(M463) The other system applied to land the names of measures of capacity used for measuring crops. We read of so many GUR and KA of land, where 1 GUR = 300 KA, as shown by Dr. Reisner. We may guess that a GUR of land was so called because it took a GUR of corn to sow it, or because it yielded a GUR of corn as an average harvest. These are mere guesses and we must remain in ignorance until further evidence connects a GUR of land on one side with its length and breadth, or some other relation between the GUR and the GAN can be deduced. Then we shall want to know the size of the GUR of corn, of which at present we have no knowledge. But already in Susa a broken pot has been found with its original contents marked upon it. When others are found, from which an approximate estimate of contents can be made, and an inscription read giving the capacity, we shall be able to make a definite statement. At present the data are insufficient and what the metrologists write is only ingenious speculation.

(M464) A piece of land had, so to speak, an individuality of its own. Once marked out, and that probably from time immemorial, it was rarely divided. It seems probable that corn-land at any rate was divided into long, narrow strips. But the plots became gradually of all sizes and shapes, as the many plans of estates show. The lengths of the sides are usually given on such plans, and much labor has been expended with small result on reconciling the given dimensions with the area ascribed to the plot. But it is certain that these were often recorded merely for purposes of identification. The area of the field was well known, and its average crop also, without any need of resort to calculations.

(M465) These plots often bear their owner's name, and that long after he had passed away. The boundary-stones of the field were sacred. Not a few were inscribed with some sort of history of the plot. Especially was this the case when the land was granted to fresh owners, by sale, or charter. No inconsiderable portion of what we know of history is derived from inscribed boundary-stones. They are the oldest monuments and rarely deeply buried. Hence they are easy to find. They have even been brought to London, as ship's ballast, in times before they could be read. They would be invaluable, if found in situ, for a modern survey of the country and a reconstruction of its ancient history. As a rule they are splendidly preserved.

(M466) (M467) In ancient days great importance was attached to their preservation. The kings taxed their powers of cursing in order to terrify men from removing their neighbor's landmark. The dangers to the stone contemplated were its removal to another place, its being thrown into the water, or into the fire, its being built into a wall,(470) being buried in the dust, placed where it cannot be seen, put in a house of darkness,(471) erased and overwritten with other records.(472) Akin to the crime of encroaching upon old landmarks was that of building upon or otherwise encroaching on the highway. To do this might subject the builder to the danger of being hanged, as a warning on a gallows erected above his own house.(473)

(M468) That the land was sold subject to certain territorial obligations, we can glean from many hints. One of the most important is that, when a favorite, or well-deserving official, had acquired a large estate, the king by charter granted him an immunity from these obligations. These charters were often inscribed on large blocks of stone or water-worn pebbles of great size, and seem to have been set up as boundary-stones. Some were reproduced from tablets written on clay.(474) They are very numerous and in some periods of the history are the only monuments that have reached us. A glance through any history of Babylonia will show the reader how much depends on them. But here our only concern is with the light they throw on land tenure and its conditions. One of the points which at once becomes clear is that, although the king was representative of the god and titular head of all the tribes, he could not appropriate land just where he chose. Manistusu, King of Kish, when he was seeking to acquire a fine estate to present to his son, Mesilim, had to buy land at what seems to have been an average price. He paid for the land in corn at three and one-third GUR of corn per GAN, the GUR being worth one shekel of silver. This was the price. But, as was usual later in private purchases, a present to the former owner was given. The list of these presents is most interesting,—silver and copper vessels and rich vestments being the chief items. Of great importance is the reference to the leading men of each hamlet as sellers. The king's own land was a definite area, so definite as to be cited as a boundary.(475)

(M469) A celebrated passage in Sargon's cylinder(476) says, "according to the interpretation of my name, Sharru-kinu, righteous king, which bade me observe right and justice, repel the impious, not oppress the weak; as the great gods had bidden me, I gave money for the pieces of land, of each city; according to written contracts, in silver and bronze, to their owners, in order to do no injustice; and to those who would not take money,(477) a field for a field, where they preferred, I gave." That this was no idle boast is proved from the tablet which records how Sargon, in the year B.C. 713, having taken possession of some lands in Maganuba to form part of his new city of Dur-Sargon, found that he was displacing an old endowment given by Adadi-nirari to the god Ashur. It was held by a family descended from the original recipients. Sargon increased their holding and charged it with an increased monthly offering to the temple.(478) He gave "field for field," but also added largely to the endowments. He acted much the same in Babylonia, where the Suti had encroached upon the lands of the people. He drove out the invaders, restored the lands, but laid them under obligations, kidinutu, making them render a monthly due to the temples, as before.

