Chapter V: A. Th. denotes a text in the Berlin Museum (11)

(M701) The word for plan, _ṭêmu_, means the basis of partnership, that is, its terms. Here it was “share and share alike.” The phrase _babtum_, “merchandise,” includes all the material in which they traded, excluding the living agents. The phrase _ša ḫarrânim_, literally “on the road,” may well have denoted the merchandise not in warehouse, but in circulation. Whether _ḫarrânu_ actually referred to a caravan may be doubtful. We often read of goods _ša suḳi_, “on the street,” in the same sense, “out on the market.” If the partners dealt in corn, and had a quantity lent out on interest, that was _ša suḳi_. Whether a distinction between _ša ḫarrânim_ and _ša suḳi_ was kept up is not clear. But if they invested their capital in merchandise which they sent to a distant market for sale, the former phrase would be more appropriate, while if they bought wool to manufacture into cloth or garments and to sell in the bazaars of their own town, _ša suḳi_ would be more suitable. The gate of the city was a market, and money or goods _ša bâbi_, “at the gate,” was as we should say “on the market.” In contrast to these phrases, _ina libbi alim_, “in the midst of the town,” answers to our “in stock.” While the term _mitḫariš_ literally means “altogether,” “without reservation,” it implies exact equality of share. The _amâtu_ was the “word,” literally, but, applied to business, means the agreement as to their mutual transactions. The completion of that was reached when they took the profits and divided them. It might include the mutual reckoning of profit and loss. The phrase “from mouth to interest” is very idiomatic. The “mouth,” or verbal relationships, included all they said, the terms they agreed upon. The word “interest” here replaces the more usual “gold;” both mean the “profit,” or the balance due to each. Usually we have the words “is complete,” the idea being that no verbal stipulation has been overlooked, no money or profit left out of reckoning.

(M702) As will be remarked, such pregnant forms of expression evidently presuppose a long course of commercial activity. They can only have arisen as abbreviations of much longer sentences. Clear enough to the users of them, they do not admit of literal rendering, if they are to be intelligible to us. But they are eloquent witnesses of an advanced state of commerce.

(M703) Traces of partnership are difficult to find in the Assyrian tablets which have reached us. We must not confuse with partnership the holding in common of property or lands, which may be due to heritage. Two or more brothers may sell their common property, for greater ease of division, but they are not exactly partners.

(M704) In the later Babylonian times, as is natural to expect with the larger number of private documents, there is much evidence regarding the many forms of association for business. We have such simple forms as the following:(754)

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

Or thus:

Two minas each, A and B, have as _ḫarrânu_. All that it makes, in
town and country, is in common. Rent of the house to be paid from
capital.(755)

(M705) They had a house, as shop and warehouse, the rent of which was a charge upon the business. Slaves might be partners with free men, even with their masters. A partner might merely furnish the capital or both might do so, and commit it to the hands of a slave or a free man with which to do business. The slave took his living out of such capital, and the free man received either provisions or a fixed payment. Thus we read:(756)

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

It is not unlikely that each slave was to look after his own master’s interests. For we read:(757)

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

Even women entered into business as agents. We read:(758)

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

(M706) As in earlier times, the dissolution of partnership usually involved a reference to the law-courts. Thus we have(759) a reckoning before judges of two brothers and a third who were in a partnership from the eighth year of Nabopolassar to the eighteenth of Nebuchadrezzar. “The business is dissolved” (_girru paṭrat_). All the former contracts were broken and shares are assigned to each. The first two brothers were in possession of fifty shekels which were to be divided.

(M707) Provisional reckonings were constantly made at frequent intervals, but did not involve dissolution of partnership, nor need to be referred to a law-court.(760) Some cases are interesting for additional items of information. Thus we note:(761)

(M708)

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

It seems likely that he carried on some kind of manufacture. A held the south house, next door. B also paid the tithes. A similar case where some manufacture from dates is supposed, is thus stated:(762)

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

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

(M709) Closely allied with agency is the power of attorney. In the Code(763) a son in his father’s house could not contract, buy or sell, or give on deposit, except by power of attorney empowering him to act for his father. The same was true of the slave. The contemporary documents contain many references to business done by agents on the order of their principals.(764) The Assyrians also make frequent mention of persons acting as _bêl ḳâtâti_, having the power of another’s hands, being in fact allowed to act as their attorney or agent. The king was represented in the law-courts by his agent.(765) Sometimes the agent was called _bêl paḫâti_ of the king’s son.(766) It even seems to be the case that _ḳâtâtu_ acquired the sense of agency, or business, and _bît ḳâtâti_ came to mean a “shop,” or bazaar. In many cases “agency” was expressed by _ša ḳâtâ_, “by the hands of.” Aliens had to act through such an agent.(767) When three men borrow a quantity of straw, one alone sealed the receipt and bond to repay, and was said to be _bêl ḳâtâti ša tibni_, “agent for the straw.”(768) A female slave was sued for property said to be due from her master, in his absence. A free man, perhaps the judge, was _bêl ḳâtâti_ for the woman that her master would take up the case on his return, and undertook to satisfy the suitor, if she could not do so.(769)

