Chapter C: STOOSS in his article Das babylonische Strafrecht Hammurabis,

Schweizerische Zeitschrift für Strafrecht_, vol. xvi (Basel, Georg, 1903), took up the question of ‘Crimes and Punishments’, on which see also the article with that title by T. G. PINCHES in _The Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics_, iv, pp. 256 ff.; and _Imprisonment_, by the same author, iv, pp. 260 ff. _Die peinlichen Strafen im Kriegs-und Rechtswesen der Babylonier und Assyrer_, by J. JELITTO (Breslau, 1913), adds considerably to the subject. Compare also _Zum ältesten Strafrecht der Kulturvölker_, by TH. MOMMSEN and others (Leipzig, Duncker, 1905).

The judicial procedure remains in many points obscure despite the fine _Essai sur l’organisation judiciaire de la Chaldée à l’époque de la première dynastie babylonienne_, by ED. CUQ, in the _Revue d’Assyriologie_, 1910, pp. 65-101, which records most known facts; _Commentaire juridique d’un jugement sous Ammiditana_, by the same author in the same journal, 1910, pp. 129-38; and again _Un procès criminel à Babylone sous le règne de Samsou-iluna_, 1911, pp. 173-81. P. DHORME discussed in the same volume, p. 99, _Un appel sous Samsou-iluna_. _A Legal Episode in Ancient Babylonian Family Life_, in the _Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology_, 1910, pp. 81-92, 129-42, is by W. T. PILTER.

The tenure of land was elucidated by H. WINCKLER in _Zum babylonisch-chaldäischen Feudalwesen_, in _Altorientalische Forschungen_, i, pp. 497-503. _La Propriété foncière en Chaldée_, by ED. CUQ (Paris, Larose, 1907), chiefly deals with later developments; as do the articles by _J. OPPERT_, _Le droit de retrait lignager à Ninive_ in the _Comptes rendus_ of the _Académie des inscriptions et belles-lettres_ (Paris, 1898), and _Das assyrische Landrecht_ in the _Zeitschrift für Assyriologie_, xiii, pp. 243-76 (Weimar, 1898).

The position of some classes or castes named will be dealt with under the LEXICOGRAPHY OF THE CODE, pp. 74 ff. _The Consecrated Women of the Hammurabi Code_ is an important essay by D. G. LYON in the _Studies in the History of Religions presented to Crawford Howell Toy_ (New York, The Macmillan Co., 1912), pp. 341-60. See also _Altbabylonische Rechtsurkunden aus der Zeit der Hammurabi-Dynastie_, by S. DAICHES (Leipzig, Hinrichs, 1903).

The view of law as sworn contract has importance enough to be specially considered. It was early discovered in the so-called contracts which were once regarded as legal decisions. We may refer to _Sworn Obligations under Egyptian and Babylonian Law_, by E. and V. REVILLOUT, and _Sworn Obligations in Babylonian Law_ by the same authors in _The Babylonian and Oriental Record_, vol. i, no. 7, and vol. ii, no. 1. A. UNGNAD pointed out _Eine neue Form der Beglaubigung in altbabylonischen Urkunden_ in the _Orientalistische Litteraturzeitung_, 1906, cols. 163-4. The whole subject was taken up by S. A. B. MERCER in his dissertation on _The Oath in Babylonian and Assyrian Literature_ (Munich, 1911).

The idea underlying the appeal to the ordeal is closely allied to that of the oath, and F. E. PEISER wrote _Zum Ordal bei Babyloniern_ in the _Orientalistische Litteraturzeitung_, 1911, cols. 477-9.

The importance of the family in the Code and Babylonian Law in general has led to several monographs. _Le Mariage à Babylone_, by ED. CUQ (Paris, Lecoffre, 1905), and _Zur Terminologie im Eherecht bei Hammurabi_, by D. H. MÜLLER, in the _Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes_, xix, pp. 352-8, deal chiefly with the Code. L. FREUND’S _Zur Geschichte des Ehegutrechtes bei den Semiten_ (Vienna, A. Hölder, 1909) chiefly deals with Jewish custom. _Liebe und Ehe im alten Orient_, by F. FREIHERR VON REITZENSTEIN (Stuttgart, Franckh, 1909), devotes pp. 51 to 70 to the Babylonian side. Of course, W. ROBERTSON SMITH’S _Kinship and Marriage_ will be consulted in its new edition by S. A. COOK (London, A. & C. Black, 1903).

