freely made both with and [pg 251] without interest. For convenience we may separate money from corn loans and advances of all kinds of commodities; but we must not forget that corn, at any rate, was legal tender; and silver loans might be repaid in corn. This, however, was early recognized as an inconvenience and it is quite common to find a direct stipulation that what was lent shall be repaid in kind. It soon became usual to state that if the loan was repaid otherwise, it must be according to a fixed ratio between silver and corn.

Promissory notes

A very large number of loans take the form of Abstract schuldscheine, loans without statement of any cause for the debt. They are merely promises to pay, that is, acknowledgments of indebtedness. Thus we read: “Five shekels of silver which A has given to B. On such a date B shall pay five shekels of silver to A.” A penalty may be added for not paying on the fixed date. Usually this takes the form of interest. The rate is one shekel per mina each month, or twelve shekels per mina yearly, that is, twenty per cent. There is no clear case of money lent as an investment to bear interest. That was done in quite another way. The lender entered into relationship with an agent, to whom he furnished capital and who traded with the money and repaid it with interest.

Temporary loans at harvest-time

Most of the loans were evidently contracted to meet temporary embarrassment. Usually it was in connection with the need of cash to pay the expenses at harvest-time. The loan was then repaid at harvest. It might be repaid in corn. The time was usually short—fifteen days is named. The lender had his reward in obtaining his money's worth in corn, when its price was cheapest. But he was evidently not expected to charge interest. A similar kind of loan is half a mina of silver to pay the price of a piece of land. Here the money was lent until the land was bought, [pg 252] and was to be repaid with interest of three GUR of corn. So half a mina for certain land to be paid, when the land was cultivated.

Loans for the payment of taxes

Another reason for borrowing was the need of money to pay taxes, ana ilkim suddanim. In one of these cases the stipulation is added that the borrower shall bring the receipt of the tax-collector and then may take back his bonds. Here the “sealed tablet” is in one case the receipt for the tax, in the other the receipt which the borrower gave for his loan. But there is no mention of his repayment. Perhaps the lender owed the tax, half a mina, and as it was a considerable sum, sent it by a third party, but made him give a receipt for it. But such a receipt would differ in no respect from the sort of bond mentioned above, and would render the messenger liable to repay the money; so he was to have his receipt back, on handing over the tax-collector's receipt showing that he had paid the tax.

The temple as places of temporary loans

In several cases the god is represented as lending the money. It is obvious that such advances were made from the temple treasury. It is usual from such instances to expatiate on the temple, or the priests, as the great moneylenders. This is a view easily misunderstood. It is quite true that the temples were great landowners, and had steady incomes, and possessed treasuries; but there is no evidence that they lent on usury. It seems rather that these loans without interest (except as a fine for undue retention of the loan) were a kindly accommodation. We know that under certain circumstances a man might appeal to the temple treasury to ransom him from the enemy. He might also borrow in case of necessity without interest. Moneylending proper existed, but was kept in narrow bounds by the temple itself.

[pg 253]

Current coin

In view of the many questions that arise as to the nature of the money at this period, it should be noted that the silver is often said to be kanku; literally “sealed.” Whether this means that the silver bars, or ingots, were sealed while the metal was soft enough to receive a mark which would authenticate its weight and purity, or whether it means that the money was enclosed in sealed sacks, is hard to say. Against the latter may be urged that such a small sum as one and two-thirds shekels would not be sealed up. But it may be that kanku means “sealed for,” that is, acknowledged by the receipt.

Loans of corn

Even more common than money loans are the corn loans. Here the loans were generally for a short time just before harvest, when the repayment was expected. The period is usually short, five days, or a month. Interest is sometimes demanded, at the rate of one hundred ḲA per GUR, or one-third, that is, thirty-three and a third per cent. This was probably the rate per mensem, four hundred per cent. per annum. But in one case the interest is one hundred ḲA per GUR per annum, once it is expressly said to be nothing, usually it is not referred to at all. Sometimes a loan was partly in money, partly in corn.

Other loans of produce

Other things were lent, as sesame, skins, bricks, and the like, but these loans exhibit no peculiarity. They are merely letting the borrower have goods on credit, to be paid for, or returned, after a time.

We may take, as an example of this kind of transaction, a rather more complicated case:

Record of a loan

Two and seven-thirtieths of a GUR of corn, Shamash standard measure, which Ilu-kasha, son of Sharru-Shamash, gave to Belshunu, Ilushu-abushu, and Ikash-Ninsaḫ. Ilu-kasha brought the corn and returned one GUR and one-tenth and took for himself two hundred [pg 254] and twenty ḲA. Later he paid one-tenth of a GUR to Ilushu-bânî, Ikash-Ninsaḫ, and Shumma-Shamash, and they remitted in all three GUR, the former and later debt.

In the second case only one of the former debtors is left. The loan was partly repaid, a fresh loan contracted, and then partly repaid. It is not clear whether the arrears were remitted or extracted by distraint. Nor is it clear whether Ilukasha was debtor or creditor. As a rule such points are clear. It is only the conciseness of the formula which here causes the obscurity.

Loans or allowances in series

Another fairly common type of document contains a number of sections, each containing the record of one sum. But it is not clear that these were loans. They may be allowances for food or salary. Thus in B1 247 we have so much corn for the women weavers, so much more for the votaries, so much for other officials, from the first of one month to the thirtieth, so much for the Sutî who was watching the field, so much for a boatman, and so on. These are perhaps a temple steward's accounts. Their interest lies only in the incidental notices. We also note that here a month had thirty days. It is interesting to find that the celebrated Sutî nomads who later gave so much trouble, were already in the country and were employed to watch the fields. Was this watching done on the principle of “setting a thief to catch a thief”? Perhaps it was necessary to employ a Sutî as custodian, of course at a salary, if one was to preserve the crop from the depredations of his fellow-tribesmen.

Some of these tablets expressly state the amount of corn loaned, giving the date for repayment. Hence we see what a narrow margin divides the proper bond from the mere receipt, or even the memorandum of the loan.

[pg 255]

Formal advances of working materials

A number of tablets deal with advances of wool or woollen yarn made by temple officials to weavers and dyers to work up. As a rule they contain a number of words connected doubtless with the weaver's craft which are not yet made out. The following is a fairly simple example:

One talent of wool belonging to the palace, price ten shekels of silver, property of Utul-Ishtar the abi ṣâbê, which Ishme-Sin, son of Sin-bêl-aplim, Marduk-mushallim, son of Sin-idinnam, Ilushu-ibni and Bêlshunu, sons of Sin-eribam have borrowed. The day that the tax-collector of the palace demands it they shall pay the money of the palace.

Elsewhere the time of loan may be stated, two months for example. The price is always reckoned at six minas of wool for a shekel. It seems that the borrowers were not obliged to repay until a certain date, or until a demand was made for certain taxes. They then must pay in silver.

Assyrian loans ana pûḫi

In the Assyrian examples of money-loans the same general features constantly recur. The most common are loans ana pûḫi, which may be taken to mean “for consideration,” as the word pûḫu means an “exchange.” But there is never any statement of what the consideration was. Some have thought, that as the bond was invariably given to the creditor to be broken up on the repayment of the loan, the exchange referred to was a restoration of the bond in return for the money. But the consideration, which is a legal presumption, may have lain in the fact that the borrowers were tenants on the metayer system and had a right to borrow of their landlord, free of interest, at seed-time and harvest. On such loans interest is only demanded when the debtor fails to repay at the fixed date.

Usual rate of interest

The rate of interest charged as a penalty for non-payment or late payment was twenty-five per cent. per mensem, three hundred per cent. per annum. This interest was intended [pg 256] to secure prompt payment, but was not unfair in view of the increase of value obtained by investing it in corn and then sowing that. Other rates were one-third and one-eighth, but there is no fixed rate of interest for the loan of money, except when it was ana pûḫi.

For the use of corn

The interest on corn was thirty ḲA per homer. Some think the homer had sixty ḲA, which would make the interest fifty per cent. But no case has yet been found which gives the number of ḲA in a homer.

The coinage

The money lent is often said to belong to a god. Ashur, Ishtar of Arbela, or Ishtar of Nineveh, are the most common. Sometimes it is said to be in “Ishtar heads,” which has been taken to mean ingots stamped with a head of Ishtar. The frequent reference to the mina of Carchemish alongside the king's mina is eloquent as to the commercial eminence of the old Hittite capital.

An example is the following:

Sixteen shekels of silver, from A to B, ana pûḫi, he has taken. On the first day of Tammuz he shall pay the money. If not, it shall increase by a quarter. Dated the eleventh of Nisan, in the Eponymy of Bêl-ludâri. Three witnesses.

Loans on property often mere advances of material

Loans or advances were also made of various kinds of property. Thus we have an advance of ten minas of silver, Carchemish standard, seventy-five sheep, one cow, made by Ashurbânipal's chief steward to four men, ana pûḫi. The sheep and cow they are to return in Adar. If they do not return the sheep, they must breed them. The interest on the money is to be one-third. Dated the twenty-fifth of Tebet, b.c. 664. Thirteen witnesses. Such a loan seems to be on the metayer system.

