sort of rent for it. This was an annual fixed sum called his _mandattu_,
the same word as for the tribute of a prince to his overlord. In the case
of a female slave this was twelve shekels _per annum_. Further, he paid a
percentage on his profits.(450) The slave might hold another slave as
pledge, lend money, and enter into business relations with another slave
even of the same house. He might borrow money of another slave. Hence he
was very free to do business. But when he entered into business relations
with another master’s slave, or a free man, he sometimes met with a
difficulty. He seemingly could not enforce his own rights against a free
man. At any rate, we find that in such cases his master assumed the
liability and pleaded for him. In fact, the master had to acknowledge his
undertakings, though he did not guarantee them. Subject to this protection
from his master, the slave was free to engage in commerce. He lent to free
men, entered into partnership, and owned a scribe.
(M444) Here is an example illustrating one of the above points.(451) S had
taken a loan of L. His master, A, became aware of it and guaranteed its
repayment. He then put S into L’s hands as his pledge to pay it off. Now,
A died, and his son, B, sells S to C, as part of his own property. But L
still holds possession of S. C demands S from L. L says “Not until my
money is paid off. If C will do this he may have S. But until he can prove
that it has been done he cannot have S.” The proof probably lay in B’s
hands, if he had preserved it from his father A’s records. Delay is
granted for C to produce the proof that S has worked off the debt. It is
clear that the evidence of S was not admitted on this point.
(M445) That in the case of some slaves their value to their master
consisted in their _mandattu_ is clear from the fact when a master sold a
slave and did not at once hand him over, the seller had to pay a
proportional amount of this fee to the buyer.(452) Of course, in
transferring a slave to another owner, the seller could not separate him
from his property. That was his own. A slave who had acquired a fair
amount of wealth, or was earning well in trade, would produce a higher
income to his master and sell for more. What was sold then, was an
interest, the master’s, in his slave’s work. Hence prices varied very
much. We are not always able to see what was the reason of the high price,
but it was evident then to those who made the bargain. An average price in
the later Babylonian era seems to have been twenty shekels, the interest
on which at the usual twenty per cent. would be four shekels. This, then,
was the annual value of a slave above his keep. If the keep amounted to
about eight shekels _per annum_, that gives the value of a slave’s work as
twelve shekels yearly. This is what an unskilled slave was worth to his
master. If, then, a man married a slave-girl, he ought to pay her master
about twelve shekels a year for his loss of her services. Of course, the
master retained his right over her, but it seems to have been a tacit
understanding that he could not sell her away from her husband. So really
what he sold was, after all, only a right to income from her husband of
twelve shekels a year. The children were also his born slaves, if the
father was his slave. We do not know how matters would be arranged if the
man was slave to one master, the wife to another. Probably this was
provided against by the master giving his slave a wife from his own maids,
or buying a slave-girl as wife for him.
(M446) It occasionally happens that we can trace the history of a
particular slave for some time. Thus, Bariki-ilu was pledged for
twenty-eight shekels to Aḫinûri, in the thirty-fifth year of
Nebuchadrezzar.(453) In the next year we find him in the possession of
Piru, his wife Gagâ, and a cousin Zirîa. What they gave for him does not
appear. But they now sold him for twenty-three shekels to Nabû-zêr-ukîn.
He must have fled from his new master, for four years later, the same
three people pledged him.(454) But he seems to have been unsatisfactory as
a pledge. For next, we find that Gagâ’s daughter (Piru having probably
died), being about to be married to Iddin-aplu, this slave was set down as
part of her marriage-portion. She gave him over to her husband and his
son. In their possession he remained awhile, but on the death of his
mistress, was handed over to the great banker, Itti-Marduk-balâṭu. These
events, extending from the thirty-fifth year of Nebuchadrezzar to the
seventh year of Nabonidus, were all put in evidence when Bariki-ilu tried
later to prove that he was a free man. He pretended to be the adopted son
of Bêl-rimâni. He had to confess that he had twice run away from his
master and had been many days in hiding. Then he was afraid and pretended
to have been an adopted son. This, if proved, would have freed him. But he
confessed that it was a pretence, and had to return to his servitude. The
case was decided in the tenth year of Nabonidus.