Closely connected are other questions as to the status of women. Already in 1892 J. OPPERT was able to make out much about _Liberté de la femme à Babylone_ in the _Revue d’Assyriologie_, ii, pp. 89-90. V. MARX discussed _Die Stellung der Frauen in Babylonien_ in the _Beiträge zur Assyriologie_, iv, pp. 1-77.

Slavery in Babylonia was very different from either Roman or modern ideals. As long ago as 1888 J. OPPERT had made out much from the legal documents of later times in his article _La condition des esclaves à Babylone_ in the _Comptes rendus_ of the _Académie des inscriptions et belles-lettres_ for that year. BR. MEISSNER had written a dissertation in 1882, _De servitute babylonico-assyriaca_ (Leipzig), which still deserves to be consulted. M. SCHORR wrote _Arbeitsruhetage im alten Babylonien_ in _Revue Sémitique_, 1912, pp. 398-9.

The questions of guarantee, security, &c., are finely treated by P. KOSCHAKER in his work, _Babylonisch-assyrisches Bürgschaftsrecht_ (Leipzig, Teubner, 1911).

Business in general is well dealt with by FR. DELITZSCH in his _Handel und Wandel in Altbabylonien_ (Stuttgart, Deutsche Verlagsanstalt, 1910). _Die Commenda im islamischen Rechte_, by J. KOHLER (Würzburg, Stahel, 1885), is to be compared.

_Aus dem altbabylonischen Recht_, by BR. MEISSNER, in _Der alte Orient_, vii, Heft 1, 1905 (Leipzig, Hinrichs), is excellent.

On the whole subject of Babylonian law a valuable treatise is P. KOSCHAKER’S article, _The Scope and Methods of a History of AssyrioBabylonian Laws_ in the _Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology_, 1913, pp. 230-43. _Babylonian and Assyrian Laws, Contracts, and Letters_, by the present writer, in _The Library of Ancient Inscriptions_ (T. & T. Clark, Edinburgh, 1904), and the articles on _Babylonian Law_, by the same author, in _The Encyclopaedia Britannica_, vol. iii, 1910, may be consulted, pp. 115-21, and in _The Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics_. The French jurist, ED. CUQ, in his _Notes d’épigraphie et de papyrologie_, published in the _Nouvelle Revue historique du droit français et étranger_ (Paris, L. Larose), 1906-1909, discussed many points of _Le Droit babylonien au temps de la Première Dynastie de Babylone_.

LEXICOGRAPHY OF THE CODE.

Most of the discussions and editions above referred to deal with points in the lexicography. The edition by UNGNAD in his Band II, named on p. 68, gives the latest results of the investigations in this domain. A few other works deserving of note will be added here.

The meaning of _amêlu_ was elucidated by H. WINCKLER in his _Altorientalische Forschungen_, ii, pp. 312-15, 1901 (Leipzig, Pfeiffer).

The difficult word _mushkênu_, rendered _noble_ by SCHEIL and after him by DARESTE and others, was given this meaning because the fines and penalties inflicted on him in the Code seemed to be less than those inflicted on the ordinary man. The ideogram used in the Code was not rendered into Semitic Babylonian by SCHEIL, but first in print by H. ZIMMERN. A crowd of extraordinary guesses as to the meaning of the term were hazarded, founded on the cognate languages. Thus it was discussed by E. LITTMANN in _Zur Bedeutung von miskên, Zeitschrift für Assyriologie_, vol. xvii, pp. 262-5 (Strassburg, K. J. Trübner, 1903), who made it out to be _leper_ and by ET. COMBE in _Babyloniaca_, vol. iii, pp. 73-4, who settled the meaning from its use in modern Arabic. The present writer had already anticipated much of this in his _Oldest Code_ and the _Notes on the Hammurabi Code_, above, p. 70.