Property on approval

Here again we have an exceptional case:

L lends two dromedaries, “which they called double-humped,” [pg 257] to three men, who shall return them on the first of the month, or pay six minas of silver. If they do not pay the money, interest shall accrue at the rate of five shekels per mina. Dated the fourteenth of Tishri, b.c. 674.

These animals were rare and evidently highly valued. What could the three borrowers want with a pair of such animals? Were they for exhibition in a menagerie? Perhaps they were for breeding. We may have here a case of goods taken on approval, for a fortnight or so, perhaps for sale to another party.

The same lender lent to the same three men, two hundred sheep, one hundred and fifty goats, two hundred and thirty yearling lambs, in all five hundred and eighty small cattle. They were to return the animals by a fixed date, or pay. Dated the seventh of Iyyar, b.c. 673. The same lender had lent seventy-two sheep to two other men, in Sivan, b.c. 680. They had to return the sheep in Ab, or pay for them at the market-rate in Nineveh. Bêl-êresh acted as agent for the borrowers.

A loan of wine

Other goods, such as wine, or oil, were advanced. Here we probably have to do with the transactions of the royal chief steward and the king's agents. For example:

L intrusts five homers of wine, according to the royal measure, to D. On the first of Nisan he shall return the wine, otherwise he shall pay for the wine according to the market-rate in Nineveh. Dated fifth of Adar, b.c. 674. Five witnesses.

Again:

Of oil

L advances six homers of pure oil, price ten ḲA of bronze per homer, to D, the major-domo at Carchemish. He shall repay the oil in Sebat; if not, it shall be doubled. Dated twenty-first of Ab, b.c. 681. Six witnesses.

[pg 258]

We may deduce the interesting fact that Esarhaddon was at Carchemish in Ab, b.c. 681. The advance was made for the use of the royal household there.

Of corn

Advances of corn were made exactly as in the earlier times. Thus:

L advances thirty homers of corn to D, the messenger from the city of Maganiṣi, by the hands of E, a colonel in the army. He shall pay the corn in Marchesvan, in the city of Maganiṣi, or pay the full value of it in Nineveh. Dated the seventeenth of Sebat, b.c. 665. Eight witnesses.

The peculiar shape of the tablets recording loans of corn

One peculiarity of the corn loans is that they are chiefly recorded upon what have been called heart-shaped tablets. These were lumps of clay through which a string passed and came out at the upper shoulders. The string was probably tied around the neck of a sack containing the corn. They thus served both as labels, seals, and as bonds. Many of them have Aramaic dockets, which have been collected and edited by Dr. J. H. Stevenson, in his Assyrian and Babylonian Contracts, with Aramaic reference-notes.

These loans made by the king

Thus the above example bears the words in Aramaic, “barley, assignment, which is from Nabû-dûri.” These Aramaic legends, in the case of such labels, may have served as addresses. But the general purpose is obscure. All the corn advances seem to have been made by officials of the royal household to inferior officers, in charge of farms or otherwise dependent for supplies.

Often made just before harvest

Sometimes at seed-time

They show by their dates that the corn was usually advanced just before harvest, when corn was dearest. Some of them name the reapers; others give the number of them. We conclude that these advances were made as food for the harvesters, or as wages for their labor. Occasionally, however, the loan was made at seed-time. Most of the loans are ana pûḫi, which supports the view that the meaning of this [pg 259] phrase is really “for management expenses” and presupposes the metayer system.

Receipts for payment of a loan of money

Closely connected with money or other loans are receipts for payment. These are somewhat rare. The more usual practice was to break the tablet, or promise to pay, which was returned to the debtor. But we have two good examples, thus:

The four minas of silver, interest, belonging to C, which were due from D, D has paid and given to C. One with the other, neither shall litigate. Dated seventh of Sivan, b.c. 683. Three witnesses.

Here we are not aware of the circumstances which lead to the loan. But, in one case, we have records both of the loan and its repayment, thus:

Of a loan of corn

Baḫiânu advanced two homers of corn, for food, to Nabû-nûr-nammir; and one homer each to Latubashâni-ilu and Ṣabutânu, ana pûḫi. Dated the twenty-ninth of Elul, b.c. 686.

And we find also:

Ṣabutânu and Latubashâni-ilu repay each one homer. Nabû-nûr-nammir does not repay. Dated Iyyar, b.c. 685.

Whether or not the defaulter paid later is not known; but we probably owe our knowledge of the repayment to the fact that all three did not pay together. We note that each paid exactly what he borrowed. No interest was charged.

Of a fine

In one case we have a receipt for a fine, or damages, imposed by a law-court. Thus:

Forty minas of bronze, without rebate, which the sukallu imposed as a fine. Paid to the šakintu. Dated the tenth of Adar, b.c. 693. Four witnesses.

There is no statement who owed, or paid, the fine. But the lady governor who received the money gave this receipt for it.

[pg 260]

Explicitness of the Code regarding legal responsibility

The Code makes very clear the legal aspect of this transaction. A minor or a slave could only deposit under power of attorney. A deposit was not recoverable unless made by a deed, or delivered in presence of witnesses and duly acknowledged by a receipt. The receiver was liable for all loss occurring to the goods in his possession on deposit, even when the loss was such as involved the loss of his own goods as well. For corn, the Code fixed a yearly fee for warehousing of one-sixtieth the amount deposited.

The bond destroyed on payment

As we learn from the few actual cases which occur, the receipt given for the goods was returned to the recipient on the return of the goods and the tablet broken as cancelling the responsibility. One form which it might take is illustrated by the following:

Ten shekels of silver, which according to a sealed receipt was deposited for the share of Ṣili-Shamash, he has taken from Ṣili-Ishtar and Amêl-ili, his brothers. His heart is contented; he will not dispute. Oath by Ḥammurabi, the king. Seven witnesses. Fourth year of Ḥammurabi.

Here apparently three brothers share, but one being absent the two hold their brother's share for him, giving a sealed receipt for it. This the judge delivered to him and he claimed and received his share.

Examples of deposit rare

Actual examples of deposit are rare; probably because our collections refer to temple transactions, rather than to private family deeds. We have a deposit of lead, from which we learn that silver was worth twice as much as lead. It was to be sent from Ashnunna, on demand. Here is another:

Receipts

“Concerning the silver which Zikrum and Ṣabitum gave to Ṣili-Ishtar on deposit. They have received it; their hearts are content. They gave up their bond and it was broken.”

[pg 261]

Instead of a receipt by the recipient there is often found a list concluding with the word apkida, “I have intrusted.” Then comes the date and the names of witnesses. It is not clear, however, that these things were meant to be returned. They may only be memoranda of allowances given out. They chiefly occur in Scheil's Saison de fouilles à Sippar.

No examples in later literature

In Assyrian documents no examples of this kind of transaction are found. Nor are any very clear examples producible from later Babylonian times. But it must not be overlooked that some cases, where a receipt is given for a sum or quantity of goods, without mention of interest to be paid, may very well be acknowledgments of a deposit; they have usually been taken to be loans.

[pg 262]

XXIV. Pledges And Guarantees

Pledges given as security in early times

Very little is known about pledges in early times, though Meissner had argued for their existence from certain passages of the series ana ittišu, such as “on account of the interest of his money he shall cause house, field, garden, man-servant, or maid-servant, to stand on deposit”; followed later by, “if he bring back the money he can re-enter his house; if he bring back the money, he can plant his garden again; if he bring back the money, he can stand in his field; if he bring back the money, he can take away his maid; if he bring back the money, one shall return his slave.” Consequently the creditor held the pledge in his possession until the loan was returned, when he had to give it back. The pledges here mentioned are antichretic, that is, such that they produce an income or return to the holder, which is a set-off against the interest of his money.

Similarity of this custom to distraint

The Code recognizes the taking of property in satisfaction of a debt. But this is rather a process of distraint upon the goods of the debtor, in case of non-payment, than a case of pledge. Since it was usually expected that the property so taken would be returned on payment of the debt, we can hardly distinguish it from pledge. Indeed, where a debtor gave up his wife, child, or slave to work off a debt, we have a case of antichretic pledge for the debt and interest.

[pg 263]

The practice in later periods

In times subsequent to the First Babylonian Dynasty, the pledge is common. As a rule, it is antichretic, such that income or profit derived from the pledge is a fair equivalent for the interest of the loan. The lender acquires the right of enjoying the pledge. As a rule this is assigned him absolutely, so that no account is needed to be kept of interest on one side and profit on the other. If the profit exceeds the interest due, the excess may be returned, or it may be credited towards the discharge of the debt. If the interest exceeds the profit on the pledge, then the amount by which the loan exceeds the capitalized profit must pay interest.

Very frequent in Assyria

In Assyrian times loans on security are fairly common. Here also we have antichretic loans, where the profit on the pledge was a set-off against the interest of the money. The pledge is expressly stated to be “in lieu of interest.” But it seems that the property was often expected also to extinguish the debt. Or it was merely pledged, as a security, which the creditor would keep in case he could not get his money back. We may illustrate these by examples:

A loan secured by land and seven slaves

The lady Addati, the šakintu, lends two minas of silver, Carchemish standard, exact sum, to D, the deputy of the chief of the city. In lieu of the two minas of silver, a plot of twelve homers of land in the outskirts of Nineveh, Kurdi-Adadi, his wife and three sons, Kandilânu and his wife, in all seven people, and twelve homers of land, are pledged. On the day that one returns the money, the other shall release the land and people. Dated the first of Marchesvan, b.c. 694. Ten witnesses.

