Chapter 18

(M522) The right to receive these was a valuable and negotiable asset. Thus we read of a right to five days per year in the temple of Nannar, sixteen days per year in the temple of Bêlit, and eight days in the shrine of Gula as being the _namḫar_ of Sin-imgurâni and Sin-uzili.(550) This was confirmed to them by a legal decision in the time of Rîm-Sin. We read also of a right to act as _šatammu_, for six days per month, in the temple of Shamash.(551) In later times the _mandidûtu_, or surveyorship, to the temple of Anu, Ib, and Bêlit-êkalli, exercised in the temple, storehouse, and field, was sold, shared, and pledged.(552) Another such right was given on condition that it was not sold for money, granted to another, pledged, nor diminished in any way, and should pass to the possessor’s daughter on his death.(553) The porter’s post at Bâb Salimu was given as a pledge. Shares in these incomes were regularly traded in, sold, and pledged.

(M523) The position of a priest, or other official, carried with it an endowment. On this point the Code is very explicit for the cases of the _ridû ṣâbê_ and the _bâ’iru_, officials charged with the collection of local quotas for the army and public works. They were recruiting sergeants, press-gang officers, and post-office officials. The office was endowed by royal grant. They were liable to be called on in the discharge of their duties to make lengthy journeys and be absent from home for a length of time, even years. In their absence, their duties could be delegated to a son, if old enough, otherwise a substitute was put in. They could claim reinstatement within a certain time. But their endowment was inalienable from the office and could not be treated as private property.

(M524) Quite similarly the great state officials in Assyria had endowments which were not personal, but went with the office. Thus we learn from the Ḥarran census that certain lands paid rent or crops to certain offices.

(M525) In later times the rights to income are very prominent, perhaps solely in virtue of the class of documents which has reached us. Occasionally we are able to learn exactly what they were. For example, the surveyor for the temple of Anu had a right to two _GUR_ of corn, two _GUR_ of dates, fifty _ḲA_ of wheat, six _ḲA_ of sesame, on every eighteen _ḲA_ of land. When the corn and dates were harvested, on one _GUR_, six _ḲA_ were levied.

(M526) It is not clear that a temple had any direct duties to the state. Peiser thinks that they collected dues for the state. Certainly they had attached to them the king’s storehouses. Certain amounts were paid in for certain state officials. In the Code of Ḥammurabi we see that a temple might be called upon to ransom a member of the town who had been taken captive.

(M527) In certain circumstances the king’s officials might borrow of the temples.(554) Thus Nikkal-iddina borrowed of the temple of Bêlit of Akkad a vessel of silver, weight fifteen minas, when the Elamites invaded the land.

(M528) Some kings laid hands on the treasures of the temple for their own use. Doubtless this was done under bond to repay. The cases in which we read of such practices are always represented as a wrong. When Shamash-shûm-ukîn sent the bribes to the King of Elam, Ummanigash, he spoiled the treasuries of Merodach at Babylon, of Nabû at Borsippa, and of Nêrgal at Cutha, and this was reckoned one of his evil deeds, which led to his downfall. But if he had been successful and had repaid his forced loans, doubtless it would have been excused, and his memory would have been blessed.

(M529) Much confusion is introduced by the fact that we do not know when a temple official acts in his own private capacity and when on behalf of the temple. The deeds, which do not expressly state that the money or property belongs to the god, or the temple, may often be only concerned with private transactions, but were preserved in the temple archives on account of the official position of the parties. But there are plenty of cases, where no doubt exists, to justify us in regarding the temple as acting in all the capacities of a private individual, or a firm of traders.

XXI. Donations And Bequests

(M530) Alienation of property might be complete or partial. Of complete alienation we may instance donation, sale, exchange, dedication, testament. The latter was rarely complete in Babylonia. Examples of partial alienation are loan, lease, pledge, deposit.