(M710) In later Babylonian times the phrase survived. The commissary acted “with the hand” of his principal. We may take this to be the hand-sign, or seal, representing written authority. It involved a reckoning with his master, and naturally gave rise to a number of delicate questions. If a man bought a house for another, having been commissioned so to do, his principal must of course pay the price. But was he bound to accept his agent’s selection? Could he not demur regarding the price? One of these points at least was dealt with by the later Code. Law A deals with the man who has concluded a purchase for another, without having a power of attorney from him in a sealed deed. If he has had the deed made out in his own name, he is the possessor. Of course, he can sell again to his principal, but he could not do so at a profit. Nor is the principal under any obligation to accept the purchase at the price the agent gave for it. Actual examples are far from rare: A buys a field, crop, date-palms and all, for C and D. This purchase was made on condition that all copies of the transaction be destroyed. The condition was not observed, as we still possess one of them. Later A received from C, one of his principals, about half the price he had paid. But it does not appear that D ever paid his share, and this is why the condition was not carried out. Presumably A and C remained owners of the field.(770)

(M711) There is no limit to the varieties of agency or representative action. At all periods we meet with a brother, usually the eldest, acting for his other brothers. A brother acting with the hand of his brother also occurs in the time of Evil Merodach.(771)

(M712) The power of attorney was also given to receive money and give a receipt, under seal.(772) Again: A bought some slaves of B and paid in full. B gave receipt for the money, but did not undertake to deliver the slaves at A’s house. A can send a messenger or agent to take the slaves, and B agrees to deliver them to such. Whatever is born or dies from among the slaves is credited to A.(773)

XXIX. Accounts And Business Documents

(M713) There are lists which are not formal contracts, but may have been used as legal evidence. The stewards of the great temples, of the palaces, and even of wealthy men in business, kept most careful accounts. These lists have some features peculiar to themselves and are not without considerable interest.

(M714) The tablets which have reached our museums from Telloh, Nippur, and elsewhere, belonging to the ages before the First Dynasty of Babylon, are for the most part temple accounts. They often concern the offerings made by various persons, often officials of high standing, and some may well have been the notes sent with the offerings. But many were drawn up as records of the receipts for a certain day, month, or year. Interesting as they are for the class of offerings, for the names of offerers, or of priests, and for the cult of particular gods, or the localities near Telloh and Nippur, and often containing valuable hints for the history and chronology of those times, they do not give us the same insight into the daily life of the people that the longer legal documents do, in later periods.

(M715) An important class consists of receipts for loans. Those drawn up at full length and witnessed, have already been considered. But the majority may only contain a list of articles delivered, with the name of the receiver, the lender being the holder as a temple official, while the receiver is a subordinate. These may have been as effective as the fuller bonds, but they furnish little information, except regarding the current prices of articles.

(M716) Some tablets are concerned with hire. The amounts paid by the temple for repairs, fresh robes for gods and officials, even maintenance of the workmen, are all set down with their totals for a week, or a month.

(M717) An important class consists of the records of the measurements, length, breadth, and area of fields, together with the amounts of corn which they were expected to produce. Were these available for a widely extended area, we might be able to map out the district round the temple from whose archives they come.

(M718) The temples and large landowners had great flocks and herds. Consequently, there is much evidence concerning the pastoral occupations of the people of Babylonia. The Code regulates the relations of the shepherds and herdsmen to the flock-masters.(774) Thus an owner might hire a shepherd, _nâkidu_, for his sheep or cattle, at the wages of eight _GUR_ of corn _per annum_. The shepherd or herdsman took out the flock or herd to the pasture and was responsible to the owner for them. They were intrusted to him, and if sheep or ox were lost through his fault, he had to restore ox for ox and sheep for sheep. If he was hired and had received satisfactory wages, he had no power to diminish, or abstract from, the flock or herd for his keep or private use. He entered into a contract with the owner, and that stipulated for the restoration of the entire flock or herd, together with a proper increase due to the breeding of the flock or herd. He had to make any deficiency good, by statute.(775) This applied also to the stipulated profit in wool or other produce. It seems clear that his own profit was any excess above the stipulated return. Otherwise it is difficult to see what source he had from which to make good the loss to his master. He was forbidden to alter the agreement into which he had entered in any particular, or to sell any of the flock, under penalty of a tenfold restitution. He was, however, protected from liability for loss by wild beasts or accident. But, if the loss was due to his fault, by neglecting to keep the fold secure, he had to make up the loss.

(M719) It is obvious that he gave a receipt for what was intrusted to him and made his account on return from the pastures. These accounts are plentiful among the temple accounts in the earliest periods, but being written for the most part in Sumerian, have still many obscurities for us. As a rule, each deals with the liabilities of one man, whose “account,” _nikasu_, it is said to be. At the beginning are recounted the details of his trust, so many oxen, cows, sheep or goats, of varied ages and qualities. Here it is very difficult to translate. Anyone who knows the variety of names which are given to an animal by agriculturists according to its age, sex, and use, need not be surprised to find that the Babylonians had many names for what we can only render by “sheep.” As a rule, we know when the ram, ewe, or lamb is intended. But this by no means exhausts the variety. Anyone who glances through an Arabic lexicon must notice how many different names the Arabs have for the camel in its different aspects. But in our case we often have no clew to what was meant by the signs beyond some variety of sheep, ox, or goat. At any rate, the first section enumerates the cattle or sheep delivered to the herdsman. Then follows a section devoted to those “withdrawn,” taken back by the owner, or exacted as some due from the flock. Others are noted as taken for sacrifice, used for the wages or support of the herdsman, or else dead or otherwise missing. These the herdsman was allowed to subtract and then had to return the balance. There are similar lists of asses or goats. The tablets hardly lend themselves to connected translation because of the absence of verbs. The following is an example:

