their language and script to belong to this period. They also show
considerable affinity with the documents of the First Dynasty of Babylon,
and the Tell el Amarna letters preserve many characteristic expressions.
(M746) The subsequent periods in Babylonia are represented by few letters.
It is not until we come down to the end of the eighth century and the
Sargonide times that we meet with many letters. The archives of Nineveh
contained immense numbers. A great many of these are now in the Kouyunjik
Collections of the British Museum. There they early attracted attention.
Being written by the imperial officials to the kings of Assyria, they
contain most valuable material (M747) for history. George Smith in 1871
gave extracts from several of them in his _History of Ashurbanipal_. A
number were published in Rawlinson’s _Cuneiform Inscriptions of Western
Asia_. Mr. S. A. Smith, in the _Proceedings of the Society of Biblical
Archæology_, 1887-89,(806) and in the second and third volumes of his
_Keilschrifttexte Asurbanipals_ gave some seventy more. Professor
Delitzsch also published a number in his _Zur assyrisch-babylonischen
Briefliteratur_,(807) and in his translations and comments laid the real
foundation for their interpretation. In 1892 Professor R. F. Harper began
the colossal task of publishing the text of all the letters from Nineveh,
in his _Assyrian and Babylonian Letters belonging to the K Collections of
the British Museum_, of which eight volumes are already published.(808)
(M748) A considerable number of scholars have busied themselves with the
translation and elucidation of these texts. Professor C. Johnston in his
work, _The Epistolary Literature of the Assyrians and Babylonians_;(809)
C. van Gelderen, _Ausgewählte babylonisch-assyrische Briefe_;(810) A. J.
Delattre, _Quelques Lettres Assyriennes_;(811) G. R. Berry, _The Letters
of the Rm. 2 Collection_, in _American Journal of Semitic Literature_,
xi., pp. 174-202; F. Martin, _Lettres assyriennes et
babyloniennes_—besides the many articles by other scholars on particular
words or subjects—have contributed to the understanding of these difficult
texts. Professor R. F. Harper has published a few preliminary studies on
these texts.(812) Dr. H. Winckler not only gave several important texts in
his _Texte verschiedenen Inhalts_,(813) but translations and comments on
them in his _Altorientalische Forschungen_.(814)
(M749) The letter-texts of the latter Babylonian period at present
published are extremely few. Some may be found in Strassmaier’s great
collection of _Babylonische Texte_, among the contracts. A list of those
for the reigns of Nabonidus and Nebuchadrezzar is given in Dr. K. L.
Tallqvist’s _Die Sprache der Contracte Nabû-nâ’ids_, p. xviii.
(M750) One of the uses to which the letters may be put is to illustrate
the history of the time. From the letters of Ḥammurabi we can gather a
great deal of information as to the civil policy of the reign. From the
Tell el Amarna tablets we may reconstruct almost a complete survey of the
condition of politics in Palestine. From the Assyrian letters we can
rewrite the history of affairs in Armenia at the end of Sargon’s reign, or
the wars with Elam in Ashurbânipal’s time.
(M751) The letters are also a rich mine of information on all sorts of
topics, and those very often on which almost all other literatures are
silent. We gain here a closer and more intimate acquaintance with humanity
than at any other period of ancient history. We must not expect finality
in our translations for a long while to come. Fresh documents will
continually be found or published that will help us to revise our views.
But that is the perennial interest of the letters. We may read and reread
them, always finding something fresh to combine with every new piece of
information.
(M752) Several different methods of classifying the letters suggest
themselves. One plan would be to group those letters which illustrate some
phase of civil life. Thus we may collect the references to medical cases,
or the illustrations of religious life, or the contributions to astronomy
and astrology. But none of these methods will be exhaustive or generally
applicable. A letter rarely deals with only one subject. The only
scientific classification seems to be that adopted by Professor Harper in
his edition of the Nineveh letters, or Mr. King in his letters of
Ḥammurabi. This is to place together all the letters written by one
scribe. Here we have two difficulties. There may be more than one scribe
of the same name. Thus it is practically certain that in Professor
Harper’s groups of letters apparently assigned to one man, more than one
person is often really involved. Again, a very large number of letters no
longer preserve the name of their scribe. Only a prolonged study can
reduce these difficulties; it is not likely that we shall ever quite
eliminate error.
