Chapter V: A. Th. denotes a text in the Berlin Museum (10)

(M627) Closely connected with money or other loans are receipts for payment. These are somewhat rare. The more usual practice was to break the tablet, or promise to pay, which was returned to the debtor. But we have two good examples, thus:(672)

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

Here we are not aware of the circumstances which lead to the loan. But, in one case, we have records both of the loan and its repayment, thus:(673)

(M628)

Baḫiânu advanced two homers of corn, for food, to Nabû-nûr-nammir;
and one homer each to Latubashâni-ilu and Ṣabutânu, _ana pûḫi_.
Dated the twenty-ninth of Elul, B.C. 686.

And we find also:(674)

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

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

(M629) In one case we have a receipt for a fine, or damages, imposed by a law-court. Thus:(675)

Forty minas of bronze, without rebate, which the _sukallu_ imposed
as a fine. Paid to the _šakintu_. Dated the tenth of Adar, B.C.
693. Four witnesses.

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

(M630) The Code makes very clear the legal aspect of this transaction. A minor or a slave could only deposit under power of attorney.(676) A deposit was not recoverable unless made by a deed, or delivered in presence of witnesses and duly acknowledged by a receipt.(677) The receiver was liable for all loss occurring to the goods in his possession on deposit, even when the loss was such as involved the loss of his own goods as well.(678) For corn, the Code fixed a yearly fee for warehousing of one-sixtieth the amount deposited.(679)

(M631) As we learn from the few actual cases which occur, the receipt given for the goods was returned to the recipient on the return of the goods and the tablet broken as cancelling the responsibility. One form which it might take is illustrated by the following:(680)

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

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

(M632) Actual examples of deposit are rare; probably because our collections refer to temple transactions, rather than to private family deeds. We have a deposit of lead,(681) from which we learn that silver was worth twice as much as lead. It was to be sent from Ashnunna, on demand. Here is another:(682)

(M633)

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

Instead of a receipt by the recipient there is often found a list concluding with the word _apkida_, “I have intrusted.” Then comes the date and the names of witnesses. It is not clear, however, that these things were meant to be returned. They may only be memoranda of allowances given out. They chiefly occur in Scheil’s _Saison de fouilles à Sippar_.(683)

(M634) In Assyrian documents no examples of this kind of transaction are found. Nor are any very clear examples producible from later Babylonian times. But it must not be overlooked that some cases, where a receipt is given for a sum or quantity of goods, without mention of interest to be paid, may very well be acknowledgments of a deposit; they have usually been taken to be loans.

XXIV. Pledges And Guarantees

(M635) Very little is known about pledges in early times, though Meissner had argued for their existence from certain passages of the series _ana ittišu_, such as “on account of the interest of his money he shall cause house, field, garden, man-servant, or maid-servant, to stand on deposit”; followed later by, “if he bring back the money he can re-enter his house; if he bring back the money, he can plant his garden again; if he bring back the money, he can stand in his field; if he bring back the money, he can take away his maid; if he bring back the money, one shall return his slave.”(684) Consequently the creditor held the pledge in his possession until the loan was returned, when he had to give it back. The pledges here mentioned are antichretic, that is, such that they produce an income or return to the holder, which is a set-off against the interest of his money.

(M636) The Code recognizes the taking of property in satisfaction of a debt.(685) But this is rather a process of distraint upon the goods of the debtor, in case of non-payment, than a case of pledge. Since it was usually expected that the property so taken would be returned on payment of the debt, we can hardly distinguish it from pledge. Indeed, where a debtor gave up his wife, child, or slave to work off a debt, we have a case of antichretic pledge for the debt and interest.

(M637) In times subsequent to the First Babylonian Dynasty, the pledge is common. As a rule, it is antichretic, such that income or profit derived from the pledge is a fair equivalent for the interest of the loan. The lender acquires the right of enjoying the pledge. As a rule this is assigned him absolutely, so that no account is needed to be kept of interest on one side and profit on the other. If the profit exceeds the interest due, the excess may be returned, or it may be credited towards the discharge of the debt. If the interest exceeds the profit on the pledge, then the amount by which the loan exceeds the capitalized profit must pay interest.

