Chapter V: A. Th. denotes a text in the Berlin Museum (9)

(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 _ŠE_, or one-twelfth of a shekel, was thus added. Likewise when another slave and her baby were sold we find that in addition to the price of eighty-four shekels, one shekel is thrown in as a present.(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,” _šîmu gamrûtu_, of half a mina of silver, the buyer gave one shekel of silver, _kî atri_, “as an addition,” and “a dress for the lady of the house.” The whole payment thus made of thirty-one shekels was called the _šibirtu_. So in the time of Darius (?) we find that, in addition to the full price of three minas, five shekels of silver, the buyer adds, _kî atri_, six shekels of silver and a dress for the lady of the house, making three minas, eleven shekels of silver as the _šibirtum_,(588) or simply to a price of two minas of bright silver he adds two shekels, _kî pî atar_, making a _šibirtu_ of two minas, two shekels of bright silver.(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 _bêlu_, or “legitimate” owner of the property made over. Then first after the seal, or in a space left for it, comes the specification of the property. Next it is stated that the buyer has made a bargain and taken the property for so much. But the bulk of the document is devoted to a contract that the seller, his representatives, heirs, and assigns, 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 _šaknu_, or governor of the district, is named, especially where slaves are sold, or the estate involved the transfer of serfs. The _šaknu_ clearly had rights over lands and slaves within his district. The transfer of property might act injuriously to his rights. It was usual to stipulate that he had no such rights. How they had been annulled we do not know. Perhaps by some previous charter conferring exemption. The _ḫazânu_ also appears to have had the right to intervene. The country seems to have been split up into districts which were called on to furnish fifty units, each consisting of an archer and a spearman or shield-bearer. Hence, the _rab ḫanšâ_, or “captain of fifty,” was really in command of a hundred men. Whether this obligation lay on a group of a hundred families or not, it is clear that the transfer of ownership of land might lead to embarrassment of the official. Hence, the _rab ḫanšâ_ was likely to intervene also. There was service on public works also concerned in the matter. Whatever official was _bêl ilki_, or had right to “the levy,” might intervene. The chief of a certain district was called a _rab kiṣir_; he was also commander of a section of the army, and he had the right to intervene. Other officials as the _šâpiru_, _ḳurbu_, are named, but in all cases the nature of the claim must have been similar. The object of the buyer was to stipulate that the seller should hold him exempt from such claims. How this could be done does not appear.

(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 Kalḫu is named.

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

(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 _ṣibtu_ and _bennu_, the character of which is not exactly known. Also he bargains that a blemish may be at any time an excuse for annulling the bargain. These really amount to demanding a guarantee from the seller that the slave was free from disease or other undisclosed weakness.(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 _Mémoires de la Délégation en Perse_, Tome II., pp. 1-52. It is divided into a number of sections each recording a separate purchase. One example will suffice as characteristic of all:(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_, _patêsi_, _Šakkanak_, as well as a king. We see already judges, merchants, scribes, irrigators, boatmen, carpenters, singers, shepherds, seers, branders, as well as slaves. We read of sheep, asses, goats, oxen. And all this from one inscription. It is a fine example of the kind of information this class of documents may afford. Not least in importance is the fact that many Semitic, as well as Sumerian, names and words occur.

(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, _mûṣû_, is specified, which doubtless means a right of way through, or past, another house to the street. When more than four neighbors are named, it is probably the case that on one side the plot was conterminous, at least partly, with two of them. Very commonly only two neighbors are given, one each side. We may then presume that there were streets or lanes both front and back. If we could press the term _bîtu_ to mean “house,” we might conclude from many cases that the old Babylonian cities contained streets of houses, which were one conterminous block of buildings. But they seem in very many cases to have had some open ground, and often gardens were attached.

(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 _ḳablu_ or “girdle.”

(M576) Usually the plots are said to be in a city whose name is given. Thus we conclude the close proximity of Laḫî, Ishkun-Ishtar, Malgia, Ḥalḫalla, to Sippara. Indeed, they were probably conterminous with it. Often the plot is stated to be in some quarter, or ward of the city. For the most part the names of these wards, as for example Gagim, Karim, are difficult to understand. Why or how they obtained these names we cannot tell. It is noteworthy that one ward was called Amurru, “the Amorite land.” Much has been made of this by Professors Hommel and Sayce, but we are still far from clear ideas on the point. With respect to other indications of locality, it must be noted that they are usually at the end of the first line at the right-hand top corner of the tablet, and have suffered defacement more often than any other detail, so that they are often illegible.