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

The meaning of the words is somewhat conjectural. “Expended” may mean used for the shepherd’s own maintenance. “Snatched away” means probably deducted for revenue purposes, about one in five. The scribe did not write “none.” He merely left a blank.(776)

(M720) The similar lists for the second epoch are not yet available for study. Only one(777) appears to have been published,(778) but there are many still unpublished. It is not easy to translate them, because, though many Semitic names occur, there is still a tendency to use the old Sumerian, or ideographic writings. Such a list as:

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

may serve as an example, but does not convey much information to us. These lists are chiefly valuable for the means of comparison they afford. A three-year-old ox was worth half a mina of silver.(779)

(M721) For Assyrian times we have a few interesting examples, just enough to show that the same customs survived. There are no less than thirty-five kinds of sheep and goats, and fifteen kinds of cattle named in the lists; also eleven kinds of birds. Here is a specimen list of asses which gives some prices:(780)

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

There is nothing to show for whom or why the list was drawn up, but if the total is correct, we learn that a royal mina was worth one mina forty-six shekels of the ordinary standard. The lists of horses are now very numerous, some dozen varieties being distinguished. Many of these lists give the numbers of horses of different kinds which entered a certain city on a certain day.(781) The horses are often distinguished as coming from certain countries, being called Kusai, or Mesai, horses. The camels are frequently mentioned, and we learn that one was worth a mina and a third.(782) Dromedaries are also named(783) and seem to have been worth three minas apiece.

(M722) Wool accounts play an important part in documents of the early times. They may be regarded as of two kinds. The first are shearers’ accounts returned by the shepherd of a flock; the second are concerned with the amounts of wool given out to weavers.

(M723) Shearers’ accounts enumerate four sorts or qualities of wool. The best was called royal wool, that which was of the highest quality. The others were second, third, and fourth quality. Poor wool and black wool are also named. Sometimes we are told from what part of the sheep’s body it was taken. Other terms applied are less easy to recognize. This wool was received by weight.

(M724) The weavers’ accounts give a list of quantities of wool, with the same distinctions as to quality, and the price at which it was assessed. This was doubtless the sum to be paid by the weaver, if the wool was not returned made up. The values attached show very clearly the difference in quality. Thus, while two looms of royal wool were worth thirty minas, seven looms of second quality went for the same value, eleven looms of third quality for a talent, and thirty-two looms of fourth quality for one talent, one loom of another sort for one talent, and the same amount of black wool for the same value.(784) It is evident that the black wool was highly valued. The loom, literally, “beam,” of wool, was some measure, perhaps what would occupy one weaver. The price was probably fixed in silver. The price of the same quality varied from time to time.

(M725) In the letters of Ḥammurabi and his successors there are frequent references to the shearing, and orders for the inspection of flocks and herds.(785) The Code does not refer to sheep-shearing, though it mentions wool. The shearing was concluded by the New Year feast in Nisan. In the contemporary contracts there are several wool accounts. As a rule, one talent, or sixty minas’ weight, of wool was served out to several men who were to pay for it, to the palace, at the rate of one shekel of silver _per mina_.

(M726) In Assyrian times we have great wool and weaving accounts. Some deal with the huge amounts of wool received as tribute from the great cities of the empire and then served out to bodies of weavers in various palaces with specifications of the species of cloth or sorts of garments which were to be returned. In the later Babylonian times we have a large number of wool accounts recording the amounts given out from the temple to various persons to weave or make up into garments.(786)

(M727) Skins are also named in the accounts. They are distinguished as the skins of certain kinds of animals. Various amounts are credited to different persons, but whether as giving or receiving, and in what capacity, is not clear. Sheep and goat skins are most common, but ox and cow hides are named.

(M728) The Code does not refer to these, nor the letters of Ḥammurabi and his successors, but we have lists of skins and carcasses of animals.(787) The purpose of the lists is not clear. In Assyrian times there are frequent references to hides. There was a distinct grade of official called a _ṣârip taḫšê_, “dyer of skins.” Large quantities were bought in the markets of Kalaḫ and Ḥarrân. The price was about two shekels of silver for a skin.(788) The articles made of leather are very numerous; shoes, harness, pouches, even garments, are named. It was used for buckets, baskets, bottles, shields, and many other things not clearly recognized.