(M638) In Assyrian times loans on security are fairly common. Here also we have antichretic loans, where the profit on the pledge was a set-off against the interest of the money. The pledge is expressly stated to be “in lieu of interest.” But it seems that the property was often expected also to extinguish the debt. Or it was merely pledged, as a security, which the creditor would keep in case he could not get his money back. We may illustrate these by examples:(686)

(M639)

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

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

Again:(687)

(M640)

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

Or again:(688)

(M641)

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

In the following case a maid is assigned outright for a loan. It is doubtful whether this is a sale, or a pledge:(689)

(M642)

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

(M643) A very similar case occurs in the loan of corn and a cow by the _bêl paḫâti_ of the Crown Prince, to a certain Nargî of the city of Bamatu. Nargî was to serve the lender for the corn and cow. When his service had become equivalent to the value of the advance, he could go free.(690)

Antichretic pledge was very common in later Babylonian times. The most typical examples are houses. The lender (M644) has a house in pledge. To him it is rent-free until the loan is repaid. Hence the common phrase “rent is nought, interest is nought.” There was then no reckoning made one against the other.(691) The creditor might not, however, care to take the pledge in perpetuity against interest of a loan, never repaid. Usually a date was fixed for repayment, at which time the debtor was bound to take back his pledge. Thus a house might be pledged definitely for three years.(692)

(M645) A reckoning might also be made, to check off profit against interest. Thus D pledges a field to L, but on condition that, if in any year the crop is less than will meet the interest due, he shall pay the difference; but if, on the other hand, it be worth more, he shall take the balance.(693)

(M646) The value of the pledge might, however, be such that it would outweigh both loan and interest. At any rate, it should be as valuable as the loan. Hence it could not be used as a further pledge to another. There is often a guarantee that the pledge given has not been already pledged, that no other creditor has a lien upon it.

(M647) In these cases the creditor enters into possession of the pledge and enjoyment of it. He has some responsibilities towards it. He cannot destroy it, or waste it. As a rule, he assumed full liability for all cases for wear and tear. He also fed and clothed a slave pledged to him. Now and then we find the debtor responsible for clothing the slave pledged by him.(694) It is not essential, however, to the idea of pledge that it should come into the possession of the creditor, only it is hypothecated to him. This practice was very common in later Babylonian times.(695)

(M648) Such pledges give an eventual possession. Something like a reversion occurs in the pledge of a share not yet divided.(696) Thus a sum was borrowed on the understanding that if not returned by the proper time, a slave shall be handed over as an antichretic pledge.(697) The man who gives a pledge may not be in actual possession of it, but pledges it on the understanding that he will hand it over as soon as it becomes his. Thus B bought a slave and her two young children for sixty-five shekels, but before they were handed over, he pledged them for fifty-five shekels. Nine months later he sold them for sixty shekels.(698)

(M649) A common case is where the debtor pledges all he has to the creditor, a pledge usually greatly in excess of the value of the loan and its interest for a reasonable term, but remains in possession himself. Hence the creditor has only a right over the pledge, a lien upon it, but no usufruct. For this he had the bond. This also gives only an eventual possession.

(M650) We often meet with after-pledge. The creditor, being in possession of the pledge, might traffic in its profits. If he held a house as pledge, he was not bound to live in it, but could sublet it. Hence he might pledge the rent of it. Or he could repay himself his loan by repledging the house to another. He could also pledge the loan which was due to him. This makes a rather complicated case.

(M651) Thus L makes an advance _a_ to D and receives a pledge _p_. He may then pledge both _a_ and _p_. If these are given to two separate persons, _a_ to A and _p_ to P, then P has a cause for uneasiness. If D comes in and pays up _a_, he has a right to the pledge _p_ which is in P’s possession. But the money he advanced is not thereby paid to him. Further, A has a right to the money _a_ just paid in by D, which is all that is in evidence. Hence L will have succeeded in getting two sums, and unless he can succeed in realizing his investments of them, is called on to pay both A and P with one amount. Either A or P may suffer. But if L pledges both _a_ and _p_ to one man C, then C is quite independent of the relations of L to D. Now D simply has to pay C and gets his pledge back. C is sure of his money.

