Chapter V: A. Th. denotes a text in the Berlin Museum (8)

(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 _ḳallê nâri_, or canal laborers.(514)

XIX. The Army, _Corvée_, 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 _ṣâbê_, or _ummanâte_. We have no direct statements about them, but a great multitude of references. They were called out by the king, _adki ummanâtîa_, “I called out my troops,” is a stock phrase. The calling out was the _dikûtu_. Not easily to be distinguished from this was the _šisîtu_ of the _nâgiru_. That officer seems to have been an incarnate War Office. It is not clear whether he always acted solely for military purposes. The “levy” seems to have been equally made for public works. The men were “the king’s men,” whether they fought or built. The obligation to serve seems to have chiefly affected the slaves and the poorer men, the _muškênu_. In the Code of Ḥammurabi(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 _ḫubšu_ and we know little about it more than that Sargon II. charged his immediate predecessors on the throne with having outraged the privileges of the citizens of the old capital Asshur, by putting them to work on the fields.

The obligation to provide a soldier for the state was tied to a definite plot, or at any rate, to all estates of a certain size. The _ilku_, or obligation of the land, was transferred with it. In Assyrian times, the military unit was the bowman and his accompanying pikeman and shield-bearer. The land which was responsible for furnishing a “bow,” _ḳaštu_, in this fashion, was itself called a “bow” of land.(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 _dikûtu mâti_, _šisîtu nagiri_, and _miksu kâri_.(517) The city had not known the _ilku dupsikku_. Later, we find an officer, Tâb-ṣil-ešarra,(518) complaining that, when he was desirous of doing some repairs to the queen’s palace in Asshur, of which city he was _šaknu_, Sargon’s freeing of the city had rendered the _ilku_ of the city unavailable to him.(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 _šisîtu nâgiri_. This was drawn up in the time of Ashurbânipal, but whether it was original with him is not clear. At any rate, later, under Cambyses and Darius, these cities were again subject to the “levy.”

(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 Ḥarran census shows, often had land of their own. But they were bound to till the soil for the owner. They included the _irrišu_, or (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 šarrûti_, or obligation to serve as “king’s handmaid.” It lay also upon slaves. It is doubtful whether the obligation included domestic service. From the second Babylonian Empire we have a host of tablets relating to these weaving accounts. They will be found fully discussed by Dr. Zehnpfund in his _Weberrechnungen_.(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 _ḳablu_. This has the same sign as so commonly used in the phrase, _ḳablu u taḫâzu_, for “war and fighting.” But it is also the ideogram for _šisîtu_, the call of the _nâgiru_ to war or the corvée. There is no doubt that it indicates the levy for war. The _rikis ḳabli_ was the money due from certain persons to furnish a soldier for the war. Thus we have seventy shekels paid to a certain man, in the fifth year of Darius, to go to the city Shiladu.(525) Again, a certain Bêl-iddin had to find twenty-five shekels to pay a substitute to go for him to the presence of the king.(526) Another man paid the wages of a soldier for two years.(527) This was an _æs militare_. In another case we find the _rikis ḳabli_ for a horseman for a certain troop, for three years. It consisted of an ass worth fifty shekels, thirty-six shekels for its keep, twelve coats, twelve breastplates (?), twelve _mušapallatum_, twelve leather _mîṭu_, twenty-four shoes, thirty _ḲA_ of oil, sixty _ḲA_ of bdellium sixty _ḲA_ of some aromatic, all as equipment, _ṣiditum_, to go to the camp (?). This may be described as _æs equestre_.(528) So(529) the burgomaster of Babylon paid _rikis ḳabli_ for three years for a certain soldier, receiving the amount from single citizens. How this arose, what dues it was a composition for, and whether it antedates Persian times, are details not yet clear.

(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 Melišhiḫu,(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 _niširtu_, from which many charters exempt land; but others consider this merely a word for “diminution,” or levy in general. There is no means of deciding yet as to the time at which the tithe first became a fixed institution.

(M495) There seems to be no trace in Assyrian times of any payment of a tithe. The tithe _rab ešrite_, which has been rendered “tithe collector,” is more likely to be a commander of ten, a decurion.(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 Bêl, Nabû, Nêrgal, and Bêlit 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 Maḫâz-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 kâri_, 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 _ginû_, or fixed customary daily payment, and a _sattukku_, or fixed monthly payment. How these arose is still obscure. They were paid in all sorts of natural products, paid in kind, measured by the temple surveyor on the field. Doubtless, these were due from temple lands, and grew out of the endowments given to the temple. These often consisted of land, held in perpetuity by a family, charged with a payment to the temple. The land could not be let or sold by the temple, nor by the family. Such land was usually freed from all other state dues. The endowment was thus at the expense of the state. An enormous number of the tablets which have reached us from the later Babylonian times concern the payment of these dues. They mostly consisted of corn and sesame, or other offerings, and the tablets are receipts for them. In Assyrian times the _ginû_ also included flesh of animals and birds. In some few cases we have long lists of these daily dues, accompanied by precious 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 Verträge_ to this subject. How the temple became possessed of these lands we do not know. We do know of large gifts of land by kings, rich land-owners and the like, but we do not know whether originally the temple started with land. When a king speaks of building a temple to a god, we may understand that he really rebuilt it, or erected a new temple on the site. Before kings, the _patêsis_ did the same. But did a _patêsi_ precede a temple or _vice versâ_? and did the first founder, or the town, grant the first temple lands?

(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 Bêlit 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 Nabû-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 _ginû_ 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 Bêl-Merodach each New Year’s Day. If he did not, he not only offended the priests, but also committed a wrong in the eyes of his people.