The meaning and status of the _rîdtsâbê_ was discussed by S. DAICHES, _Zur Erklärung des Hammurabi-Codex_, in _Zeitschrift für Assyriologie_, 1904-1905, pp. 202-22. Many useful hints will be found in _Semitica: Sprach-und rechtsvergleichende Studien_, in the _Sitzungsberichte der philosophisch-historischen Klasse der kaiserlichen Akademie in Wien_, 1906, cols. 1-88 (Wien, A. Hölder).

The exact way in which the Semitic people of the Hammurabi period exploited the stores of legal knowledge acquired by the Sumerians is still much discussed. So by M. SCHORR in his _Die altbabylonische Rechtspraxis_, published in _Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes_, vol. xxiv, pp. 431-61, and again in the _Revue Sémitique_, 1912, pp. 378-97, _Zur Frage der semitischen und sumerischen Elemente im altbabylonischen Rechte_. See also _Das Sumerische in den Rechtsurkunden der Hammurabi-Periode_, by M. SCHORR, in the _Hilprecht Anniversary Volume_, pp. 20-32.

The question whether the Sumerian phrases in the contemporary contracts were read as Semitic or Sumerian has been discussed by A. POEBEL in the _Orientalistische Litteraturzeitung_, 1911, cols. 241-7, under the title _Zur Aussprache der sumerischen Phrasen in den altbabylonischen Rechtsurkunden_, and in cols. 373-4 A. UNGNAD wrote, under the same title, _Eine Berichtigung_. M. SCHORR replied, cols. 559-61.

The question how far the Hammurabi Code was operative was soon raised. The existence of a very large number of legal documents relating to all manner of transactions seemed likely to afford a ready answer. In 1905 BR. MEISSNER wrote his _Theorie und Praxis im altbabylonischen Recht_ for the _Mitteilungen der Vorderasiatischen Gesellschaft_, pp. 257-303. The need of a more extended examination made the promise of KOHLER and PEISER’S _Hammurabi-Gesetz_ so welcome, see p. 67. KOHLER and UNGNAD have now fulfilled this by publishing in Heft III-V the whole available material as _Übersetzte Urkunden_ with most valuable _Erläuterungen_ (Leipzig, Hinrichs, 1909-1911). A similar enterprise was undertaken by M. SCHORR in _Kodeks Hammurabiego a owezesna praktyka prawna, Das Gesetzbuch Hammurabis und die zeitgenössische Rechtspraxis_, in the _Bulletin de l’Académie des Sciences de Cracovie_, followed by _Altbabylonische Rechtsurkunden aus der Zeit der I. babylonischen Dynastie_ in the _Sitzungsberichte der kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien, philosophisch-historische Klasse_, 155. Band, 2. Abhandlung, 1907, 160. Band, 5. Abhandlung, 1909, and 165. Band, 2. Abhandlung, 1910 (Vienna, A. Hölder), with transcription, translation, and commentary. Together with UNGNAD’S work this should enable any scholar to form a well-founded and independent judgement.

It is natural to inquire what were the laws of that earlier people in Babylonia who preceded the Semites and are now called Sumerians. The Semites took over their legal phrases, see above, and probably with them some of their laws. The Semitic scribes drew up long lists of these Sumerian phrases, many of which they still used in drawing up their legal documents, just as Latin phrases or Norman-French lingered on in our law-books. These phrases they translated, in parallel columns with the Sumerian. Such books of phrases were issued in long series. One such series, usually called _Ana Ittishu_, was discussed by BR. MEISSNER in the _Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes_, iv, pp. 301 ff. A great deal of it is published by P. HAUPT in vol. i of the _Assyriologische Bibliothek_; by F. HOMMEL in his _Sumerische Lesestücke_; by FR. DELITZSCH in his _Assyrische Lesestücke_, 3rd edition, 1900, pp. 130-2; and by MEISSNER in the _Zeitschrift für Assyriologie_, 1892, vii, pp. 16-32. PINCHES gives an account of it in the _Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics_, iv, p. 256, 1910, where he calls it the _Ulutinabishu Series_. Not much law can be made out of this scrappy source; but one tablet records a set of regulations which seem to be extracted from a code. They are usually referred to as _The Sumerian Family Laws_, and are dealt with by T. G. PINCHES in the _Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics_, iv, p. 257, 1910, and by JEREMIAS in the same work, v, p. 447. A full treatment by P. HAUPT is _Die sumerischen Familiengesetze in Keilschrift, Transcription und Übersetzung_ (Leipzig, 1879). WINCKLER, COOK, PEISER, UNGNAD, and most of the writers on the comparative side have quoted them in their above-named works.