(M531) We may note as a common mark of all these transactions the care taken to fix and define ownership. The transfer is “from” A to B. In early times the property is usually first stated to belong to A. Then he is often said in Assyrian times to be the _bêlu_ of it, its full and legitimate owner. The new owner had to be satisfied that A was competent to part with it. This is often made clearer by saying, in later times, that no one else has any claim upon it. Hence arise guarantees against defeasor, redemptor, _et cetera_. This subject of guarantees is most interesting, though often obscure. The investigation of the varied rights which were likely to interfere with freedom of transfer is most important.

(M532) In certain cases we shall find a sort of hypothecation of property, as when it is assigned as security, but not given up. The possession is not free, but it is not alienated. We have also a _donatio retento usufructu_, which only gives a reversion of the property. Here also certain rights may be reserved against the ultimate possessor.

Another interesting point is that property may be credited to a man, and set off against other liabilities, so that he may never actually be in possession, but only nominally passing it on to others, and even, eventually, it may come back to the first owner, who may never part with it at all.

(M533) Undoubtedly men were at liberty in daily life to make presents one to another. But the rights of the family were so strong that for the most part all the property of the parents was jealously regarded as tied to the children, or other legal heirs. When a man died, his property was divided according to a rigid law of inheritance. When a woman left her father’s house to be married, the father gave her the share of his goods which fell to her, without waiting until his death to divide his substance. In this case she had nothing further at his death. But the property was not her husband’s, though he and she shared its use; it was entailed to her children. If she had none, it went back to her father’s house: to her brothers, if she had any, or to her father’s other heirs. Unless a man legally adopted his natural sons, they did not inherit. Hence neither man nor woman was wholly free to give. But, hedged about with consents and reservations, donations took place.

(M534) We have a great variety of types of donation, not always easy to classify, and often obscure, in some details. The common characteristics are that deeds of gift were duly executed, sealed, and witnessed; and that the consents of the parties, whose expectations were thus diminished, or restricted, had to be obtained.

(M535) A daughter might be portioned off for marriage and this involved a gift, which might be treated as a donation, but rather comes under the head of marriage-portion, in the chapter on marriage. Precisely the same portioning took place when the daughter either became a votary or was dedicated to the service of a god. Such gifts may be included here. They usually contain a list of property: sharing houses, land, slaves, jewels, money, clothes, household furniture, even pots of honey or jars of wine. As a rule, in our present state of knowledge, nothing that could pretend to be an accurate translation can be given of the items of such a gift, only a general idea of the nature of the whole. Such a gift, however, evidently set the lady up in an establishment of her own, with all she could require for maintenance and comfort for the rest of her life.

(M536) Here these donations split up into separate classes. The recipient might have only a life interest in her gift, or it might be hers outright. The latter case could not be presumed. The heirs of her parents, “her father’s house,” would maintain their claim at her death, unless they had specially contracted to waive it. Then the clause was inserted that she might “give her sonship to whomever she pleased,” _ašar eliša tâbum aplûtsa inadin_.(555) By “sonship” is meant “heirship.” Such cases do not seem common and are probably to be explained as due to the fact that as a votary she had no legitimate heir. It is important to note that there is no hint that, if she died without heirs, the temple would inherit.

(M537) A modified freedom is allowed by a father who gives his daughter house, land, sheep, slaves, and the like, but limits her power of gift to her brothers. But among them she may “give it to him who loves and serves her.”(556) It is assumed that one of her brothers will care for her and manage her estate and be rewarded by the reversion of it. As a rule, it is only a life interest which the recipient has.

