Chapter 16

(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)

(M469) A celebrated passage in Sargon’s cylinder(476) says, “according to 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