Chapter 17

(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.

(M501) The importance of the temple was partially the result of the large dues paid to it. These consisted primarily of a _ginû_, or fixed customary daily payment, and a _sattukku_, or fixed monthly payment. How these arose is still obscure. They were paid in all sorts of natural products, paid in kind, measured by the temple surveyor on the field. Doubtless, these were due from temple lands, and grew out of the endowments given to the temple. These often consisted of land, held in perpetuity by a family, charged with a payment to the temple. The land could not be let or sold by the temple, nor by the family. Such land was usually freed from all other state dues. The endowment was thus at the expense of the state. An enormous number of the tablets which have reached us from the later Babylonian times concern the payment of these dues. They mostly consisted of corn and sesame, or other offerings, and the tablets are receipts for them. In Assyrian times the _ginû_ also included flesh of animals and birds. In some few cases we have long lists of these daily dues, accompanied by precious gifts in addition. The gifts were perishable, but were accompanied by a note specifying them, and the good wishes or purpose of the donor.(538) These notes were preserved as mementos of the donor’s good-will.

(M502) Temples, however, also possessed lands which they could let. They also held houses which they might let.(539) In fact, the temples could hold any sort of property, but apparently could not alienate any. Some lands the temple officials administered themselves, having their own work-people. We have mention of these lands from the earliest times (_e.g._, the very early tablet referred to above),(540) right down through the Sumerian period. We have almost endless temple accounts, many of which relate to the fields of the temple, giving their dimensions and situation, with the names of the tenants, or serfs, and the rents or crops expected of them. Then, in the First Dynasty of Babylon, we find the lands, gardens, courts, _et cetera_, of the gods named. We no longer have the temple accounts, but the private business transactions of the citizens, whose neighbors are often the gods themselves, as direct land-owners. In Assyrian times the mention of temple lands is very common. In later Babylonian times there is abundant evidence of the same custom. Dr. Peiser devotes a considerable portion of the introduction to his _Babylonische Verträge_ to this subject. How the temple became possessed of these lands we do not know. We do know of large gifts of land by kings, rich land-owners and the like, but we do not know whether originally the temple started with land. When a king speaks of building a temple to a god, we may understand that he really rebuilt it, or erected a new temple on the site. Before kings, the _patêsis_ did the same. But did a _patêsi_ precede a temple or _vice versâ_? and did the first founder, or the town, grant the first temple lands?

(M503) The temples had further a variable revenue from private sources. There were many gifts and presents given voluntarily, often as thank-offerings. The temple accounts give extensive lists of these from the earliest times to the latest. They were of all sorts, most often food or money. But they were often accompanied by some permanent record, a tablet, vase, stone or metal vessel, inscribed with a votive inscription. These form our only materials for history in long spaces of time.

(M504) Sacrifices were, of course, largely consumed by the offerers and those invited to share the feast. But the temple took its share. The share was a fixed or customary right to certain parts. For one example, the temple of Shamash at Sippara had its fixed share of the sacrifice, taking “the loins, the hide, the rump, the tendons, half the abdominal viscera and half the thoracic viscera, two legs, and a pot of broth.” The usage was not the same at all temples. In the temple of Ashur and Bêlit at Nineveh we have a different list.(541) For the parallels with Mosaic ritual, and the Marseilles sacrificial tablet, see Dr. J. Jeremias, _Die Cultus Tafel von Sippar_. The list was drawn up by Nabû-aplu-iddin, King of Babylon B.C. 884-860.(542)

(M505) This was of course a variable source of income, depending upon the popularity of the cult and the population of the district. It was also perishable and could not be stored. It is certain that in some cases this source of income was so large that the temple sold its share for cash.(543) This must be carefully distinguished from the _ginû_ and _sattukku_ mentioned on page 208, which were constant and regular supplies.

(M506) The temple was also a commercial institution of high efficiency. Their accumulations of all sorts of raw products were enormous. The temple let out or advanced all kinds of raw material, usually on easy terms. To the poor, as a charity, advances were made in times of scarcity or personal want, to their tenants as part of the metayer system of tenure, to slaves who lived outside its precincts, and to contractors who took the material on purely commercial terms. The return was expected in kind, to the full amount of advance, or with stipulated interest. Also in some cases, especially wool and other clothing stuffs, in made-up material. Definite fabrics, mostly garments and rugs or hangings, were expected back. Some quantity was needed for garments and vestments for temple officials, some for the gods. But a great deal was used for trade. We have references to temple treasuries and storehouses from the earliest times to the latest.

(M507) The temples did a certain amount of banking business. By this we mean that they held money on deposit against the call of the depositor. Whether they charged for safekeeping or remunerated themselves by investing the bulk of their capital, reserving a balance to meet calls, does not yet appear. But the relatively large proportion of loans, where the god is said to be owner of the money, points to investment as the source of a considerable income. Here a careful distinction must be made between the loans without interest, or with interest only charged in default of payment to time, and those where interest is charged at once. The latter are banking business, the former were probably only the landlord’s bounden duty to his tenant by the custom of his tenure. The temples also bought and sold for profit.

