Chapter 22

(M661) As the pledge did not always leave the debtor’s possession, the creditor only had a lien upon it. Hence the giver of the pledge had to guarantee that no creditor had a previous lien upon it. This is also extremely common. A slave pledged for debt might run away. His labor as the offset against the interest was thus annulled. The borrower then becomes liable for the interest lost to the creditor.(713)

XXV. Wages Of Hired Laborers

(M662) Despite the existence of slaves, who were for the most part domestic servants, there was considerable demand for free labor in ancient Babylonia. This is clear from the large number of contracts relating to hire which have come down to us. The variability of the terms agreed upon is witness for the existence of competition. As a rule, the man was hired for the harvest and was free directly after. But there are many examples in which the term of service was different—one month, half a year, or a whole year.

(M663) One might hire labor from the master of a slave, or from the parents of a young man, not yet independent, and then the wages were small, a shekel or two. These wages were paid to the master or parents, not to the laborer himself.

Reapers for the harvest had half a shekel,(714) or two shekels,(715) each. The first may be the daily wages, the latter the price for a specific job. It is probable that the _GUR_ of corn for ten days also represents the wages for the whole period.(716)

(M664) Average wages have been estimated by Meissner(717) to be six shekels per year, according to the Code, and some actual examples of contracts. But it was evidently a matter of agreement, for we have rates as low as four shekels and as high as eight. Usually the employer paid down a sum, for example, a shekel, as earnest-money; the rest was paid by a monthly or daily rate, or in a lump sum at the end of the term of service. Occasionally the wages might be paid down at the start, but this was rare and the amount less.

(M665) Very frequently, of course, the wages were paid in corn instead of money. Many difficulties lie in the way of finding an equivalent of the shekel in corn. Harvest labor was probably far dearer than any other, because of its importance, the skill and exertion demanded, and the fact that so many were seeking for it at once. Further, after harvest, when the wages were paid, corn was at its lowest price. Meissner’s actual examples show that two hundred and fifty _ḲA_ might be accepted as yearly wages. We have such a variety of rates that it is difficult to draw any clear conclusion, but two young slaves at harvest could earn three hundred _ḲA_, and for a whole year the wages might be over six hundred _ḲA_, or even as much as three _GUR_, or nine hundred _ḲA_.(718) The Code names ten _ḲA_ as daily wages. The average value of a _GUR_ of corn was a shekel, hence this gives a yearly rate of twelve shekels. In this case we may suppose that the laborer supported himself.

(M666) The laborer had to be bound to perform his task. A penalty was attached to his failure to appear at the proper time, and guarantees were sometimes taken for his appearance. In other cases it is stipulated that the penalty for non-appearance shall be fixed by the king’s decision.(719)

(M667) It was usual to name expressly the time of his commencing and leaving off his work. These clauses are incidentally of importance as fixing the names and sequence of the months at this period. Thus, from the example below we see that the month Tirinu preceded Elul.

(M668) Of course, the employer took all responsibility for the slave whom he hired. He fed and clothed him during his term of service. If he suffered any injury, the employer had to compensate the master. Occasionally the slave clothed himself,(720) and then his wages were higher.

As an example we may take the following:(721)

Nâmir-nûrshu from Rutum, Rîsh-Shamash, son of Marduk-nâṣir, for wages, for one year, has hired. His wages for one year, twenty-four _ḲA_ of oil, he shall pay, and he shall clothe him. In Elul he shall enter, in Tirinu he shall leave. Two witnesses. Dated in the reign of Ḥammurabi.

(M669) In the Assyrian times we have certain examples of advances of corn, or money, at harvest-time for the payment of reapers, which have already been noticed under loans.(722) An advance of money and food to workmen may perhaps be put here. But it is also a contract to do work. It reads thus:

Shamash-bâni-aplu, Latubashâni, Ukîn-abîa, Aḫu ... in all four workmen. Two talents of bronze, three homers one _ŠE_ of cooked corn. On the tenth of the month they shall do the work. All the repairs and the beams they shall make fast. They shall fix the balks, and set up the roof. If the bricks are not sufficient ... the month they do not give, they shall work and finish. Then follow seven witnesses. Dated on the sixth of some month, B.C. 734.

