work and the army, doubtless often found a difficulty in making up their
quota, and impressed men who were not strictly liable for duty. Such men
as those called _KA-DUR_, _KAPAR_, _MU_, _PATESI_, are named on the
letters as exempt from the service. But even this is not conclusive. They
are not exempted because they are of these ranks, but because they have
been wrongly assigned to the service. Their masters may have been exempt
from the liability to furnish a man; or already engaged in royal service.
Slaves and poor men were subject, as we know from the Code. Here is one of
the letters on the question:(832)
To Sin-iddinam say, thus saith Ḥammurabi: Naram-Sin, the shepherd,
hath said thus, saith he, “The herdsmen in my hands have been put
in the _corvée_.” Thus he said. The herdsmen which are the
property of Apil-Shamash and Naram-Sin shall not be put in the
_corvée_. Now summon Etil-bi-Marduk and the officials and order
them to return the herdsmen of Apil-Shamash and Naram-Sin, whom
they have taken.
Here the _KABAR_, or herdsmen, are the employees of the shepherd, his
“sheep-boys.” Their absence would be a danger to the flocks. The
delinquent Etil-bi-Marduk was often in fault. Several other complaints
against him appear in the letters, in his capacity of money-lender.(833)
On two occasions he was sent for by the king, evidently with a view to
punishment. Further, a _patêsi_ in his service appealed to be transferred
to another master.(834)
III. The Letters Of Samsu-Iluna And His Immediate Successors
(M773) The discovered letters of Samsu-iluna are as yet comparatively few.
They are not all addressed to one man. We may take one or two specimens.
(M774) Like his father Ḥammurabi, Samsu-iluna cared for the health of the
goddesses, providing them with an occasional change of scene. This time it
is the goddess Anunitum, who makes a journey:(835)
To Haiab ... say, thus saith Samsu-iluna: Concerning Anunitum’s
going to Sippar-edina, I have sent an officer. Forthwith let
Anunitum go to Sippar-edina.
The name of the official to whom the letter is sent is broken and it could
be completed in several different ways. Sippar-edina was one quarter of
Sippara.
(M775) The following letter is concerned with the supply of corn for the
Shamash temple at Larsa. It is addressed to three officials:(836)
To Sin-ilu, Bîtu-rabi, and Nîḳ-Sin say, thus saith Samsu-iluna:
The corn for the treasure-house of the temple of Shamash of Larsa,
the property of Igmil-Sin which ye deliver, verily ye shall
deliver. Forthwith, from the corn that is in your hands, give corn
for the supply of food for the treasure-house of the temple of
Shamash; what is now standing due make up.
The “treasure-house” may be only a “store-house” in general. Instead of
“make up,” we may render “buy.”
(M776) Samsu-iluna looked into the details of his government quite as
closely as his father. We see him regulating fishing rights:(837)
To Sin-iddinam, Kâr-Sippar, and the judges of Sippara, say, thus
saith Samsu-iluna: They tell me that the ships of the fishermen go
down to the districts of Rabî and Shamkâni and catch fish. I am
sending an official of the palace-gate; when he shall reach thee
[summon] the ships of the fishermen (who have been catching fish)
in the districts of Rabî and Shamkâni, and let it not occur again
that the ships of the fishermen go down to the districts of Rabî
and Shamkâni.
Clearly each district owned its own fishing rights, as it was responsible
for the repairs of the banks and scouring the beds of the water-ways in
it. It is far from unlikely that Kâr-Sippar denotes some ruling body in
Sippara, for in the contracts we find that cases were brought before the
Kâr-Sippar. As they are associated with the judges of Sippara, they may be
the town elders. Sin-iddinam here is hardly the official of Larsa to whom
Ḥammurabi usually wrote, though he might have been promoted to Sippara in
the meantime.
(M777) Two other letters were addressed to him by Samsu-iluna,(838) one
about corn due from certain persons, the other about a contingent of men
sent to strengthen the walls of Sippar-Amnanu. In another letter, the king
summons to Babylon, Sin-iddinam, Ibni-Marduk, the Kâr-Sippar, and the
judges of Sippara, but the letter(839) is too defaced for us to determine
the reason. It was to be “at seed-time.”
(M778) The letters of Abêshu’ are somewhat more numerous. Mr. King
published thirteen. They are all more or less defective, and add nothing
to our knowledge beyond the fact that the same policy of centralization
went on.
(M779) The letters of Ammi-ditana, two in number, are more interesting.