(M753) There is one large group that has a claim to separate
consideration. Many letters are written by, or to, a king. They are on
various subjects. A subdivision might be made of reports sent by officials
concerning public affairs. But even these often contain side-references;
and at the last we have really to consider each letter as a separate
document.
II. The Letters Of Ḥammurabi
(M754) The letters of Ḥammurabi are by far the most important collection
of letters hitherto published for the period of the First Dynasty of
Babylon. They had a certain adventitious value at one time, because one of
them was thought to contain the name of Chedorlaomer, and this association
with Ḥammurabi, as Amraphel, was exploited in the interests of a defence
of the historical value of Genesis xiv. Mr. L. W. King’s edition of the
letters, however, showed that such a use was unwarranted. But it served a
much more useful end, giving us a very full picture of the times of the
founder of the First Babylonian Empire. The excellent account given by Mr.
King of the contents of these letters is fairly exhaustive. The importance
of such sources for history cannot be overestimated. They are
contemporary. They are not written to impress posterity, but with absolute
fidelity to fact. We may disbelieve some of the excuses made for
misconduct, but in the references to current events or general customs we
have a sure witness, if only we can understand them. This is often
difficult because a letter presupposes relations between the
correspondents which we must conjecture.
(M755) Since Mr. King’s introduction to his first volume gives a full
account of the few letters previously published, this need not be
reproduced here. Of Ḥammurabi’s letters fifty-three are addressed to one
and the same man, Sin-iddinam. It is doubtful whether he was the King of
Larsa who bore this name, or the official who in the next reign seems to
be Governor of Sippara. There are many persons who bore this name known at
this period. However, several mentions of the temple of Shamash at Larsa
occur in these letters and there is a certain presumption that Sin-iddinam
of Larsa was the person intended.
(M756) Ḥammurabi’s ability as an administrator, which these letters
reveal, and his care even for small details of his rule, may well be the
reason why his empire proved so stable. He established a tradition which
was long followed by his successors. He organized his land, appointed
governors, and held them responsible to himself. He had a direct interest
in their doings and sent minute written instructions, demanding reports,
summoning defaulters to his presence, or directing their punishment where
they were. The dates for his reign, as for others of the dynasty, show,
not only raids and conquests, but chiefly public works of utility. The
construction or repair of canals, public buildings, temples, the ordering
of justice, are works that repaid his care.
(M757) Ḥammurabi was a man of many business enterprises. The collection of
the temple revenues was an object of his attention. There is no evidence
that these were available for his use, but he had a personal interest in
all that was right and just. To him the herdsmen and shepherds of the
temple flocks and herds had to report. He often appears as restoring,
rebuilding, or adorning shrines, and he was careful of his religious
duties. Thus he postponed a case because of a festival at Ur, which he
seems to have found demanded the presence of one of the parties.
(M758) He had to settle important questions concerning the calendar;
whether or not reports of astronomical observations were then received is
not clear, but at any rate the king decided when the intercalary months
should be inserted. Thus he told Sin-iddinam there was to be a second
Elul.
(M759) The administration of justice was also no small part of his work.
Not only did he promulgate a code, but he also superintended its
execution. There was a right of appeal to his judgment. He actively
supervised his judges in the provinces. Thus a case of bribery was
reported from Dûr-gurgurri and he instructed Sin-iddinam to investigate
the case and send the guilty parties to Babylon for punishment. He upheld
a merchant’s claim against a city governor, for the recovery of a loan. He
protected the landowners against money-lenders. He examined claims to land
and sent instructions to Sin-iddinam to carry out his decision. Thefts of
corn, loans withheld, rents, were adjudicated by him. He summoned not only
the parties, but the witnesses, to Babylon. Prisoners were sent under
escort, and arrests ordered.
(M760) The king’s own herds and flocks were a personal care to him. They
were stationed in various parts of the country. He received reports about
them, or sent inspectors to report upon them. On one occasion he summoned
forty-seven shepherds to come and report to him in Babylon. He ordered
additional shearers to assist those already at work. He regulated supplies
of wood, dates, seed, and corn. These were often sent by ship, and there
is evidence of a large number of ships being employed, of varied
capacities.