(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 _mûṣû_ or right of way out, either between, through, or over, other house property. When a house had other houses touching it on each of four sides, something of the kind was necessary.

Probably the house did not usually have an upper story; but, perhaps, as a remarkable exception, an “upper house” is occasionally mentioned. There is reason to think that some were in the form of a quadrangle, around an inner court; as there are wells, or fountains, mentioned as being “within the house.” In some parts of the city, at any rate, the block of buildings was continuous. But there were many streets, and canals also, in the cities. The streets, _suḳê_, were as a rule only narrow lanes or passages. As shown by the excavations at Nippur, houses stood for a long time. When first used, the floors were above the street level, but after the footpaths had been some time in use, 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 Bêlit-nuḫshi occur. They were named after people; Immerum the king, or Kât-Ninsaḫ, whose house adjoined the street named after him. The gate of Sin and his garden are named. Canals, especially the _Nâr tupsarrûti_, the _Nâr Bilîa_, are named. Roads, as that to Ishkun-Ishtar, are sometimes given.

(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 Ḥaiabni-ilu, its exit to that of Immarum, _šar irbitim_ which is his own also; from Nabi-ilishu, Lamazi, the votary of Shamash, daughter of Kasha-Upi, by her written order 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 Ḥaiabni-ilu, who was a neighbor, owned the house of Immarum. It appears that Immarum was _šar irbitim_, “king of the four quarters,” a title often borne by Babylonian kings. There is a great probability then that Immarum was no other than the Immerum, once King of Sippara, in the reign of Sumu-lâ-ilu. It is not necessary to suppose him still alive. This deed was executed in the reign of Apil-Sin, whose father, Ṣâbum, had reigned fourteen years after the death of Sumu-lâ-ilu. Further, one of the witnesses, Sin-ublam, is said to be a son of Immerum.

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

Lamazi, the buyer, daughter of Kasha-Upi, votary of Shamash, bought another house in the nineteenth year of Sinmubaliṭ,(608) borrowed a quantity of lead in the first year of Ḥammurabi,(609) and bought a female slave in a year of Ḥammurabi’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 šapiriša_, “by her order,” occurs often. It implies that Lamazi acted through an agent, when she borrowed the lead, she acted through a _mâr šipri_, a messenger and agent. She bought her other house in the same way. This does not imply any disability on the part of women to enter into business, for they were as free and competent to act as men. Nor does it arise from her being a votary of Shamash, for these ladies are concerned in by far the larger part of the transactions recorded at Sippara. It is merely the fact that on these occasions, as was frequently done, Lamazi employed a business agent, who is not named. Her father, Kasha-Upi, is referred to again as buying a house from the sons of Nabi-ilushu,(612) where we learn that the latter was a son of Shamash-ina-mâtim and brother of Kasha-Upi. Lamazi was therefore a niece of Nabi-ilushu.

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

(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-baṣu_ or “court” is named. This was perhaps an attached walled enclosure.

It is the name given in the Code to the fold where sheep and oxen are kept.(614) Vines might grow in it,(615) and butter was kept there. A _bît kutalli_, or out-house, is named. Often _bît 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 _bûru_, a “well,” or cistern, within the house.(617) A “shop,” or _bît ḳâtâti_, was often attached.(618) Stables, _bît abusate_, are named.(619) What is meant by _bît irši_ is difficult to determine, perhaps some chamber fitted with beds and couches.(620) The _bît akulli_ had a well in it, but what it was is not clear.(621) The _bîtu elîtu_(622) may be an “upper story.” If so, most houses were one-storied only.

(M587) Another interior apartment is called a _kimaḫḫu_. This has usually been taken to be a “tomb.” We know that the old Babylonian kings were buried in the palace of Sargon. But this was when the palace was no longer the abode of the living. Ashurbânipal’s charter to his faithful general and tutor-in-arms, Nabû-shar-uṣur,(623) seems to contemplate that general’s being buried in the palace, though this is not certain. However, the explorations of Nippur demonstrate the existence of vaults for burial, built over with brickwork. It may be that such vaults did exist within the house, and were sold with it.