One deals with the supply of corn for men at work on the citadel of
Shagga, a town probably near Sippara. The king orders the authorities of
Sippara to make up and send on the supply, and adds that the soothsayers
were to be consulted as to favorable auspices for sending the corn.(840)
The other deals, as do three letters of Abêshu’, with tribute due in wool
from Sippar-iaḫruru. The report from the superintendent of this source of
revenue in each case is that the tribute is over-due and the king sends a
peremptory order for it to be sent forthwith to Babylon.
(M780) Ammi-zadûga’s letters, five in number, all happen to be concerned
with the annual sheep-shearing at Babylon. They differ slightly, in the
person addressed, and the date assigned for the shearing. Thus one(841)
reads:
To Ibni-Sin, son of Marduk-nâṣir, say, thus saith Ammi-zadûga: A
sheep-shearing will take place in the House of the New Year’s
Festival. On receipt of this note, take the sheep ... and the
sheep which are sealed, which thou shall set in motion, and come
to Babylon. Delay not, reach Babylon on the first of Adar.
(M781) The one letter written by Sin-iddinam(842) is addressed to the
_rabiânu_ of Katalla, ordering him to send the plaintiff in a suit to him.
Very interesting is a letter from Tabbi-Wadi and Mâr-Shamash to Aḫâti, the
wife of Sin-iddinam,(843) asking her to intercede for them with
Sin-iddinam. He had himself referred them to her, perhaps because their
offence immediately concerned her. They say that they are ill acquainted
with the ways of the court. From several unusual forms of expression it
may be concluded that they were strangers who had settled in Babylonia.
They do not state either their offence or the grounds on which they would
be excused, but ask for an interview, that they may remove Aḫâti’s
resentment against them.
(M782) Some letters are addressed to “the man whom may Marduk make to
flourish.”(844) Some have taken this as a proper name. But that seems very
unlikely. Others regard it as a sort of polite address to a superior.
Winckler(845) suggested that it was an address to the king. The Code has
made it clear that the _amêlu_ was the “gentleman,” or “noble,” who lived
in a “palace,” or “great house.” Hence, these letters may be addressed to
any great official. But many turns of expression support the view that the
king is really meant; he was thus the “First Gentleman” of Babylonia. It
was not till Ḥammurabi that the title “king” was generally given. Perhaps
the old nobles were slow to admit a king over them.
(M783) As an example we may take:(846)
To “the man whom may Marduk make to flourish” say, thus saith
Ashtamar-Adadi: May Shamash and Marduk ever make thee flourish.
The gardeners, inhabitants of Sippara, have spoken concerning
their servants who fled and have been recaptured. Therefore I have
sent a note thus to thee, I sent those men to thee. Accept their
petition (?) and may they be acceptable to thee before Shamash.
Grant their entreaty and set them free. If they come not to
Babylon, do this in my name.
It is probable that recaptured runaway slaves, who would not name their
owners, were forfeit to the State. The king is the only one who would have
power to release such slaves. It is clear that the recipient of the letter
was at Babylon.
IV. Private Letters Of The First Dynasty Of Babylon
(M784) In these cases, as a rule, we know neither the sender nor receiver,
beyond their names, and what we can gather from the letter itself. Hence a
great deal must always remain uncertain. Here is a letter which comes from
a prisoner, who says he is nearly starved and does not know why he was
imprisoned:(847)
(M785)
To my lord say, thus saith Bêlshunu, thy servant: From the time
that I was shut up in the house of the _abarakku_, thou, my lord,
hast kept me alive. What is the reason that my lord has neglected
me for five months? The house where I am imprisoned is a
starvation-house. Now have I made the jailer carry a letter to my
lord. When thou, my lord, shalt make an end of my misery, send,
and the imprisonment, since it has been ended by thee, I will
cause to conduce to thy blessing (I will even thank thee for). I
am ill ... ten _ḲA_ of _SU-DA_, thirty-one _ḲA ZAG-ḤI-LI_ ... two
_ḲA SAR-SAR EL-SAR_ send me that I die not; and clothing send me
that I may cover my nakedness. A _ḫubidu_ has come upon me on
account of thee, my lord. Either half a shekel of silver, or two
minas of wool, send to me, for my service, let him bring it. Let
not the jailer be sent away empty-handed. If he comes
empty-handed, the dogs may eat me. As thou, my lord, and the
people of Sippara and Babylon, all of them know, I am imprisoned,
not for robbery, nor was I caught at burglary. Thou, my lord,
didst send me with oil across the river, but the Sutû fell upon me
and I was imprisoned. Speak a friendly word to the servants of the
king’s _abarakku_. Send, that I die not in the house of misery.
Send a _ḲA_ of oil and five _ḲA_ of salt. That which thou didst
lately send no one gave me. Whatsoever thou sendest, send it
fastened up (?).