(M652) Such a transfer of the responsibility of D from L to C was effected by handing over to C, with the pledge, also D’s bond to L. C now holds this bond, which, with his pledge, D wishes to get back. The following is a complicated case illustrating these points:(699) D had a house and pledged it to L, who lived in it. Two others were guarantees that D would repay the loan. The pledge was antichretic, “rent nothing, interest nothing.” Now L wanted money; so he pledged the house to C. But he did not wish to vacate. So he hired it of C, at such a rate that he would repay C’s loan in about five years. It is clear that this house was not good security for C, since D might turn out L at any time by repaying him. L would then owe money to C for which C had no security at all. But L in addition pledged all his own property, his slave, and all his goods in town and country. Further, he not only pledged the house, but handed over D’s bond to him. C thus held the house in after-pledge, and the advance with its security in pledge. He was therefore amply secured, since D must pay him.

Now L died and was succeeded by his son M. L had already paid nearly a third of his debt. M thus owed less interest on the loan still due and was accepted by C as tenant at a lower rent. By this means M really made a small profit to himself. In three years M had paid off the whole sum borrowed by his father, and due from him as heir and executor, so he gave back his father’s bond to C, also D’s bond to L. Now D paid back his loan to M. His bond to L was destroyed. The claim of C on D was annulled, the guarantees of D were free. A final deed of settlement was drawn up, in which C acknowledged that he had no claims on D or M, nor on D’s sureties. He had to say this, because he was not only creditor to M, but as long as he held transferred to him the pledge of D, and the credit of L, he was a creditor with claims on D also. Further, M declares that he has no credit on D.(700)

(M653) A guarantee arises from certain persons undertaking to fulfil a responsibility which is legally incumbent on another, in case he fails to do so himself; or to secure that he shall fulfil it himself. Thus, guarantees are very frequent at all times, especially in the later Babylonian period, and are of many different kinds.

(M654) A guarantee for debt was an additional security to the creditor. Of course, the original debtor is the security that the guarantor shall not lose. A good example showing all sides is the following bond for three minas due from D to L. G and W come in and guarantee that D will pay; if not, they will. To protect themselves, they take as a pledge of D some of his people. But D paid and received back his people, so that the bond was returned to D.(701) Why D did not give his people as pledge to L direct is not clear. G and W were probably persons of greater credit and perhaps related to D. The guarantor was sometimes called on to pay. Thus G guarantees for D, is called on to pay and D repays him.(702) The guarantor was legally protected against the defaulting debtor.(703)

(M655) A guarantee for appearance may have been only to come and pay, as when G guarantees the creditor, a temple, that D will come on a fixed date, and pay his debt; or if not, G will himself pay.(704) It may be a guarantee that a man will not go away; by which may be meant escape payment, or fail to appear for judgment. This is called a guarantee “for the foot of” the person thus indorsed. The “foot” is said to be in the “hand” of him who demands the guarantee. It often refers to debt. G guarantees for the foot of D, out of the hand of L. If he goes away, G will pay thirty-five _GUR_ of dates. Here G is the mother of D.(705) So, probably on account of debt, G guarantees for the foot of D, his son-in-law, from the hand of L;(706) again, G guarantees for D to L that D will come on a certain day. G takes the responsibility for all D owes to L, and will pay if D does not come.(707) Or, G guarantees for D and E that they will not leave for another place. If they do, he will pay six minas.(708)

(M656) But the appearance may be needed for a different purpose. G guarantees to bring a witness to Opis, and give witness against L that one who was guarantee for the foot of someone to L shall return at the right time. If the guarantee shall prove that L was paid, he is free; if not, he is bound to pay.(709)

D owed L a debt. L ceded this debt to M, but had to guarantee that D will come and pay.(710)

(M657) Solidarity is in some cases a form of guarantee. Thus two men D and E owe a debt to L. Each is taken as guarantee for the other that they will pay.(711) This is one of the commonest forms of guarantee. The debt could then be recovered in its entirety from either.