The point about the phrase, “exact sum,” seems to be that the advance was made without any rebate. Here the security is worth little more than the loan. Its profits would, however, be a good security for the interest of the loan. No time is given for repayment, but the creditor [pg 264] undertakes to accept repayment and release the pledge at any time.

Again:

A loan secured by a vineyard and slaves

The lady Indibî lends sixteen minas of silver, royal standard, to D. In the month of Tishri, he shall pay the money in full; if not, interest shall be two shekels per mina monthly. A vineyard in the village of Bêl-aḫê, next to that of Ḥabašu, next to that of Si'banik, next to that of the chief scribe; also these slaves, Dâri-Bêl, his wife, three sons, and two daughters, along with his household, four fat cows (?); Ḥudi-sharrûtu and his daughter; all are pledged as security. If they die or run away, the loss shall be D's. The day that D shall refund the money, with the interest, his slaves and vineyard shall be released. Dated the ninth of Ab, b.c. 688. Six witnesses.

Or again:

A loan secured by a field

Five homers of land belong to D, in the city Kâr-Au. The lender L gives D two-thirds of a mina of silver. This two-thirds of a mina of silver L shall acquire from the field and when D thus has given L his money back, he shall release the field. Dated the sixteenth of Iyyar, b.c. 680.

In the following case a maid is assigned outright for a loan. It is doubtful whether this is a sale, or a pledge:

By the service of a maid

In lieu of money, Bêlit-ittîa, the maid of the šakintu, is assigned to the lady Sinki-Ishtar. As long as she lives, she shall serve her. Dated the fourteenth of Iyyar, b.c. 652.

By the borrower's service

A very similar case occurs in the loan of corn and a cow by the bêl paḫâti of the Crown Prince, to a certain Nargî of the city of Bamatu. Nargî was to serve the lender for the corn and cow. When his service had become equivalent to the value of the advance, he could go free.

Antichretic pledge was very common in later Babylonian times. The most typical examples are houses. The lender [pg 265]

In later Babylonian times by the free use of a house

has a house in pledge. To him it is rent-free until the loan is repaid. Hence the common phrase “rent is nought, interest is nought.” There was then no reckoning made one against the other. The creditor might not, however, care to take the pledge in perpetuity against interest of a loan, never repaid. Usually a date was fixed for repayment, at which time the debtor was bound to take back his pledge. Thus a house might be pledged definitely for three years.

Relations between profits and interest

A reckoning might also be made, to check off profit against interest. Thus D pledges a field to L, but on condition that, if in any year the crop is less than will meet the interest due, he shall pay the difference; but if, on the other hand, it be worth more, he shall take the balance.

Second mortgages barred

The value of the pledge might, however, be such that it would outweigh both loan and interest. At any rate, it should be as valuable as the loan. Hence it could not be used as a further pledge to another. There is often a guarantee that the pledge given has not been already pledged, that no other creditor has a lien upon it.

The creditor's responsibility

In these cases the creditor enters into possession of the pledge and enjoyment of it. He has some responsibilities towards it. He cannot destroy it, or waste it. As a rule, he assumed full liability for all cases for wear and tear. He also fed and clothed a slave pledged to him. Now and then we find the debtor responsible for clothing the slave pledged by him. It is not essential, however, to the idea of pledge that it should come into the possession of the creditor, only it is hypothecated to him. This practice was very common in later Babylonian times.

Pledges often anticipated and readily transferable

Such pledges give an eventual possession. Something like a reversion occurs in the pledge of a share not yet divided. [pg 266] Thus a sum was borrowed on the understanding that if not returned by the proper time, a slave shall be handed over as an antichretic pledge. The man who gives a pledge may not be in actual possession of it, but pledges it on the understanding that he will hand it over as soon as it becomes his. Thus B bought a slave and her two young children for sixty-five shekels, but before they were handed over, he pledged them for fifty-five shekels. Nine months later he sold them for sixty shekels.

Mortgages

A common case is where the debtor pledges all he has to the creditor, a pledge usually greatly in excess of the value of the loan and its interest for a reasonable term, but remains in possession himself. Hence the creditor has only a right over the pledge, a lien upon it, but no usufruct. For this he had the bond. This also gives only an eventual possession.

The creditor in free use, within his needs, of pledged property

We often meet with after-pledge. The creditor, being in possession of the pledge, might traffic in its profits. If he held a house as pledge, he was not bound to live in it, but could sublet it. Hence he might pledge the rent of it. Or he could repay himself his loan by repledging the house to another. He could also pledge the loan which was due to him. This makes a rather complicated case.

Possible complications

Thus L makes an advance a to D and receives a pledge p. He may then pledge both a and p. If these are given to two separate persons, a to A and p to P, then P has a cause for uneasiness. If D comes in and pays up a, he has a right to the pledge p which is in P's possession. But the money he advanced is not thereby paid to him. Further, A has a right to the money a just paid in by D, which is all that is in evidence. Hence L will have succeeded in getting two sums, and unless he can succeed in realizing his investments of them, is called on to pay both A and P with [pg 267] one amount. Either A or P may suffer. But if L pledges both a and p to one man C, then C is quite independent of the relations of L to D. Now D simply has to pay C and gets his pledge back. C is sure of his money.

Method of securing the holder of a second mortgage

Such a transfer of the responsibility of D from L to C was effected by handing over to C, with the pledge, also D's bond to L. C now holds this bond, which, with his pledge, D wishes to get back. The following is a complicated case illustrating these points: D had a house and pledged it to L, who lived in it. Two others were guarantees that D would repay the loan. The pledge was antichretic, “rent nothing, interest nothing.” Now L wanted money; so he pledged the house to C. But he did not wish to vacate. So he hired it of C, at such a rate that he would repay C's loan in about five years. It is clear that this house was not good security for C, since D might turn out L at any time by repaying him. L would then owe money to C for which C had no security at all. But L in addition pledged all his own property, his slave, and all his goods in town and country. Further, he not only pledged the house, but handed over D's bond to him. C thus held the house in after-pledge, and the advance with its security in pledge. He was therefore amply secured, since D must pay him.

Now L died and was succeeded by his son M. L had already paid nearly a third of his debt. M thus owed less interest on the loan still due and was accepted by C as tenant at a lower rent. By this means M really made a small profit to himself. In three years M had paid off the whole sum borrowed by his father, and due from him as heir and executor, so he gave back his father's bond to C, also D's bond to L. Now D paid back his loan to M. His bond to L was destroyed. The claim of C on D was annulled, the guarantees of D were free. A final deed of settlement was [pg 268] drawn up, in which C acknowledged that he had no claims on D or M, nor on D's sureties. He had to say this, because he was not only creditor to M, but as long as he held transferred to him the pledge of D, and the credit of L, he was a creditor with claims on D also. Further, M declares that he has no credit on D.

The occasion for guarantees

A guarantee arises from certain persons undertaking to fulfil a responsibility which is legally incumbent on another, in case he fails to do so himself; or to secure that he shall fulfil it himself. Thus, guarantees are very frequent at all times, especially in the later Babylonian period, and are of many different kinds.

Guarantees for debt

A guarantee for debt was an additional security to the creditor. Of course, the original debtor is the security that the guarantor shall not lose. A good example showing all sides is the following bond for three minas due from D to L. G and W come in and guarantee that D will pay; if not, they will. To protect themselves, they take as a pledge of D some of his people. But D paid and received back his people, so that the bond was returned to D. Why D did not give his people as pledge to L direct is not clear. G and W were probably persons of greater credit and perhaps related to D. The guarantor was sometimes called on to pay. Thus G guarantees for D, is called on to pay and D repays him. The guarantor was legally protected against the defaulting debtor.

For appearance

A guarantee for appearance may have been only to come and pay, as when G guarantees the creditor, a temple, that D will come on a fixed date, and pay his debt; or if not, G will himself pay. It may be a guarantee that a man will not go away; by which may be meant escape payment, or fail to appear for judgment. This is called a guarantee [pg 269] “for the foot of” the person thus indorsed. The “foot” is said to be in the “hand” of him who demands the guarantee. It often refers to debt. G guarantees for the foot of D, out of the hand of L. If he goes away, G will pay thirty-five GUR of dates. Here G is the mother of D. So, probably on account of debt, G guarantees for the foot of D, his son-in-law, from the hand of L; again, G guarantees for D to L that D will come on a certain day. G takes the responsibility for all D owes to L, and will pay if D does not come. Or, G guarantees for D and E that they will not leave for another place. If they do, he will pay six minas.

For a witness's appearance

But the appearance may be needed for a different purpose. G guarantees to bring a witness to Opis, and give witness against L that one who was guarantee for the foot of someone to L shall return at the right time. If the guarantee shall prove that L was paid, he is free; if not, he is bound to pay.

D owed L a debt. L ceded this debt to M, but had to guarantee that D will come and pay.

Joint responsibility

Solidarity is in some cases a form of guarantee. Thus two men D and E owe a debt to L. Each is taken as guarantee for the other that they will pay. This is one of the commonest forms of guarantee. The debt could then be recovered in its entirety from either.

