the interpretation of my name, Sharru-kînu, righteous king, which bade me
observe right and justice, repel the impious, not oppress the weak; as the
great gods had bidden me, I gave money for the pieces of land, of each
city; according to written contracts, in silver and bronze, to their
owners, in order to do no injustice; and to those who would not take
money,(477) a field for a field, where they preferred, I gave.” That this
was no idle boast is proved from the tablet which records how Sargon, in
the year B.C. 713, having taken possession of some lands in Maganuba to
form part of his new city of Dûr-Sargon, found that he was displacing an
old endowment given by Adadi-nirâri to the god Ashur. It was held by a
family descended from the original recipients. Sargon increased their
holding and charged it with an increased monthly offering to the
temple.(478) He gave “field for field,” but also added largely to the
endowments. He acted much the same in Babylonia, where the Suti had
encroached upon the lands of the people. He drove out the invaders,
restored the lands, but laid them under obligations, _kidinûtu_, making
them render a monthly due to the temples, as before.
(M470) On the other hand, we find that the kings granted large grants of
land to temples and private persons. From what source these grants were
made does not appear. Probably from his own personal property. The
property so presented was free of imposts. But we may not assume that the
king was always the poorer. The beneficiary may have bought the land and
presented it to the king, to be received back free of imposts in
perpetuity.
Thus, Nazimaruttash(479) presents a large estate to Merodach, and another
to Kashakti-Shugab, his servant. Kurigalzu(480) granted an estate to
Eṭir-Marduk for his conduct in a war against Assyria, and Bitiliashu
confirmed it. A coppersmith who fled from the land of Ḥanigalbat made a
fine specimen of his work for Bitiliashu, and the king rewarded him with a
grant of land.(481) Adadi-shum-uṣur made another grant of land to an
unknown servant of his.(482) Melishiḫu made a grant of land to his son,
Merodach-baladan I.,(483) and granted it exemption from all imposts.
Another grant he made to a servant of his.(484) So when Shamû and Shamûa,
his son, two priests of Eria in Elam, fled from their own king and took
refuge with Nebuchadrezzar I., he espoused their cause, plundered Elam,
brought back their god, Eria, to Babylon, and they having taken the hands
of Bêl, the king granted them an estate in Babylonia and freed it from
imposts.(485) Nabû-aplu-iddina granted an estate to a namesake of his,
which, however, seems to have been claimed as ancestral property.(486)
Melishiḫu granted lands to Ḥasardu, a servant of his.(487)
Merodach-baladan I. granted lands to Marduk-zâkir-shumi.(488)
Marduk-nâdin-aḫi granted Adadi-zêr-iḳisha, for his services against
Assyria, lands in the district of Bît-Ada, which seem to have been
ancestral domains of one Ada.(489) Some fragments of clay copies of
similar grants by Adadi-nirari,(490) Tiglath-pileser III.,(491)
Ashurbânipal,(492) and Ashur-eṭil-ilâni(493) are preserved in the British
Museum’s Collections from Nineveh. They all appear to record grants to
favorite officials, who had deserved well of the king.