(M470) On the other hand, we find that the kings granted large grants of land to temples and private persons. From what source these grants were made does not appear. Probably from his own personal property. The property so presented was free of imposts. But we may not assume that the king was always the poorer. The beneficiary may have bought the land and presented it to the king, to be received back free of imposts in perpetuity.

Thus, Nazimaruttash(479) presents a large estate to Merodach, and another to Kashakti-Shugab, his servant. Kurigalzu(480) granted an estate to Etir-Marduk for his conduct in a war against Assyria, and Bitiliashu confirmed it. A coppersmith who fled from the land of Hanigalbat made a fine specimen of his work for Bitiliashu, and the king rewarded him with a grant of land.(481) Adadi-shum-usur made another grant of land to an unknown servant of his.(482) Melishihu made a grant of land to his son, Merodach-baladan I.,(483) and granted it exemption from all imposts. Another grant he made to a servant of his.(484) So when Shamu and Shamua, his son, two priests of Eria in Elam, fled from their own king and took refuge with Nebuchadrezzar I., he espoused their cause, plundered Elam, brought back their god, Eria, to Babylon, and they having taken the hands of Bel, the king granted them an estate in Babylonia and freed it from imposts.(485) Nabu-aplu-iddina granted an estate to a namesake of his, which, however, seems to have been claimed as ancestral property.(486) Melishihu granted lands to Hasardu, a servant of his.(487) Merodach-baladan I. granted lands to Marduk-zakir-shumi.(488) Marduk-nadin-ahi granted Adadi-zer-ikisha, for his services against Assyria, lands in the district of Bit-Ada, which seem to have been ancestral domains of one Ada.(489) Some fragments of clay copies of similar grants by Adadi-nirari,(490) Tiglath-pileser III.,(491) Ashurbanipal,(492) and Ashur-etil-ilani(493) are preserved in the British Museum's Collections from Nineveh. They all appear to record grants to favorite officials, who had deserved well of the king.

(M471) 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 Tarim-ana-ilishu and Ur-belit-muballitat-mituti, was claimed by Marduk-kudur-usur in the reigns of Adadi-shum-iddina and Adadi-nadin-ahi, and finally granted him in perpetuity by Melishihu.(494) 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 Bit Sin-magir had secularized it. Bel-nadin-apli restored it.(495)

(M472) 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.(496) Marduk-nadin-ahi in his first year remitted some obligations on an unknown estate.(497)

(M473) 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-shihu, E-ulmash-sha-kin-shum, Nabu-aplu-iddina, and Nabopolassar at wide intervals. There are, however, no lands concerned.(498)

(M474) 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,(499) which seems to be older than the celebrated Blau monuments and which Professor G. A. Barton would date about 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.

(M475) 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.

(M476) In the Code of Hammurabi we have proof of the existence of the system. A man finds(500) 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, Amel-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-bani. 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.(501)

(M477) There are fewer data from the Assyrian period, but the frequent loans, ana puhi, without any interest, at seed-time or harvest, may be due to this relation between landlord and tenant.(502)

(M478) The best example is to be found in the time of Cyrus,(503) where a certain Shula 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.(504) relates to the assignment of two trained irrigation-oxen and seven GUR of corn for seed by a member of the Murashu 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.

(M479) 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.(505) 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.(506) The tenant was also to erect a manahtu, or "dwelling." It was needful that he should reside on the 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.

(M480) 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,"(507) but these duties are but rarely stipulated. The Code protects the tenant, however,(508) from any unfair compulsion in the matter, so long as the landlord gets his fair rent.

(M481) 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 seru, 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.

(M482) 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.(509) 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.(510)

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

(M483) 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 zaku. Land sold is often said to be zaku, 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.