Unfortunately, parts of the tablet are injured and so the sense is not at all clear; but the workmen seem to have had four days in which to do the work. The price offered was considerable.

In later Babylonian times we do not obtain much further information. Here is a good example:(723)

From the twentieth of Nisan to the tenth of Ab, Zamama-iddin, son of Shamash-uballiṭ, son of the smith, shall be at the disposal of Nabû-usallim, son of Limnîa, and he shall pay him as his wages ten shekels of silver. He shall pay half the wages in Nisan and the rest in Tammuz. Whoever breaks the contract shall pay five shekels of silver.

The hire is nearly thirty shekels a year, as in the next example:(724)

Bultâ, son of Ḥabaṣiru, son of the oxherd, has put himself in the hands of Marduk-nâṣir-apli, son of Itti-Marduk-balâṭu, son of Egibi, for wages of half a mina of silver for one year. From the first of Sebat shall Bultâ be at the disposal of Marduk-nâṣir-apli. Bultâ has received one-third of a mina of silver from Marduk-nâṣir-apli.

XXVI. Lease Of Property

(M670) In case of lease, the specifications of the house are usually the same as in a sale. But this is often not so full, since the identity of the house is less in evidence. A very interesting text referring to the sale or lease of a house next to the palace, in the district of Tirḳa, a house belonging to gods Shamash, Dagan, and Idur-mêr is published by M. Thureau-Dangin in _Revue d’Assyriologie_.(725) It belonged to the King of Ḥana, whose seal it bears. His name was Isar-lim, son of Idin-Kakka. The receiver was Kaki-Dagan’s son. The oath was by Shamash, Dagan, Idur-mêr and Isar-lim the king. The names are very interesting—Igid-lim, an official of the god Amurrû; Idin-abu, king’s son; Ili-esuḫ, a judge; Idin-Nani, son of Idin-Marduk; Sin-ukûr, son of Amur-sha-Dagan; Iazi-Dagan; Ṭuri-Dagan; Ṣilli-Shamash. These prove that the land of Ḥana, already known by a votive offering of one of its kings, Tukulti-mêr, was largely Semitic. The names are either of the Babylonian or Aramaic type. It is, of course, not easy to date, as the style of writing in Ḥana may have been different from that in Babylonia at the same epoch.

(M671) Meissner estimates the average rent of a house to be one shekel per annum. But there are noteworthy variations which, with our available data, cannot be explained. Perhaps the best way is to take account of the size of the house, usually given in the Babylonian fashion by the area of its ground-plan. Rents were often paid in corn, but are so variable that a value for corn in money cannot safely be deduced.

(M672) A small part of the rent was usually paid as earnest-money to close the bargain. In the case of short leases the rest was paid on quitting the house, in longer leases half-yearly. Usually the term of tenancy was carefully stated. It was most commonly one year. The cost of repairs fell on the tenant, according to the Code,(726) but he was forbidden to make any alterations until he had paid over the earnest-money. The Code perhaps only means to forbid his closing the door and fastening it, until the deposit was made. The landlord, in fact, preserved the right of free entry until then.

(M673) The usual term of lease for fields was three years. It is not possible as yet to explain why three years was stipulated, but it was probably due to something more than an accident of custom. Possibly a rotation of crops or an alternation of crop and fallow may have been in vogue.

(M674) According to the Code the tenant was bound to keep the land in good condition. His duties included the ploughing or trenching, sowing the seed, snaring or driving off the birds and stray beasts, weeding, watering, and harvesting. Gardens he had to fence. The watering-machines were of great importance and had to be kept in order. They were worked by oxen—often as many as eight oxen were required to work them. A certain amount of stock was frequently leased with the land. It is not clear that oxen were used for the plough; they may have been kept for the watering-machines.