Against theft

An example of a guarantee against theft is also found.

Of full value of property sold

A warrant against defects in a slave is very common. The seller warrants that if the slave prove to have certain undisclosed defects, vices, or liabilities, which would detract from his value to the buyer, the seller will indemnify the buyer. This indemnification seems to be effected by a return of the purchase-money and accepting the slave back. [pg 270] But, in some cases, the seller returned part of the purchase-money according to a fixed scale of allowances. In the sale of an estate, the seller guarantees that he will indemnify the buyer in case of any defect of title to sell, or any lien upon the estate.

Against suits at law

Very common at all times was a personal guarantee not to dispute the compact entered into. In fact, this may always be said to be assumed. The oaths by which parties swore to observe the terms of the compact are a form of this guarantee. The penalties, so prominent in Assyrian times, are voluntary undertakings to forfeit stated sums, if found attempting to go behind the contract.

Of the value of securities

As the pledge did not always leave the debtor's possession, the creditor only had a lien upon it. Hence the giver of the pledge had to guarantee that no creditor had a previous lien upon it. This is also extremely common. A slave pledged for debt might run away. His labor as the offset against the interest was thus annulled. The borrower then becomes liable for the interest lost to the creditor.

[pg 271]

XXV. Wages Of Hired Laborers

Free labor in demand

Despite the existence of slaves, who were for the most part domestic servants, there was considerable demand for free labor in ancient Babylonia. This is clear from the large number of contracts relating to hire which have come down to us. The variability of the terms agreed upon is witness for the existence of competition. As a rule, the man was hired for the harvest and was free directly after. But there are many examples in which the term of service was different—one month, half a year, or a whole year.

Slaves or dependents secured from owners

One might hire labor from the master of a slave, or from the parents of a young man, not yet independent, and then the wages were small, a shekel or two. These wages were paid to the master or parents, not to the laborer himself.

Reapers for the harvest had half a shekel, or two shekels, each. The first may be the daily wages, the latter the price for a specific job. It is probable that the GUR of corn for ten days also represents the wages for the whole period.

Wages subject to adjustment

Average wages have been estimated by Meissner to be six shekels per year, according to the Code, and some actual examples of contracts. But it was evidently a matter of agreement, for we have rates as low as four shekels and as high as eight. Usually the employer paid down a sum, for example, a shekel, as earnest-money; the rest was paid by [pg 272] a monthly or daily rate, or in a lump sum at the end of the term of service. Occasionally the wages might be paid down at the start, but this was rare and the amount less.

Often paid in produce

Very frequently, of course, the wages were paid in corn instead of money. Many difficulties lie in the way of finding an equivalent of the shekel in corn. Harvest labor was probably far dearer than any other, because of its importance, the skill and exertion demanded, and the fact that so many were seeking for it at once. Further, after harvest, when the wages were paid, corn was at its lowest price. Meissner's actual examples show that two hundred and fifty ḲA might be accepted as yearly wages. We have such a variety of rates that it is difficult to draw any clear conclusion, but two young slaves at harvest could earn three hundred ḲA, and for a whole year the wages might be over six hundred ḲA, or even as much as three GUR, or nine hundred ḲA. The Code names ten ḲA as daily wages. The average value of a GUR of corn was a shekel, hence this gives a yearly rate of twelve shekels. In this case we may suppose that the laborer supported himself.

The labor duly guaranteed

The laborer had to be bound to perform his task. A penalty was attached to his failure to appear at the proper time, and guarantees were sometimes taken for his appearance. In other cases it is stipulated that the penalty for non-appearance shall be fixed by the king's decision.

Duration of service fixed

It was usual to name expressly the time of his commencing and leaving off his work. These clauses are incidentally of importance as fixing the names and sequence of the months at this period. Thus, from the example below we see that the month Tirinu preceded Elul.

Living usually included

Of course, the employer took all responsibility for the slave whom he hired. He fed and clothed him during his term of service. If he suffered any injury, the employer [pg 273] had to compensate the master. Occasionally the slave clothed himself, and then his wages were higher.

As an example we may take the following:

Nâmir-nûrshu from Rutum, Rîsh-Shamash, son of Marduk-nâṣir, for wages, for one year, has hired. His wages for one year, twenty-four ḲA of oil, he shall pay, and he shall clothe him. In Elul he shall enter, in Tirinu he shall leave. Two witnesses. Dated in the reign of Ḥammurabi.

Assyrian contracts name both wages and time-limit of work

In the Assyrian times we have certain examples of advances of corn, or money, at harvest-time for the payment of reapers, which have already been noticed under loans. An advance of money and food to workmen may perhaps be put here. But it is also a contract to do work. It reads thus:

Shamash-bâni-aplu, Latubashâni, Ukîn-abîa, Aḫu ... in all four workmen. Two talents of bronze, three homers one ŠE of cooked corn. On the tenth of the month they shall do the work. All the repairs and the beams they shall make fast. They shall fix the balks, and set up the roof. If the bricks are not sufficient ... the month they do not give, they shall work and finish. Then follow seven witnesses. Dated on the sixth of some month, b.c. 734.

Unfortunately, parts of the tablet are injured and so the sense is not at all clear; but the workmen seem to have had four days in which to do the work. The price offered was considerable.

In later Babylonian times we do not obtain much further information. Here is a good example:

From the twentieth of Nisan to the tenth of Ab, Zamama-iddin, son of Shamash-uballiṭ, son of the smith, shall be at the disposal of Nabû-usallim, son of Limnîa, and he shall pay him as his wages ten shekels of silver. He shall pay half the wages in Nisan and the rest in Tammuz. Whoever breaks the contract shall pay five shekels of silver.

[pg 274]

The hire is nearly thirty shekels a year, as in the next example:

Bultâ, son of Ḥabaṣiru, son of the oxherd, has put himself in the hands of Marduk-nâṣir-apli, son of Itti-Marduk-balâṭu, son of Egibi, for wages of half a mina of silver for one year. From the first of Sebat shall Bultâ be at the disposal of Marduk-nâṣir-apli. Bultâ has received one-third of a mina of silver from Marduk-nâṣir-apli.

[pg 275]

XXVI. Lease Of Property

Form of house-rental

In case of lease, the specifications of the house are usually the same as in a sale. But this is often not so full, since the identity of the house is less in evidence. A very interesting text referring to the sale or lease of a house next to the palace, in the district of Tirḳa, a house belonging to gods Shamash, Dagan, and Idur-mêr is published by M. Thureau-Dangin in Revue d'Assyriologie. It belonged to the King of Ḥana, whose seal it bears. His name was Isar-lim, son of Idin-Kakka. The receiver was Kaki-Dagan's son. The oath was by Shamash, Dagan, Idur-mêr and Isar-lim the king. The names are very interesting—Igid-lim, an official of the god Amurrû; Idin-abu, king's son; Ili-esuḫ, a judge; Idin-Nani, son of Idin-Marduk; Sin-ukûr, son of Amur-sha-Dagan; Iazi-Dagan; Ṭuri-Dagan; Ṣilli-Shamash. These prove that the land of Ḥana, already known by a votive offering of one of its kings, Tukulti-mêr, was largely Semitic. The names are either of the Babylonian or Aramaic type. It is, of course, not easy to date, as the style of writing in Ḥana may have been different from that in Babylonia at the same epoch.

The rental variable

Meissner estimates the average rent of a house to be one shekel per annum. But there are noteworthy variations which, with our available data, cannot be explained. Perhaps the best way is to take account of the size of the [pg 276] house, usually given in the Babylonian fashion by the area of its ground-plan. Rents were often paid in corn, but are so variable that a value for corn in money cannot safely be deduced.

The usual conditions of tenancy

A small part of the rent was usually paid as earnest-money to close the bargain. In the case of short leases the rest was paid on quitting the house, in longer leases half-yearly. Usually the term of tenancy was carefully stated. It was most commonly one year. The cost of repairs fell on the tenant, according to the Code, but he was forbidden to make any alterations until he had paid over the earnest-money. The Code perhaps only means to forbid his closing the door and fastening it, until the deposit was made. The landlord, in fact, preserved the right of free entry until then.

Fields rented for a limited term

The usual term of lease for fields was three years. It is not possible as yet to explain why three years was stipulated, but it was probably due to something more than an accident of custom. Possibly a rotation of crops or an alternation of crop and fallow may have been in vogue.

Usual conditions of tenancy

According to the Code the tenant was bound to keep the land in good condition. His duties included the ploughing or trenching, sowing the seed, snaring or driving off the birds and stray beasts, weeding, watering, and harvesting. Gardens he had to fence. The watering-machines were of great importance and had to be kept in order. They were worked by oxen—often as many as eight oxen were required to work them. A certain amount of stock was frequently leased with the land. It is not clear that oxen were used for the plough; they may have been kept for the watering-machines.

Land often taken on shares

The landlord was in a very real sense a partner with his tenant, though he may be described as a “silent partner”.

[pg 277]

In the case of the great temple landowners it seems to have been the custom to supply a very large amount of the tenant's necessities. Seed-corn was frequently furnished, also corn for food for farmer and men, until the crop was gathered. The stock and farm implements were also provided by the landlord. This metayer system of leasing land probably accounts for loans without interest. It is not clear that such a system was already in vogue in early times.

