Babylonian and Assyrian Laws, Contracts and Letters Part 20

(M472) A rather different grant was made by Nebuchadrezzar I. to Ritti-Marduk for his services against Elam. This faithful va.s.sal had been governor of a district on the borders of Elam, but the privileges of his country had been much curtailed by a neighboring King of Namar. They were now restored and apparently augmented. They were, that the King of Namar had no right of entry, could not levy taxes on horses, oxen, or sheep, nor take dues from gardens and date-plantations; could not make bridges nor open roads. The Babylonians, or men of Nippur, who came to live there were not to be impressed for the Babylonian army. Further, the towns of the district were freed from dues to the Babylonian governors.(496) Marduk-nadin-a?i in his first year remitted some obligations on an unknown estate.(497)

(M473) Of another kind are the monuments recording the actual endowments of temples by certain kings. A very fine example is the stone enclosed in a clay coffer referring to the endowments of the temple of Shamash at Sippara. It records the restorations made by Simmash-s.h.i.+?u, e-ulmash-sha-kin-shum, Nabu-aplu-iddina, and Nabopola.s.sar at wide intervals. There are, however, no lands concerned.(498)

(M474) A very archaic tablet in the E. A. Hoffman Collection, the General Theological Seminary, New York City, published in the _Journal of the American Oriental Society_,(499) which seems to be older than the celebrated Blau monuments and which Professor G. A. Barton would date about 5500 B.C., deals directly with a presentation of land to a temple.

In it the area of the land is given in _GAN_ and the sides in figures only, probably denoting the lengths in _U_. Being written in very archaic, semi-picture writing, and some of the signs not yet being identified with certainty, it will not do to build much upon it. All the sides but one appear to be thirty-six thousand and fifty, that one being thirty-six thousand, while the full area is three thousand and five _GAN_. This gives the _GAR_ as roughly = fifteen _U_.

(M475) Land was let under a variety of systems of tenure. The metayer system was one of the most common and persistent. The use of this term is justified by the similarity of actual cases to what is known to prevail in Italy, under this name. It is a co-operative system. The landlord not only allows his land to be cultivated for a consideration, but finds the means to meet expenses. He provides bullocks, tools, seed, and many other things, according to the usage of the locality.

(M476) In the Code of ?ammurabi we have proof of the existence of the system. A man finds(500) his tenant tools, oxen, and harness, but hires him to reside on the field and do the work. Actual examples are rare among the contemporary contracts. But Amat-Shamash, a votary, let out,

"Six oxen, among them two cows; an irrigator, Amel-Adadi; two tenders of an ox-watering machine, his nephews; three watering-machines for oxen; a female servant who tended the machines; half a _GAN_ of land for corn-growing; to Gimillu and Ilushu-bani. They shall make the yield of the field according to the average (?). They shall cause the corn to grow and measure it out to Amat-Shamash, daughter of Marduk-mushallim. In the time of harvest they shall measure out the corn to Amat-Shamash."

In spite of several obscurities due to uncertain readings, which render the translation doubtful in places, this must be regarded as a good example of the kind.(501)

(M477) There are fewer data from the a.s.syrian period, but the frequent loans, _ana pu?i_, without any interest, at seed-time or harvest, may be due to this relation between landlord and tenant.(502)

(M478) The best example is to be found in the time of Cyrus,(503) where a certain Shula proposes to take the fields of Shamash, in the district of Birili, in the county of Sippara. It was sixty _GUR_ of corn-land. The temple was to find him twelve oxen, eight laborers (literally irrigators), three iron ploughs, four harrows (or hoes), and five measures of seed-corn, which also included food for the laborers and fodder for the oxen. At the end of the year he was to hand over three hundred _GUR_ of corn as the temple share.

Another good example from the time of Artaxerxes I.(504) relates to the a.s.signment of two trained irrigation-oxen and seven _GUR_ of corn for seed by a member of the Murashu firm to three brothers, who undertake to pay seventy-five _GUR_ of corn _per annum_ for three years. It does not appear that they hired the land as well. Here the hirer returns more than ten times his loan as yearly rent.