(M729) Fairly frequent also are accounts of the quantities of corn expended for the keep of flocks and herds. The amounts allowed _per diem_ are the chief items of interest. Sheep were allowed from one to one and a half _ḲA_ a day, lambs half a _ḲA_, oxen six to eight _ḲA_.(789) In the Code we find allowances for the keep of animals. There are very frequent lists in Assyrian times of amounts of corn given to various animals. These also occur at later times. The amounts allowed per day are various and by no means uniform. A very good example gives as the allowance of corn for a full-grown sheep two _ḲA per diem_, for a young sheep, one _ḲA_, for a lamb one-half _ḲA_.(790)

(M730) Acknowledgments of advances, or loans, occur in the first epoch. As a rule, we are not told what was the ground of the loan. The fact that these loans were to be repaid is not stated, and we may take the tablets to be merely receipts for things given out to officials who had a right to them. The substances were corn of different kinds, wine, beer, sesame-wine, butter, flour and other food-stuffs, wool, and other supplies. We sometimes learn prices from these tablets. Thus a _GUR_ of corn cost one shekel.(791)

(M731) Long lists of accounts are very common at all epochs. They relate what sums or amounts were paid out to various officials for certain goods or for wages, keep, and the like. In fact, they are stewards’ accounts. Unfortunately, the way in which most collections have been formed, and even more the way in which they have since been preserved, renders it impossible for us to make the use of them which has often been made of mediæval accounts. Otherwise we could obtain from them many interesting items. They are, however, most valuable for prices and names.

(M732) Thus, in such lists we find mention of articles which would otherwise remain unsuspected. The first reference to iron is in the Ḥammurabi period,(792) whence we learn that a shekel of silver would buy eight times its weight of iron. Sometimes we get an important contribution to chronology. It is well known that there is no certainty as to the order of the Eponyms after B.C. 648, but we know their names for at least forty years later. Any contribution to the order of these names would be welcomed with avidity. Thus, one scribe writes: “Income from the Eponymy of Sagab to the Eponymy of Nabû-shar-aḫêshu, for six years, which was paid in as maintenance, eleven talents ... besides twenty-seven plates of silver.” We cannot say whose income it was, but the previous section dealt with the income of the crown prince, and this may be only a _résumé_ of the last. But we now know that from Sagab to Nabû-shar-aḫêshu was six years in all.

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

BABYLONIAN AND ASSYRIAN LETTERS

I. Letters And Letter-Writing Among The Babylonians And Assyrians

(M733) (M734) The ancient Babylonians early discovered the convenience of written communication between friends at a distance. The origin of letter-writing is not yet clear; for, when we first meet with letters, they are fully developed. A piece of clay, usually shaped like a miniature pillow, was inscribed and then enclosed in an envelope made of a thin sheet of clay. On the envelope was written the address. As a rule, the letter was baked hard before being put into its envelope. Powdered clay was inserted to prevent sticking. The envelope, after being inscribed, was also baked hard. Of course, the letter could not be read without breaking the envelope, which was therefore a great protection to the interior letter. The envelope was naturally thrown away after being broken. Hence, extremely few envelopes have been preserved.

(M735) The practice of dating letters does not seem to have been common. We have dated letters at all epochs, but they are few. In some cases the date may have been on the envelope. It is more common for the writer to give the day of the month, sometimes also the month. But the date of a letter was probably not then of any great importance.

(M736) Some letters seem to have been covered with coarse cloth, on which was impressed a lump of clay, to act as a seal and bind down the edges. The lumps were then sealed with a signet-ring, or cylinder-seal. The clay envelopes were also sealed, before baking, with the sender’s seal. So usual was this habit, that the word for seal, _unḳu_, is often used to denote a sealed letter. Thus when an official acknowledges the receipt of the king’s “seal,” it means a sealed order or rescript.

(M737) The early Babylonian letters usually open with the formula, “To A say: Thus saith B.” The formula probably goes back to the times when the message was verbally delivered. These would be the words used to a messenger who had to remember the message. The verb “saith” is not expressed exactly. The word used is _umma_, which is often rendered “saying”; it introduces a direct quotation. We might render, “In the name of B.” But the written letter replaced the spoken message. Some think the letter was read by a professional reader. Such readers are common still, where education is not widely diffused. It is very clear that the letter was generally written by a scribe. Thus, all Ḥammurabi’s letters show the same hand, while those of Abêshu or Ammi-ditana are quite different. In the case of private letters we have less proof. But it is possible that the king sometimes wrote with his own hand. Some terms of expression render that very likely. It is, however, quite impossible to be certain on such points.

(M738) The same opening formula also appears in the Tell el Amarna letters. It is not known in Assyrian letters, but survived in Babylonia to a late period. In Assyria the formula is nearly the same; with the omission of the _ḳibi_, or “say,” it reads “To A thus B.” In addresses to superiors, B usually adds “thy servant.” Polite letters generally add good wishes for the recipient. These are exceedingly varied. The word _šulmu_ plays a great part in them. Literally it denotes “peace.” “Peace be to thee” is very common. But it soon came to mean the “greeting of peace.”

Thus “I have sent _ana šulmika_” means “I have sent to wish thee peace,” “to greet thee.” But it also takes the more general meaning of well-being. Thus _šulmu iâši_ means “I am well,” “it is peace with me”; not only absence from war, but health and all prosperity was included. Hence Joram’s inquiry of Jehu, “Is it peace, Jehu?” means “Is everything all right?” “Be thou at peace” may be rendered loosely, “I hope you are well,” in the fullest sense that “all is well with you.” No consistent rendering can be given for such phrases as these.