It may be doubted whether the so-called _Warnings to Kings against Injustice_, see T. G. PINCHES in his _Encyclopaedia_ article, iv, p. 261, note 1, are so early, or really preserve part of a code. References to legal reforms may be seen in the inscriptions of Urukagina, see L. W. KING’S _History of Sumer and Akkad_, pp. 178-84 and the references, but here again we cannot reconstruct much of the Sumerian law in question.

We have noted the discussion, p. 75, of the way in which Semitic scribes regarded the Sumerian phrases they used.

The conclusion that Hammurabi codified the earlier legislation was natural, and similarities in form suggested that he adopted much of the Sumerian law which was previously in force.

A. T. CLAY in the _Orientalistische Litteraturzeitung_, xvii, January, 1914 (Leipzig, Hinrichs), writing on _A Sumerian Prototype of the Hammurabi Code_, has made it clear that some of the laws existed in a Sumerian dress. Hammurabi, as we have already contended, modified the previously existing Sumerian laws, and taking some over bodily, changed others to suit the peculiar prejudices of his subjects and the circumstances of his time. We may soon be able to judge whether CLAY’S _Sumerian Code_, as we may call it, was really early, or only the dress in which Hammurabi’s law appeared in his Sumerian provinces.

We may pass on to notice briefly the chief sources from which it is possible to deduce much of the local customary law throughout the history of Babylonia. It may formally be divided into Temple accounts and contracts, but a detailed classification would demand much more space than we can here afford.

THE TEMPLE ACCOUNTS.

At all times the great temples of Assyria and Babylonia kept extensive accounts of even daily revenue and expenditure. These accounts were most carefully preserved, being written with special care on well selected clay, and have reached us as a rule in exceptionally fine condition. They give us an immense mass of information, largely consisting of dry and disconnected items, but helping to build up knowledge. The French explorations made by DE SARZEC at Telloh resulted in the discovery of an enormous number of documents, mostly accounts kept of the daily expenses and revenues of the vast temples there, from the earliest times down to the Dynasty of Ur. One huge find of some 30,000 tablets of the latter period were stolen by Arabs, and have been sold in large quantities to European and American Museums, or to private collectors. Few of them are legal documents, or concerned with other than Temple business, but their contents illustrate the state of society in the times before the First Dynasty of Babylon. They are most important for determining the extent to which the Code of Hammurabi was dependent on, or influenced by, the Sumerian Law of earlier days.

Of those which reached Constantinople, the products of the season of 1894 consisted entirely of tablets of the Dynasty of Ur, and were classified by V. SCHEIL. The tablets found in 1895 were catalogued by THUREAU-DANGIN, and are mostly of the Dynasty of Akkad. The finds of 1900 are all of the Dynasty of Ur. These are all now catalogued and largely published in the _Inventaire des Tablettes de Tello conservées au Musée Ottoman_ (Paris, E. Leroux, 1910), by FR. THUREAU-DANGIN and H. DE GENOUILLAC.

But by far the largest part of the finds came into the hands of dealers, and so into the museums of Europe and America; and these were published sooner. Thus in 1891 some were reproduced by photography in DE SARZEC’S _Découvertes en Chaldée_ (Paris, E. Leroux), plate 41. These tablets, preserved in the Louvre, were, however, properly presented by the Sultan. A great many thus acquired were published by THUREAU-DANGIN as _Tablettes chaldéennes inédites_ in the _Revue d’Assyriologie_, iv, pp. 69-86 (Paris, E. Leroux, 1897). In the same journal, v, pp. 67-102, 1902, he gave a _Notice sur la troisième collection de tablettes_, and in 1903 published a _Recueil de tablettes chaldéennes_ (Paris, E. Leroux), which gave improved editions of the above. Other articles appeared in the _Revue d’Assyriologie_, iii, pp. 118-46 (1895), iv, pp. 13-27 (1897), and in _Comptes rendus de l’Académie des Inscriptions_ for 1896, by the same writer, pp. 355-61. These works not only made available large numbers of texts, but also gave most important contributions to their understanding.