(M484) 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.(511) 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 owners to clean out the bed of the canal,(512) or by a levy for the purpose. Soldiers, or at any rate, forced labor, might be used.(513) Later, in the time of Nebuchadrezzar I., we find men, hired for the purpose, called kalle nari, or canal laborers.(514)



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

(M485) There was always a militia, Landwehr, or territorial levy of troops. Each district had to furnish its quota. These are called sabe, or ummanate. We have no direct statements about them, but a great multitude of references. They were called out by the king, adki ummanatia, "I called out my troops," is a stock phrase. The calling out was the dikutu. Not easily to be distinguished from this was the sisitu of the nagiru. 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 muskenu. In the Code of Hammurabi(515) it was punishable with death to harbor a defaulter from this "levy."

(M486) Claims might also be made for work on the fields. This was called hubsu 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 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," kastu, in this fashion, was itself called a "bow" of land.(516)

(M487) 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 dikutu mati, sisitu nagiri, and miksu kari.(517) The city had not known the ilku dupsikku. Later, we find an officer, Tab-sil-esarra,(518) complaining that, when he was desirous of doing some repairs to the queen's palace in Asshur, of which city he was saknu, Sargon's freeing of the city had rendered the ilku of the city unavailable to him.(519)

In the so-called "Tablet of warnings to kings against injustice,"(520) the cities of Borsippa, Nippur, and Babylon are freed from dupsikku and sisitu nagiri. This was drawn up in the time of Ashurbanipal, 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."

(M488) 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.(521) On all country estates, there were a number of serfs, glebae adscripti, sold with the estate, but not away from it. These, as the Harran census shows, often had land of their own. But they were bound to till the soil for the owner. They included the irrisu, or (M489) 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.(522)

The amounts of wool assigned to different cities to work up are the subject of many tablets.(523) 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 sarruti, 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.(524)

(M490) 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 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.

(M491) 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.

(M492) The most noteworthy obligation was what they call the kablu. This has the same sign as so commonly used in the phrase, kablu u tahazu, for "war and fighting." But it is also the ideogram for sisitu, the call of the nagiru to war or the corvee. There is no doubt that it indicates the levy for war. The rikis kabli 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.(525) Again, a certain Bel-iddin had to find twenty-five shekels to pay a substitute to go for him to the presence of the king.(526) Another man paid the wages of a soldier for two years.(527) This was an aes militare. In another case we find the rikis kabli 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 musapallatum, twelve leather mitu, twenty-four shoes, thirty KA of oil, sixty KA of bdellium sixty KA of some aromatic, all as equipment, siditum, to go to the camp (?). This may be described as aes equestre.(528) So(529) the burgomaster of Babylon paid rikis kabli 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.

(M493) Besides the personal obligation to contribute "work," dullu, a liability for contributions in kind, ilku, dues from 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.(530) 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 Melishihu,(531) 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.

(M494) This is one of the most important dues from land. It was paid to the temple. Some are inclined to see it in the nisirtu, 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.

(M495) There seems to be no trace in Assyrian times of any payment of a tithe. The tithe rab esrite, which has been rendered "tithe collector," is more likely to be a commander of ten, a decurion.(532)

(M496) 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.(533) 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.(534) 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 Bel, Nabu, Nergal, and Belit of Erech.(535)

(M497) 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 Mahaz-Shamshi.(536) In the time of Artaxerxes I., Hilprecht has shown that in some cases "the bow" of land also paid tithe.(537)

(M498) 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.

(M499) The various dues, miksu, seem to have been a sort of octroi duty. They were levied at the quay, miksu kari, at the ferry, miksu nibiri. They are only mentioned in the 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.



XX. The Functions And Organization Of The Temple

(M500) 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.

(M501) The importance of the temple was partially the result of the large dues paid to it. These consisted primarily of a ginu, 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 ginu also included flesh of animals and birds. In some few cases we have long lists of these daily dues, accompanied by precious gifts in addition. The gifts were perishable, but were accompanied by a note specifying them, and the good wishes or purpose of the donor.(538) These notes were preserved as mementos of the donor's good-will.

(M502) Temples, however, also possessed lands which they could let. They also held houses which they might let.(539) 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),(540) 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 Vertraege 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 patesis did the same. But did a patesi precede a temple or vice versa? and did the first founder, or the town, grant the first temple lands?