Stipulations regarding improvements

In hiring a field it might be stipulated that the lessee should place a dwelling upon it, manaḫtu ana eḳlim išakkanu. Here the field was at a distance from the city, “beyond the upper stream.” If the crop was to be properly looked after, protected from birds, stray beasts, and robbers the farmer must live there some part of the year. There was no dwelling. The lessee was therefore called on to erect a dwelling. Probably a simple edifice sufficed. At the end of the tenancy the tenant was called on to resign this building.

Varying rentals

There were two sorts of land. That called AB-SIN or šeru', seems always to have paid six to eight GUR of corn per GAN. The other sort, KI-DAN, probably read kigallu, and certainly meaning land, not cultivated but to be brought into cultivation, was exceedingly variable in quality. It is set down for a rent of from three up to eighteen GUR per GAN, but some land is rented at seventy-two GUR per GAN.

Allowances for maintenance sometimes a part of the agreement

On account of the hire, some deposit was usually made, which seems to bear no direct relation to amount of rent. But while this was in many cases money—one to three shekels—a number of cases exhibit a list of quantities of food and drink. What these were it is difficult to say, as the terms are written ideographically. But joints of meat, pieces of flesh, drinks, bread and oil, seem to be intended. The [pg 278] custom is obscure. Possibly these are set down as weekly or monthly rations secured on the whole rent and to be set off against it later. That the quantities are in some sense distributive is certain, “so much each,” but whether “each person,” “each day,” “each month,” or “each year” is not stated. One plausible suggestion is that the landlord, like the votary in the Code whose brothers do not content her, let the farm to a man who covenanted to support or maintain him. The contention is strengthened by the fact that the cases known to us are all female landlords, and may actually be examples of what the Code contemplates. Having only a life interest in the property and being without capital, they could not afford to wait until harvest to receive the rent, but needed a frequent allowance for maintenance.

Life leases rare

One such tablet known, but difficult to localize

The lease of an estate for a term exceeding a few years was always rare. One is found on a tablet which is one of the most interesting of all those supposed to be of the First Dynasty of Babylon. The script and the language recall Assyrian types most vividly and it is full of non-Babylonian names, which suggest Hittite, or even Armenian, origin. Unfortunately, it is not dated. It might well have been found at Kalaḫ, or Asshur, and belong to somewhat early Assyrian times, perhaps before Assyrian independence of Babylonia. Not one person named in it occurs in the other tablets of the Bu. 91-5-9 Collection—a thing which cannot be said of another of them. If this was really found with them, we can only suppose that centralization was carried to such a pitch that important legal documents, even when executed as far away as Assyria, or Mesopotamia proper, had to be sent in duplicate to the capital of Babylonia. Or was it possible that the principal party came to the capital with this document in his possession, deposited it in the temple archives there, and died, leaving no one to reclaim it.

[pg 279]

Dr. T. G. Pinches gave a transcription and translation of the text in the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, 1897, pp. 589 ff., with many interesting and valuable comments:

Six homers of corn [land] belonging to Ishtar-KI-TIL-LA, son of Teḫip-TIL-LA, Kibîa, son of Palîa, Urḫîa, son of Itḫip-sharru, and Irishenni, son of Iddin-PU-SI, have taken for three homers of land, to harvest and transport. As long as Ishtar-KI-TIL-LA lives, Kibîa, Urḫîa, and Irishenni shall transport the crop of three homers of land and shall deliver the same in caldrons. If Kibîa, Urḫîa, and Irishenni do not harvest and transport and deliver the same in caldrons, and the corn perish, they shall pay in full one mina of silver and one mina of gold to Ishtar-KI-TIL-LA. Each is surety for the other. Before Aḫli-Têshup, son of Taishenni; before Ukuia, son of Geshḫai; before Shellu, son of Wantia; before Kushshu, son of Ḥuluḳḳu; before Durar-Têshup, son of Gil-Têshup; before Aḫli-Babu, the ḫazânu, son of Nubananu; before Zinu, son of Kiannibu, the scribe.

The names of the witnesses seem to be North Semitic

The names of the witnesses are here given in full because of their exceptional interest. Until we are sure of his nationality it is scarcely safe to suppose the principal's name was really pronounced Ishtar-kitilla—the latter part of the name may well be an ideogram. The name of his father ending also in TIL-LA suggests that that group of signs is separable. If so, the signs read Ishtar-KI may perhaps be ideographic also. It is evident that Teḫip is from the same root as Itḫip, and the form looks Semitic.

Kibîa, Palîa, Urḫîa are Semitic, but Irishenni and Taishenni remind one of the Erisinni, of the son of U'alli, King of the Mannai in Ashurbânipal's time. Still, neither can be said to be non-Semitic with certainty, when we recall the many names ending in enni or inni formed from verbs and compare the names formed from erêšu, erêsu. Names containing the name of the god Teshup were known long ago, as Ḥu-Teshup, Kali-Teshup, Kili-Teshup, where the other element of the name does not seem to be Semitic. Egyptian records give us other compounds of the name of this [pg 280] god, who was the sky-god among the pre-Semitic peoples of Mesopotamia

Here we have Aḫli-Teshup, Gil-Teshup, and Durar-Teshup. With the former, Professor Hommel compares Aḫlib-shar. With the next compare the Mitanni name Gilîa, also Gilûa. Aḫli-Babu is a closer parallel.

Of the other names, Shellu, Kushshu, Ḥuluḳḳu, and Zinu seem to be Semitic; at any rate they occur frequently, or in cognate forms, well known among the Assyrians and Babylonians. The others are all very unfamiliar. We are as yet so imperfectly acquainted with the onomastics of the nations surrounding the Semites that it is hazardous to attempt to locate these people. Supposing them to be all of one race, they may belong to a colony settled near Sippara, but the whole style of the language is so unlike the Sippara documents that we can hardly suppose that to be the case.

[pg 281]

XXVII. The Laws Of Trade

The fitting-out of traders by capitalists a very early practice

The oldest form of business in Asiatic life is commenda: the commendatist gives a fixed sum of money to the agent with which he does his business. The former takes a fixed share of the profit, say half, in addition to the original sum invested. The agent usually secures guarantees for the capital. This method of carrying on business is customary in the early times. The Code regulates the relations between principal and agent. The former is called tamkaru, usually rendered “merchant,” and the latter is šamallû, often rendered “apprentice.” The merchant is, however, a trader in many ways, and in the Code he is usually named, where we expect lender or creditor. Hence there is little doubt that his name is derived from magâru, or makâru, with a meaning “to traffic” (?). He seems to have been a monied man, who was ready to make to cultivators advances on their crops—a practice always liable to great abuses, which the Code aims to check.

The agent repaid the value of the outfit with interest

The merchant principal also furnished goods, among which are mentioned corn, sesame, oil, wool, wine, and manufactured articles. The agent did the trading, and regularly rendered his accounts to his principal. He travelled from place to place to find a market for his goods, or to make purchases, which could be profitably sold at home. The principal paid no salary, but received again his capital, or the value of his goods, and an interest or share of the profit. [pg 282] It is clear that the merchant also moved from place to place, and there is evidence that many of them were foreigners. The travelling agents with their goods formed the caravan.

Legal memoranda essential as security

This kind of trading was regulated by the Code. Unfortunately, the opening sections of the part dealing with the relations of principal and agent are lost; but from what is left we see that it insisted on exact accounts being taken, on both sides, of the amounts of money or value of goods thus invested. If the merchant intrusted money to his agent, he was to take a receipt for it. If the agent received goods, he was to enter their money value and obtain his principal's acknowledgment of the amount of his debt. If he suffered loss of goods from his caravan by bandits, or in an enemy's land, he could swear to his loss, and be exempt from repayment to his principal. But if he did not prosper in his business, or sold at a loss, he had to make good the capital, at least, to his principal. The Code leaves nothing to chance. If the agent is foolish enough not to obtain a sealed memorandum of the amounts received, or a receipt for what he pays to his principal, it is enacted that money not sealed for cannot be put in the accounts. Much was clearly left to the good faith of the agent. The principal was tolerably secure of receiving back his money and had hope of profit. Against that he had to set possible loss by robbery of the caravan. But he was not bound again to employ the same agent. An agent detected defrauding his principal had to pay threefold. But it speaks well for the Code as protector of the weak that it made the capitalist who defrauded the agent repay sixfold.

This business done mainly by caravans

From the contemporary documents we learn that the name for the business was girru. That this was also the name for an “expedition,” warlike as well as peaceable, points to its connection with the caravan trade. The sign [pg 283] for girru, also used for ḫarrânu, a “journey,” came in later times to be used for all kinds of business transactions. That the relations noted in the Code actually were carried out in practice, many tablets show. Thus we read:

One shekel of silver, price of one hundred and eighty ŠE, and three shekels of silver which Zuzana lent Aplâ son of Edishu, for five years, to enter on his girru. He shall pay one hundred and eighty ŠE and three shekels of silver to take back his sealed receipt.