In 1896 H. V. HILPRECHT published three of the tablets in the Imperial Ottoman Museum at Constantinople in his _Old Babylonian Inscriptions_, part II, nos. 124-6 (Philadelphia, _Transactions of the American Philosophical Society_).

In _Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets, etc., in the British Museum_, vols. i, iii, v, vii, ix, x (London, British Museum), copied by L. W. KING, 1896-1900; _Ancient Babylonian Temple Records_, copied by W. R. ARNOLD (New York, Columbia University Press, 1896); _Old Babylonian Temple Records_, are texts copied and discussed by R. J. LAU (New York, Columbia University Press, 1906); _Haverford Library Collection of Cuneiform Tablets or Documents from the Temple Archives of Telloh_, part I, 1905; part II, 1909; part III, 1914 (Philadelphia, J. C. Winston Co.), several hundreds of these texts appeared.

G. REISNER, in 1902, published _Tempelurkunden aus Telloh_ (Berlin, W. Spemann), being the collection presented to the Berlin Museum by H. SIMON. H. RADAU in his _Early Babylonian History_ (New York, 1903), published and discussed a number purchased for the E. A. Hoffmann collections in the New York Metropolitan Museum. T. G. PINCHES dealt with _Some Case Tablets from Telloh_ in the _Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society_ for 1905, pp. 815-29, and, in 1909, published _The Amherst Tablets_, being an _Account of the Babylonian Inscriptions in the Collection of the Right Honourable Lord Amherst of Hackney, at Didlington Hall, Norfolk_ (London, Quaritch). H. DE GENOUILLAC published and discussed some texts of H. SCHLUMBERGER’S as _Tablettes d’Ur_ in the _Hilprecht Anniversary Volume_, pp. 137-41. In 1911 T. G. PINCHES dealt with some _Tablets from Telloh in Private Collections_ in _The Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society_, pp. 1039-62, and ST. LANGDON gave _Some Sumerian Contracts_ in the _Zeitschrift für Assyriologie_, 1911, pp. 205-14. V. SCHEIL contributed a series of _Notes d’épigraphie et d’archéologie assyriennes_ to the _Recueil de Travaux_ (Paris, E. Bouillon), vol. xvii, 1895, pp. 28-30; xviii (1896), pp. 64-74; xix (1897), pp. 44-64; xx (1898), pp. 55-72, 200-10; xxi (1899), pp. 26-9, 123-6; xxii (1900), pp. 27-39, 78-80, 149-61; xxiii (1901), pp. 18-23; xxiv (1902), pp. 24-9, in which among other priceless records he gave many extracts from the Telloh texts, some entire texts, and much elucidation of the same. Special studies devoted to the subject are: H. DE GENOUILLAC’S _Textes juridiques de l’époque d’Ur_ in the _Revue d’Assyriologie_, 1911, pp. 1-32; H. DEIMEL’S _Studien zu C. T., I, III, V, VII, IX, X_, in the _Zeitschrift für Assyriologie_, 1911, pp. 328-45; _Sátilla, textes juridiques de la seconde dynastie d’Our_ in _Babyloniaca_, iii, 1910, pp. 81-132, by F. PELÉGAUD, and _Di-tilla, textes juridiques chaldéens de la seconde dynastie d’Our_, by C. H. VIROLLEAUD (Poitiers, A. Boutifard, 1903); _Comptabilité chaldéenne_, by the same author, same place and publisher, 1903, is a series of valuable essays. G. A. BARTON gave _A Babylonian Ledger Account of Reeds and Wood_ in the _American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures_, 1911, pp. 322-7, and in the same journal, 1912, pp. 207-10, another text of the same sort.

Tablets of the same period have been found by the thousand at Jokha, the ancient Umma, for centuries the hereditary foe of Telloh, and at Dréhem, which seems to have been a closely dependent city of the Nippur district. They have already found their way in large numbers to Europe and America.