(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 Ashurbânipal is a great example of the magic-ridden kings. Ḥammurabi apparently strove to put down magic. The eternal struggle between the “science” (falsely so-called) of magic and divination on the one hand and the higher claims of religious duty on the other, is the key to much that is misunderstood in the politics of the time. It would be too much to say that the priestly party were always on the side of morality, or that they were not often allied with the soothsayers, but it is certain that what ethical progress there was, was due to them. In religious texts alone have we aspiration after higher ideals. Who can fancy a wizard troubled about ethics?

(M511) The priest proper, _šangû_, 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 _šangû maḫḫu_ or “high-priest.”

(M514) The general idea that _mašmašu_, “charmer”; _kalû_, “restrainer”; (?) _maḫḫû_, “soothsayer”; _surru_; _lagaru_; _šâ’ilu_, “inquirer”; _mušêlu_, “necromancer”; _âšipu_, “sorcerer”; all properly “magicians,” are subdivisions of the general term _šangû_, is yet to be proved. Except when, in rare cases, the same man was both, the scribes carefully distinguish them. The idea seems to arise from the same modern confusion of thought which starts by calling an unknown official first a eunuch, then a priest. We do not yet fully know the functions or methods of these officials. They remain to be studied.(545)

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

(M516) The _šatammu_ was over the revenues. This name is clearly connected with the _šutummu_ or storehouse.

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

(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 Bêlit, and eight days in the shrine of Gula as being the _namḫar_ of Sin-imgurâni and Sin-uzili.(550) This was confirmed to them by a legal decision in the time of Rîm-Sin. We read also of a right to act as _šatammu_, for six days per month, in the temple of Shamash.(551) In later times the _mandidûtu_, or surveyorship, to the temple of Anu, Ib, and Bêlit-êkalli, exercised in the temple, storehouse, and field, was sold, shared, and pledged.(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 Bâb 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 _ridû ṣâbê_ and the _bâ’iru_, officials charged with the collection of local quotas for the army and public works. They were recruiting sergeants, press-gang officers, and post-office officials. The office was endowed by royal grant. They were liable to be called on in the discharge of their duties to make lengthy journeys and be absent from home for a length of time, even years. In their absence, 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 Ḥarran 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 _ḲA_ of wheat, six _ḲA_ of sesame, on every eighteen _ḲA_ of land. When the corn and dates were harvested, on one _GUR_, six _ḲA_ were levied.

(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 Ḥammurabi 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 Bêlit 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-shûm-ukîn sent the bribes to the King of Elam, Ummanigash, he spoiled the treasuries of Merodach at Babylon, of Nabû at Borsippa, and of Nêrgal at Cutha, and this was reckoned one of his evil deeds, which led to his downfall. But if he had been successful and had repaid his forced loans, doubtless it would have been excused, and his memory would have been blessed.

(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 _bêlu_ of it, its full and legitimate owner. The new owner had to be satisfied that A was competent to part with it. This is often made clearer by saying, in later times, that no one else has any claim upon it. Hence arise guarantees against defeasor, redemptor, _et cetera_. This subject of guarantees is most interesting, though often obscure. The investigation of the varied rights which were likely to interfere with freedom of transfer is most important.

(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,” _ašar eliša tâbum aplûtsa 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 Bêl-nâ’id gave to his daughter, Baltêa-abate.
A house in Nineveh, before the great gate of the temple of
Shamash. (Then come the servants, a _šaḳu_ or head man, a
washerman, a _šaknu_, and others, male and female, in all eleven
souls.) Dated the fourteenth of Adar, in the Eponymy of
Marduk-shar-uṣur. Nine witnesses.

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

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

(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 ḫûd libbišu iknukma pâni ušadgil_, “in the joy of his heart (_i.e._, of his own free will, implying that no consideration was taken _per contra_) he has sealed and placed at the disposal 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 _nudunnû_, or a _šeriḳtu_, 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) Zêrûtu had married and had a son, Shâpik-zêri. Then he had an intrigue with Nasikâtum, daughter of the Sealand scribe, who bore him a son, Balâṭu. He gave Balâṭu a house, but did not adopt him. After Zêrûtu died, Shâpik-zêri demanded the house as his father’s heir. The judges gave it to him and also the deed of gift.

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

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

In another case, a mother dedicates her son to Shamash,(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 Ashurbânipal, King of Assyria. This is interesting as showing that the dedicator acquired merit, which he could transfer to another. Both tablets are defective. In another case, Aḫi-dalli, the lady governor of one quarter of Nineveh, purchases a large estate and presents it to some god “for the health of the king.”(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 Ishḫara temple he
assigns to B. The benefice of the shrine of Papsukal in the temple
of Bêlit-shami-erṣiti, situated on the bank of the canal, and the
sown corn-field on the Dubanîtu canal he gave to his younger son
C. All his property out in business he assigned to his mother and
his two sisters. Certain dates in the possession of two of his
debtors he gave to his two sisters. A fugitive slave, not yet
recovered, to his mother and sisters. The house, which by a former
deed he had given to his mother and sisters, shall be theirs
according to the former deed. As long as his mother lives, she
shall enjoy the property formerly assigned her. The benefice of
the dagger-bearership in the temple of Ishḫara, which he had
formerly assigned to his mother, she has freely intrusted to his
son B. As long as she lives, B and C shall live in the house with
her. The income of his mother his sons shall enjoy with her. She
shall give marriage-portions to his sisters, her daughters, from
her own marriage-portion.

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

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

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

(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 ittišu_. 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.