Here the capital intrusted was a quantity of corn worth a shekel, and three shekels in money. This was in order to enter on a business journey. The agent Aplâ had to return the capital in full, as the Code enacts, to take back his bond. There is no agreement as to profits, which might be wanting; that was left to be understood. As a rule, the time was shorter, generally “one year.” The agent appears to have often borne the name of muttalliku, “one who wanders about,” “a hawker.” The same may be denoted by AḪ-ME-ZU-AB, a group of signs whose reading is not yet clear, but may be a variant of the ideogram for šamallû.

Speculation not unknown

Business was also done, as the Code shows, as speculation in futures. Thus we read:

Sibbat-asê-iddina hired as “business” the produce of a field from three men. The produce of the business was to be three and seven-fifteenths GUR of corn, according to the standard measure of Shamash paid in Kar-Sippar, and one shekel was to be profit.

This was what he had to pay, and evidently, if the crop yielded more, that was his profit; if less, he had to stand the loss. Similarly, other crops were let on the terms that at harvest, or at the end of the “business,” a specified amount should be paid.

Caravan trade

We learn from many hints, that caravan trade was always active. The name of Ḥarran in Mesopotamia is supposed [pg 284] to be derived from the numerous caravan routes that crossed there. The Tell el Amarna tablets tell us of the complaints made by the kings of Babylonia of the robbery of caravans in districts nominally under the control of Egypt.

These dealings frequent in later times

In the more private documents of the later Babylonian times, there is again plentiful evidence that this form of trade was common. The money was loaned out “to buy and sell.” It was given ana ḫarrânu, “for hawking trade.” Then whatever profit was made upon the money, the agent “will give” to the principal. The agent binds himself to undertake no other agency. He gives a guarantee for the money. The principal had no further responsibility for the business, and would not meet any further call. It is obvious that in a sense the principal and agent were partners, and many transactions in later times are difficult to distinguish from cases of partnership in the ordinary sense.

Importance of the canals for commerce

It has long been recognized that the canals controlled the prosperity of the country, but it is only lately that their importance as waterways has been fully realized. In the early period we read of flour sent by ship to Nippur for certain officials.

Navigation laws for shipping of great number and variety

The Code has much to say about ships. Temples owned them, as well as private persons. It was a crime, punishable with death, to steal a ship. We read of fees for building or navigating various ships. The responsibilities and damages in collisions and wrecks are apportioned. A shipowner might hire a captain to navigate a ship for him, or might hire the captain and ship together. The usual freight included corn, wool, oil, and dates, but many other things were also carried. The wages of a captain was six GUR of corn yearly. There are frequent references to ships in the contemporary letters. They were named according [pg 285] to their carrying capacity, which was five or more GUR. A ship of seventy-five GUR is named. They carried wood, for King Ḥammurabi ordered seven thousand two hundred pieces of abba wood to be brought to Babylon, three hundred pieces in a ship. A number of boat captains or perhaps shipping agents were ordered to proceed from Larsa to Babylon and arrive with their ships in Adar. He gave orders for the furnishing of the crews. We further have a correspondence concerning the invasion of certain fishing rights by boats from another district. In the contemporary contracts we meet with several long lists of ships divided into little groups, of five, six, or seven, each with its captain named, each group under a head captain, all set down as at anchor at the port of Shamash, or the like. There is a case of the hire of a boat of six GUR freight by two persons for two months.

In Assyrian tablets

In Assyria, canals served chiefly for water-supply. Except when the Assyrian kings went outside their own lands to Babylonia or Mesopotamia, we hardly read of ships. Sennacherib's ships were built abroad and served abroad. There is no hint of their ever coming up to the walls of Nineveh. The contracts only once mention a ship in which booty was brought from somewhere.

Boat hire a regular stipulation in Babylonia

In the later Babylonian times there are many references to the hire of boats and their crews. They appear to be a regular conveyance of goods:

One shekel and a quarter of silver for the hire of a ship which brought three oxen and twenty-four sheep from the king's son [Belshazzar], for Shamash and the gods of Sippara. Further, fifty ḲA of dates for the rations of the two boatmen.

Thus the receiver paid carriage and expenses. The daily hire of a boat is now one shekel, and the wages of the crew [pg 286] amount to half as much. A boat might be bought for twenty shekels or half a mina. The wages of the boatmen included corn, dates, salt, and onions. The freight was exceedingly varied as before. One boat appears to have carried fresh meat.

The maintenance of roads

There are less obvious references to roads in the literature; but that they were in excellent condition has been conjectured from the many evidences of postal service and ready carriage even in early times. Convoys travelled from Agade to Lagash as early as the time of Sargon I. Innumerable labels are found on lumps of clay with the name and address of the consignee. These were attached to consignments of money and goods.

A regular tariff for land-transportation

The Code contemplates consignments being sent from a great distance, even from abroad. It regulates the charges for a wagon, with oxen and driver, or a wagon alone. There are several cases in the contracts of the hire of wagons, for varied prices per year, one-third of a shekel to twelve shekels; but it is not certain that these were for conveyance from place to place. They may have been for agricultural purposes only. The usual means of conveyance seems to have been by asses.

Roads in Assyria of prime importance

In Assyrian times we find it part of the duty of a founder of a city to open up the roads leading to it. The land was intersected with roads in all directions, so that a field often had two roads as its boundaries. The whole plain outside Nineveh was cut up by roads, which here take the place of the canals of Babylonia. In this period we find horses and camels in use as beasts of burden as well as the asses.

[pg 287]

XXVIII. Partnership And Power Of Attorney

Partnership in business common from early times

Association, or partnership, makes its appearance very early and in a highly developed state. Some forms are very simple, as when two or more men buy or hire a piece of land together. There may, or may not, be any family relationship between the partners. In some cases we learn nothing about the terms of partnership. But where we are able to discern them, they follow the natural course that profits were divided, pro rata, according to the capital contributed. More obscure is the question how far the personal exertions of each partner were pledged to the benefit of the firm. There is a suggestion that some partners were content with furnishing capital, and obtaining a fair return upon it, while the others were actively engaged in the business of the firm. Prolonged study and comparison are, however, needed before all these points can be definitely decided.

Origin of the word for partner

The name for a “partner” is tappû, and the sign TAP serves as ideogram. This sign consists of the two horizontal strokes used to denote “two,” and may have been used to denote “union,” or partnership, and so from its name tap have given rise to the name for “partner.” In the new Babylonian times the ideogram is the sign usually read ḫarrânu, also formed of the two horizontal strokes crossed by two connecting strokes or bonds. There is little doubt that in early times this was read girru, when denoting “business,” undertaken in association. Later the dualism [pg 288] of the partnership was marked by the addition of the dual sign to ḫarrânu. That both ḫarrânu and girru are used as words for “way,” “journey,” “expedition,” may well point to the prominence of the idea of trade journeys with caravans. But partnerships were made with less ambitious aims and confined to holding and sharing in common varied sources of income.

The usual conditions

To make a partnership, tapputam epêšu, it seems that each partner contributed a certain amount of capital, ummânu. Yearly accounts were rendered and the profit then shared. This took place by a formal dissolution of partnership, when each partner took his share. This in no way prevented a renewal of partnership. For the satisfaction of the partners sworn declarations as to the property held in common and the profit made were deposed before judicial authorities. These often take the form of a suit by one partner against the other, but it seems that they might be only formal suits to clear up the points at issue and secure a legal settlement.

Always legally defined

A considerable number of tablets are drawn up to embody a settlement on dissolution of partnership. Some do not make any reference to a law officer as arbitrator; but all contain a careful setting-forth of each partner's share and an oath to make no further claim. It is practically certain that these were drawn up with the cognizance of the local law-court.

The Code silent

The Code has nothing to say as to partnership, unless its regulations on the point were embodied in the lost five columns.

A good example of partnership documents is the following:

Erib-Sin and Nûr-Shamash entered into partnership and came into the temple of Shamash and made their plan. Silver, merchandise, [pg 289] man-servant, and maid-servant, abroad or at home, altogether they shared. Their purpose they realized. Money for money, man-servant and maid-servant, merchandise abroad or at home, from mouth to interest, brother with brother will not dispute. By Shamash and Malkat, by Marduk and Ḥammurabi, they swore. Then follow seventeen witnesses. The document is not dated.

Explanation of the terminology

The word for plan, ṭêmu, means the basis of partnership, that is, its terms. Here it was “share and share alike.” The phrase babtum, “merchandise,” includes all the material in which they traded, excluding the living agents. The phrase ša ḫarrânim, literally “on the road,” may well have denoted the merchandise not in warehouse, but in circulation. Whether ḫarrânu actually referred to a caravan may be doubtful. We often read of goods ša suḳi, “on the street,” in the same sense, “out on the market.” If the partners dealt in corn, and had a quantity lent out on interest, that was ša suḳi. Whether a distinction between ša ḫarrânim and ša suḳi was kept up is not clear. But if they invested their capital in merchandise which they sent to a distant market for sale, the former phrase would be more appropriate, while if they bought wool to manufacture into cloth or garments and to sell in the bazaars of their own town, ša suḳi would be more suitable. The gate of the city was a market, and money or goods ša bâbi, “at the gate,” was as we should say “on the market.” In contrast to these phrases, ina libbi alim, “in the midst of the town,” answers to our “in stock.” While the term mitḫariš literally means “altogether,” “without reservation,” it implies exact equality of share. The amâtu was the “word,” literally, but, applied to business, means the agreement as to their mutual transactions. The completion of that was reached when they took the profits and divided them. It might include the mutual reckoning of profit and loss. The phrase “from mouth to interest” is very idiomatic. The [pg 290] “mouth,” or verbal relationships, included all they said, the terms they agreed upon. The word “interest” here replaces the more usual “gold;” both mean the “profit,” or the balance due to each. Usually we have the words “is complete,” the idea being that no verbal stipulation has been overlooked, no money or profit left out of reckoning.