There are many obscurities about this letter. Some are caused by the
difficulty of reading the defaced characters. Some by the fact that the
signs, printed here in capitals, are ideograms whose meaning is not yet
clear. The prisoner, if his plea is true, was sent on an errand for his
master, apparently to trade for him. He was either robbed by the nomad
Sutû, or compelled to give up his oil to them. Why this led to
imprisonment is not clear, unless it was regarded as furnishing supplies
to the enemy. But though his master did not get him out of prison, it
seems that he had sent him supplies from time to time. The word rendered
“jailer” is perhaps a name, Mâr-abulli, “son of the gate.” But it may be a
title used as a name, “Mr. Jailer.” The prisoner thinks that it is in the
power of his master to put an end to his imprisonment and promises to be
grateful. But he does not seem sure whether his master can do this. He
asks, however, for further supplies, if he is to live. Let us hope he was
released or at least fed. We may perhaps conclude that imprisonment was
the punishment due for robbery and burglary.
(M786) Here is a letter reminding a father of a broken promise:(848)
To my father say, thus saith Elmeshu: Shamash and Marduk fill with
well-being the days of my father perpetually. My father, be thou
well, flourish; the God that preserves my father direct my
father’s source of grace. I have sent to greet my father. May my
father’s peace endure before Shamash and Marduk. From the time
that Sin Amurrû named my father’s name, and I answered for my
fault, thou, my father, didst say, “When I shall go to
Dûr-Ammi-zadûga, which is on the River Sharḳu, I will forward a
sheep and five minas of silver, in a little while, to thee.” This
thou saidest, my father, and my expectation was from my father.
But thou hast not sent; and now, my father, thou hast returned to
the presence of Taribu, the Queen. I have sent a note to my
father’s presence. My father, thou shalt not ask the purport of my
note, until Lashêr has brought me my father’s note. My father has
not sent one to bring even a single shekel, in accordance with thy
promise. Like Marduk and Sin Amurrû, who hearken to my father, my
ears are attentive. Let my father send and let not my heart be
vexed. Before Shamash and Marduk, may I pray for my father.
The letter suggests that the father was king, by the phrase so common in
the historical inscriptions, “named his name,” usually equivalent to
“nominated” to rule. The word rendered “fault” is _sardu_, which may be
for _sartu_. There is nothing to show whether Elmeshu is a man or woman.
There was an Elmeshu (the name means “Diamond”) who was daughter of
Ammi-ditana.(849) But the mention of Dûr-Ammi-zadûga seems to demand a
date at least as late as that in which this wall or city was built. But
Ammi-zadûga succeeded Ammi-ditana. Unless the latter built Dûr-Ammi-zadûga
and called it after his son, we can hardly identify this Elmeshu with the
daughter of Ammi-ditana. The mention of Sin Amurrû is not quite clear. We
may suppose two gods, Sin and Amurrû, or take the latter name as an
epithet, “Sin of the Amorites.” To have “the ears attentive,” is to be in
a state of expectation. In the last sentence, Elmeshu seems to hint that,
if she does not have a favorable answer, she will not be able to pray for
her father. This may be regarded as an un-Christian attitude, but people
then thought more of the efficacy of prayer; and it was a threat, if so
meant, likely to have great weight with the father. But it may mean that
Elmeshu being vowed to a religious life, yet needed material means to
maintain her alive, and she merely hopes, by her father’s continued
sustenance of her, to be long spared to pray for him.
(M787) Another letter is apparently from a tenant, or serf, to his
landlord:(850)
To my lord say, thus saith Ibgatum thy servant: As, my lord, thou
hast heard, the enemy has carried off my oxen. Never before have I
sent to thee, my lord. Now I have caused a letter to be brought to
thee, my lord. Do thou, my lord, send me one young cow. I will
weigh out and send five shekels of silver to thee, my lord. My
lord, what thou sayest, under the command of Marduk, thy
protector, what pleases thee, no one can hinder thee, my lord. My
lord, do thou make her worth the five shekels of silver that I
have weighed out and sent to thee. Do thou, my lord, treat
seriously this request, do not trifle with my wish. Let my lord
not wonder at this request, which I send my lord. I am thy
servant. I will do thy will, my lord. As to the young cow, which
thou, my lord, dost send, let her be on credit, and either to
Baṣu, or wherever is convenient to my lord, do thou send. With
Ili-iḳîsham, my brother, let the young cow come. And I, in order
that my lord should quickly consent and send the young cow, will
forthwith weigh out and send fifteen shekels of silver to thee, my
lord.