(M675) The landlord was in a very real sense a partner with his tenant, though he may be described as a “silent partner”.

In the case of the great temple landowners it seems to have been the custom to supply a very large amount of the tenant’s necessities. Seed-corn was frequently furnished, also corn for food for farmer and men, until the crop was gathered. The stock and farm implements were also provided by the landlord. This metayer system of leasing land probably accounts for loans without interest. It is not clear that such a system was already in vogue in early times.

(M676) In hiring a field it might be stipulated that the lessee should place a dwelling upon it,(727) _manaḫtu ana eḳlim išakkanu_. Here the field was at a distance from the city, “beyond the upper stream.” If the crop was to be properly looked after, protected from birds, stray beasts, and robbers the farmer must live there some part of the year. There was no dwelling. The lessee was therefore called on to erect a dwelling. Probably a simple edifice sufficed. At the end of the tenancy the tenant was called on to resign this building.

(M677) There were two sorts of land. That called _AB-SIN_ or _šeru’_, seems always to have paid six to eight _GUR_ of corn per _GAN_. The other sort, _KI-DAN_, probably read _kigallu_, and certainly meaning land, not cultivated but to be brought into cultivation, was exceedingly variable in quality. It is set down for a rent of from three up to eighteen _GUR_ per _GAN_, but some land is rented at seventy-two _GUR_ per _GAN_.(728)

(M678) On account of the hire, some deposit was usually made, which seems to bear no direct relation to amount of rent. But while this was in many cases money—one to three shekels—a number of cases exhibit a list of quantities of food and drink. What these were it is difficult to say, as the terms are written ideographically. But joints of meat, pieces of flesh, drinks, bread and oil, seem to be intended. The custom is obscure. Possibly these are set down as weekly or monthly rations secured on the whole rent and to be set off against it later. That the quantities are in some sense distributive is certain, “so much each,” but whether “each person,” “each day,” “each month,” or “each year” is not stated. One plausible suggestion is that the landlord, like the votary in the Code whose brothers do not content her, let the farm to a man who covenanted to support or maintain him. The contention is strengthened by the fact that the cases known to us are all female landlords, and may actually be examples of what the Code contemplates. Having only a life interest in the property and being without capital, they could not afford to wait until harvest to receive the rent, but needed a frequent allowance for maintenance.

(M679) (M680) The lease of an estate for a term exceeding a few years was always rare. One is found on a tablet which is one of the most interesting of all those supposed to be of the First Dynasty of Babylon. The script and the language recall Assyrian types most vividly and it is full of non-Babylonian names, which suggest Hittite, or even Armenian, origin. Unfortunately, it is not dated. It might well have been found at Kalaḫ, or Asshur, and belong to somewhat early Assyrian times, perhaps before Assyrian independence of Babylonia. Not one person named in it occurs in the other tablets of the Bu. 91-5-9 Collection—a thing which cannot be said of another of them. If this was really found with them, we can only suppose that centralization was carried to such a pitch that important legal documents, even when executed as far away as Assyria, or Mesopotamia proper, had to be sent in duplicate to the capital of Babylonia. Or was it possible that the principal party came to the capital with this document in his possession, deposited it in the temple archives there, and died, leaving no one to reclaim it.