A “portico,” _bît mutirrêti_, is named once.(624) Beside the “great house,” _bîtu dannu_, or _bitannu_, a “second house,” _bît šanû_, is mentioned. The exit from the house, _mûṣû_, a way to the street, was often named, being very important where the house was bounded on four sides by others.

(M588) Most of the houses, of which we have deeds of sale, were situated in Nineveh itself. Occasionally, the house is shut in by more than three others, most often only by three. Then the fourth side is said or implied to be on the street. Hence, we may be sure that in parts of Nineveh, there were continuous blocks of houses, on each side of a street. Sometimes, however, we have a garden, or orchard, as one boundary.

(M589) Contrary to the practice in Babylonia, the size of the house is rarely given. We have the size of the _bîtu akulli_ given, in one case,(625) as forty-three cubits long and twenty cubits broad. What seem to be the dimensions of an ordinary house were twenty-two by fourteen cubits.(626)

(M590) Houses in Assyria sold for from half a mina up to twelve minas; but as long as we are so ignorant of the form, nature, and dimensions of the house and its adjuncts, the information is of very little interest.

(M591) A number of other buildings or parcels of land were sold with houses or separately. Thus, we read of a _papaḫu_, or chamber, which was beneath an adjoining beer-shop.(627) The beer-shop is often mentioned, and was a state-regulated institution.

(M592) A term which was long somewhat of a puzzle, the _ki-gallu_, usually written _Ê-KI-GÀL_, or _Ê-KI-DAN_, is shown definitely by the Code(628) to be a plot of uncultivated land. This might be rented for cultivation and was not necessarily poor land, for it was expected to yield ten _GUR_ per _GAN_. But it might also lie in a city bounded on four sides by houses,(629) or, as often, by three houses and the street. It was then, of course, a building site. Its price was usually about two shekels per _SAR_, but might be as high as eight shekels per _SAR_.(630)

(M593) Another common object of sale was a building called _Ê KISLAḤ_, shown by the Code(631) to be really a “granary,” or barn, read _maškanu_. These are usually in the city, and the prices paid for them varied from one-third of a shekel(632) to fifteen shekels(633) per _SAR_. They might be surrounded by houses on all four sides, or by a canal, road, and street.(634)

(M594) These examples serve to show that _bîtu_ as often denoted a “plot” of land as a “house.”(635) In Assyrian times we find the same usage. A fairly common object of sale is what I take to be a “fuller’s field,” or a “bleaching ground,” _bîtu ḳaḳḳiri pûṣê_. It was usually in the city, of small size, given in cubits each way, or a trifle over a homer in area. It was near a stream. It sold for a very high price. Once we find half of it used as a garden. It seemed to have been fenced in. Unfortunately, no one example is perfectly preserved; and the deeds are of no special interest beyond the peculiar nature of the plot.(636)

(M595) The gardens in the time of the First Dynasty of Babylon are generally said to be planted with dates, and sold for “full” price. Once two shekels are given for a garden of fifteen _SAR_.

(M596) There are not many examples of these sales in Assyrian times, but they give some welcome information. There is nothing peculiar about the sale formula. The only interest is in the specifications. The garden is usually said to be planted with the _iṣu tillit_, almost certainly “the vine.” Hence, we may regard them as “vineyards.” The number of plants in them is often given, being as high as two thousand four hundred.(637) Of other plants grown in a Babylonian garden we can recognize with more or less certainty in The Garden Tablet,(638) garlic, onion, leek, kinds of lettuce, dill, cardamom, saffron, coriander, hyssop, mangold, turnip, radish, cabbage, lucerne, assafœtida, colocynth.