A different sort of gift is where the donor reserves to himself a use of the property as long as he lives, or stipulates for a life allowance from it. These are usually accompanied by formal adoption. The recipient is one who has not already a claim to inherit, but undertakes the care or maintenance of the donor. Such gifts are best classed under adoption, even where the fact of adoption is not stated. When a parent makes an arrangement of this kind with a son or daughter, these were possibly adopted by a previous act. At any rate, it seems likely that such a child was either unmarried or again free to wait upon the donor. But whatever the actual state of relationships, we find a mother giving property to a daughter, reserving the use of it as long as she lives.(557) Similarly a brother undertakes to give one shekel _per annum_ to his brother. Here the grounds of the undertaking are not stated, but a contract to do this is duly sealed and witnessed.(558) Further, maintenance is stipulated for, though the relationship is not stated, nor grounds given. This may not be based upon a gift, but follow the order of some judge, for other reasons.(559)

(M538) The husband might settle upon his wife a fixed amount of property. This was frequently done and was called the _nudunnu_. It might include a house, two maids, clothes, jewelry, and household furniture.(560) Here the sons are expressly said to have no claim, she may give it to whoever serves her and “as her heart desires.” Probably she was a second wife without children, and is thus secured a life of comfort and the faithful service of her step-sons. As a rule these gifts are best considered under the head of marriage, but they were also free gifts on the donor’s part. The wife in any case had her right to inherit with her step-sons, if her husband made no such settlement.

(M539) The consent of the legal heirs of the donor to such alienation of their reversionary rights was needed. Thus in one case, when a man gives his daughter a house, his son appears as the first witness.(561) A father and his son give their daughter and sister a house, which she is free to give to her son, “whom she loves.”(562) Had the house merely come to her as her share in the usual way, it must have been shared by her sons. If she had none, then her brother would be the next heir. That she can leave it as she will must be a matter of legal instrument. The brother must consent to the exception to the rule.

(M540) In Assyrian times, donation is rarely represented within the group of documents which have reached us. Here is one case:(563)

The household which Bêl-nâ’id gave to his daughter, Baltêa-abate. A house in Nineveh, before the great gate of the temple of Shamash. (Then come the servants, a _šaḳu_ or head man, a washerman, a _šaknu_, and others, male and female, in all eleven souls.) Dated the fourteenth of Adar, in the Eponymy of Marduk-shar-uṣur. Nine witnesses.

This may be donation, or adoption, or even a marriage-portion.

At all times, a difficulty arises from the phraseology of the deeds of gift. When we are told that “A has given B such and such things,” we do not know the ground of the gift. “To give for money,” _nadânu ana kaspi_, is the usual expression for “to sell.” In the older documents _šarâḳu_, “to present,” often occurs, but has in most cases the derived technical sense “to dower,” or “give a marriage-portion.” Hence, we are not able to judge whether what appears as “gift” may not really be “a sale,” or some payment meant to complete the portioning off of a daughter, on marriage or taking vows.

(M541) There are, however, a large number of deeds of gift which have reached us from the Second Babylonian Empire. The characteristic formula may be taken to be _ina ḫûd libbišu iknukma pâni ušadgil_, “in the joy of his heart (_i.e._, of his own free will, implying that no consideration was taken _per contra_) he has sealed and placed at the disposal of.” As a rule, we may suspect these to be “gifts” to which the recipient had a right. Thus, mother to son,(564) brother to sister,(565) man to wife and daughter,(566) mother to daughter,(567) are not free from suspicion. But when a man gives maintenance to wife and son,(568) brother gives dower to sister,(569) father-in-law gives son-in-law arrears of his daughter’s dower,(570) and wherever there is a hint that the “gift” was a _nudunnû_, or a _šeriḳtu_, we may regard the case as not properly “donation,” but “dower.”

(M542) The following example shows the limitations on free gift that still remained in later times.(571) Zêrûtu had married and had a son, Shâpik-zêri. Then he had an intrigue with Nasikâtum, daughter of the Sealand scribe, who bore him a son, Balâṭu. He gave Balâṭu a house, but did not adopt him. After Zêrûtu died, Shâpik-zêri demanded the house as his father’s heir. The judges gave it to him and also the deed of gift.