(M447) It seems clear that when a slave ran away to his old owners, they
did not always deliver him up again to the man who bought him of them.
They probably had to return the purchase-money. The buyer probably would
not accept him again.
(M448) One feature which the later Babylonian contracts show us for the
first time, but which probably was always in force, is the apprenticing of
slaves to a trade. Instances of this are fairly numerous. The person to
whom the slave was apprenticed was usually a slave himself. The teacher
was bound to teach the trade thoroughly. The owner of the slave gave him
up to the teacher for a fixed term of years, differing for different
trades. He had to furnish a daily allowance of food and a regular supply
of clothing. At the end of the term, the slave might remain with his
teacher on payment of a fixed _mandattu_ or income to the owner. Penalties
were fixed for neglecting to teach him properly. The trades named are
weaving, five years’ term;(455) baking, a year and a quarter;(456)
stone-cutting, four years;(457) fulling, six years;(458) besides others
not yet recognized.
(M449) The teacher had no fee, but only the apprentice’s work for his
trouble. The owner was therefore bound to allow the apprentice to remain a
fair time.
(M450) A question of considerable interest which needs to be worked out is
the relative number of slaves in the population. In early times the
impression one gets is that they were few. Even in the time of the First
Dynasty of Babylon, the evidence at the disposal of Dr. Meissner in 1892
did not allow him to exceed four as the number in the possession of one
man at a time. But since then further evidence is available. Thus we read
of twelve slaves at once, seven males and five females, given by a father
to his daughter, at Sippara.(459) In Assyrian times the number in an
average household rarely exceeds one or two, but we have as many as thirty
mentioned at one time.(460) So in later times there are generally only one
or two in a household, but the number is occasionally much more.
(M451) As to the value of a slave, we have in very early times an average
set down as twenty shekels, with examples as low as thirteen shekels. In
the time of the Second Dynasty prices varied from as low as four and a
half shekels for a maid, or ten shekels for a man, up to eighty-four
shekels.(461) The Code estimates the average value of a slave as twenty
shekels.(462) In Assyrian times the price of a single male slave varies
from twenty to one hundred and thirty shekels, but the usual price is
thirty shekels. A female slave could be had for as little as two and a
half shekels, but might cost as much as ninety shekels. A common price was
thirty shekels. In later Babylonian times also, prices vary widely, but
the commonest price and usual pledge-value was twenty shekels.
XVIII. Land Tenure In Babylonia
(M452) The idea of real as opposed to personal property is common in
Babylonian law; for we notice that in the Code, while certain persons may
inherit from the goods of their parents, they may not inherit land,
garden, or house.(463) He then had no share in his father’s house; he was
not one of the family. The distinction is important, for, as we shall see
later, the word “house” had a wider signification than mere bricks and
mortar.(464) It was the ancestral estate. Over it the family had rights.
It went back in default of heirs to the family of the last owner. We are
therefore confronted with private ownership of land, but also with a sort
of entail.
(M453) The amount of land might be increased by purchase, but there is a
strong presumption that it thus became family property and did not remain
at the disposal of the buyer. For if so, in the case above the law should
have stated that the parent could not donate land that was family
property, but might do so with what he had bought. This does not exclude
the possibility of sale. Only the family had apparently the right of
pre-emption.(465)
(M454) In looking back upon the primitive state of the country, its
natural features must be taken into account as helping to shape the course
of development. In such a low-lying country as the land between the
Euphrates and the Tigris, floods naturally occur every year. Every spot of
land that stood above the level of the annual floods was thereby marked
out for a residence. Throughout the literature of Babylonia the hill or
the mountain is a refuge and a place protected by the gods. But when the
floods were gone, man’s great need for his land was water. Hence
irrigation was synonymous with cultivation. The unclaimed land grew rank
with grass and natural food for cattle, but dried up to dust in the
summer. Hence the control of the flood, its diversion into desired
channels, regulation, storage, and all the processes implied by canals and
irrigation were forced upon the inhabitants of Babylonia by stern
necessity. The only alternative was to migrate with flocks and herds to
higher lands when the floods came.