(M658) An example of a guarantee against theft is also found.(712)

(M659) A warrant against defects in a slave is very common. The seller warrants that if the slave prove to have certain undisclosed defects, vices, or liabilities, which would detract from his value to the buyer, the seller will indemnify the buyer. This indemnification seems to be effected by a return of the purchase-money and accepting the slave back. But, in some cases, the seller returned part of the purchase-money according to a fixed scale of allowances. In the sale of an estate, the seller guarantees that he will indemnify the buyer in case of any defect of title to sell, or any lien upon the estate.

(M660) Very common at all times was a personal guarantee not to dispute the compact entered into. In fact, this may always be said to be assumed. The oaths by which parties swore to observe the terms of the compact are a form of this guarantee. The penalties, so prominent in Assyrian times, are voluntary undertakings to forfeit stated sums, if found attempting to go behind the contract.

(M661) As the pledge did not always leave the debtor’s possession, the creditor only had a lien upon it. Hence the giver of the pledge had to guarantee that no creditor had a previous lien upon it. This is also extremely common. A slave pledged for debt might run away. His labor as the offset against the interest was thus annulled. The borrower then becomes liable for the interest lost to the creditor.(713)

XXV. Wages Of Hired Laborers

(M662) Despite the existence of slaves, who were for the most part domestic servants, there was considerable demand for free labor in ancient Babylonia. This is clear from the large number of contracts relating to hire which have come down to us. The variability of the terms agreed upon is witness for the existence of competition. As a rule, the man was hired for the harvest and was free directly after. But there are many examples in which the term of service was different—one month, half a year, or a whole year.

(M663) One might hire labor from the master of a slave, or from the parents of a young man, not yet independent, and then the wages were small, a shekel or two. These wages were paid to the master or parents, not to the laborer himself.

Reapers for the harvest had half a shekel,(714) or two shekels,(715) each. The first may be the daily wages, the latter the price for a specific job. It is probable that the _GUR_ of corn for ten days also represents the wages for the whole period.(716)

(M664) Average wages have been estimated by Meissner(717) to be six shekels per year, according to the Code, and some actual examples of contracts. But it was evidently a matter of agreement, for we have rates as low as four shekels and as high as eight. Usually the employer paid down a sum, for example, a shekel, as earnest-money; the rest was paid by a monthly or daily rate, or in a lump sum at the end of the term of service. Occasionally the wages might be paid down at the start, but this was rare and the amount less.

(M665) Very frequently, of course, the wages were paid in corn instead of money. Many difficulties lie in the way of finding an equivalent of the shekel in corn. Harvest labor was probably far dearer than any other, because of its importance, the skill and exertion demanded, and the fact that so many were seeking for it at once. Further, after harvest, when the wages were paid, corn was at its lowest price. Meissner’s actual examples show that two hundred and fifty _ḲA_ might be accepted as yearly wages. We have such a variety of rates that it is difficult to draw any clear conclusion, but two young slaves at harvest could earn three hundred _ḲA_, and for a whole year the wages might be over six hundred _ḲA_, or even as much as three _GUR_, or nine hundred _ḲA_.(718) The Code names ten _ḲA_ as daily wages. The average value of a _GUR_ of corn was a shekel, hence this gives a yearly rate of twelve shekels. In this case we may suppose that the laborer supported himself.

(M666) The laborer had to be bound to perform his task. A penalty was attached to his failure to appear at the proper time, and guarantees were sometimes taken for his appearance. In other cases it is stipulated that the penalty for non-appearance shall be fixed by the king’s decision.(719)

(M667) It was usual to name expressly the time of his commencing and leaving off his work. These clauses are incidentally of importance as fixing the names and sequence of the months at this period. Thus, from the example below we see that the month Tirinu preceded Elul.

(M668) Of course, the employer took all responsibility for the slave whom he hired. He fed and clothed him during his term of service. If he suffered any injury, the employer had to compensate the master. Occasionally the slave clothed himself,(720) and then his wages were higher.