Dr. T. G. Pinches gave a transcription and translation of the text in the _Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society_, 1897, pp. 589 ff., with many interesting and valuable comments:

Six homers of corn [land] belonging to Ishtar-KI-TIL-LA, son of Teḫip-TIL-LA, Kibîa, son of Palîa, Urḫîa, son of Itḫip-sharru, and Irishenni, son of Iddin-PU-SI, have taken for three homers of land, to harvest and transport. As long as Ishtar-KI-TIL-LA lives, Kibîa, Urḫîa, and Irishenni shall transport the crop of three homers of land and shall deliver the same in caldrons. If Kibîa, Urḫîa, and Irishenni do not harvest and transport and deliver the same in caldrons, and the corn perish, they shall pay in full one mina of silver and one mina of gold to Ishtar-KI-TIL-LA. Each is surety for the other. Before Aḫli-Têshup, son of Taishenni; before Ukuia, son of Geshḫai; before Shellu, son of Wantia; before Kushshu, son of Ḥuluḳḳu; before Durar-Têshup, son of Gil-Têshup; before Aḫli-Babu, the _ḫazânu_, son of Nubananu; before Zinu, son of Kiannibu, the scribe.

(M681) The names of the witnesses are here given in full because of their exceptional interest. Until we are sure of his nationality it is scarcely safe to suppose the principal’s name was really pronounced Ishtar-kitilla—the latter part of the name may well be an ideogram. The name of his father ending also in _TIL-LA_ suggests that that group of signs is separable. If so, the signs read Ishtar-_KI_ may perhaps be ideographic also. It is evident that Teḫip is from the same root as Itḫip, and the form looks Semitic.

Kibîa, Palîa, Urḫîa are Semitic, but Irishenni and Taishenni remind one of the Erisinni, of the son of U’alli, King of the Mannai in Ashurbânipal’s time. Still, neither can be said to be non-Semitic with certainty, when we recall the many names ending in _enni_ or _inni_ formed from verbs and compare the names formed from _erêšu_, _erêsu_. Names containing the name of the god Teshup were known long ago, as Ḥu-Teshup, Kali-Teshup, Kili-Teshup, where the other element of the name does not seem to be Semitic. Egyptian records give us other compounds of the name of this god, who was the sky-god among the pre-Semitic peoples of Mesopotamia

Here we have Aḫli-Teshup, Gil-Teshup, and Durar-Teshup. With the former, Professor Hommel compares Aḫlib-shar. With the next compare the Mitanni name Gilîa, also Gilûa. Aḫli-Babu is a closer parallel.

Of the other names, Shellu, Kushshu, Ḥuluḳḳu, and Zinu seem to be Semitic; at any rate they occur frequently, or in cognate forms, well known among the Assyrians and Babylonians. The others are all very unfamiliar. We are as yet so imperfectly acquainted with the onomastics of the nations surrounding the Semites that it is hazardous to attempt to locate these people. Supposing them to be all of one race, they may belong to a colony settled near Sippara, but the whole style of the language is so unlike the Sippara documents that we can hardly suppose that to be the case.

XXVII. The Laws Of Trade

(M682) The oldest form of business in Asiatic life is _commenda_: the commendatist gives a fixed sum of money to the agent with which he does his business. The former takes a fixed share of the profit, say half, in addition to the original sum invested. The agent usually secures guarantees for the capital. This method of carrying on business is customary in the early times. The Code regulates the relations between principal and agent. The former is called _tamkaru_, usually rendered “merchant,” and the latter is _šamallû_, often rendered “apprentice.” The merchant is, however, a trader in many ways, and in the Code he is usually named, where we expect lender or creditor. Hence there is little doubt that his name is derived from _magâru_, or _makâru_, with a meaning “to traffic” (?). He seems to have been a monied man, who was ready to make to cultivators advances on their crops—a practice always liable to great abuses, which the Code aims to check.

(M683) The merchant principal also furnished goods, among which are mentioned corn, sesame, oil, wool, wine, and manufactured articles. The agent did the trading, and regularly rendered his accounts to his principal. He travelled from place to place to find a market for his goods, or to make purchases, which could be profitably sold at home. The principal paid no salary, but received again his capital, or the value of his goods, and an interest or share of the profit. It is clear that the merchant also moved from place to place, and there is evidence that many of them were foreigners. The travelling agents with their goods formed the caravan.