(M503) 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.

(M504) 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 Belit at Nineveh we have a different list.(541) 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 Nabu-aplu-iddin, King of Babylon B.C. 884-860.(542)

(M505) 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.(543) This must be carefully distinguished from the ginu and sattukku mentioned on page 208, which were constant and regular supplies.

(M506) The temple was also a commercial institution of high efficiency. Their accumulations of all sorts of raw products 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.

(M507) 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.

(M508) 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 officials in one answered, man for man and office for office, with those above.

(M509) 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 Bel-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.

(M510) 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 Ashurbanipal is a great example of the magic-ridden kings. Hammurabi 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?

(M511) The priest proper, sangu, was a person of the highest rank. He appears very little on the whole. His chief function was to act as mediator between god and man, as over the sacrifice offered.

(M512) He had public duties outside his priestly office. He inspected canals.(544) He often acted as a judge.

(M513) There was a college of priests attached to some temples, over which was a sangu mahhu or "high-priest."

(M514) The general idea that masmasu, "charmer"; kalu, "restrainer"; (?) mahhu, "soothsayer"; surru; lagaru; sa'ilu, "inquirer"; muselu, "necromancer"; asipu, "sorcerer"; all properly "magicians," are subdivisions of the general term sangu, 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.(545)

(M515) The kepu, or "warden," was over the temple servants. He let the temple lands. He inspected the temple slaves and work-people.(546)

(M516) The satammu was over the revenues. This name is clearly connected with the sutummu 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.

(M517) The temple kept its artificers, who had board and wages. It had its serfs, or land laborers, not actual slaves, but 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.(547)

(M518) 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.(548) 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.(549)

(M519) 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.

(M520) 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.

(M521) 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.

(M522) 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 Belit, and eight days in the shrine of Gula as being the namhar of Sin-imgurani and Sin-uzili.(550) This was confirmed to them by a legal decision in the time of Rim-Sin. We read also of a right to act as satammu, for six days per month, in the temple of Shamash.(551) In later times the mandidutu, or surveyorship, to the temple of Anu, Ib, and Belit-ekalli, exercised in the temple, storehouse, and field, was sold, shared, and pledged.(552) 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.(553) The porter's post at Bab Salimu was given as a pledge. Shares in these incomes were regularly traded in, sold, and pledged.

(M523) 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 ridu sabe and the ba'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, 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.

(M524) Quite similarly the great state officials in Assyria had endowments which were not personal, but went with the office. Thus we learn from the Harran census that certain lands paid rent or crops to certain offices.

(M525) 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 KA of wheat, six KA of sesame, on every eighteen KA of land. When the corn and dates were harvested, on one GUR, six KA were levied.

(M526) 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 Hammurabi we see that a temple might be called upon to ransom a member of the town who had been taken captive.

(M527) In certain circumstances the king's officials might borrow of the temples.(554) Thus Nikkal-iddina borrowed of the temple of Belit of Akkad a vessel of silver, weight fifteen minas, when the Elamites invaded the land.

(M528) 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-shum-ukin sent the bribes to the King of Elam, Ummanigash, he spoiled the treasuries of Merodach at Babylon, of Nabu at Borsippa, and of Nergal 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.

(M529) 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.



XXI. Donations And Bequests

(M530) 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.

(M531) 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 belu 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.

(M532) 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 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.

(M533) 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.

(M534) 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.

(M535) 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, 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.

(M536) 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," asar elisa tabum aplutsa inadin.(555) 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.

(M537) 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."(556) 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 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.(557) 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.(558) 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.(559)

(M538) 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.(560) 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.

(M539) 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.(561) A father and his son give their daughter and sister a house, which she is free to give to her son, "whom she loves."(562) Had the house merely come to 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.

(M540) In Assyrian times, donation is rarely represented within the group of documents which have reached us. Here is one case:(563)

The household which Bel-na'id gave to his daughter, Baltea-abate. A house in Nineveh, before the great gate of the temple of Shamash. (Then come the servants, a saku or head man, a washerman, a saknu, and others, male and female, in all eleven souls.) Dated the fourteenth of Adar, in the Eponymy of Marduk-shar-usur. 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," nadanu ana kaspi, is the usual expression for "to sell." In the older documents saraku, "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.