(M543) The dedication of land to a temple or of a child to the service of a god may be considered as examples of free gift; but they are of a nature deserving separate consideration. We have already noticed some cases of such donations by the kings. We know from the Code that a father might dedicate a child as a votary,(572) and he might portion that child; but this did not bring a free gift to the temple, for the family had the reversion of the votary’s property.

As a further example of dedication by a private owner, we may take the following:(573)

(M544)

As temple of the god Lugalla (the king) and his consort Shullat, Nûr-ilishu, son of Bêl-nada, has dedicated to his god one _SAR_ of improved land, for his life (salvation), has devoted it to his god. Pî-sha-Shamash shall be the priest of the temple. Nûr-ilishu shall lay no claim to the priesthood. The curse of Shamash and of Sumulâ-ilu be on him who disputes the settlement. Seven witnesses.

This is total alienation. The donor is not making an indirect provision for himself, but waives all claims to be the chief priest of the temple.

(M545) Here is an example of a dedication of children:(574)

Tablet of Ishtar-ummi and Aḫatâni, daughters of Innabatum. Innabatum, daughter of Bur-Sin, has dedicated them to Shamash. As long as Innabatum lives, Ishtar-ummi and Aḫatâni shall support her, and after Innabatum, their mother [is dead], no one among her sons, their brothers, shall have any claim on them for anything whatever. They have sworn by Shamash, Malkat, Marduk, and Apil-Sin. Fifteen witnesses (of whom the first two are probably the brothers, the rest females, probably all votaries of Shamash and members of the convent.)

In another case, a mother dedicates her son to Shamash,(575) with the stipulation that the son shall support her as long as she lives.

(M546) In Assyrian times we have an example(576) of a dedication of a son to Ninip, by his mother, with consent of her brothers and their sons. A father also dedicates his son to Ninip(577) for the well-being of Ashurbânipal, King of Assyria. This is interesting as showing that the dedicator acquired merit, which he could transfer to another. Both tablets are defective. In another case, Aḫi-dalli, the lady governor of one quarter of Nineveh, purchases a large estate and presents it to some god “for the health of the king.”(578) Votive tablets giving the presentation of various articles to some god are common enough at all periods.

(M547) Testamentary devolution of property was not the rule in Assyria or Babylonia, where the law of inheritance was so firmly fixed that it would be naturally illegal. As a rule, children did not inherit under their fathers’ will, but by right. However, the Code allows a father to give his married or vowed daughter power to leave her property as she will,(579) and it is probable that he had the same power over at least some of his property. The very frequent cases of adoption, where the adopted child becomes heir, on condition of supporting the parent as long as he lives, and the cases of gift _retento usufructu_, are a sort of testamentary disposition of property.

This developed with time into something very like testament. But we always have to bear in mind that conditions may have been understood which are not actually expressed.

(M548) Some examples from later Babylonian times will serve to illustrate how near these transactions came to testament. A very interesting case is where a son, probably childless, if not unmarried, and perhaps not in good health, gives his father his property. The document is very involved, but the chief points are these: A married B and they had a daughter C, who married D. The son of C and D is the testator. He leaves to his father D all the property which he inherited from A and B, which they had left to their daughter’s son. It consisted of a house, fields, and slaves. He leaves it to his father “forever,” only he is to retain the enjoyment of it as long as he lives. He therefore expects his father to survive him.(580)

Here is another interesting example:(581)

The division which A made with his sons B and C. The benefice of dagger-bearer (official slaughterer) in the Ishḫara temple he assigns to B. The benefice of the shrine of Papsukal in the temple of Bêlit-shami-erṣiti, situated on the bank of the canal, and the sown corn-field on the Dubanîtu canal he gave to his younger son C. All his property out in business he assigned to his mother and his two sisters. Certain dates in the possession of two of his debtors he gave to his two sisters. A fugitive slave, not yet recovered, to his mother and sisters. The house, which by a former deed he had given to his mother and sisters, shall be theirs according to the former deed. As long as his mother lives, she shall enjoy the property formerly assigned her. The benefice of the dagger-bearership in the temple of Ishḫara, which he had formerly assigned to his mother, she has freely intrusted to his son B. As long as she lives, B and C shall live in the house with her. The income of his mother his sons shall enjoy with her. She shall give marriage-portions to his sisters, her daughters, from her own marriage-portion.