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

(M597) The sales of fields are very numerous. They were usually situated outside the city walls, in the _ugaru_, or townland. They were not, however, reckoned outside the “town.” For the town extended beyond its walls, like a parish in England; and was bounded, as a rule, by adjoining towns. In the case of Sippara, many of these _ugarê_ are named; but as a rule, the names do not explain themselves. Thus, Azarim, Ḥiganim, and Shikat Malkat may be named after persons or temples. Other names, like Shutpalu, Nagû, Iblê, Tapirtum, may well be significant. Certainly, Ebirtim appears to mean “across” the Euphrates. Once the field is said to be in Sippara,(639) once in Ḥalḫalla,(640) but we cannot press these statements to mean “within the walls” of those cities. Usually, the boundaries of a field are four other fields, with now and then a road, or canal. The price per _SAR_ varied from one-thirtieth of a shekel(641) to more than a mina. Very frequently, indeed, the price is simply said to be “full.”

(M598) The fields in Assyrian times are often mentioned. Nearly always when a field, _eḳlu_, is sold, it is somewhere else referred to as _bîtu_, or plot, usually of so many homers in size. There is nothing distinctive about the sale formula. The specifications give most interesting and valuable data as to the topography of the land around Nineveh.(642) The accessories of a field may be named. Sometimes it was corn-land, _šê zêr_, part was _tabrû_, “open land,” part _adru_, enclosed by a wall or fence. Pits or wells, canals or ditches, courts or folds, occur frequently as adjuncts of a field.

(M599) Larger estates are built up of the simple elements which we have noted. Sometimes the estate was so large as to be styled a “city,” _alu šê_. These “cities” are generally called after the name of some one, probably a former owner. But the number of people sold in them does not justify the use of any larger designation than “hamlet.” A large estate, with a few people on it, obviously its bailiffs and the serfs of its landlord, constituted the _alu_. Hence, this term, like _bîtu_, must have a wider signification than that usually given it. Such hamlets were, doubtless, the germs of future cities, but the term evidently denotes simply a settled abode of a group of people.

(M600) From very early times the Babylonians drew plans of estates, which are in many ways very instructive. The seated statue of Gudea, found by De Sarzec at Telloh, has a plan of his city upon a tablet on his lap, accompanied by a scale of dimensions or a standard of length.(643)

Professor Oppert, Dr. Eisenlohr, M. Thureau-Dangin, and others have discussed at length the plan of a field,(644) which has the sides of several plots given in linear measure and the areas in square measure. From this was obtained a great variety of results regarding the relations between the measures.(645)

XXIII. Loans And Deposits

(M601) In the first epoch there are many examples of loans. The characteristic word _ŠU-BA-TI_, or _ŠU-BA-AN-TI_, which means “he has borrowed,” has been used as a title and they are often called _ŠUBATI_ tablets. They are the receipts given for the loans by the borrowers. Here is an example:

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

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

(M602) The greatest value of these tablets lies in their dates. The dates are usually events. Many of these have already been collected and registered, especially by Dr. H. Radau.(646) But there is even more to be done, when further examples are published. Many tablets contain two dates referring to loans contracted at different times. By this means the sequence can gradually be determined. The seals are also of great interest and often of value, as may be seen from Dr. Radau’s work.

(M603) Advances of all sorts were freely made both with and without interest. For convenience we may separate money from corn loans and advances of all kinds of commodities; but we must not forget that corn, at any rate, was legal tender; and silver loans might be repaid in corn. This, however, was early recognized as an inconvenience and it is quite common to find a direct stipulation that what was lent shall be repaid in kind. It soon became usual to state that if the loan was repaid otherwise, it must be according to a fixed ratio between silver and corn.

(M604) A very large number of loans take the form of _Abstract schuldscheine_, loans without statement of any cause for the debt. They are merely promises to pay, that is, acknowledgments of indebtedness. Thus we read: “Five shekels of silver which A has given to B. On such a date B shall pay five shekels of silver to A.” A penalty may be added for not paying on the fixed date. Usually this takes the form of interest. The rate is one shekel _per mina_ each month, or twelve shekels _per mina yearly_, that is, twenty per cent. There is no clear case of money lent as an investment to bear interest. That was done in quite another way. The lender entered into relationship with an agent, to whom he furnished capital and who traded with the money and repaid it with interest.