Tablets from Jokha were first noticed by V. SCHEIL in his _Notes d’épigraphie et d’archéologie assyrienne_ in _Recueil de Travaux_, vol. xix, pp. 62-3, 1897, who showed that Jokha was Umma. FR. THUREAU-DANGIN in the _Revue d’Assyriologie_ (viii), 1911, pp. 152-8, who deals with _Les noms des mois sur les tablettes de Djokha_, gives a number of these texts from the time of the Dynasties of Akkad and Ur. ST. LANGDON has published _A tablet from Umma in the Ashmolean Museum at Oxford_ in the _Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology_, 1913, pp. 47-52. In contents these are very similar to the tablets from Telloh or Dréhem, and seem to have been often confused with them by the dealers.

ST. LANGDON published _Tablets from the Archives of Dréhem_ (Paris, Geuthner, 1912); L. DELAPORTE, _Tablettes de Dréhem in Revue d’Assyriologie_, 1911, pp. 183-98; P. DHORME, _Tablettes de Dréhem à Jérusalem_ in same journal, pp. 39-63; H. DE GENOUILLAC, _Tablettes de Dréhem, publiées avec inventaire et tables_. _Musée du Louvre_ (Paris, Geuthner, 1911), and _La trouvaille de Dréhem, Étude avec un choix de textes de Constantinople et Bruxelles_ (Paris, Geuthner, 1911); see also _Some Sumerian Contracts_, by ST. LANGDON, in the _Zeitschrift für Assyriologie_, 1911, pp. 205-14. A useful summary is _Some Published Texts from Dréhem_, by I. M. PRICE, in the _American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures_, 1912, pp. 211-15.

_Sumerian Administrative Documents from the Second Dynasty of Ur_, from the _Temple Archives of Nippur_, vol. iii, part i of Series A, Cuneiform Texts, in _Publications of the Babylonian Expedition of the University of Pennsylvania_ (Philadelphia, 1910), deals with closely related texts.

E. HUBER wrote _Die altbabylonischen Darlehenstexte aus der Nippur-Sammlung im K. O. Museum in Konstantinopel_ as a contribution to the _Hilprecht Anniversary Volume_, pp. 189-222. V. SCHEIL in his _Notes d’épigraphie_ made some entries about those Nippur texts which reached Constantinople, see p. 78.

An allied text was given by P. DHORME in the _Journal Asiatique_, 1912, pp. 158-9, as _Un brouillon d’inventaire_.

The whole subject of these Temple Records is being studied by H. TORCZYNER, who has started with _Vorläufige Bemerkungen_ to _Altbabylonische Tempelrechnungen, umschrieben und erklärt_ in the _Anzeiger der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien_, 1910, pp. 136-40.

On the general scope and purpose of the Temple Records, see the article on _Babylonian Book-keeping_, by A. T. CLAY, in the _American Journal of Archaeology_, 1910, pp. 74 ff.

The very ancient texts from Telloh, usually called Pre-Sargonic, have been issued, beside THUREAU-DANGIN’S _Recueil de Tablettes chaldéennes_, by ALLOTTE DE LA FUŸE as _Documents présargoniques_ (Paris, E. Leroux, 1908, 1909). _Sumerian Tablets in the Harvard Semitic Museum_ was begun, by MARY IDA HUSSEY, with part 1 in 1912. _Two Tablets of the Period of Lugalanda_ were published by ST. LANGDON in _Babyloniaca_, 1911, pp. 246-7. Much the most useful publication, however, is _Tablettes sumériennes archaïques_, by H. DE GENOUILLAC (Paris, Geuthner, 1909), which gives not only texts, but transcriptions and such translation as is possible, and also an admirable account of all they imply, as to law and custom. A considerable amount of this is strikingly like the later laws. In _The Amherst Tablets_ (London, Quaritch, 1908), T. G. PINCHES published a few more. The bulk of them still await publication.

_Ancient Bullae and Seals of Shirpurla_ by N. P. LIKHATSCHEFF, published in the _Imperial Russian Archaeological Society’s Classical Section IV_, pp. 225-63, 1907, written in Russian, gives a number of similar tablets. _Oriental Antiquities_, by M. V. NIKOLSKY, in the _Oriental Commission of the Imperial Moscow Archaeological Society_, iii, Series 2, 1908, has over 300 such texts. These appear to belong to the same period.