(M739) Very often letters quote the previous message of the present recipient, _ša tašpuranni_, “what thou didst send me.” But the quotation is often omitted and then this becomes an awkward rendering. We have to fill up some general sentence such as, “as to what you sent about.” A very difficult sort of construction arises when the writer sets down a list of questions, which he has been asked, and the answer to each. As there are no capitals, periods, or question-marks, there is often some difficulty in separating a question from its answer. This may be done differently by different translators, with startlingly different results.

(M740) Very many sentences are elliptical. Thus, it was common to add at the end of the letter something like, “I leave it to you to decide.” This might be put, “As the king, my lord, sees fit, let him do.” But a scribe would often merely say, “As the king sees fit.” Such elliptical sentences are often very difficult to complete. They were obviously clear to the recipient. To us they leave a wide margin for conjecture.

(M741) Very early indeed in the history of Babylonia a sort of postal system had been developed. At any rate, in the time of Sargon I., B.C. 3800, an active exchange of commodities existed between Agade and Shirpurla. Packages or vessels of produce or goods were forwarded and with them small blocks of clay, impressed with seals and inscribed with the address of the recipient. These were probably used to prevent the fastenings of the packages from being untied, and on their backs may be seen the impressions of the strings which fastened the packages.(793) As it happens, no letters have yet been published from the era preceding the First Dynasty of Babylon; but we can hardly doubt that such exist.

(M742) In the time of the First Dynasty of Babylon letters appear frequently in the collections of tablets brought to our museums. The volumes of _Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets, etc., in the British Museum, published by order of the Trustees_,(794) contain a large number of letters from copies made by Mr. T. G. Pinches. These have been made the subject of a study by Dr. Mary Williams Montgomery.(795) Mr. L. W. King, in his work, _The Letters and Inscriptions of Ḥammurabi_, published fifty-five letters of Ḥammurabi to his subordinate officer, Sin-idinnam, six letters of Samsuiluna, thirteen of Abêshu’, two of Ammiditana, five of Ammizaduga, and two private letters. These were all transcribed, translated, annotated, and, with a number of other contemporary inscriptions, issued with admirable introductions, glossary, and index.(796) Nowhere can a more vivid picture be obtained of the great empire and the manifold duties of a Babylonian king. A number of the texts published in the first volume were translated and commented upon by Dr. G. Nagel under the title, _Die Briefe Ḥammurabi’s an Sin-idinnam_.(797) Professor Delitzsch added some valuable notes. Dr. B. Meissner had already published the text of four letters as _Altbabylonische Briefe_.(798) Professor V. Scheil gave the text of two letters of this period, found by him at Sippara, in the _Recueil de Travaux_(799) and noticed others, and some more in his _Une Saison de fouilles a Sippar_.(800) These are preserved at Constantinople, but the text has not yet been published. They are chiefly private letters and of a business nature. There are a great many other letters in American and European museums, the publication of which should not be longer delayed.

(M743) For the long period before the Tell el Amarna times, _circa_ B.C. 1500, nothing of any extent seems to have been published, though letters are also known to exist of this period. A late copy of one such letter, addressed by Adadi-Shumnâṣir, King of Babylon, to Ashur-narara and Nabû-dâni, kings of Assyria, about B.C. 1250, is partly preserved in the British Museum.(801)

(M744) The Tell el Amarna tablets, some three hundred in number, were discovered in 1887-88, at the ruins of the palace of Amenophis IV., in Egypt. They will form the subject of a separate volume of this series. They consist of the letters or despatches sent to kings of Egypt by the kings of Babylon, Assyria, Mitanni, and the subject-rulers of many Syrian and Palestinian cities and states. From these can be obtained a very clear view of the state of Syria and Palestine just before the exodus of the Israelites from Egypt. Naturally, these letters have formed the subject of a very large literature. The most complete edition of the texts is by Winckler, _Der Thontafelfund von el Amarna_.(802) With these should be compared Dr. J. A. Knudtzon’s _Ergebnisse einer Collation der El Amarna Tafeln_ and _Weitere Studien zu den El Amarna Tafeln_.(803) A full transcription with translation and glossary to these texts has been given by Winckler, as _Die Thontafeln von Tell el Amarna_.(804) An excellent English translation by J. P. Metcalf is to be had. There are a few of these tablets, which found their way into private hands, or to other museums than London, Berlin, and Gizeh, whence Winckler’s copies were obtained. It is a duty to science that these should now be published. In the _Bulletin de l’Institut Français d’Archéologie orientale_, t. II., published at Cairo, Professor Scheil gives the text of two more of these important letters. The explorer, Dr. F. Bliss, found another in the ruins of Lachish. It is included in Winckler’s work above. Professor Sellin has lately found several tablets, which by their script and personal references are shown to belong to this period. They were found at Ta’annek, and are published by Dr. Hronzy in the _Anzeige der philos. hist. Klasse der Wiener Akademie_.(805) The interest of these additions lies in the fact that they were found in Palestine itself.

(M745) The numerous Cappadocian tablets are now generally recognized by their language and script to belong to this period. They also show considerable affinity with the documents of the First Dynasty of Babylon, and the Tell el Amarna letters preserve many characteristic expressions.