(M605) Most of the loans were evidently contracted to meet temporary embarrassment. Usually it was in connection with the need of cash to pay the expenses at harvest-time. The loan was then repaid at harvest. It might be repaid in corn.(647) The time was usually short—fifteen days is named.(648) The lender had his reward in obtaining his money’s worth in corn, when its price was cheapest. But he was evidently not expected to charge interest. A similar kind of loan is half a mina of silver to pay the price of a piece of land. Here the money was lent until the land was bought, and was to be repaid with interest of three _GUR_ of corn.(649) So half a mina for certain land to be paid, when the land was cultivated.(650)

(M606) Another reason for borrowing was the need of money to pay taxes, _ana ilkim suddanim_.(651) In one of these cases the stipulation is added that the borrower shall bring the receipt of the tax-collector and then may take back his bonds.(652) Here the “sealed tablet” is in one case the receipt for the tax, in the other the receipt which the borrower gave for his loan. But there is no mention of his repayment. Perhaps the lender owed the tax, half a mina, and as it was a considerable sum, sent it by a third party, but made him give a receipt for it. But such a receipt would differ in no respect from the sort of bond mentioned above, and would render the messenger liable to repay the money; so he was to have his receipt back, on handing over the tax-collector’s receipt showing that he had paid the tax.

(M607) In several cases the god is represented as lending the money. It is obvious that such advances were made from the temple treasury.(653) It is usual from such instances to expatiate on the temple, or the priests, as the great moneylenders. This is a view easily misunderstood. It is quite true that the temples were great landowners, and had steady incomes, and possessed treasuries; but there is no evidence that they lent on usury. It seems rather that these loans without interest (except as a fine for undue retention of the loan) were a kindly accommodation. We know that under certain circumstances a man might appeal to the temple treasury to ransom him from the enemy. He might also borrow in case of necessity without interest. Moneylending proper existed, but was kept in narrow bounds by the temple itself.

(M608) In view of the many questions that arise as to the nature of the money at this period, it should be noted that the silver is often said to be _kanku;_ literally “sealed.” Whether this means that the silver bars, or ingots, were sealed while the metal was soft enough to receive a mark which would authenticate its weight and purity, or whether it means that the money was enclosed in sealed sacks, is hard to say. Against the latter may be urged that such a small sum as one and two-thirds shekels would not be sealed up.(654) But it may be that _kanku_ means “sealed for,” that is, acknowledged by the receipt.

(M609) Even more common than money loans are the corn loans. Here the loans were generally for a short time just before harvest, when the repayment was expected. The period is usually short, five days,(655) or a month.(656) Interest is sometimes demanded, at the rate of _one hundred ḲA per GUR_, or one-third, that is, _thirty-three and a third per cent_. This was probably the rate _per mensem, four hundred per cent. per annum_. But in one case the interest is _one hundred ḲA per GUR per annum_,(657) once it is expressly said to be nothing,(658) usually it is not referred to at all. Sometimes a loan was partly in money, partly in corn.(659)

(M610) Other things were lent, as sesame, skins, bricks, and the like, but these loans exhibit no peculiarity. They are merely letting the borrower have goods on credit, to be paid for, or returned, after a time.

We may take, as an example of this kind of transaction, a rather more complicated case:(660)

(M611)

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

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

(M612) Another fairly common type of document contains a number of sections, each containing the record of one sum. But it is not clear that these were loans. They may be allowances for food or salary. Thus in B1 247 we have so much corn for the women weavers, so much more for the votaries, so much for other officials, from the first of one month to the thirtieth, so much for the Sutî who was watching the field, so much for a boatman, and so on. These are perhaps a temple steward’s accounts. Their interest lies only in the incidental notices. We also note that here a month had thirty days. It is interesting to find that the celebrated Sutî nomads who later gave so much trouble, were already in the country and were employed to watch the fields. Was this watching done on the principle of “setting a thief to catch a thief”? Perhaps it was necessary to employ a Sutî as custodian, of course at a salary, if one was to preserve the crop from the depredations of his fellow-tribesmen.

Some of these tablets expressly state the amount of corn loaned, giving the date for repayment.(661) Hence we see what a narrow margin divides the proper bond from the mere receipt, or even the memorandum of the loan.

(M613) A number of tablets deal with advances of wool or woollen yarn made by temple officials to weavers and dyers to work up. As a rule they contain a number of words connected doubtless with the weaver’s craft which are not yet made out. The following is a fairly simple example:(662)

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

Elsewhere the time of loan may be stated, two months for example.(663) The price is always reckoned at six minas of wool for a shekel. It seems that the borrowers were not obliged to repay until a certain date, or until a demand was made for certain taxes. They then must pay in silver.