Some valuable discussions will be found in _État des décès survenus dans le personnel de la déesse Bau sous le règne d’Urukagina_, by ALLOTTE DE LA FUŸE, in the _Revue d’Assyriologie_, 1910, pp. 139-46.

In his _Recueil de Tablettes chaldéennes_ (Paris, E. Leroux, 1903) FR. THUREAU-DANGIN gave as his third series a number of texts of the Sargonic period, dated in the reigns of Shargani-shar-ali and Naram-Sin. A number more are published or described in the _Inventaire des tablettes de Tello conservées au Musée Impérial Ottoman_, Tome I, by THUREAU-DANGIN, 1910, and Tome II, by H. DE GENOUILLAC, 1911, and several other collections are to be published shortly.

The very early texts from the ancient Shuruppak which have reached the Louvre were published by THUREAU-DANGIN in his _Recueil_ named above, and in the _Revue d’Assyriologie_, vi (1904), pp. 143-54, he wrote _Contrats archaïques provenant de Shuruppak_, with the intention of deciphering and explaining them as far as possible.

CONTRACT LITERATURE.

Many texts published in the above collections of Temple Accounts are bonds, deeds of sale, even legal decisions, &c., and really come under the head of contracts. But even among the collections of contracts some accounts have been published, and it is scarcely necessary here to quote the same book under both heads.

Curiously enough the first contracts to attract attention were of an early date. LOFTUS found at Senkereh a number of most interesting case-tablets, the principal document being invariably enclosed in a clay envelope which, as was subsequently discovered, was inscribed with an abstract or practical duplicate of the principal document. Many speculations arose as to their purpose. Some regarded them as a substitute for money, or cheques, banknotes in clay (so LAYARD in 1853), and other weird guesses. GEORGE SMITH first recognized their meaning and value for history by publishing their dates, the names which the Babylonians gave to the years, calling them after some prominent event.

Discovered in 1854, they were first published in 1882 by J. N. STRASSMAIER. Owing to some misapprehension, as given in LAYARD’S _Nineveh and Babylon_, p. 496, despite the clear statement on pp. 270-72 of LOFTUS, _Travels and Researches in Chaldea and Susiana_, they were called _Die altbabylonischen Verträge aus Warka_ in the _Beilage_ to the _Verhandlungen des V. internationalen Orientalistischen Congresses zu Berlin_, 1881. They were accompanied by a list of words and names. E. and V. REVILLOUT discussed them most interestingly in _Une Famille de commerçants de Warka_. They proved to be of the time of Hammurabi and his son Samsu-iluna after these kings had expelled Rîm-Sin from the South of Babylonia. But there were several dated in the reign of Rîm-Sin, and in those of Sin-idinnam and Nûr-adad, kings who had preceded him. Thus they showed how, despite changes of dynasty, the civil life of the subject population went on undisturbed, and customs changed but little. They show how closely the Code pictures the daily life of the people. As most illustrative of the Code, constituting a contemporary commentary on its regulations and consisting chiefly of examples of the same cases as there considered, we may here group in order of publication the collections from the First Dynasty of Babylon.

_Inscribed Babylonian Tablets in the possession of Sir Henry Peek, Bart._, 1888, contained a few texts of this period, copied, transcribed, and translated by T. G. PINCHES. This made considerable advances, but there was not yet enough material to solve many obscurities. These tablets came from Sippara.

It was evident that the only hope of understanding such technical documents lay in the publication of further material, so that by comparison of similar passages some information could be obtained as to alternative readings and phrases.

In 1893 a great advance was made by MEISSNER with his _Beiträge zum altbabylonischen Privatrecht_ (Leipzig, Hinrichs), which gave a full transliteration and translation of 111 texts, all carefully published in autography. Full notes and invaluable comments made this a standard work. The texts were chiefly from tablets found at Sippara, and stored in the British Museum, and at Berlin where a large quantity had been purchased. MEISSNER also reproduced some of the Warka texts.