As an example we may take the following:(721)

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

(M669) In the Assyrian times we have certain examples of advances of corn, or money, at harvest-time for the payment of reapers, which have already been noticed under loans.(722) An advance of money and food to workmen may perhaps be put here. But it is also a contract to do work. It reads thus:

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

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

In later Babylonian times we do not obtain much further information. Here is a good example:(723)

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

The hire is nearly thirty shekels a year, as in the next example:(724)

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

XXVI. Lease Of Property

(M670) In case of lease, the specifications of the house are usually the same as in a sale. But this is often not so full, since the identity of the house is less in evidence. A very interesting text referring to the sale or lease of a house next to the palace, in the district of Tirḳa, a house belonging to gods Shamash, Dagan, and Idur-mêr is published by M. Thureau-Dangin in _Revue d’Assyriologie_.(725) It belonged to the King of Ḥana, whose seal it bears. His name was Isar-lim, son of Idin-Kakka. The receiver was Kaki-Dagan’s son. The oath was by Shamash, Dagan, Idur-mêr and Isar-lim the king. The names are very interesting—Igid-lim, an official of the god Amurrû; Idin-abu, king’s son; Ili-esuḫ, a judge; Idin-Nani, son of Idin-Marduk; Sin-ukûr, son of Amur-sha-Dagan; Iazi-Dagan; Ṭuri-Dagan; Ṣilli-Shamash. These prove that the land of Ḥana, already known by a votive offering of one of its kings, Tukulti-mêr, was largely Semitic. The names are either of the Babylonian or Aramaic type. It is, of course, not easy to date, as the style of writing in Ḥana may have been different from that in Babylonia at the same epoch.

(M671) Meissner estimates the average rent of a house to be one shekel per annum. But there are noteworthy variations which, with our available data, cannot be explained. Perhaps the best way is to take account of the size of the house, usually given in the Babylonian fashion by the area of its ground-plan. Rents were often paid in corn, but are so variable that a value for corn in money cannot safely be deduced.

(M672) A small part of the rent was usually paid as earnest-money to close the bargain. In the case of short leases the rest was paid on quitting the house, in longer leases half-yearly. Usually the term of tenancy was carefully stated. It was most commonly one year. The cost of repairs fell on the tenant, according to the Code,(726) but he was forbidden to make any alterations until he had paid over the earnest-money. The Code perhaps only means to forbid his closing the door and fastening it, until the deposit was made. The landlord, in fact, preserved the right of free entry until then.

(M673) The usual term of lease for fields was three years. It is not possible as yet to explain why three years was stipulated, but it was probably due to something more than an accident of custom. Possibly a rotation of crops or an alternation of crop and fallow may have been in vogue.

(M674) According to the Code the tenant was bound to keep the land in good condition. His duties included the ploughing or trenching, sowing the seed, snaring or driving off the birds and stray beasts, weeding, watering, and harvesting. Gardens he had to fence. The watering-machines were of great importance and had to be kept in order. They were worked by oxen—often as many as eight oxen were required to work them. A certain amount of stock was frequently leased with the land. It is not clear that oxen were used for the plough; they may have been kept for the watering-machines.

(M675) The landlord was in a very real sense a partner with his tenant, though he may be described as a “silent partner”.

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

(M676) In hiring a field it might be stipulated that the lessee should place a dwelling upon it,(727) _manaḫtu ana eḳlim išakkanu_. Here the field was at a distance from the city, “beyond the upper stream.” If the crop was to be properly looked after, protected from birds, stray beasts, and robbers the farmer must live there some part of the year. There was no dwelling. The lessee was therefore called on to erect a dwelling. Probably a simple edifice sufficed. At the end of the tenancy the tenant was called on to resign this building.