(M541) 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 hud libbisu iknukma pani usadgil, "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 of." As a rule, we may suspect these to be "gifts" to which the recipient had a right. Thus, mother to son,(564) brother to sister,(565) man to wife and daughter,(566) mother to daughter,(567) are not free from suspicion. But when a man gives maintenance to wife and son,(568) brother gives dower to sister,(569) father-in-law gives son-in-law arrears of his daughter's dower,(570) and wherever there is a hint that the "gift" was a nudunnu, or a seriktu, we may regard the case as not properly "donation," but "dower."

(M542) The following example shows the limitations on free gift that still remained in later times.(571) Zerutu had married and had a son, Shapik-zeri. Then he had an intrigue with Nasikatum, daughter of the Sealand scribe, who bore him a son, Balatu. He gave Balatu a house, but did not adopt him. After Zerutu died, Shapik-zeri demanded the house as his father's heir. The judges gave it to him and also the deed of gift.

(M543) 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,(572) 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:(573)

(M544)

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

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.

(M545) Here is an example of a dedication of children:(574)

Tablet of Ishtar-ummi and Ahatani, daughters of Innabatum. Innabatum, daughter of Bur-Sin, has dedicated them to Shamash. As long as Innabatum lives, Ishtar-ummi and Ahatani 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,(575) with the stipulation that the son shall support her as long as she lives.

(M546) In Assyrian times we have an example(576) 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(577) for the well-being of Ashurbanipal, 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, Ahi-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."(578) Votive tablets giving the presentation of various articles to some god are common enough at all periods.

(M547) 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 or vowed daughter power to leave her property as she will,(579) 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.

(M548) 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.(580)

Here is another interesting example:(581)

The division which A made with his sons B and C. The benefice of dagger-bearer (official slaughterer) in the Ishhara temple he assigns to B. The benefice of the shrine of Papsukal in the temple of Belit-shami-ersiti, situated on the bank of the canal, and the sown corn-field on the Dubanitu 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 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 Ishhara, 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.



XXII. Sales

(M549) 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.

(M550) 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.

(M551) 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 exist in our museums, it has been usual to publish only one.

(M552) 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.

(M553) 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.

(M554) 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 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:(582)

(M555)

Tappum, son of Iarbi-ilu, "has bought two GAN of field, in the Isle, next to the field of Hasri-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-mubalit 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.

(M556) 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.

(M557) 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 phrase-books called ana ittisu. But many new forms occur in these deeds.

(M558) 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.

(M559) (M560) Very interesting are the references to earnest money, or the gift presented to close the bargain. As early as the time of Manistusu(583) 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.(584) As already pointed out by Meissner,(585) in the purchase of a slave for four and a half shekels, a little present of fifteen SE, 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.(586) 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.,(587) besides the "full agreed price," simu gamrutu, of half a mina of silver, the buyer gave one shekel of silver, ki 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 sibirtu. 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, ki atri, six shekels of silver and a dress for the lady of the house, making three minas, eleven shekels of silver as the sibirtum,(588) or simply to a price of two minas of bright silver he adds two shekels, ki pi atar, making a sibirtu of two minas, two shekels of bright silver.(589)

(M561) 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.(590) 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.(591) 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.(592) 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.

(M562) 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 belu, 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, 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.

(M563) 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 saknu, or governor of the district, is named, especially where slaves are sold, or the estate involved the transfer of serfs. The saknu 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 hazanu 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 hansa, 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 ownership of land might lead to embarrassment of the official. Hence, the rab hansa was likely to intervene also. There was service on public works also concerned in the matter. Whatever official was bel ilki, or had right to "the levy," might intervene. The chief of a certain district was called a rab kisir; he was also commander of a section of the army, and he had the right to intervene. Other officials as the sapiru, kurbu, 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.

(M564) 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.

(M565) 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, other objects might be dedicated as a forfeit. A great bow of bronze to Ninip of Kalhu 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 formulae 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.

(M566) 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 sibtu 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.(593)

(M567) 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." 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.