This is very like a last will and testament. The man clearly expected to die shortly. He had married and had two sons, but seems to have lost his wife. He had evidently brought his mother and sisters to live with him. He provides for his sons, his mother, and sisters. Evidently his mother is the guardian of the boys. She is expected to leave the boys all the property that was his and to dower the sisters from her own fortune.

XXII. Sales

(M549) Alienation of property in perpetuity was a matter for serious consideration, where all property was as much that of the family as of the individual. A change of ownership, particularly in the case of land or house, also directly concerned the neighbors. Hence the deeds of sale are imposing documents. Whether the object sold was a piece of land, a house, or a slave, the same general treatment was accorded to it.

(M550) There were the same formalities as in all deeds. First the purchaser approached the vendor and there was an interchange of ideas, often through a third party, prolonged over a considerable space of time. When etiquette had been satisfied and all the preliminary haggling was over, the parties agreed upon a scribe, who was made acquainted with the terms of the sale, already verbally agreed upon, and he set down in the imperishable clay the legal instrument which should bind the parties to their contract forever.

(M551) Undoubtedly both parties took a copy, and it seems clear that a third was deposited in the temple archives as a sort of registration of title. It seems probable that each party sealed the copy held by the other, but this surmise awaits confirmation. As a rule, the same seal seems to have been used for all copies, and the witnesses in early times also affixed their seals. A more exhaustive study must be made before this can be regarded as certain. Even where duplicates exist in our museums, it has been usual to publish only one.

(M552) As a rule, the scribe followed a very definite plan. First he made clear the identity of the property. This was the specification. In the case of land, neighbors were set down, boundaries given, in some cases the size of the plot. In each sale the specification is very important. The personal identity of the parties was usually sufficiently fixed by appending to their names those of their fathers. In many cases, the office or rank held by a party is added. Occasionally the name of the grandfather, or clan-father is added. When either party was a stranger, his nationality, or city, or tribe, is given. As a rule, the same information is attached to the names of witnesses. These notes of personal identity are very valuable, for they furnish means for reconstructing long genealogies, and they throw much light on the intercourse of varied peoples. Babylonia seems always to have had a very mixed population.

(M553) Having made it impossible for any mistake to arise as to the property sold or the parties concerned, the scribe proceeded to guard against errors regarding the nature of the transaction. The house or other property “was sold,” “the money paid,” “in full,” and so on. Then he sought to make it clear that there could be no withdrawal from the bargain, nor after-claims raised. There was danger that the family might put in a claim to the property. An illustration of this is a suit brought to reclaim a house sold, which was the claimant’s reversion—an actual redemption of ancestral property. From such perils the buyer was protected by heavy penalties on the seller, who in fact engaged to indemnify him.

(M554) These and many other complicated questions must have long been the subject of consideration in Babylonian legal circles. As a consequence, the scribe usually drew up the deed, in set terms, with a formula consecrated by long use, every turn of which was important.

The following is a good example of the way a scribe drew up a deed of sale:(582)

(M555)

Tappum, son of Iarbi-ilu, “has bought two _GAN_ of field, in the Isle, next to the field of Ḥasri-kuttim, and the field of Sin-abushu, son of Ubar-Ishtar, from Salatum, daughter of Apilia, the _GI-A-GI_ (?) and has paid its full price in silver. The business is completed, the contract is valid, his heart is content. In future, man with man, neither shall take exception. By the name of Shamash, Marduk, Sin-mubaliṭ and the city of Sippara, they swore.”

Then follows a list of about twenty witnesses, the names of whose fathers are also given. Usually the date is added. Here, however, it is either omitted or has been lost.