(M746) The subsequent periods in Babylonia are represented by few letters. It is not until we come down to the end of the eighth century and the Sargonide times that we meet with many letters. The archives of Nineveh contained immense numbers. A great many of these are now in the Kouyunjik Collections of the British Museum. There they early attracted attention. Being written by the imperial officials to the kings of Assyria, they contain most valuable material (M747) for history. George Smith in 1871 gave extracts from several of them in his _History of Ashurbanipal_. A number were published in Rawlinson’s _Cuneiform Inscriptions of Western Asia_. Mr. S. A. Smith, in the _Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archæology_, 1887-89,(806) and in the second and third volumes of his _Keilschrifttexte Asurbanipals_ gave some seventy more. Professor Delitzsch also published a number in his _Zur assyrisch-babylonischen Briefliteratur_,(807) and in his translations and comments laid the real foundation for their interpretation. In 1892 Professor R. F. Harper began the colossal task of publishing the text of all the letters from Nineveh, in his _Assyrian and Babylonian Letters belonging to the K Collections of the British Museum_, of which eight volumes are already published.(808)

(M748) A considerable number of scholars have busied themselves with the translation and elucidation of these texts. Professor C. Johnston in his work, _The Epistolary Literature of the Assyrians and Babylonians_;(809) C. van Gelderen, _Ausgewählte babylonisch-assyrische Briefe_;(810) A. J. Delattre, _Quelques Lettres Assyriennes_;(811) G. R. Berry, _The Letters of the Rm. 2 Collection_, in _American Journal of Semitic Literature_, xi., pp. 174-202; F. Martin, _Lettres assyriennes et babyloniennes_—besides the many articles by other scholars on particular words or subjects—have contributed to the understanding of these difficult texts. Professor R. F. Harper has published a few preliminary studies on these texts.(812) Dr. H. Winckler not only gave several important texts in his _Texte verschiedenen Inhalts_,(813) but translations and comments on them in his _Altorientalische Forschungen_.(814)

(M749) The letter-texts of the latter Babylonian period at present published are extremely few. Some may be found in Strassmaier’s great collection of _Babylonische Texte_, among the contracts. A list of those for the reigns of Nabonidus and Nebuchadrezzar is given in Dr. K. L. Tallqvist’s _Die Sprache der Contracte Nabû-nâ’ids_, p. xviii.

(M750) One of the uses to which the letters may be put is to illustrate the history of the time. From the letters of Ḥammurabi we can gather a great deal of information as to the civil policy of the reign. From the Tell el Amarna tablets we may reconstruct almost a complete survey of the condition of politics in Palestine. From the Assyrian letters we can rewrite the history of affairs in Armenia at the end of Sargon’s reign, or the wars with Elam in Ashurbânipal’s time.

(M751) The letters are also a rich mine of information on all sorts of topics, and those very often on which almost all other literatures are silent. We gain here a closer and more intimate acquaintance with humanity than at any other period of ancient history. We must not expect finality in our translations for a long while to come. Fresh documents will continually be found or published that will help us to revise our views. But that is the perennial interest of the letters. We may read and reread them, always finding something fresh to combine with every new piece of information.

(M752) Several different methods of classifying the letters suggest themselves. One plan would be to group those letters which illustrate some phase of civil life. Thus we may collect the references to medical cases, or the illustrations of religious life, or the contributions to astronomy and astrology. But none of these methods will be exhaustive or generally applicable. A letter rarely deals with only one subject. The only scientific classification seems to be that adopted by Professor Harper in his edition of the Nineveh letters, or Mr. King in his letters of Ḥammurabi. This is to place together all the letters written by one scribe. Here we have two difficulties. There may be more than one scribe of the same name. Thus it is practically certain that in Professor Harper’s groups of letters apparently assigned to one man, more than one person is often really involved. Again, a very large number of letters no longer preserve the name of their scribe. Only a prolonged study can reduce these difficulties; it is not likely that we shall ever quite eliminate error.

(M753) There is one large group that has a claim to separate consideration. Many letters are written by, or to, a king. They are on various subjects. A subdivision might be made of reports sent by officials concerning public affairs. But even these often contain side-references; and at the last we have really to consider each letter as a separate document.

II. The Letters Of Ḥammurabi

(M754) The letters of Ḥammurabi are by far the most important collection of letters hitherto published for the period of the First Dynasty of Babylon. They had a certain adventitious value at one time, because one of them was thought to contain the name of Chedorlaomer, and this association with Ḥammurabi, as Amraphel, was exploited in the interests of a defence of the historical value of Genesis xiv. Mr. L. W. King’s edition of the letters, however, showed that such a use was unwarranted. But it served a much more useful end, giving us a very full picture of the times of the founder of the First Babylonian Empire. The excellent account given by Mr. King of the contents of these letters is fairly exhaustive. The importance of such sources for history cannot be overestimated. They are contemporary. They are not written to impress posterity, but with absolute fidelity to fact. We may disbelieve some of the excuses made for misconduct, but in the references to current events or general customs we have a sure witness, if only we can understand them. This is often difficult because a letter presupposes relations between the correspondents which we must conjecture.