Evidently, the wise man sent only five shekels on deposit with his
brother, holding back the rest of the price, till he had seen what sort of
a cow he was to get for his money. It was from this letter that
Winckler(851) deduced a meaning for _ṣamâdu_ something like “weigh out,”
“pay,” whence a better meaning for _ṣimittu_ than “yoke” was readily
obtained. As Dr. Peiser pointed out, the word is also used in the
Cappadocian tablets in a way that leaves small doubt of its meaning. It
may have come to mean simply “pay,” but must have ordinarily meant
“measure,” or “weigh,” according as it was applied to grain, or money.
(M788) Here is a very interesting example showing how the merchants of
those days transacted business at a distance:(852)
To Erib-Sin say, thus saith Ibni-Nabû, I am here (?): As to the
case of Ardi-ilishu, son of Ibni-Dibbara, I gave him two-thirds of
a mina of silver, and it was acknowledged in writing, in the
presence of my witnesses. He went to Assyria. He did not give the
money to Shamaiatu. I and Shamaiatu met in Daganna and disputed
over the affair. Said I, “I sent thee money by Ardi-ilishu.” He
said, “If Ardi-ilishu has paid the money, let him [_here come some
uncertain signs_].” And concerning what thou didst send about
Shamash-bêl-ilâni’s fourteen shekels, I did not give him the
money. There is two-thirds of a mina due from Ardi-ilishu; take
Ardi-ilishu and cause him to weigh out the money, and its
interest, more or less, and from that take the fourteen shekels
and send the surplus.
The two, Erib-Sin and Ibni-Nabû, are either partners, or agents. The
former had asked the latter to pay over fourteen shekels to a certain
Shamash-bêl-ilâni, either because the latter had money of his, or had
promised to honor his order. But this particular order was not honored.
Ibni-Nabû had intrusted a sum of forty shekels to one Ardi-ilishu, with
which to pay Shamaiatu. But Ardi-ilishu had gone off to Assyria without
discharging the obligation. So Shamaiatu had demanded payment and perhaps
the doubtful signs express the fact that Ibni-Nabû had to pay a second
time. Fortunately, he could prove that Ardi-ilishu had had the money,
having taken a receipt. He seems to think that Erib-Sin can find
Ardi-ilishu. Was the former resident in Assyria? If so, this must be a
copy of the letter sent him. But perhaps Erib-Sin was to arrest the
defaulter on his return to Sippara. At any rate, this was a warrant for so
doing. That, perhaps, is why the letter was kept. If Erib-Sin could get
forty shekels and the interest, he had a fair margin from which to pay the
fourteen shekels, due to him from Ibni-Nabû. But he had to take risks. If
Shamash-bêl-ilâni had given Erib-Sin consideration for his order on
Ibni-Nabû for fourteen shekels, he was badly served.
(M789) Here is a letter, warning a man of a suit brought against him in
his absence:
To my lord, say, thus saith Sin-taiar: May Shamash and Marduk give
thee health. As to the case of the field about which thou didst
send, belonging to the sons of Sin-rêmêni, which is in Bitûtu,
which my lord sold me for five minas of silver; Sin-aḫam-iddinam,
Marduk-taiar, and Nabû-malik, have gone about to the king, and
have turned over this title to Nûr-parim. Hasten, come, save thy
title from Nûr-parim.
The word of most difficulty is _nistu_, rendered “title.” It may mean
something different, but the “title” seems the most likely thing to be
disputed.
(M790) A letter to a father from an absent son(853) is interesting for its
personal character:
To my father say, thus saith Zimri-eraḫ, may Shamash and Marduk
give thee health forever. Be thou well. I have sent for thy
health. Tell me how thou art. I am located at Dûr-Sin on the canal
Kashtim-sikirim. There is no meat fit to eat. Now I have made them
bring two-thirds of a shekel of silver to thee. For this money
send some nice fish and something to eat.
(M791) The following is what may be fairly described as a love-letter,
though the real relation between the correspondents is not certain:(854)
To Bibêa say, thus saith Gimil-Marduk: May Shamash and Marduk for
my sake preserve thy health forever. I have sent for thy health.
Tell me how thou art. I went to Babylon and did not see thee. I
was greatly disappointed. Send me the reason of thy leaving, and
let me be cheered. In Marchesvan do thou come. For my sake keep
well always.
It is certain that Bibêa was a lady, perhaps the writer’s wife.
(M792) The interest which these ancient letters inspire in us was felt in
the seventh century B.C., for there are two Assyrian copies of early
Babylonian letters, preserved in the remains of Ashurbânipal’s library.