Evidence of long-established commercial customs

As will be remarked, such pregnant forms of expression evidently presuppose a long course of commercial activity. They can only have arisen as abbreviations of much longer sentences. Clear enough to the users of them, they do not admit of literal rendering, if they are to be intelligible to us. But they are eloquent witnesses of an advanced state of commerce.

In Assyrian literature

Traces of partnership are difficult to find in the Assyrian tablets which have reached us. We must not confuse with partnership the holding in common of property or lands, which may be due to heritage. Two or more brothers may sell their common property, for greater ease of division, but they are not exactly partners.

In later Babylonian times such evidence common

In the later Babylonian times, as is natural to expect with the larger number of private documents, there is much evidence regarding the many forms of association for business. We have such simple forms as the following:

One mina which A and B have put together for common business. All that it makes is common property.

Or thus:

Two minas each, A and B, have as ḫarrânu. All that it makes, in town and country, is in common. Rent of the house to be paid from capital.

The many varied details

They had a house, as shop and warehouse, the rent of which was a charge upon the business. Slaves might be partners with free men, even with their masters. A partner [pg 291] might merely furnish the capital or both might do so, and commit it to the hands of a slave or a free man with which to do business. The slave took his living out of such capital, and the free man received either provisions or a fixed payment. Thus we read:

Five minas and six hundred and thirty pots of aromatics belong to A and B as partners. This stock is given to C, a slave, and D, another slave, with which to do business. Whatever it makes is A and B's in common. C and D take food and clothing from the profits where they go.

It is not unlikely that each slave was to look after his own master's interests. For we read:

Six minas belong to A and B and are given to C the slave of B as capital. A and B share what it makes. A will give another slave D to help C.

Even women entered into business as agents. We read:

Two-thirds of a mina belonging to A and B are given to a free woman with which to trade.

A formal dissolution of partnership

As in earlier times, the dissolution of partnership usually involved a reference to the law-courts. Thus we have a reckoning before judges of two brothers and a third who were in a partnership from the eighth year of Nabopolassar to the eighteenth of Nebuchadrezzar. “The business is dissolved” (girru paṭrat). All the former contracts were broken and shares are assigned to each. The first two brothers were in possession of fifty shekels which were to be divided.

Reckonings

Provisional reckonings were constantly made at frequent intervals, but did not involve dissolution of partnership, nor need to be referred to a law-court. [pg 292] Some cases are interesting for additional items of information. Thus we note:

A manufacturing partnership

Two partners put in each fifty GUR of dates. Whatever it makes is to be in common. They take a house in Borsippa for one year at rent of half a mina. The rent is to be paid out of profits. B holds the house and apparently carries on the business. At the end of the year he returns it and all the utensils to A.

It seems likely that he carried on some kind of manufacture. A held the south house, next door. B also paid the tithes. A similar case where some manufacture from dates is supposed, is thus stated:

A lends one hundred GUR of dates, fifty GUR of corn, sixty large pots, to B and C two of his slaves, on a partnership. They are to take in common whatever it makes, in town and country. The venture is to last three years. But, in this case, they are to pay interest two minas per annum. At the end of the three years, the two slaves returned all.

They were given a house for which they paid no rent.

Power of attorney recognized and frequently used

Closely allied with agency is the power of attorney. In the Code a son in his father's house could not contract, buy or sell, or give on deposit, except by power of attorney empowering him to act for his father. The same was true of the slave. The contemporary documents contain many references to business done by agents on the order of their principals. The Assyrians also make frequent mention of persons acting as bêl ḳâtâti, having the power of another's hands, being in fact allowed to act as their attorney or agent. The king was represented in the law-courts by his agent. Sometimes the agent was called bêl paḫâti of the king's son. It even seems to be the case that ḳâtâtu acquired the sense of agency, or business, and bît ḳâtâti came to [pg 293] mean a “shop,” or bazaar. In many cases “agency” was expressed by ša ḳâtâ, “by the hands of.” Aliens had to act through such an agent. When three men borrow a quantity of straw, one alone sealed the receipt and bond to repay, and was said to be bêl ḳâtâti ša tibni, “agent for the straw.” A female slave was sued for property said to be due from her master, in his absence. A free man, perhaps the judge, was bêl ḳâtâti for the woman that her master would take up the case on his return, and undertook to satisfy the suitor, if she could not do so.

Protection of the rights of the principal

In later Babylonian times the phrase survived. The commissary acted “with the hand” of his principal. We may take this to be the hand-sign, or seal, representing written authority. It involved a reckoning with his master, and naturally gave rise to a number of delicate questions. If a man bought a house for another, having been commissioned so to do, his principal must of course pay the price. But was he bound to accept his agent's selection? Could he not demur regarding the price? One of these points at least was dealt with by the later Code. Law A deals with the man who has concluded a purchase for another, without having a power of attorney from him in a sealed deed. If he has had the deed made out in his own name, he is the possessor. Of course, he can sell again to his principal, but he could not do so at a profit. Nor is the principal under any obligation to accept the purchase at the price the agent gave for it. Actual examples are far from rare: A buys a field, crop, date-palms and all, for C and D. This purchase was made on condition that all copies of the transaction be destroyed. The condition was not observed, as we still possess one of them. Later A received from C, one of his principals, about half the price he had paid. But it does not appear that D ever paid his share, and this is [pg 294] why the condition was not carried out. Presumably A and C remained owners of the field.

Representative action

There is no limit to the varieties of agency or representative action. At all periods we meet with a brother, usually the eldest, acting for his other brothers. A brother acting with the hand of his brother also occurs in the time of Evil Merodach.

Power of attorney over funds

The power of attorney was also given to receive money and give a receipt, under seal. Again: A bought some slaves of B and paid in full. B gave receipt for the money, but did not undertake to deliver the slaves at A's house. A can send a messenger or agent to take the slaves, and B agrees to deliver them to such. Whatever is born or dies from among the slaves is credited to A.

[pg 295]

XXIX. Accounts And Business Documents

Account-books

There are lists which are not formal contracts, but may have been used as legal evidence. The stewards of the great temples, of the palaces, and even of wealthy men in business, kept most careful accounts. These lists have some features peculiar to themselves and are not without considerable interest.

Those of the first epoch mainly temple accounts

The tablets which have reached our museums from Telloh, Nippur, and elsewhere, belonging to the ages before the First Dynasty of Babylon, are for the most part temple accounts. They often concern the offerings made by various persons, often officials of high standing, and some may well have been the notes sent with the offerings. But many were drawn up as records of the receipts for a certain day, month, or year. Interesting as they are for the class of offerings, for the names of offerers, or of priests, and for the cult of particular gods, or the localities near Telloh and Nippur, and often containing valuable hints for the history and chronology of those times, they do not give us the same insight into the daily life of the people that the longer legal documents do, in later periods.

Receipts for loans

An important class consists of receipts for loans. Those drawn up at full length and witnessed, have already been considered. But the majority may only contain a list of articles delivered, with the name of the receiver, the lender being the holder as a temple official, while the receiver is [pg 296] a subordinate. These may have been as effective as the fuller bonds, but they furnish little information, except regarding the current prices of articles.

Accounts of repairs or expenses

Some tablets are concerned with hire. The amounts paid by the temple for repairs, fresh robes for gods and officials, even maintenance of the workmen, are all set down with their totals for a week, or a month.

Records of measurements

An important class consists of the records of the measurements, length, breadth, and area of fields, together with the amounts of corn which they were expected to produce. Were these available for a widely extended area, we might be able to map out the district round the temple from whose archives they come.

The conditions of service with flock and herds

The temples and large landowners had great flocks and herds. Consequently, there is much evidence concerning the pastoral occupations of the people of Babylonia. The Code regulates the relations of the shepherds and herdsmen to the flock-masters. Thus an owner might hire a shepherd, nâkidu, for his sheep or cattle, at the wages of eight GUR of corn per annum. The shepherd or herdsman took out the flock or herd to the pasture and was responsible to the owner for them. They were intrusted to him, and if sheep or ox were lost through his fault, he had to restore ox for ox and sheep for sheep. If he was hired and had received satisfactory wages, he had no power to diminish, or abstract from, the flock or herd for his keep or private use. He entered into a contract with the owner, and that stipulated for the restoration of the entire flock or herd, together with a proper increase due to the breeding of the flock or herd. He had to make any deficiency good, by statute. This applied also to the stipulated profit in wool or other produce. It seems clear that his own profit was any excess above the stipulated return. Otherwise it is difficult to see [pg 297] what source he had from which to make good the loss to his master. He was forbidden to alter the agreement into which he had entered in any particular, or to sell any of the flock, under penalty of a tenfold restitution. He was, however, protected from liability for loss by wild beasts or accident. But, if the loss was due to his fault, by neglecting to keep the fold secure, he had to make up the loss.