(M755) Since Mr. King’s introduction to his first volume gives a full account of the few letters previously published, this need not be reproduced here. Of Ḥammurabi’s letters fifty-three are addressed to one and the same man, Sin-iddinam. It is doubtful whether he was the King of Larsa who bore this name, or the official who in the next reign seems to be Governor of Sippara. There are many persons who bore this name known at this period. However, several mentions of the temple of Shamash at Larsa occur in these letters and there is a certain presumption that Sin-iddinam of Larsa was the person intended.

(M756) Ḥammurabi’s ability as an administrator, which these letters reveal, and his care even for small details of his rule, may well be the reason why his empire proved so stable. He established a tradition which was long followed by his successors. He organized his land, appointed governors, and held them responsible to himself. He had a direct interest in their doings and sent minute written instructions, demanding reports, summoning defaulters to his presence, or directing their punishment where they were. The dates for his reign, as for others of the dynasty, show, not only raids and conquests, but chiefly public works of utility. The construction or repair of canals, public buildings, temples, the ordering of justice, are works that repaid his care.

(M757) Ḥammurabi was a man of many business enterprises. The collection of the temple revenues was an object of his attention. There is no evidence that these were available for his use, but he had a personal interest in all that was right and just. To him the herdsmen and shepherds of the temple flocks and herds had to report. He often appears as restoring, rebuilding, or adorning shrines, and he was careful of his religious duties. Thus he postponed a case because of a festival at Ur, which he seems to have found demanded the presence of one of the parties.

(M758) He had to settle important questions concerning the calendar; whether or not reports of astronomical observations were then received is not clear, but at any rate the king decided when the intercalary months should be inserted. Thus he told Sin-iddinam there was to be a second Elul.

(M759) The administration of justice was also no small part of his work. Not only did he promulgate a code, but he also superintended its execution. There was a right of appeal to his judgment. He actively supervised his judges in the provinces. Thus a case of bribery was reported from Dûr-gurgurri and he instructed Sin-iddinam to investigate the case and send the guilty parties to Babylon for punishment. He upheld a merchant’s claim against a city governor, for the recovery of a loan. He protected the landowners against money-lenders. He examined claims to land and sent instructions to Sin-iddinam to carry out his decision. Thefts of corn, loans withheld, rents, were adjudicated by him. He summoned not only the parties, but the witnesses, to Babylon. Prisoners were sent under escort, and arrests ordered.

(M760) The king’s own herds and flocks were a personal care to him. They were stationed in various parts of the country. He received reports about them, or sent inspectors to report upon them. On one occasion he summoned forty-seven shepherds to come and report to him in Babylon. He ordered additional shearers to assist those already at work. He regulated supplies of wood, dates, seed, and corn. These were often sent by ship, and there is evidence of a large number of ships being employed, of varied capacities.

(M761) Public buildings demanded large gangs of workmen. They were drawn from the slave and serf population. A great many letters are concerned with the supply and movements of these laborers. Whether forced labor was inflicted as a punishment may be doubted. But the _corvée_ was in full operation. The hire of laborers is referred to, and it is probable that the forced laborers were fed and clothed at the expense of the state. Thus we see that Ḥammurabi was a busy man and worked hard to build up his empire. His successors, though we have fewer of their letters, seem to have been fully as active.

(M762) It is not easy to select specimens for this period. Each letter has an interest of its own, and it is tempting to include most of them. But we may take the two letters referring to the goddesses of Emutbal, because one of them by a series of misreadings and misunderstandings was made to contain the famous reference to Chedorlaomer. The first(815) may be rendered.

To Sin-iddinam say, thus saith Ḥammurabi: Now I am sending
Zikir-ilishu, the _AB-AB-UL_, and Ḥammurabi-banî, the _DU-GAB_, to
bring the goddesses of Emutbal. Do thou forthwith embark the
goddesses in a procession-boat (state barge) and let them come to
Babylon. Let the hierodules come with them. For the sustenance of
the goddesses embark food, drink, sheep, ship’s furniture, and
travelling expenses for the hierodules, until they reach Babylon.
Appoint men to draw the ropes, and _biḫru_ men, that the goddesses
may come safely to Babylon. Let them not delay but come quickly to
Babylon.

(M763) These goddesses were very likely captured during an expedition to Emutbal which was a border province of Elam. It is natural to associate this with the thirty-first year of Ḥammurabi, for which the full date is:

“The year of Ḥammurabi, the king, in which by the help of Anu and
Bêl he established his good fortune, and his hand cast to the
earth the land of Iamutbal and Rim-Sin, the king.”(816)

The transport of the goddesses was made possible by the system of canals. Intercommunication was in an excellent state, for Ḥammurabi ordered a man to be sent to Babylon from Larsa, and allowed him two days, travelling day and night. The hierodules are the female attendants of the goddesses. The officers whom Ḥammurabi sent bear titles not yet clearly recognized. The name Ḥammurabi-banî points to a deification of the king. Whether the goddesses reached Babylon and there brought misfortune on the country and so were sent back again, or whether their restoration to their shrines in Emutbal was part of the king’s policy for a pacification of the conquered country, does not appear. But we read in another letter:(817)

“To Sin-iddinam say, thus saith Ḥammurabi: The goddesses of
Emutbal, which are in thy command, the troops of Inuḫsamar shall
bring safely to thee. When they shall reach thee, combine the
troops with those in thy hands and restore the goddesses to their
shrines.”