(M614) In the Assyrian examples of money-loans the same general features constantly recur. The most common are loans _ana pûḫi_, which may be taken to mean “for consideration,” as the word _pûḫu_ means an “exchange.” But there is never any statement of what the consideration was. Some have thought, that as the bond was invariably given to the creditor to be broken up on the repayment of the loan, the exchange referred to was a restoration of the bond in return for the money. But the consideration, which is a legal presumption, may have lain in the fact that the borrowers were tenants on the metayer system and had a right to borrow of their landlord, free of interest, at seed-time and harvest. On such loans interest is only demanded when the debtor fails to repay at the fixed date.

(M615) The rate of interest charged as a penalty for non-payment or late payment was _twenty-five per cent. per mensem, three hundred per cent. per annum_. This interest was intended to secure prompt payment, but was not unfair in view of the increase of value obtained by investing it in corn and then sowing that. Other rates were one-third and one-eighth, but there is no fixed rate of interest for the loan of money, except when it was _ana pûḫi._

(M616) The interest on corn was _thirty ḲA per homer_. Some think the homer had sixty _ḲA_, which would make the interest fifty per cent. But no case has yet been found which gives the number of _ḲA_ in a homer.

(M617) The money lent is often said to belong to a god. Ashur, Ishtar of Arbela, or Ishtar of Nineveh, are the most common. Sometimes it is said to be in “Ishtar heads,” which has been taken to mean ingots stamped with a head of Ishtar. The frequent reference to the mina of Carchemish alongside the king’s mina is eloquent as to the commercial eminence of the old Hittite capital.

An example is the following:(664)

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

(M618) Loans or advances were also made of various kinds of property. Thus we have an advance of ten minas of silver, Carchemish standard, seventy-five sheep, one cow, made by Ashurbânipal’s chief steward to four men, _ana pûḫi_. The sheep and cow they are to return in Adar. If they do not return the sheep, they must breed them. The interest on the money is to be one-third. Dated the twenty-fifth of Tebet, B.C. 664. Thirteen witnesses. Such a loan seems to be on the metayer system.(665)

(M619) Here again we have an exceptional case:(666)

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

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

The same lender lent to the same three men, two hundred sheep, one hundred and fifty goats, two hundred and thirty yearling lambs, in all five hundred and eighty small cattle. They were to return the animals by a fixed date, or pay. Dated the seventh of Iyyar, B.C. 673. The same lender had lent seventy-two sheep to two other men, in Sivan, B.C. 680. They had to return the sheep in Ab, or pay for them at the market-rate in Nineveh. Bêl-êresh acted as agent for the borrowers.(667)

(M620) Other goods, such as wine, or oil, were advanced. Here we probably have to do with the transactions of the royal chief steward and the king’s agents. For example:(668)

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

Again:(669)

(M621)

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

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

(M622) Advances of corn were made exactly as in the earlier times. Thus:(670)

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

(M623) One peculiarity of the corn loans is that they are chiefly recorded upon what have been called heart-shaped tablets. These were lumps of clay through which a string passed and came out at the upper shoulders. The string was probably tied around the neck of a sack containing the corn. They thus served both as labels, seals, and as bonds. Many of them have Aramaic dockets, which have been collected and edited by Dr. J. H. Stevenson, in his _Assyrian and Babylonian Contracts, with Aramaic reference-notes_.

(M624) Thus the above example bears the words in Aramaic, “_barley, assignment, which is from Nabû-dûri._” These Aramaic legends, in the case of such labels, may have served as addresses. But the general purpose is obscure. All the corn advances seem to have been made by officials of the royal household to inferior officers, in charge of farms or otherwise dependent for supplies.

(M625) (M626) They show by their dates that the corn was usually advanced just before harvest, when corn was dearest. Some of them name the reapers; others give the number of them. We conclude that these advances were made as food for the harvesters, or as wages for their labor. Occasionally, however, the loan was made at seed-time. Most of the loans are _ana pûḫi_,(671) which supports the view that the meaning of this phrase is really “for management expenses” and presupposes the metayer system.