(M455) Settled society was ultimately founded upon the cultivation of a
plain. Every eminence might become a hamlet occupied by the abodes of men,
whose fields were water meadows. The meadows which grew their corn lay
around the village and below its level; and beyond those which were needed
to grow crops lay the pastures. But for security the cattle and sheep must
come back, before the floods came, to the village, there to be folded and
fed, as it seems, upon straw and also grain. The land of the village
extended itself in time, as the population grew and needed more corn. More
and more of the unreclaimed land beyond the cornfields was brought into
cultivation and the flocks went farther afield for pasture. This continued
until the pastures forming the outlying ring had met the pastures of
another village.
(M456) Such is an ideal sketch of the growth of land tenure. But in
historical times this simplicity had vanished. Land was owned, not merely
held. It does not appear that pasture was owned, even as late as the First
Dynasty of Babylon. It seems that the flocks were confided to shepherds,
who were bound to bring them back from the pastures and expected to
account for all they took out and for a reasonable increase in the flock
from breeding. The pasture was common land; at any rate, to the
sheep-owners of the same village. No one claims to buy and sell pasture
land, only cultivated land, fields, gardens, and plantations, ultimately
irrigated land. But unreclaimed land, that is, such as only required
cultivation to make it fields and gardens, is often sold, or let, to be
reclaimed. Was this a trespass on the pasture held in common? If so, it
was not resented as such. We do not know yet how a man acquired a title to
such unreclaimed land. Perhaps to have brought it into cultivation
sufficed originally to establish title.
(M457) A settled hamlet soon had its temple. Some think that the god was
ideally landlord of all the village land and that every title represented
simply the rental of the land from the nominal owner. We do indeed find
the temples as owners of vast estates and, like monastic institutions in
the Middle Ages, letting lands and houses. To the temples poor men went
for temporary accommodation for sowing, for wages at harvest-time, and for
ransom from the enemy. These they had a right by custom to receive without
paying interest. Undoubtedly the temples became the first centres of
progressive civilization. The _patêsi_, as chief-priest of the god, was
the regent of the community. In process of time, as villages combined and
grew into towns and districts, the _patêsi_, in virtue of his town’s
supremacy, became the king, who, as regent of the state and representative
of the gods, owned all. We know that, in later times, the king in Babylon
was the adoptive son of Bel-Merodach.(466)
(M458) In historical times no such conditions prevail. Doubtless the
tribal ownership had become theoretically transferred to the god, or to
the town. That the town had a theoretical personality of its own is clear
enough from the oaths sworn to confirm a sale. Men swore by the gods, the
king, and also by Sippara, or Kar Sippara. But there is no indication that
points to the god, or the town, or the king as having any power to
intervene to prevent a sale, or to claim payment for consent. It is clear
that the land was sold subject to its dues, and they were many. But the
private ownership, subject to such reservation, was absolute. The one
danger to a purchaser was that the family of the seller should claim a
right of redemption and annul the sale. Against this the seller undertook
to indemnify him.
(M459) Exact statements as to the rights possessed by the family to
reclaim land sold by a member of the family are not to be found, but they
are to be inferred with certainty from a few notices which we have.
Thus,(467) a man claimed a certain plot of land as ancestral domain which
two others had sold. There are several such cases among the legal
decisions of the First Dynasty of Babylon. In most of the Assyrian deeds
of sale we have a long list of representatives of the seller, who are
explicitly bound not to interfere and attempt to upset the sale.(468)
Their right existed or they would not be called upon to enter into a
contract nor to insist upon it.
(M460) From the point of view of the ancient Babylonian, as from that of
the modern lawyer, there was a great similarity about all classes of real
property. The deeds of sale or conveyances, as well as the leases, treated
them with much the same formula. It was the land which was the main
consideration. It was as land, built upon indeed, but essentially as land,
that the house was sold. The house is rarely described by what to modern
views would be its most important features, the number of stories, rooms,
conveniences, and the like. Instead its area was stated. This is
remarkable, as we do not buy houses by the area. We need not suppose that
the building actually covered all the land sold. In fact, we often see
that it had a garden. But it was _bîtu epšu_, a “built-on plot” of land,
according to the Babylonian conveyancer. Perhaps there was in this usage a
recollection of how fast the Babylonian house of sun-dried brick sank down
to a mound of clay, perhaps, too, a far-off echo of the nomad’s scorn for
the town-dweller, in both cases a recognition that the land was the one
thing permanent, the one thing that could not “run away.”