(M479) The usual method of hiring land was on shares. The Code contemplates that this would be for a proportion fixed by contract, either one-half or one-third of the produce going to the owner, in the case of a field or irrigated meadow and two-thirds in the case of a garden.(505) The difference was due to the fact that in the former case the owner furnished the land only, possibly with its water-supply; in the latter case he also furnished the plants. In the contemporary contracts we have but few cases where the crop is shared. In these cases the owner and tenant share equally.(506) The tenant was also to erect a _mana?tu_, or "dwelling." It was needful that he should reside on the property to take care of the crop. This was stipulated for and the clause added that he should hand over the dwelling to the landlord. For such dwellings compare the "cottage in the wilderness" of Isaiah 1. 8.

(M480) The tenant, of course, was bound to cultivate the land. The duties which fell to his share were "to plough, harrow, weed, irrigate, drive off birds,"(507) but these duties are but rarely stipulated. The Code protects the tenant, however,(508) from any unfair compulsion in the matter, so long as the landlord gets his fair rent.

(M481) Fields were also let at a fixed rent, usually payable in kind. The contracts of the First Dynasty of Babylon give a large number of examples of this sort. The kinds of field are distinguished as _AB-SIN_, or _eru_, and _KI-DAN_. The average rent for the former was eight _GUR_ of corn per _GAN_; of the latter, eighteen _GUR_ per _GAN_. The former cla.s.s may include land with corn standing upon it, or simply corn-land; the latter land as yet unbroken, or fallow. The latter cla.s.s seems to have been much more fertile.

This rent later became more fixed because the average yield per area was set down in the lease and the yield in corn was estimated in money according to the ordinary value of corn. Thus the rent is stated to be so much money.

(M482) Land was often let to reclaim, or plant. The Code lays down as law what was evidently a common practice. In the case of waste land given to be reclaimed the tenant was rent free for three whole years. In the fourth year he paid a fixed rent in corn, ten _GUR_ per _GAN_.(509) Land let to be turned into a garden was rent free for four years. In the fifth year the tenant shared the produce equally with the landlord.(510)

Contracts ill.u.s.trating this form of lease are quite common in the time of the First Dynasty of Babylon.

(M483) Freedom from various obligations might be granted by royal charter.

In fact, it is from these charters that we know of the existence of the obligations for the most part. The land so freed was called _zaku_. Land sold is often said to be _zaku_, and we may suppose it was so because it had once been freed by charter. But this is not quite certain. The charter was granted to a person and his heirs. Doubtless, as long as they held it, it would be free, but it is not clear that they could sell it as freed forever. But we only know that some land was free. On whom then fell the obligations? So far as they were due to the king, they may have been abolished, but such obligations as repairs of the ca.n.a.l banks must surely have been taken up by others. If not, the granting of charters must have been a fruitful source of trouble and distress to the land.

(M484) The obligations were of various kinds. Some were directly extensions of the duty of a tenant to exercise proper care of the estate.

A very prominent duty was the care of the ca.n.a.ls. To see that they were kept in proper order was the mark of good government. To allow them to fall into disrepair was probably the result of weak government, or the exhaustion due to defeat in war. But it very soon led to the impoverishment of the country. The Code contemplates the care of the ca.n.a.l banks, or dikes, as the duty of the land-owner adjoining.(511) It holds him responsible for any damage done to the neighbors' crops by his neglect to close a breach, or leaving the feed-pipe running beyond the time needed to water his field. But the ca.n.a.l was also liable to silt up or become choked with water-weeds, and the care of dredging it out was that of the district governor. He might carry out this duty by summoning the riparian owners to clean out the bed of the ca.n.a.l,(512) or by a levy for the purpose. Soldiers, or at any rate, forced labor, might be used.(513) Later, in the time of Nebuchadrezzar I., we find men, hired for the purpose, called _?alle nari_, or ca.n.a.l laborers.(514)

XIX. The Army, _Corvee_, And Other Claims For Personal Service

(M485) There was always a militia, _Landwehr_, or territorial levy of troops. Each district had to furnish its quota. These are called _?abe_, or _ummanate_. We have no direct statements about them, but a great mult.i.tude of references. They were called out by the king, _adki ummanatia_, "I called out my troops," is a stock phrase. The calling out was the _dikutu_. Not easily to be distinguished from this was the _isitu_ of the _nagiru_. That officer seems to have been an incarnate War Office. It is not clear whether he always acted solely for military purposes. The "levy" seems to have been equally made for public works. The men were "the king's men," whether they fought or built. The obligation to serve seems to have chiefly affected the slaves and the poorer men, the _mukenu_. In the Code of ?ammurabi(515) it was punishable with death to harbor a defaulter from this "levy."