(M677) There were two sorts of land. That called _AB-SIN_ or _šeru’_, seems always to have paid six to eight _GUR_ of corn per _GAN_. The other sort, _KI-DAN_, probably read _kigallu_, and certainly meaning land, not cultivated but to be brought into cultivation, was exceedingly variable in quality. It is set down for a rent of from three up to eighteen _GUR_ per _GAN_, but some land is rented at seventy-two _GUR_ per _GAN_.(728)

(M678) On account of the hire, some deposit was usually made, which seems to bear no direct relation to amount of rent. But while this was in many cases money—one to three shekels—a number of cases exhibit a list of quantities of food and drink. What these were it is difficult to say, as the terms are written ideographically. But joints of meat, pieces of flesh, drinks, bread and oil, seem to be intended. The custom is obscure. Possibly these are set down as weekly or monthly rations secured on the whole rent and to be set off against it later. That the quantities are in some sense distributive is certain, “so much each,” but whether “each person,” “each day,” “each month,” or “each year” is not stated. One plausible suggestion is that the landlord, like the votary in the Code whose brothers do not content her, let the farm to a man who covenanted to support or maintain him. The contention is strengthened by the fact that the cases known to us are all female landlords, and may actually be examples of what the Code contemplates. Having only a life interest in the property and being without capital, they could not afford to wait until harvest to receive the rent, but needed a frequent allowance for maintenance.

(M679) (M680) The lease of an estate for a term exceeding a few years was always rare. One is found on a tablet which is one of the most interesting of all those supposed to be of the First Dynasty of Babylon. The script and the language recall Assyrian types most vividly and it is full of non-Babylonian names, which suggest Hittite, or even Armenian, origin. Unfortunately, it is not dated. It might well have been found at Kalaḫ, or Asshur, and belong to somewhat early Assyrian times, perhaps before Assyrian independence of Babylonia. Not one person named in it occurs in the other tablets of the Bu. 91-5-9 Collection—a thing which cannot be said of another of them. If this was really found with them, we can only suppose that centralization was carried to such a pitch that important legal documents, even when executed as far away as Assyria, or Mesopotamia proper, had to be sent in duplicate to the capital of Babylonia. Or was it possible that the principal party came to the capital with this document in his possession, deposited it in the temple archives there, and died, leaving no one to reclaim it.

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

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

(M681) The names of the witnesses are here given in full because of their exceptional interest. Until we are sure of his nationality it is scarcely safe to suppose the principal’s name was really pronounced Ishtar-kitilla—the latter part of the name may well be an ideogram. The name of his father ending also in _TIL-LA_ suggests that that group of signs is separable. If so, the signs read Ishtar-_KI_ may perhaps be ideographic also. It is evident that Teḫip is from the same root as Itḫip, and the form looks Semitic.

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

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

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

XXVII. The Laws Of Trade

(M682) The oldest form of business in Asiatic life is _commenda_: the commendatist gives a fixed sum of money to the agent with which he does his business. The former takes a fixed share of the profit, say half, in addition to the original sum invested. The agent usually secures guarantees for the capital. This method of carrying on business is customary in the early times. The Code regulates the relations between principal and agent. The former is called _tamkaru_, usually rendered “merchant,” and the latter is _šamallû_, often rendered “apprentice.” The merchant is, however, a trader in many ways, and in the Code he is usually named, where we expect lender or creditor. Hence there is little doubt that his name is derived from _magâru_, or _makâru_, with a meaning “to traffic” (?). He seems to have been a monied man, who was ready to make to cultivators advances on their crops—a practice always liable to great abuses, which the Code aims to check.

(M683) The merchant principal also furnished goods, among which are mentioned corn, sesame, oil, wool, wine, and manufactured articles. The agent did the trading, and regularly rendered his accounts to his principal. He travelled from place to place to find a market for his goods, or to make purchases, which could be profitably sold at home. The principal paid no salary, but received again his capital, or the value of his goods, and an interest or share of the profit. It is clear that the merchant also moved from place to place, and there is evidence that many of them were foreigners. The travelling agents with their goods formed the caravan.