The construction of the passage seems to imply that the goddesses had protected Inuḫ-samar. The latter was in command of troops that were within Sin-iddinam’s jurisdiction; for when Sin-mâgir complained to Ḥammurabi that Inuḫ-samar had impressed some of his servants for military service contrary to a bond given him by the king, Ḥammurabi referred the matter to Sin-iddinam, ordering the servant to be given up.(818) It was this name Inuḫ-samar that Scheil misread as Kudur-nûḫ-gamar.

(M764) A number of letters concern the canals of the country. Thus we read:(819)

“To Sin-iddinam say, thus saith Ḥammurabi: Summon the people who
hold fields on the side of the Damanu canal, that they may scour
the Damanu canal. Within this present month let them finish
scouring the Damanu canal.”

Here we are introduced to the duty which lay upon riparians to keep the canals running alongside their land in order. This was part of the _ilku_, or customary obligation. It lay with the governor to enforce it. In another letter(820) the king complains that a canal which had been partly cleared had not been cleared as far as Erech, and so the boats could not enter that city. Here Sin-iddinam was ordered to do the work with the men at his disposal and complete it in three days. After that he was to go on with the work he had already been ordered to do. In another fragmentary letter the king orders the clearing away of the water-plants which had obstructed the course of the Euphrates between Ur and Larsa. One is reminded of the _sudd_ on the Nile.(821)

(M765) The case of bribery is referred to in a way that leaves it rather doubtful whether a theft may not be meant. The meaning of the word rendered “bribe” by King is unknown, and his identification of _tâtu_ with _da’tu_ is not certain. But at any rate the wrong was brought under the cognizance of Ḥammurabi, and he writes:(822)

To Sin-iddinam say, thus saith Ḥammurabi: Shumma-ilu-lâ-ilu saith
thus, so saith he, “In Dûr-gurgurri bribery has taken place. The
people who took the bribe and the witnesses who know the affair
are here.” Thus he saith. Now I will send this same
Shumma-ilu-lâ-ilu, a _DU-GAB_ and a ... to thee. When this letter
is seen inquire into the matter. If there is bribery, take the
money, or what was given as a bribe, seal it up and send to my
presence. The people that received the bribe, and the witnesses
who know the case, whom Shumma-ilu-lâ-ilu will disclose, send to
me.

(M766) A case of oppression by a governor is complained of, and redressed by the king. He writes:(823)

To Sin-iddinam say, thus saith Ḥammurabi: Lalu, the _kadurru_,
hath informed me thus, saith he, “Ani-ellati, the governor
_rabiânu_, has laid claim to [alienated] the field which I have
held since ... and [taken] the corn of the field.” Thus he hath
informed me. The tablet can be seen in the palace. Lalu holds two
_GAN_ of land. Why has Ani-ellati, the governor, laid claim to
Lalu’s field? Inquire into the matter. If Ani-ellati has lent on
mortgage to Lalu, the _kadurru_, grant him his debt and lay the
blame on Ani-ellati, who lent on pledge.

It is clear that Lalu was one of those privileged officials who held lands by royal charter, and who could not be dispossessed of their land. The Code directs(824) that a governor shall not lend on mortgage to a reeve or runner or tributary, under pain of death. Although a _kadurru_ is not there named, this letter makes it probable he was similarly protected. It is interesting to notice where the record was to be found. The palace, or “great house,” was the residence of the governor. The tablet probably recorded the appointment of Lalu to his benefice; it therefore was his title-deed. An interesting question may be raised here. Did Ḥammurabi mean in his own palace? It may be so, for he writes in another letter:(825)

(M767)

To Sin-iddinam say, thus saith Ḥammurabi: One _GAN_ of
water-meadow, a field in the district of Dûr-gurgurri is an old
possession of Ea-lubanî. In a tablet it is inscribed as his. Give
the field to Ea-lubanî.

Now how could Ḥammurabi know this unless the tablet had been shown to him? Perhaps the claimant brought his tablet with him when he came to lay his plea before the king. That is quite possible, but it may well be that the king insisted that all title-deeds be deposited in the capital.

(M768) An order for the restoration of stolen corn appears in another letter:(826)

To Sin-iddinam say, thus saith Ḥammurabi: Ṭummumu of Nippur hath
informed me thus, saith he, “I deposited seventy _GUR_ of corn in
a granary in Unabu and Amêl-ili has opened the granary and taken
the corn.” Thus he hath informed me. Now I will send Ṭummumu
himself to thee. Send and let them bring Amêlili to thee. See what
they have to say. The corn belonging to Ṭummumu which Amêl-ili
took let him return to Ṭummumu.

Another letter reads thus:(827)

To Sin-iddinam say, thus saith Ḥammurabi: Ilushu-iḳîsh, the
merchant, over five, has informed me thus, saith he, “Thirty _GUR_
of corn I gave to Sin-mâgir, the _Šakkanak_, and I took his
receipt. I have asked for it for three years and he has not given
back the corn.” Thus hath he informed me. I have seen his receipt.
Cause Sin-mâgir to give up the corn and its interest and give it
to Ilu-shu-iḳîsh.