Herdsmen's accounts

It is obvious that he gave a receipt for what was intrusted to him and made his account on return from the pastures. These accounts are plentiful among the temple accounts in the earliest periods, but being written for the most part in Sumerian, have still many obscurities for us. As a rule, each deals with the liabilities of one man, whose “account,” nikasu, it is said to be. At the beginning are recounted the details of his trust, so many oxen, cows, sheep or goats, of varied ages and qualities. Here it is very difficult to translate. Anyone who knows the variety of names which are given to an animal by agriculturists according to its age, sex, and use, need not be surprised to find that the Babylonians had many names for what we can only render by “sheep.” As a rule, we know when the ram, ewe, or lamb is intended. But this by no means exhausts the variety. Anyone who glances through an Arabic lexicon must notice how many different names the Arabs have for the camel in its different aspects. But in our case we often have no clew to what was meant by the signs beyond some variety of sheep, ox, or goat. At any rate, the first section enumerates the cattle or sheep delivered to the herdsman. Then follows a section devoted to those “withdrawn,” taken back by the owner, or exacted as some due from the flock. Others are noted as taken for sacrifice, used for the wages or support of the herdsman, or else dead or otherwise missing. These the herdsman was allowed to subtract and then had to return the balance. There are similar lists of asses [pg 298] or goats. The tablets hardly lend themselves to connected translation because of the absence of verbs. The following is an example:

Forty-three ewes, forty-three rams, seven ewe-lambs, seven he-lambs, three she-goats, one sucking kid, to start with. Expended in ewes and rams, none; six ewes, seventeen rams, snatched away; no lambs lost: no ewes, one ram, no lambs. Total: one hundred and four to start with. Total expended: none. Total: twenty-three snatched away. Total: one lost. Namḫâni, shepherd. Overseer: Duggazidda. At Girsu. The year after the king devastated Kimash.

The meaning of the words is somewhat conjectural. “Expended” may mean used for the shepherd's own maintenance. “Snatched away” means probably deducted for revenue purposes, about one in five. The scribe did not write “none.” He merely left a blank.

Lists of second epoch unavailable

The similar lists for the second epoch are not yet available for study. Only one appears to have been published, but there are many still unpublished. It is not easy to translate them, because, though many Semitic names occur, there is still a tendency to use the old Sumerian, or ideographic writings. Such a list as:

Eight oxen, twenty-three work-oxen (for watering-machines), eleven milch cows, sixteen steers, sixteen heifers. In all seventy-four oxen (or cattle) belonging to Marduk-uballiṭ in the hands of Bêlshunu, fifth day,

may serve as an example, but does not convey much information to us. These lists are chiefly valuable for the means of comparison they afford. A three-year-old ox was worth half a mina of silver.

The Assyrian lists indicate new varieties of animals

For Assyrian times we have a few interesting examples, just enough to show that the same customs survived. There [pg 299] are no less than thirty-five kinds of sheep and goats, and fifteen kinds of cattle named in the lists; also eleven kinds of birds. Here is a specimen list of asses which gives some prices:

One male working ass for one and a half minas seven shekels, one she-ass for thirty-seven shekels, a second she-ass for one mina, a third she-ass for one royal mina, a fourth she-ass for thirty-two shekels, in all five and a half minas two shekels.

There is nothing to show for whom or why the list was drawn up, but if the total is correct, we learn that a royal mina was worth one mina forty-six shekels of the ordinary standard. The lists of horses are now very numerous, some dozen varieties being distinguished. Many of these lists give the numbers of horses of different kinds which entered a certain city on a certain day. The horses are often distinguished as coming from certain countries, being called Kusai, or Mesai, horses. The camels are frequently mentioned, and we learn that one was worth a mina and a third. Dromedaries are also named and seem to have been worth three minas apiece.

Memoranda regarding wool

Wool accounts play an important part in documents of the early times. They may be regarded as of two kinds. The first are shearers' accounts returned by the shepherd of a flock; the second are concerned with the amounts of wool given out to weavers.

The four kinds of wool

Shearers' accounts enumerate four sorts or qualities of wool. The best was called royal wool, that which was of the highest quality. The others were second, third, and fourth quality. Poor wool and black wool are also named. Sometimes we are told from what part of the sheep's [pg 300] body it was taken. Other terms applied are less easy to recognize. This wool was received by weight.

Black wool very highly valued

The weavers' accounts give a list of quantities of wool, with the same distinctions as to quality, and the price at which it was assessed. This was doubtless the sum to be paid by the weaver, if the wool was not returned made up. The values attached show very clearly the difference in quality. Thus, while two looms of royal wool were worth thirty minas, seven looms of second quality went for the same value, eleven looms of third quality for a talent, and thirty-two looms of fourth quality for one talent, one loom of another sort for one talent, and the same amount of black wool for the same value. It is evident that the black wool was highly valued. The loom, literally, “beam,” of wool, was some measure, perhaps what would occupy one weaver. The price was probably fixed in silver. The price of the same quality varied from time to time.

Sheep-shearing

In the letters of Ḥammurabi and his successors there are frequent references to the shearing, and orders for the inspection of flocks and herds. The Code does not refer to sheep-shearing, though it mentions wool. The shearing was concluded by the New Year feast in Nisan. In the contemporary contracts there are several wool accounts. As a rule, one talent, or sixty minas' weight, of wool was served out to several men who were to pay for it, to the palace, at the rate of one shekel of silver per mina.

The weaving accounts

In Assyrian times we have great wool and weaving accounts. Some deal with the huge amounts of wool received as tribute from the great cities of the empire and then served out to bodies of weavers in various palaces with specifications of the species of cloth or sorts of garments which were to be returned. In the later Babylonian times we have a large number of wool accounts recording [pg 301] the amounts given out from the temple to various persons to weave or make up into garments.

Memoranda regarding skins of animals

Skins are also named in the accounts. They are distinguished as the skins of certain kinds of animals. Various amounts are credited to different persons, but whether as giving or receiving, and in what capacity, is not clear. Sheep and goat skins are most common, but ox and cow hides are named.

Leather

The Code does not refer to these, nor the letters of Ḥammurabi and his successors, but we have lists of skins and carcasses of animals. The purpose of the lists is not clear. In Assyrian times there are frequent references to hides. There was a distinct grade of official called a ṣârip taḫšê, “dyer of skins.” Large quantities were bought in the markets of Kalaḫ and Ḥarrân. The price was about two shekels of silver for a skin. The articles made of leather are very numerous; shoes, harness, pouches, even garments, are named. It was used for buckets, baskets, bottles, shields, and many other things not clearly recognized.

Amounts allowed for the food of animals

Fairly frequent also are accounts of the quantities of corn expended for the keep of flocks and herds. The amounts allowed per diem are the chief items of interest. Sheep were allowed from one to one and a half ḲA a day, lambs half a ḲA, oxen six to eight ḲA. In the Code we find allowances for the keep of animals. There are very frequent lists in Assyrian times of amounts of corn given to various animals. These also occur at later times. The amounts allowed per day are various and by no means [pg 302] uniform. A very good example gives as the allowance of corn for a full-grown sheep two ḲA per diem, for a young sheep, one ḲA, for a lamb one-half ḲA.

Acknowledgment of advances

Acknowledgments of advances, or loans, occur in the first epoch. As a rule, we are not told what was the ground of the loan. The fact that these loans were to be repaid is not stated, and we may take the tablets to be merely receipts for things given out to officials who had a right to them. The substances were corn of different kinds, wine, beer, sesame-wine, butter, flour and other food-stuffs, wool, and other supplies. We sometimes learn prices from these tablets. Thus a GUR of corn cost one shekel.

Stewards' accounts

Long lists of accounts are very common at all epochs. They relate what sums or amounts were paid out to various officials for certain goods or for wages, keep, and the like. In fact, they are stewards' accounts. Unfortunately, the way in which most collections have been formed, and even more the way in which they have since been preserved, renders it impossible for us to make the use of them which has often been made of mediæval accounts. Otherwise we could obtain from them many interesting items. They are, however, most valuable for prices and names.

The earliest mention of iron

Thus, in such lists we find mention of articles which would otherwise remain unsuspected. The first reference to iron is in the Ḥammurabi period, whence we learn that a shekel of silver would buy eight times its weight of iron. Sometimes we get an important contribution to chronology. It is well known that there is no certainty as to the order of the Eponyms after b.c. 648, but we know their names for at least forty years later. Any contribution to the order of these names would be welcomed with avidity. Thus, one scribe writes: “Income from the Eponymy of Sagab to the Eponymy of Nabû-shar-aḫêshu, for six years, which was paid [pg 303] in as maintenance, eleven talents ... besides twenty-seven plates of silver.” We cannot say whose income it was, but the previous section dealt with the income of the crown prince, and this may be only a résumé of the last. But we now know that from Sagab to Nabû-shar-aḫêshu was six years in all.

Thus, from the most varied and often most unpromising sources are derived those important details which make it possible to attain an exact and realistic conception of Babylonian and Assyrian history and life.

[pg 307]