(M684) This kind of trading was regulated by the Code.(729) Unfortunately, the opening sections of the part dealing with the relations of principal and agent are lost; but from what is left we see that it insisted on exact accounts being taken, on both sides, of the amounts of money or value of goods thus invested. If the merchant intrusted money to his agent, he was to take a receipt for it. If the agent received goods, he was to enter their money value and obtain his principal’s acknowledgment of the amount of his debt. If he suffered loss of goods from his caravan by bandits, or in an enemy’s land, he could swear to his loss, and be exempt from repayment to his principal. But if he did not prosper in his business, or sold at a loss, he had to make good the capital, at least, to his principal. The Code leaves nothing to chance. If the agent is foolish enough not to obtain a sealed memorandum of the amounts received, or a receipt for what he pays to his principal, it is enacted that money not sealed for cannot be put in the accounts. Much was clearly left to the good faith of the agent. The principal was tolerably secure of receiving back his money and had hope of profit. Against that he had to set possible loss by robbery of the caravan. But he was not bound again to employ the same agent. An agent detected defrauding his principal had to pay threefold. But it speaks well for the Code as protector of the weak that it made the capitalist who defrauded the agent repay sixfold.

(M685) From the contemporary documents we learn that the name for the business was _girru_. That this was also the name for an “expedition,” warlike as well as peaceable, points to its connection with the caravan trade. The sign for _girru_, also used for _ḫarrânu_, a “journey,” came in later times to be used for all kinds of business transactions. That the relations noted in the Code actually were carried out in practice, many tablets show. Thus we read:

One shekel of silver, price of one hundred and eighty _ŠE_, and
three shekels of silver which Zuzana lent Aplâ son of Edishu, for
five _years_, to enter on his _girru_. He shall pay one hundred
and eighty _ŠE_ and three shekels of silver to take back his
sealed receipt.(730)

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

(M686) Business was also done, as the Code shows, as speculation in futures. Thus(731) we read:

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

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

(M687) We learn from many hints, that caravan trade was always active. The name of Ḥarran in Mesopotamia is supposed to be derived from the numerous caravan routes that crossed there. The Tell el Amarna tablets tell us of the complaints made by the kings of Babylonia of the robbery of caravans in districts nominally under the control of Egypt.

(M688) In the more private documents of the later Babylonian times, there is again plentiful evidence that this form of trade was common. The money was loaned out “to buy and sell.” It was given _ana ḫarrânu_, “for hawking trade.” Then whatever profit was made upon the money, the agent “will give” to the principal. The agent binds himself to undertake no other agency. He gives a guarantee for the money. The principal had no further responsibility for the business, and would not meet any further call. It is obvious that in a sense the principal and agent were partners, and many transactions in later times are difficult to distinguish from cases of partnership in the ordinary sense.

(M689) It has long been recognized that the canals controlled the prosperity of the country, but it is only lately that their importance as waterways has been fully realized. In the early period we read of flour sent by ship to Nippur for certain officials.(732)

(M690) The Code has much to say about ships. Temples owned them, as well as private persons. It was a crime, punishable with death, to steal a ship.(733) We read of fees for building or navigating various ships.(734) The responsibilities and damages in collisions and wrecks are apportioned.(735) A shipowner might hire a captain to navigate a ship for him, or might hire the captain and ship together. The usual freight included corn, wool, oil, and dates, but many other things were also carried. The wages of a captain was six _GUR_ of corn yearly. There are frequent references to ships in the contemporary letters.(736) They were named according to their carrying capacity, which was five or more _GUR_. A ship of seventy-five _GUR_ is named. They carried wood, for King Ḥammurabi ordered seven thousand two hundred pieces of _abba_ wood to be brought to Babylon, three hundred pieces in a ship. A number of boat captains or perhaps shipping agents were ordered to proceed from Larsa to Babylon and arrive with their ships in Adar. He gave orders for the furnishing of the crews. We further have a correspondence concerning the invasion of certain fishing rights by boats from another district. In the contemporary contracts we meet with several long lists of ships divided into little groups, of five, six, or seven, each with its captain named, each group under a head captain, all set down as at anchor at the port of Shamash, or the like.(737) There is a case of the hire of a boat of six _GUR_ freight by two persons for two months.(738)

(M691) In Assyria, canals served chiefly for water-supply. Except when the Assyrian kings went outside their own lands to Babylonia or Mesopotamia, we hardly read of ships. Sennacherib’s ships were built abroad and served abroad. There is no hint of their ever coming up to the walls of Nineveh. The contracts only once mention a ship(739) in which booty was brought from somewhere.