(M684) This kind of trading was regulated by the Code.(729) Unfortunately, the opening sections of the part dealing with the relations of principal and agent are lost; but from what is left we see that it insisted on exact accounts being taken, on both sides, of the amounts of money or value of goods thus invested. If the merchant intrusted money to his agent, he was to take a receipt for it. If the agent received goods, he was to enter their money value and obtain his principal’s acknowledgment of the amount of his debt. If he suffered loss of goods from his caravan by bandits, or in an enemy’s land, he could swear to his loss, and be exempt from repayment to his principal. But if he did not prosper in his business, or sold at a loss, he had to make good the capital, at least, to his principal. The Code leaves nothing to chance. If the agent is foolish enough not to obtain a sealed memorandum of the amounts received, or a receipt for what he pays to his principal, it is enacted that money not sealed for cannot be put in the accounts. Much was clearly left to the good faith of the agent. The principal was tolerably secure of receiving back his money and had hope of profit. Against that he had to set possible loss by robbery of the caravan. But he was not bound again to employ the same agent. An agent detected defrauding his principal had to pay threefold. But it speaks well for the Code as protector of the weak that it made the capitalist who defrauded the agent repay sixfold.

(M685) From the contemporary documents we learn that the name for the business was _girru_. That this was also the name for an “expedition,” warlike as well as peaceable, points to its connection with the caravan trade. The sign for _girru_, also used for _ḫarrânu_, a “journey,” came in later times to be used for all kinds of business transactions. That the relations noted in the Code actually were carried out in practice, many tablets show. Thus we read:

One shekel of silver, price of one hundred and eighty _ŠE_, and three shekels of silver which Zuzana lent Aplâ son of Edishu, for five _years_, to enter on his _girru_. He shall pay one hundred and eighty _ŠE_ and three shekels of silver to take back his sealed receipt.(730)

Here the capital intrusted was a quantity of corn worth a shekel, and three shekels in money. This was in order to enter on a business journey. The agent Aplâ had to return the capital in full, as the Code enacts, to take back his bond. There is no agreement as to profits, which might be wanting; that was left to be understood. As a rule, the time was shorter, generally “one year.” The agent appears to have often borne the name of _muttalliku_, “one who wanders about,” “a hawker.” The same may be denoted by _AḪ-ME-ZU-AB_, a group of signs whose reading is not yet clear, but may be a variant of the ideogram for _šamallû_.

(M686) Business was also done, as the Code shows, as speculation in futures. Thus(731) we read:

Sibbat-asê-iddina hired as “business” the produce of a field from three men. The produce of the business was to be three and seven-fifteenths _GUR_ of corn, according to the standard measure of Shamash paid in Kar-Sippar, and one shekel was to be profit.

This was what he had to pay, and evidently, if the crop yielded more, that was his profit; if less, he had to stand the loss. Similarly, other crops were let on the terms that at harvest, or at the end of the “business,” a specified amount should be paid.

(M687) We learn from many hints, that caravan trade was always active. The name of Ḥarran in Mesopotamia is supposed to be derived from the numerous caravan routes that crossed there. The Tell el Amarna tablets tell us of the complaints made by the kings of Babylonia of the robbery of caravans in districts nominally under the control of Egypt.

(M688) In the more private documents of the later Babylonian times, there is again plentiful evidence that this form of trade was common. The money was loaned out “to buy and sell.” It was given _ana ḫarrânu_, “for hawking trade.” Then whatever profit was made upon the money, the agent “will give” to the principal. The agent binds himself to undertake no other agency. He gives a guarantee for the money. The principal had no further responsibility for the business, and would not meet any further call. It is obvious that in a sense the principal and agent were partners, and many transactions in later times are difficult to distinguish from cases of partnership in the ordinary sense.

(M689) It has long been recognized that the canals controlled the prosperity of the country, but it is only lately that their importance as waterways has been fully realized. In the early period we read of flour sent by ship to Nippur for certain officials.(732)