(M761) Public buildings demanded large gangs of workmen. They were drawn
from the slave and serf population. A great many letters are concerned
with the supply and movements of these laborers. Whether forced labor was
inflicted as a punishment may be doubted. But the _corvée_ was in full
operation. The hire of laborers is referred to, and it is probable that
the forced laborers were fed and clothed at the expense of the state. Thus
we see that Ḥammurabi was a busy man and worked hard to build up his
empire. His successors, though we have fewer of their letters, seem to
have been fully as active.
(M762) It is not easy to select specimens for this period. Each letter has
an interest of its own, and it is tempting to include most of them. But we
may take the two letters referring to the goddesses of Emutbal, because
one of them by a series of misreadings and misunderstandings was made to
contain the famous reference to Chedorlaomer. The first(815) may be
rendered.
To Sin-iddinam say, thus saith Ḥammurabi: Now I am sending
Zikir-ilishu, the _AB-AB-UL_, and Ḥammurabi-banî, the _DU-GAB_, to
bring the goddesses of Emutbal. Do thou forthwith embark the
goddesses in a procession-boat (state barge) and let them come to
Babylon. Let the hierodules come with them. For the sustenance of
the goddesses embark food, drink, sheep, ship’s furniture, and
travelling expenses for the hierodules, until they reach Babylon.
Appoint men to draw the ropes, and _biḫru_ men, that the goddesses
may come safely to Babylon. Let them not delay but come quickly to
Babylon.
(M763) These goddesses were very likely captured during an expedition to
Emutbal which was a border province of Elam. It is natural to associate
this with the thirty-first year of Ḥammurabi, for which the full date is:
“The year of Ḥammurabi, the king, in which by the help of Anu and
Bêl he established his good fortune, and his hand cast to the
earth the land of Iamutbal and Rim-Sin, the king.”(816)
The transport of the goddesses was made possible by the system of canals.
Intercommunication was in an excellent state, for Ḥammurabi ordered a man
to be sent to Babylon from Larsa, and allowed him two days, travelling day
and night. The hierodules are the female attendants of the goddesses. The
officers whom Ḥammurabi sent bear titles not yet clearly recognized. The
name Ḥammurabi-banî points to a deification of the king. Whether the
goddesses reached Babylon and there brought misfortune on the country and
so were sent back again, or whether their restoration to their shrines in
Emutbal was part of the king’s policy for a pacification of the conquered
country, does not appear. But we read in another letter:(817)
“To Sin-iddinam say, thus saith Ḥammurabi: The goddesses of
Emutbal, which are in thy command, the troops of Inuḫsamar shall
bring safely to thee. When they shall reach thee, combine the
troops with those in thy hands and restore the goddesses to their
shrines.”
The construction of the passage seems to imply that the goddesses had
protected Inuḫ-samar. The latter was in command of troops that were within
Sin-iddinam’s jurisdiction; for when Sin-mâgir complained to Ḥammurabi
that Inuḫ-samar had impressed some of his servants for military service
contrary to a bond given him by the king, Ḥammurabi referred the matter to
Sin-iddinam, ordering the servant to be given up.(818) It was this name
Inuḫ-samar that Scheil misread as Kudur-nûḫ-gamar.
(M764) A number of letters concern the canals of the country. Thus we
read:(819)
“To Sin-iddinam say, thus saith Ḥammurabi: Summon the people who
hold fields on the side of the Damanu canal, that they may scour
the Damanu canal. Within this present month let them finish
scouring the Damanu canal.”