(M486) Claims might also be made for work on the fields. This was called _?ubu_ and we know little about it more than that Sargon II. charged his immediate predecessors on the throne with having outraged the privileges of the citizens of the old capital a.s.shur, by putting them to work on the fields.

The obligation to provide a soldier for the state was tied to a definite plot, or at any rate, to all estates of a certain size. The _ilku_, or obligation of the land, was transferred with it. In a.s.syrian times, the military unit was the bowman and his accompanying pikeman and s.h.i.+eld-bearer. The land which was responsible for furnis.h.i.+ng a "bow,"

_?atu_, in this fas.h.i.+on, was itself called a "bow" of land.(516)

(M487) Some cities claimed for their citizens a right of exemption from "the levy." In Sargon's time, we find that cities like a.s.shur had been subjected by Shalmaneser IV. to this service, and Sargon restored their rights. He freed them from _dikutu mati_, _isitu nagiri_, and _miksu kari_.(517) The city had not known the _ilku dupsikku_. Later, we find an officer, Tab-?il-earra,(518) complaining that, when he was desirous of doing some repairs to the queen's palace in a.s.shur, of which city he was _aknu_, Sargon's freeing of the city had rendered the _ilku_ of the city unavailable to him.(519)

In the so-called "Tablet of warnings to kings against injustice,"(520) the cities of Borsippa, Nippur, and Babylon are freed from _dupsikku_ and _isitu nagiri_. This was drawn up in the time of Ashurbanipal, but whether it was original with him is not clear. At any rate, later, under Cambyses and Darius, these cities were again subject to the "levy."

(M488) This obligation to perform forced labor, or serve in the army, fell on the agricultural population primarily. Indeed, it seems that the men who discharged it might be called upon to do field labor, and it was an aggravation of the insults put upon the old capital a.s.shur, that its citizens were set to do field labor.(521) On all country estates, there were a number of serfs, _glebae adscripti_, sold with the estate, but not away from it. These, as the ?arran census shows, often had land of their own. But they were bound to till the soil for the owner. They included the _irriu_, or (M489) irrigator, the husbandman in charge of date-plantations, gardens, or vineyards. From these were drawn the men who served in the army as "king's men," and on public works. They seem to have been liable to five or six terms of service, season's work probably, or campaigns, and then were free. At any rate, the heads of families seem to be free. The daughters as well as sons were subject to service, probably to repair to the great weaving houses in the towns. We read of these weaving establishments from early times. M. Thureau-Dangin has called attention to their occurrence in the Telloh tablets of the Second Dynasty of Ur.(522)

The amounts of wool a.s.signed to different cities to work up are the subject of many tablets.(523) In the great cities, the temples or the palaces were the home of this industry; but quant.i.ties of stuff were served out under bond to private establishments to be worked up and returned or paid for. The work on these industries const.i.tuted the _amat arruti_, or obligation to serve as "king's handmaid." It lay also upon slaves. It is doubtful whether the obligation included domestic service.

From the second Babylonian Empire we have a host of tablets relating to these weaving accounts. They will be found fully discussed by Dr.

Zehnpfund in his _Weberrechnungen_.(524)

(M490) The married slave, even in the city, usually lived in his own house. His children were born to slavery, but were usually not separated in early life from their parents. They entered their master's service, and might be sold when grown up. They might learn a trade and so earn a living, paying a fixed sum to their master. They might become agricultural laborers, and so attain a fixity of tenure as serfs. But on all these subject cla.s.ses, slaves, whether domestic or living out, serfs, and artisans, there lay the obligation to do forced work for the king. After a certain number of terms of service, they were exempt.

(M491) The obligations to public inst.i.tutions which existed in Babylonia in later times have not yet been made the subject of a thorough study.

Kohler and Peiser have noted several of the more important indications, and to them we owe what has been done up to the present.

(M492) The most noteworthy obligation was what they call the _?ablu_. This has the same sign as so commonly used in the phrase, _?ablu u ta?azu_, for "war and fighting." But it is also the ideogram for _isitu_, the call of the _nagiru_ to war or the corvee. There is no doubt that it indicates the levy for war. The _rikis ?abli_ was the money due from certain persons to furnish a soldier for the war. Thus we have seventy shekels paid to a certain man, in the fifth year of Darius, to go to the city s.h.i.+ladu.(525) Again, a certain Bel-iddin had to find twenty-five shekels to pay a subst.i.tute to go for him to the presence of the king.(526) Another man paid the wages of a soldier for two years.(527) This was an _aes militare_.