(M508) The greater officials, of course, appear often at court. The king was accompanied by a staff of priestly personages. They frequently appear in the inscriptions and on the monuments. His court reproduced that of the gods above. The officials in one answered, man for man and office for office, with those above.

(M509) The king, by his religion, could do nothing without religious sanction. The support of the priestly party was essential. In the more unsettled times they were to a great extent king-makers. To estrange the priests was a dangerous policy always. Besides their immense wealth they had the sanctions of religion on their side. To all men certain things were right, and the priests then had what right there was on their side. A king was under obligation to come to Babylon to take the hands of Bêl-Merodach each New Year’s Day. If he did not, he not only offended the priests, but also committed a wrong in the eyes of his people.

(M510) But the kings were often inclined to rely upon conjurers, soothsayers, magicians, and the like. It would be a fatal mistake to confuse these with the priests. The best kings were those who set their face against magic and supported the more rational local or national worships. Sargon II., Esarhaddon, Nebuchadrezzar II., are examples of the latter, while Ashurbânipal is a great example of the magic-ridden kings. Ḥammurabi apparently strove to put down magic. The eternal struggle between the “science” (falsely so-called) of magic and divination on the one hand and the higher claims of religious duty on the other, is the key to much that is misunderstood in the politics of the time. It would be too much to say that the priestly party were always on the side of morality, or that they were not often allied with the soothsayers, but it is certain that what ethical progress there was, was due to them. In religious texts alone have we aspiration after higher ideals. Who can fancy a wizard troubled about ethics?

(M511) The priest proper, _šangû_, was a person of the highest rank. He appears very little on the whole. His chief function was to act as mediator between god and man, as over the sacrifice offered.

(M512) He had public duties outside his priestly office. He inspected canals.(544) He often acted as a judge.

(M513) There was a college of priests attached to some temples, over which was a _šangû maḫḫu_ or “high-priest.”

(M514) The general idea that _mašmašu_, “charmer”; _kalû_, “restrainer”; (?) _maḫḫû_, “soothsayer”; _surru_; _lagaru_; _šâ’ilu_, “inquirer”; _mušêlu_, “necromancer”; _âšipu_, “sorcerer”; all properly “magicians,” are subdivisions of the general term _šangû_, is yet to be proved. Except when, in rare cases, the same man was both, the scribes carefully distinguish them. The idea seems to arise from the same modern confusion of thought which starts by calling an unknown official first a eunuch, then a priest. We do not yet fully know the functions or methods of these officials. They remain to be studied.(545)

(M515) The _ḳêpu_, or “warden,” was over the temple servants. He let the temple lands. He inspected the temple slaves and work-people.(546)

(M516) The _šatammu_ was over the revenues. This name is clearly connected with the _šutummu_ or storehouse.

Certain officials, as surveyors or measurers, scribes, _et cetera_, may have been of priestly rank and held these offices as well. But as a rule, a man appears with an official title, without our being able to see whether he was a priest or not.

(M517) The temple kept its artificers, who had board and wages. It had its serfs, or land laborers, not actual slaves, but free except for their duty to the temple. They lived on the produce of their holdings, subject to a fixed, or produce-rent.

There were temple slaves, who performed the menial offices without wages, but were clothed and fed.

Within these classes doubtless came some of those who appear as slaughterers, water-carriers, doorkeepers, bakers, weavers, and the like. A temple also had its shepherds, cultivators, irrigators, gardeners, _et cetera_; but it is far from easy to determine the exact degree of dependence in each case.

The temple even had its own doctor.(547)

(M518) In all these cases we may compare the monastic institutions of the Middle Ages. We are not as a rule able to see whether they were “lay brothers,” or had become “clerics,” as well as “clerks.” But there is no sign of celibacy. Even the priests were married.

Attached to the temple were votaries.(548) In not a few cases the above offices might also be held by women, even such an office as surveyor might be held by a woman. There were many female “clerks.” All the temple staff were maintained by the temple, boarded, fed, and clothed, at the temple expense. But private persons might undertake to keep a definite temple official, perhaps were bound to do so, by the terms of some endowment.(549)

(M519) The right to serve in certain offices was hereditary in some families. As these multiplied, the office was held in turn by members of the family for a short time, so that it may well be that an individual priest only exercised his functions for a very limited part of the year.

(M520) Great families took their clan name from their office; for example, the Gula priests in later Babylonian times, or as the _mandidu_, “measurer,” or “surveyor,” attached to a temple, became a clan name.

(M521) Hence arose property in temple incomes. That these were considerable we know from the lists of temple accounts. These form the bulk of the earliest documents. From them we learn that each day certain officials received certain allowances, mostly food and drink. From later documents we learn that men apparently not connected with the temple had become lay impropriators of the temple allowances originally intended only for temple officers.