Here we are introduced to the duty which lay upon riparians to keep the
canals running alongside their land in order. This was part of the _ilku_,
or customary obligation. It lay with the governor to enforce it. In
another letter(820) the king complains that a canal which had been partly
cleared had not been cleared as far as Erech, and so the boats could not
enter that city. Here Sin-iddinam was ordered to do the work with the men
at his disposal and complete it in three days. After that he was to go on
with the work he had already been ordered to do. In another fragmentary
letter the king orders the clearing away of the water-plants which had
obstructed the course of the Euphrates between Ur and Larsa. One is
reminded of the _sudd_ on the Nile.(821)
(M765) The case of bribery is referred to in a way that leaves it rather
doubtful whether a theft may not be meant. The meaning of the word
rendered “bribe” by King is unknown, and his identification of _tâtu_ with
_da’tu_ is not certain. But at any rate the wrong was brought under the
cognizance of Ḥammurabi, and he writes:(822)
To Sin-iddinam say, thus saith Ḥammurabi: Shumma-ilu-lâ-ilu saith
thus, so saith he, “In Dûr-gurgurri bribery has taken place. The
people who took the bribe and the witnesses who know the affair
are here.” Thus he saith. Now I will send this same
Shumma-ilu-lâ-ilu, a _DU-GAB_ and a ... to thee. When this letter
is seen inquire into the matter. If there is bribery, take the
money, or what was given as a bribe, seal it up and send to my
presence. The people that received the bribe, and the witnesses
who know the case, whom Shumma-ilu-lâ-ilu will disclose, send to
me.
(M766) A case of oppression by a governor is complained of, and redressed
by the king. He writes:(823)
To Sin-iddinam say, thus saith Ḥammurabi: Lalu, the _kadurru_,
hath informed me thus, saith he, “Ani-ellati, the governor
_rabiânu_, has laid claim to [alienated] the field which I have
held since ... and [taken] the corn of the field.” Thus he hath
informed me. The tablet can be seen in the palace. Lalu holds two
_GAN_ of land. Why has Ani-ellati, the governor, laid claim to
Lalu’s field? Inquire into the matter. If Ani-ellati has lent on
mortgage to Lalu, the _kadurru_, grant him his debt and lay the
blame on Ani-ellati, who lent on pledge.
It is clear that Lalu was one of those privileged officials who held lands
by royal charter, and who could not be dispossessed of their land. The
Code directs(824) that a governor shall not lend on mortgage to a reeve or
runner or tributary, under pain of death. Although a _kadurru_ is not
there named, this letter makes it probable he was similarly protected. It
is interesting to notice where the record was to be found. The palace, or
“great house,” was the residence of the governor. The tablet probably
recorded the appointment of Lalu to his benefice; it therefore was his
title-deed. An interesting question may be raised here. Did Ḥammurabi mean
in his own palace? It may be so, for he writes in another letter:(825)
(M767)
To Sin-iddinam say, thus saith Ḥammurabi: One _GAN_ of
water-meadow, a field in the district of Dûr-gurgurri is an old
possession of Ea-lubanî. In a tablet it is inscribed as his. Give
the field to Ea-lubanî.
Now how could Ḥammurabi know this unless the tablet had been shown to him?
Perhaps the claimant brought his tablet with him when he came to lay his
plea before the king. That is quite possible, but it may well be that the
king insisted that all title-deeds be deposited in the capital.
(M768) An order for the restoration of stolen corn appears in another
letter:(826)
To Sin-iddinam say, thus saith Ḥammurabi: Ṭummumu of Nippur hath
informed me thus, saith he, “I deposited seventy _GUR_ of corn in
a granary in Unabu and Amêl-ili has opened the granary and taken
the corn.” Thus he hath informed me. Now I will send Ṭummumu
himself to thee. Send and let them bring Amêlili to thee. See what
they have to say. The corn belonging to Ṭummumu which Amêl-ili
took let him return to Ṭummumu.
Another letter reads thus:(827)
To Sin-iddinam say, thus saith Ḥammurabi: Ilushu-iḳîsh, the
merchant, over five, has informed me thus, saith he, “Thirty _GUR_
of corn I gave to Sin-mâgir, the _Šakkanak_, and I took his
receipt. I have asked for it for three years and he has not given
back the corn.” Thus hath he informed me. I have seen his receipt.
Cause Sin-mâgir to give up the corn and its interest and give it
to Ilu-shu-iḳîsh.
The title “over five” seems to be meant literally. He was a superior
merchant. Like many another hint, this speaks for the strict organization
of each class of the community. The _Šakkanak_ was usually the superior
official, “governor,” of a city, or of a ward of a city. We are not told
what was Sin-mâgir’s district. But it was under Sin-iddinam’s rule. In
other letters we read of a Sin-mâgir being sent to Babylon.(828) Perhaps
he refused to give up the corn.