(M692) In the later Babylonian times there are many references to the hire of boats and their crews. They appear to be a regular conveyance of goods:(740)

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

Thus the receiver paid carriage and expenses. The daily hire of a boat is now one shekel, and the wages of the crew amount to half as much.(741) A boat might be bought for twenty shekels or half a mina.(742) The wages of the boatmen included corn, dates, salt, and onions. The freight was exceedingly varied as before. One boat appears to have carried fresh meat.(743)

(M693) There are less obvious references to roads in the literature; but that they were in excellent condition has been conjectured from the many evidences of postal service and ready carriage even in early times. Convoys travelled from Agade to Lagash as early as the time of Sargon I.(744) Innumerable labels are found on lumps of clay with the name and address of the consignee. These were attached to consignments of money and goods.

(M694) The Code contemplates consignments being sent from a great distance, even from abroad.(745) It regulates the charges for a wagon, with oxen and driver,(746) or a wagon alone.(747) There are several cases in the contracts of the hire of wagons, for varied prices per year, one-third of a shekel(748) to twelve shekels;(749) but it is not certain that these were for conveyance from place to place. They may have been for agricultural purposes only. The usual means of conveyance seems to have been by asses.

(M695) In Assyrian times we find it part of the duty of a founder of a city to open up the roads leading to it.(750) The land was intersected with roads in all directions, so that a field often had two roads as its boundaries. The whole plain outside Nineveh was cut up by roads, which here take the place of the canals of Babylonia. In this period we find horses and camels in use as beasts of burden as well as the asses.

XXVIII. Partnership And Power Of Attorney

(M696) Association, or partnership, makes its appearance very early and in a highly developed state. Some forms are very simple, as when two or more men buy or hire a piece of land together. There may, or may not, be any family relationship between the partners. In some cases we learn nothing about the terms of partnership. But where we are able to discern them, they follow the natural course that profits were divided, _pro rata,_ according to the capital contributed. More obscure is the question how far the personal exertions of each partner were pledged to the benefit of the firm. There is a suggestion that some partners were content with furnishing capital, and obtaining a fair return upon it, while the others were actively engaged in the business of the firm. Prolonged study and comparison are, however, needed before all these points can be definitely decided.

(M697) The name for a “partner” is _tappû_, and the sign _TAP_ serves as ideogram. This sign consists of the two horizontal strokes used to denote “two,” and may have been used to denote “union,” or partnership, and so from its name _tap_ have given rise to the name for “partner.” In the new Babylonian times the ideogram is the sign usually read _ḫarrânu_, also formed of the two horizontal strokes crossed by two connecting strokes or bonds. There is little doubt that in early times this was read _girru_, when denoting “business,” undertaken in association. Later the dualism of the partnership was marked by the addition of the dual sign to _ḫarrânu_. That both _ḫarrânu_ and _girru_ are used as words for “way,” “journey,” “expedition,” may well point to the prominence of the idea of trade journeys with caravans. But partnerships were made with less ambitious aims and confined to holding and sharing in common varied sources of income.

(M698) To make a partnership, _tapputam epêšu_,(751) it seems that each partner contributed a certain amount of capital, _ummânu_.(752) Yearly accounts were rendered and the profit then shared. This took place by a formal dissolution of partnership, when each partner took his share. This in no way prevented a renewal of partnership. For the satisfaction of the partners sworn declarations as to the property held in common and the profit made were deposed before judicial authorities. These often take the form of a suit by one partner against the other, but it seems that they might be only formal suits to clear up the points at issue and secure a legal settlement.

(M699) A considerable number of tablets are drawn up to embody a settlement on dissolution of partnership. Some do not make any reference to a law officer as arbitrator; but all contain a careful setting-forth of each partner’s share and an oath to make no further claim. It is practically certain that these were drawn up with the cognizance of the local law-court.

(M700) The Code has nothing to say as to partnership, unless its regulations on the point were embodied in the lost five columns.

A good example of partnership documents is the following:(753)

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