One was a letter from the Babylonian King Adadi-shum-uṣur to Ashur-nirari
and Nabûdaian, kings of Assyria, about B.C. 1250.(855) It is too
fragmentary to translate. Another(856) is a letter from a King of Assyria
to his father, who is King of Babylon. The names are lost, and its
contents cannot now be made out. It was a copy made for Ashurbânipal, and
has his “library mark.”(857)
V. Sennacherib’s Letters To His Father, Sargon
(M793) Among the Ninevite collections we can single out several periods
where the history is supplemented by the letters. Thus Sennacherib’s
letters to his father, Sargon, chiefly deal with events in Armenia, which
must have transpired during Sargon’s last few years, when his annals and
other historical inscriptions are silent. This view of them was first
worked out by the present writer,(858) and later with increased material
by R. C. Thompson.(859) Briefly put, the argument from them is this: a
person called Sennacherib, who might be any officer from the times of
Sargon onward, writes to the king, whom he does not address as his father,
on the reports which have reached him from a number of officials,
concerning events in Armenia. We have, however, two letters which refer to
the same events, naming the same officials and certainly from the same
Sennacherib. In one of them he is twice referred to as the king’s son. The
officials named are all found in documents of the reign of Sargon, or the
early part of Sennacherib’s reign. The King of Armenia is named Argista in
one of these reports to the king, which belongs to the same group. The
King of Assyria himself is said to be at Babylon at the time. One report
quoted comes from Tabal, and is brought by the major-domo of the Princess
Aḫat-abisha, probably the daughter of Sargon, who was married by him to
the King of Tabal. We have independent copies of these reports, quoted by
Sennacherib, which enlarge our knowledge of the events. Hence, there can
be no doubt that we have here Sennacherib’s letters to his father, Sargon,
while that king was absent in Babylonia. We are, therefore, able to
reconstruct a chapter of Assyrian history, on which the historical
monuments have nothing to say. The first letter reads thus:(860)
(M794)
To the king, my lord, thy servant Sennacherib. Peace be to the
king, my lord. There is peace in Assyria, peace in the temples,
peace in all the fortresses of the king. May the heart of the
king, my lord, be abundantly cheered. The land of the Ukkai has
sent to me, saying, when the King of Armenia came to the land of
Gamir, his forces were utterly defeated; he, his commanders, and
their forces were driven off; [_then comes a broken space from
which the few traces left refer to __“__two commanders,__”__
someone who __“__came,__”__ someone or something __“__was
captured,__”__ someone __“__came to me,__”__ something __“__of his
country,__”__ something __“__he appointed.__”_] This was the news
from the land of the Ukkai. Ashur-riṣûa has sent, saying, “News
from Armenia. What I sent before, that is so. A great slaughter
took place among them. Now his land is quiet. His nobles are dead.
He has come into his own land. Ḳaḳḳadânu, his tartan, is taken,
and the King of Armenia is in the land of Uazaun.” This is the
news from Ashur-riṣûa. Nabû-li’, the commander of Ḥalṣu, has sent
to me, saying, “Concerning the garrisons of the fortresses which
are on the border, I sent to them for news of the King of Armenia.
They report that when he came to the land of Gamir, his forces
were all slain, three of his nobles together with their forces
were killed, he himself fled and entered into his own land; but
that as yet his camp is not attacked.” This is the news from
Nabû-li’. The King of Muṣaṣir, his brother, and his son, have gone
to greet the King of Armenia. A messenger from Ḥupushkia has gone
to greet him. The garrisons of the fortresses which are on the
boundary all send news like this. The letter of Nabû-li’, the
major-domo of Aḫat-abisha, brought from Tabal; to the king, my
lord, I have sent it on.
(M795) The second letter(861) began in exactly the same way, so far as one
can judge from the traces of the first seven lines. As before, Sennacherib
quotes reports, which he has received, in the sender’s own words. From
what is left of the first report we learn that the King of Armenia had
ordered the forces at his command to capture the commanders of the King of
Assyria and bring them alive to him. The city of Kumai is named as the
place where these commanders were. As yet the sender “is cut off” and has
not withdrawn from his post. But, as he has heard, so he has sent to the
king’s son:
“Now let him quickly send forces. This is the news from Ariê: On
the fourteenth of Elul, a letter came to me from Ashur-riṣûa,
saying that the King of Armenia, when the Zikirtai brought things
to him, at least obtained nothing, they returned empty-handed;
that he went to the city Uesi with his forces and entered it, that
his forces are in the city Uesi, that he and his forces are few,
that they are with him with their possessions.”
This seems to be the end of Ashur-riṣûa’s news. A few traces refer to news
from the Mannai concerning some “letter,” “as yet” something has “not”
happened.