(M461) The plot of land was the _bîtu_, Hebrew _beth_, represented by the
Sumerian _Ê_. When it had the additional advantage of a house upon it, it
was _bîtu epšu_, a “built-on plot.” Gradually the edifice, in towns at
least, absorbed the whole significance, and in common parlance _bîtu_
meant a “house,” but in legal phraseology it always retained its inclusive
meaning of the plot of land. Even as late as the Assyrian Empire it
retained some shade of a still earlier meaning, that of a plot, parcel, or
share, just what it meant when the first settlers divided the land among
them. Thus one might use _bîtu_ of a “lot” of slaves, or of a lot of land
including its slaves and cattle. That _bîtu_ is to be referred to a root
_banû_, “to make,” may still be true, though _banû_ cannot have come to
mean “build” when _bîtu_ was formed from it. If _bîtu_ was originally the
“house,” perhaps only a tent-house, then it could mean all that
constituted the house, the man’s house in a wider sense, as in tribe
names, like Bît Adini or the phrase, “House of Israel.” But _bîtu_, when
used of a house, does not carry with it the implication of bricks and
mortar, only of a fixed site occupied for dwelling. The edifice was
implied by the addition _epšu_, marking the site “built upon.” So a house
was “landed property”; land was of various sorts, one of which is “built
on land.” To be accurate one must also specify the kind of building.
The field was called _eḳlu_ (compare Acel-dama, “the field of blood”),
denoted by the Sumerian _A-ŠAG-GA_. The term does not denote open waste
land, but a cultivated plot. Indeed, it is probable that its Sumerian name
implies “irrigation.” In any case it was fenced, if only by a raised
ridge; it was cultivated and watched over; the birds were scared away,
robbers and stray animals driven off. So much at least is expressed in as
many words in the undertakings of tenants to treat a field properly. The
field was also _bîtu_ as land, usually “_bîtu_, so much _eḳlu_.”
The garden was reckoned as land, but here a fuller specification was
needed. For a plot of land, a garden, _kirû_ was not exact enough. It was
usual to designate further of what sort it was, whether vegetable garden,
orchard, or palm-grove. The scribe would even add “planted with such and
such a crop.” The term might include vineyards. In many cases the actual
number of bushes, or fruit-trees, or vine-stocks, would be named. But it
was always primarily land, and as such _bîtu_, with the qualifications
enumerated.
(M462) For land measures there were two systems in use, one purely areal,
the other with a reference to the average yield. In the former case the
scale of measures was discovered and formulated by Dr. G. Reisner, in the
_Sitzungsberichte Berliner Akademie_, 1897, p. 417 f., and is completely
known. In this scale _1 GAN = 1,800 SAR_, _1 SAR = 60 GIN_, _1 GIN = 180
ŠE_. We do not know how these words _GAN_, _SAR_, _GIN_, _ŠE_ were read;
they may be ideograms or Sumerian words. There was also a very large
measure of area, _3,600 GAN_, perhaps called a _karu_. Mr. Thureau-Dangin
has further shown that the _SAR_ was the square of the measure _GAR-DU_,
which seems at one time to have measured _12 U_. The _U_ is often taken to
be a cubit, but seems at this time to have been nine hundred and ninety
millimetres, which is sometimes called “a double cubit.” On these
suppositions the _SAR_ would be a square, each side measuring about
twenty-two yards, about one-tenth of an acre, or four ares on the metrical
system. But it is certain that both in early times and during the First
Dynasty of Babylon the _GAR_ was only _12 U_, and the _U_, if a cubit,
would not be much over eighteen inches. This would make the _SAR_ a square
of about eighteen feet on each side. The fact that a _SAR_ was a fairly
common size for a house seems rather against the smaller area. What is yet
wanted is some cuneiform statement of the size or area of something which
can be exactly identified and measured. With further exploration this is
almost sure to be found.(469)
(M463) The other system applied to land the names of measures of capacity
used for measuring crops. We read of so many _GUR_ and _ḲA_ of land, where
_1 GUR = 300 ḲA_, as shown by Dr. Reisner. We may guess that a _GUR_ of
land was so called because it took a _GUR_ of corn to sow it, or because
it yielded a _GUR_ of corn as an average harvest. These are mere guesses
and we must remain in ignorance until further evidence connects a _GUR_ of
land on one side with its length and breadth, or some other relation
between the _GUR_ and the _GAN_ can be deduced. Then we shall want to know
the size of the _GUR_ of corn, of which at present we have no knowledge.