(M471) The king also appears as not only confirming grants made by
predecessors, but as restoring ancestral property, or temple endowments,
which had come into other hands, on suit of the legal descendants of the
original owners. Thus, certain land which had come into the possession of
Târim-ana-ilishu and Ur-bêlit-muballiṭat-mîtûti, was claimed by
Marduk-kudur-uṣur in the reigns of Adadi-shum-iddina and Adadi-nâdin-aḫi,
and finally granted him in perpetuity by Melishiḫu.(494) The land which
Gulkishar, King of the Sea Land, gave to a goddess had remained in her
possession 696 years, until, in the time of Nebuchadrezzar I., the
Governor of Bît Sin-mâgir had secularized it. Bêl-nâdin-apli restored
it.(495)
(M472) A rather different grant was made by Nebuchadrezzar I. to
Ritti-Marduk for his services against Elam. This faithful vassal 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-nâdin-aḫi 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-shiḫu,
É-ulmash-shâ-kin-shum, Nabû-aplu-iddina, and Nabopolassar 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 Ḥammurabi 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, Amêl-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-banî. 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 Assyrian period, but the frequent
loans, _ana pûḫi_, 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 Shulâ 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
assignment of two trained irrigation-oxen and seven _GUR_ of corn for seed
by a member of the Murashû 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 _manaḫtu_, 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 _šerû_,
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 class may
include land with corn standing upon it, or simply corn-land; the latter
land as yet unbroken, or fallow. The latter class 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 illustrating 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 _zakû_. Land
sold is often said to be _zakû_, 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 canal 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 canals. 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 canal
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 canal 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 canal,(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 _ḳallê nâri_, or canal laborers.(514)
XIX. The Army, _Corvée_, 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 _ṣâbê_,
or _ummanâte_. We have no direct statements about them, but a great
multitude of references. They were called out by the king, _adki
ummanâtîa_, “I called out my troops,” is a stock phrase. The calling out
was the _dikûtu_. Not easily to be distinguished from this was the
_šisîtu_ of the _nâgiru_. 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
_muškênu_. In the Code of Ḥammurabi(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
_ḫubšu_ 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 Asshur, 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 Assyrian times, the
military unit was the bowman and his accompanying pikeman and
shield-bearer. The land which was responsible for furnishing a “bow,”
_ḳaštu_, in this fashion, 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 Asshur had been
subjected by Shalmaneser IV. to this service, and Sargon restored their
rights. He freed them from _dikûtu mâti_, _šisîtu nagiri_, and _miksu
kâri_.(517) The city had not known the _ilku dupsikku_. Later, we find an
officer, Tâb-ṣil-ešarra,(518) complaining that, when he was desirous of
doing some repairs to the queen’s palace in Asshur, of which city he was
_šaknu_, 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
_šisîtu nâgiri_. This was drawn up in the time of Ashurbânipal, 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 Asshur, 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 Ḥarran census shows, often had land of their
own. But they were bound to till the soil for the owner. They included the
_irrišu_, 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 assigned 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 quantities of stuff were
served out under bond to private establishments to be worked up and
returned or paid for. The work on these industries constituted the _amat
šarrûti_, 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 classes, 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 institutions 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 _ḳablu_. This
has the same sign as so commonly used in the phrase, _ḳablu u taḫâzu_, for
“war and fighting.” But it is also the ideogram for _šisîtu_, the call of
the _nâgiru_ to war or the corvée. There is no doubt that it indicates the
levy for war. The _rikis ḳabli_ 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 Shiladu.(525)
Again, a certain Bêl-iddin had to find twenty-five shekels to pay a
substitute 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 _æs militare_.
In another case we find the _rikis ḳabli_ for a horseman for a certain
troop, for three years. It consisted of an ass worth fifty shekels,
thirty-six shekels for its keep, twelve coats, twelve breastplates (?),
twelve _mušapallatum_, twelve leather _mîṭu_, twenty-four shoes, thirty
_ḲA_ of oil, sixty _ḲA_ of bdellium sixty _ḲA_ of some aromatic, all as
equipment, _ṣiditum_, to go to the camp (?). This may be described as _æs
equestre_.(528) So(529) the burgomaster of Babylon paid _rikis ḳabli_ 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
Melišhiḫu,(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, asses or men, rights to
abstract water from canals, 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 documents 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 _niširtu_, 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 tithe first became a fixed institution.
(M495) There seems to be no trace in Assyrian times of any payment of a
tithe. The tithe _rab ešrite_, which has been rendered “tithe collector,”
is more likely to be a commander of ten, a decurion.(532)
(M496) The evidence for the existence of tithe 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 tithe, 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 tithe, through his major-domo, to Bêl,
Nabû, Nêrgal, and Bêlit 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 tithe from their
district and paid it in. Thus we have a document recording the payment by
one man of the tithe due from a number of shepherds, cultivators, and
gardeners, in the city of Maḫâz-Shamshi.(536) In the time of Artaxerxes
I., Hilprecht has shown that in some cases “the bow” of land also paid
tithe.(537)
(M498) Tithe was usually paid in kind, on all natural products, corn, oil,
sesame, dates, flour or meal, oxen, sheep, asses, 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.
Tithe 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 kâri_, 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
(M500) The temple exerted an overwhelming financial influence in smaller
towns. Only in certain large cities was it rivalled by a few great firms.
Its financial status was that of the chief, if not the only, great
capitalist. Its political influence was also great. This was largely
enlisted on the side of peace at home and stability in business.