(M568) 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.(594) 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.(595) The interval might be two days only;(596) 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.(597)

(M569) 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.(598)

(M570) 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.(599)

(M571) A distinct case of fraud occurs(600) 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.

(M572) 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 Memoires de la Delegation 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:(601)

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.

(M573) 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 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, patesi, Sakkanak, 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.

(M574) 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, musu, 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 bitu 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.

(M575) These boundaries are of great interest both from the 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 kablu or "girdle."

(M576) Usually the plots are said to be in a city whose name is given. Thus we conclude the close proximity of Lahi, Ishkun-Ishtar, Malgia, Halhalla, 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.

(M577) 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.

(M578) 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 musu 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, suke, 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, they rose to the level of, and finally above, the floor, so that there were steps leading down into the house.(602)

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.

(M579) In the sale of a house it was often stated that the house was in good condition.(603) 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,(604) 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(605) suggests that the modern theory of interchangeable parts was anticipated in Babylonia, so that a door would as a rule fit any house. 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.

(M580) 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 Belit-nuhshi occur. They were named after people; Immerum the king, or Kat-Ninsah, whose house adjoined the street named after him. The gate of Sin and his garden are named. Canals, especially the Nar tupsarruti, the Nar Bilia, are named. Roads, as that to Ishkun-Ishtar, are sometimes given.

(M581) The following is a good example of a deed of sale at the time of the First Dynasty of Babylon,(606) 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 Haiabni-ilu, its exit to that of Immarum, sar irbitim which is his own also; from Nabi-ilishu, Lamazi, the votary of Shamash, daughter of Kasha-Upi, by her written order 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.

(M582) The house was in Sippara, since it is known that Nabi-ilishu resided there.(607) The "exit," that is to say, the front door, opened on the road to the house of Immarum. The scribe means to say that Haiabni-ilu, who was a neighbor, owned the house of Immarum. It appears that Immarum was sar 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-la-ilu. It is not necessary to suppose him still alive. This deed was executed in the reign of Apil-Sin, whose father, Sabum, had reigned fourteen years after the death of Sumu-la-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 Amnanu of the goddess Anunitum, Sippar Edinna, and Sippar Ihrurum 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 Shamash, bought another house in the nineteenth year of Sinmubalit,(608) borrowed a quantity of lead in the first year of Hammurabi,(609) and bought a female slave in a year of Hammurabi's reign, the date of which is not yet fixed.(610) 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.(611)

(M583) The phrase ina sapirisa, "by her order," occurs often. It implies that Lamazi acted through an agent, when she borrowed the lead, she acted through a mar sipri, 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,(612) where we learn that the latter was a son of Shamash-ina-matim and brother of Kasha-Upi. Lamazi was therefore a niece of Nabi-ilushu.

(M584) 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 four shekels, the highest thirty shekels. This gives a wide margin.

(M585) 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(613) and may be taken as a representative specimen:

The house of Ina-eshi-etir, son of Nabu-etir, a well-built house, furnished with door-frames, a roofed house, the door and crossbar of which are firm, in the quarter of Bit Kuzub-shame-ersiti, which is in Erech; upper side next Sula, Nabu-nasir and Bel-ahe-erba, sons of Eteru; lower side next Ereshu, son of Shama; upper end next Silla, son of Nabu-ahiddin; lower end next Ereshu, son of Nabu-belani; on each side the house of Ina-eshi-etir, son of Nabu-etir, 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-eshi-etir 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 Ashurbanipal. Ina-eshi-etir has impressed his nail-mark in lieu of a seal.

(M586) 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-basu 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.(614) Vines might grow in it,(615) and butter was kept there. A bit kutalli, or out-house, is named. Often bit rimki, or "wash-house," is also mentioned. This was a chamber within the house, and may be rather meant for lustration, than for ordinary washing. One house had three of these rooms.(616) Sometimes there was a buru, a "well," or cistern, within the house.(617) A "shop," or bit katati, was often attached.(618) Stables, bit abusate, are named.(619) What is meant by bit irsi is difficult to determine, perhaps some chamber fitted with beds and couches.(620) The bit akulli had a well in it, but what it was is not clear.(621) The bitu elitu(622) may be an "upper story." If so, most houses were one-storied only.