But already in Susa a broken pot has been found with its original contents
marked upon it. When others are found, from which an approximate estimate
of contents can be made, and an inscription read giving the capacity, we
shall be able to make a definite statement. At present the data are
insufficient and what the metrologists write is only ingenious
speculation.
(M464) A piece of land had, so to speak, an individuality of its own. Once
marked out, and that probably from time immemorial, it was rarely divided.
It seems probable that corn-land at any rate was divided into long, narrow
strips. But the plots became gradually of all sizes and shapes, as the
many plans of estates show. The lengths of the sides are usually given on
such plans, and much labor has been expended with small result on
reconciling the given dimensions with the area ascribed to the plot. But
it is certain that these were often recorded merely for purposes of
identification. The area of the field was well known, and its average crop
also, without any need of resort to calculations.
(M465) These plots often bear their owner’s name, and that long after he
had passed away. The boundary-stones of the field were sacred. Not a few
were inscribed with some sort of history of the plot. Especially was this
the case when the land was granted to fresh owners, by sale, or charter.
No inconsiderable portion of what we know of history is derived from
inscribed boundary-stones. They are the oldest monuments and rarely deeply
buried. Hence they are easy to find. They have even been brought to
London, as ship’s ballast, in times before they could be read. They would
be invaluable, if found _in situ_, for a modern survey of the country and
a reconstruction of its ancient history. As a rule they are splendidly
preserved.
(M466) (M467) In ancient days great importance was attached to their
preservation. The kings taxed their powers of cursing in order to terrify
men from removing their neighbor’s landmark. The dangers to the stone
contemplated were its removal to another place, its being thrown into the
water, or into the fire, its being built into a wall,(470) being buried in
the dust, placed where it cannot be seen, put in a house of darkness,(471)
erased and overwritten with other records.(472) Akin to the crime of
encroaching upon old landmarks was that of building upon or otherwise
encroaching on the highway. To do this might subject the builder to the
danger of being hanged, as a warning on a gallows erected above his own
house.(473)
(M468) That the land was sold subject to certain territorial obligations,
we can glean from many hints. One of the most important is that, when a
favorite, or well-deserving official, had acquired a large estate, the
king by charter granted him an immunity from these obligations. These
charters were often inscribed on large blocks of stone or water-worn
pebbles of great size, and seem to have been set up as boundary-stones.
Some were reproduced from tablets written on clay.(474) They are very
numerous and in some periods of the history are the only monuments that
have reached us. A glance through any history of Babylonia will show the
reader how much depends on them. But here our only concern is with the
light they throw on land tenure and its conditions. One of the points
which at once becomes clear is that, although the king was representative
of the god and titular head of all the tribes, he could not appropriate
land just where he chose. Manistusu, King of Kish, when he was seeking to
acquire a fine estate to present to his son, Mesilim, had to buy land at
what seems to have been an average price. He paid for the land in corn at
three and one-third _GUR_ of corn per _GAN_, the _GUR_ being worth one
shekel of silver. This was the price. But, as was usual later in private
purchases, a present to the former owner was given. The list of these
presents is most interesting,—silver and copper vessels and rich vestments
being the chief items. Of great importance is the reference to the leading
men of each hamlet as sellers. The king’s own land was a definite area, so
definite as to be cited as a boundary.(475)