Another letter illustrates the incidence of taxes and the relations of
landlord and tenant:(829)
(M769)
To Sin-iddinam say, thus saith Ḥammurabi: As to what I sent to
thee about the corn that is the tax on the field of Ibni-Martu,
which is in the hands of Etil-bi-Marduk, to be given to
Ibni-Martu; thou didst say, “Etil-bi-Marduk hath said thus, saith
he, ‘I have cultivated another field together with the field of
Ibni-Martu, and the corn is all garnered in one place, let them
declare on oath before God how much corn was from the field of
Ibni-Martu and let them take the tax.’ Thus he said. But
Ibni-Martu did not agree. Saith he, ‘Without Ibni-Martu one can do
nothing.’ Thus he said, and went away.” As to what thou didst
send, “the corn, as much as was in his field, should be declared
before God and the tax given him.” As thou didst send, let them
declare before God how much corn was in the field of Ibni-Martu,
and pay Ibni-Martu the corn that is the tax on his field.
The case is not quite clear, but Ibni-Martu owed a tax on his field. He
had either mortgaged or let his field to another. This tenant had not
given him the corn to pay the tax and excused himself on the ground that
the produce of the field was now mixed up with that of another field.
Hence he could not say how much the tax should be; clearly it was
proportionate to the yield. The method of solving the difficulty was that
a sworn estimate had to be taken from competent witnesses and the tax
levied on that basis. This course was recommended by Sin-iddinam in a
previous report on the situation. The amount was to be given to the
landlord, who then had to pay the tax. He clearly had no rent in corn from
the land; but he could not sell or mortgage his crop except subject to the
tax. The mortgagee was liable for the tax and the owner was bound to pay.
The mortgagee must furnish him the means to do so; he had no right to
claim the part of the crop due as tax, whatever bargain he had made with
the owner of the land.
(M770) (M771) While agriculture was in the hands of free men who only paid
on produce, there are indications that commerce was very strictly
controlled by the State. The merchant was the only money-lender as a rule.
He also seems to have acted as contractor, or farmer of taxes. The
merchant, or factor, was under the king’s protection and also directly
responsible to him. Hence some have regarded him as a royal official. But
this is hardly correct. He was to Ḥammurabi what the Jew of the Middle
Ages was to the king then, or the Stock Exchange or Bourse is now.
Probably we should not be far wrong in applying to him the term
“publican,” in the New Testament sense. He owed a certain amount to the
treasury, which he recouped from the taxes due from the district for which
he contracted. If he did not secure enough, he had to make up the deficit.
The following letter(830) deals with what was probably common, namely, an
evident reluctance on the part of such officials to settle accounts:
To Sin-iddinam say, thus Ḥammurabi: Concerning the chief
collector, Shêp-Sin, I wrote to thee, saying, “send him with one
thousand eight hundred _GUR_ of sesame and nineteen minas of
silver, due from him, as well as Sin-mushtal, the chief collector,
with eighteen hundred _GUR_ of sesame and seven minas of silver,
due from him, send them to Babylon, and send with them the market
rates (?)...” But thou didst say that these chief collectors had
said, “Just now is harvest-time, after harvest we will go.” Thus
they said, and thou didst tell me. Now the harvest is over. On
receipt of this tablet, when I have sent to thee, send Shêp-Sin,
the chief collector, with one thousand eight hundred _GUR_ of
sesame and nineteen minas of silver, his due, and Sin-mushtal, the
chief collector, with one thousand eight hundred _GUR_ of sesame
and seven minas of silver, his due, to Babylon; and with them thy
trustworthy guard, and with all their property let them come and
appear before me.
The title which I have rendered “chief collector” may be read “scribe of
the merchants.” The sign _PA_, read _aklu,_ does in some of its
connections mean “scribe,” as _tamkaru_ does mean “merchant.” But the sign
often denotes merely an overseer. Hence we may take it that this was the
derived meaning. The reason may well be that over a group of shepherds or
merchants, one was always set who could keep accounts. Hence the term
_aklu_, properly a “scribe,” came to be an “overseer.” Such a high
official as the _PA Martu_ would be the Superintendent of Martu. The
person referred to in this letter, Shêp-Sin, occurs also in two other
letters of Ḥammurabi.(831) In one, Sin-iddinam is told to send him to
Babylon with money; in the other, he complains of not being able to
collect money due to a temple, and having to make up the deficit himself.