In another case we find the _rikis ?abli_ for a horseman for a certain troop, for three years. It consisted of an a.s.s worth fifty shekels, thirty-six shekels for its keep, twelve coats, twelve breastplates (?), twelve _muapallatum_, twelve leather _mi?u_, twenty-four shoes, thirty _?A_ of oil, sixty _?A_ of bdellium sixty _?A_ of some aromatic, all as equipment, _?iditum_, to go to the camp (?). This may be described as _aes equestre_.(528) So(529) the burgomaster of Babylon paid _rikis ?abli_ for three years for a certain soldier, receiving the amount from single citizens. How this arose, what dues it was a composition for, and whether it antedates Persian times, are details not yet clear.

(M493) Besides the personal obligation to contribute "work," _dullu_, a liability for contributions in kind, _ilku_, dues from the land, existed.

We are in the dark as yet as to the exact form these took. In the Code, the _ilku_, or duty from an estate held as the benefice of an office, was the fulfilment of the functions of the office.(530) The word does not seem to denote contributions. But the word literally is what "comes" of any holding, income, or what is "taken" from it. In a charter of Melihi?u,(531) we have a long list of powers which could be exercised by the king's officials over land. They are levies or forced contributions of wood, crops, straw, corn, wagons, harness, a.s.ses or men, rights to abstract water from ca.n.a.ls, to drink from the water, to pasture herbage, or set on the royal flocks or herds, to pasture sheep, to construct roads or bridges. These are referred to as either a _dullu_ or _ilku_. The governor is named as likely to demand right of pasture for his flocks and herds or work for roads and bridges. But we are left without information as to the proportion these levies bore to the property. All we can conclude is that the king had a right to impress such things or such labor. Few, if any, other doc.u.ments are so full and explicit as to the dues exacted from the land, but all these dues are mentioned again, one or two together, in almost all the charters.

(M494) This is one of the most important dues from land. It was paid to the temple. Some are inclined to see it in the _niirtu_, from which many charters exempt land; but others consider this merely a word for "diminution," or levy in general. There is no means of deciding yet as to the time at which the t.i.the first became a fixed inst.i.tution.

(M495) There seems to be no trace in a.s.syrian times of any payment of a t.i.the. The t.i.the _rab erite_, which has been rendered "t.i.the collector,"

is more likely to be a commander of ten, a decurion.(532)

(M496) The evidence for the existence of t.i.the in the later Babylonian period is very full. All seem to have paid it, from the king downward.

Nabonidus paid, on his accession, to the temple at Sippara, five minas of gold. It was a very large sum, but may have been a sort of succession duty rather than an income-tax.(533) It is curious that we also find Belshazzar named as paying t.i.the, due from his sister, and that when the Persian army was already in possession of Sippara.(534) This shows that the Persians were friendly invaders and respected the rights of private property and of the temples. Belshazzar also paid t.i.the, through his major-domo, to Bel, Nabu, Nergal, and Belit of Erech.(535)

(M497) It was paid for a group of persons by one of their company, or perhaps we might say that certain persons collected t.i.the from their district and paid it in. Thus we have a doc.u.ment recording the payment by one man of the t.i.the due from a number of shepherds, cultivators, and gardeners, in the city of Ma?az-Shams.h.i.+.(536) In the time of Artaxerxes I., Hilprecht has shown that in some cases "the bow" of land also paid t.i.the.(537)

(M498) t.i.the was usually paid in kind, on all natural products, corn, oil, sesame, dates, flour or meal, oxen, sheep, a.s.ses, and the like, but also was liquidated by a money payment. The tablets relating to it are very numerous, but in nearly every case amount to no more than a receipt for its payment.

t.i.the became property apparently and was negotiable. So at least appears from Nebuchadrezzar 270. We thus have property in income from land.

(M499) The various dues, _miksu_, seem to have been a sort of octroi duty.

They were levied at the quay, _miksu kari_, at the ferry, _miksu nibiri_.

They are only mentioned in the charters, granting exemptions from them, to certain estates or their owners. Closely related to these were the _mikkasu_, which seem to be some sort of due or tax levied upon all _naturalia_, and even upon the dues which were paid into the temples. We have frequent mention of them in later times, in the temple accounts.

XX. The Functions And Organization Of The Temple