In the fourth volume of SCHRADER’S _Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, 1896, F. E. PEISER gave a collection of contract texts in transcription and translation, arranged in chronological order. He included thirty-one texts of this period (Berlin, Reuther and Reichard). These were called _Texte juristischen und geschäftlichen Inhalts_, and marked a further advance in treatment. In this year also began the great series of publications called _Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets, &c., in the British Museum, printed by order of the Trustees_. Vols. ii, iv, vi, and viii (1896, 1897, 1898, 1899), contain copies of no fewer than 395 texts mostly of this period, a most valuable addition to our knowledge of the subject. They were from the practised hand of T. G. PINCHES, who gave in the _Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society_, 1897 and 1899, some transliterations and translations with notes and comments on fifteen of them. They were all Sippara tablets.

In 1902 appeared _Une saison de fouilles à Sippar_ (Le Caire, Institut Français), in which V. SCHEIL gave an account of his explorations at Abu Habba, the ancient Sippara, in 1892-1893, and many texts in a preliminary form, with transcription, translation, and comments, thus making known a most valuable supplement to the earlier publications of First Dynasty tablets.

In 1906 TH. FRIEDRICH published in the _Beiträge zur Assyriologie_, vol. v, a number of texts from the tablets found by SCHEIL at Sippara, and then preserved in the Museum at Constantinople, as _Altbabylonische Urkunden aus Sippara_ (Leipzig, Hinrichs), which completed SCHEIL’S work in many ways.

In 1906, A. H. RANKE published _Babylonian Legal and Business Documents from the time of the First Babylonian Dynasty_, as vol. vi, part 1, of the Series A, Cuneiform Texts, of the _Publications of the Babylonian Expedition of the University of Pennsylvania_ (Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania). They probably all came from Sippara, though two may be from Babylon, unless the king was then holding Court in Sippara.

In 1908 J. É. GAUTIER gave us _Archives d’une famille de Dilbat au temps de la Première Dynastie de Babylon_ (Le Caire, Institut Français), with transcriptions and translations of sixty-six tablets from a new site, which the contents of the texts certainly prove to be that of the ancient city of Dilbat. The work was well done, but needed revision by fresh material.

About this time native diggers brought to light fresh material from several new sites. Especially valuable were the texts from Kish, Larsa, Opis, Babylon, and Shittab. These were eagerly acquired by the various Museums, and shortly gave rise to a crop of fresh publications.

In 1909 came _Babylonian Legal and Business Documents from the time of the First Dynasty of Babylon_, by A. POEBEL, being vol. vi, part 2, of Series A, Cuneiform Texts, of the _Publications of the Babylonian Expedition of the University of Pennsylvania_ (Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania). Again a fresh site, the ancient Nippur, yielded its contribution. Here most of the tablets exhibit the old Sumerian phraseology.

A. UNGNAD published, in 1909, a large number of texts from tablets in the Berlin Museum, acquired at various dates. They appeared as vols. vii, viii, ix of the _Vorderasiatische Denkmäler_ (Leipzig, Hinrichs). Most of them undoubtedly came from Sippara; one from Der-ez-Zor, near the Chabour, and those in vol. vii from Dilbat, apparently the modern Delam. Thus we can again compare contemporary documents from a fresh site, which proves to have been influenced by other peoples, the Mitanni, Elamites, &c. In _Urkunden aus Dilbat_, vol. vi, part 5, of the _Beiträge zur Assyriologie_ (Leipzig, Hinrichs, 1909), A. UNGNAD transcribes, translates, and comments upon the large collection of letters and contracts which had been published from Dilbat. His works brought a large amount of most valuable information for the period.

In 1910 THUREAU-DANGIN issued _Lettres et contrats de l’époque de la Première dynastie babylonienne_ (Paris, Geuthner), a most valuable work for its indexes, as well as the interesting texts. A long and extremely fine text was also given by him as _Un jugement sous Ammiditana_, in _Revue d’Assyriologie_, 1910, pp. 121-7. Here were texts from Sippara, Babylon, Dilbat, Kish, and possibly Shittab, as well as some more from Der-ez-Zor. In the _Revue d’Assyriologie_, 1911, pp. 68-79, THUREAU-DANGIN published _Sept contrats_ of the reigns of the kings of Kish, who were contemporary with the foundation of the First Dynasty and themselves Amorites. ST. LANGDON published several more of these _Tablets from Kish_ in the _Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology_, 1911, pp. 185-96, and in the same journal for 1912, pp. 109-13, gave eleven _Contracts from Larsa_.