Chapter 23

(M690) The Code has much to say about ships. Temples owned them, as well as private persons. It was a crime, punishable with death, to steal a ship.(733) We read of fees for building or navigating various ships.(734) The responsibilities and damages in collisions and wrecks are apportioned.(735) A shipowner might hire a captain to navigate a ship for him, or might hire the captain and ship together. The usual freight included corn, wool, oil, and dates, but many other things were also carried. The wages of a captain was six _GUR_ of corn yearly. There are frequent references to ships in the contemporary letters.(736) They were named according to their carrying capacity, which was five or more _GUR_. A ship of seventy-five _GUR_ is named. They carried wood, for King Ḥammurabi ordered seven thousand two hundred pieces of _abba_ wood to be brought to Babylon, three hundred pieces in a ship. A number of boat captains or perhaps shipping agents were ordered to proceed from Larsa to Babylon and arrive with their ships in Adar. He gave orders for the furnishing of the crews. We further have a correspondence concerning the invasion of certain fishing rights by boats from another district. In the contemporary contracts we meet with several long lists of ships divided into little groups, of five, six, or seven, each with its captain named, each group under a head captain, all set down as at anchor at the port of Shamash, or the like.(737) There is a case of the hire of a boat of six _GUR_ freight by two persons for two months.(738)

(M691) In Assyria, canals served chiefly for water-supply. Except when the Assyrian kings went outside their own lands to Babylonia or Mesopotamia, we hardly read of ships. Sennacherib’s ships were built abroad and served abroad. There is no hint of their ever coming up to the walls of Nineveh. The contracts only once mention a ship(739) in which booty was brought from somewhere.

(M692) In the later Babylonian times there are many references to the hire of boats and their crews. They appear to be a regular conveyance of goods:(740)

One shekel and a quarter of silver for the hire of a ship which brought three oxen and twenty-four sheep from the king’s son [Belshazzar], for Shamash and the gods of Sippara. Further, fifty _ḲA_ of dates for the rations of the two boatmen.

Thus the receiver paid carriage and expenses. The daily hire of a boat is now one shekel, and the wages of the crew amount to half as much.(741) A boat might be bought for twenty shekels or half a mina.(742) The wages of the boatmen included corn, dates, salt, and onions. The freight was exceedingly varied as before. One boat appears to have carried fresh meat.(743)

(M693) There are less obvious references to roads in the literature; but that they were in excellent condition has been conjectured from the many evidences of postal service and ready carriage even in early times. Convoys travelled from Agade to Lagash as early as the time of Sargon I.(744) Innumerable labels are found on lumps of clay with the name and address of the consignee. These were attached to consignments of money and goods.

(M694) The Code contemplates consignments being sent from a great distance, even from abroad.(745) It regulates the charges for a wagon, with oxen and driver,(746) or a wagon alone.(747) There are several cases in the contracts of the hire of wagons, for varied prices per year, one-third of a shekel(748) to twelve shekels;(749) but it is not certain that these were for conveyance from place to place. They may have been for agricultural purposes only. The usual means of conveyance seems to have been by asses.

(M695) In Assyrian times we find it part of the duty of a founder of a city to open up the roads leading to it.(750) The land was intersected with roads in all directions, so that a field often had two roads as its boundaries. The whole plain outside Nineveh was cut up by roads, which here take the place of the canals of Babylonia. In this period we find horses and camels in use as beasts of burden as well as the asses.

XXVIII. Partnership And Power Of Attorney

(M696) Association, or partnership, makes its appearance very early and in a highly developed state. Some forms are very simple, as when two or more men buy or hire a piece of land together. There may, or may not, be any family relationship between the partners. In some cases we learn nothing about the terms of partnership. But where we are able to discern them, they follow the natural course that profits were divided, _pro rata,_ according to the capital contributed. More obscure is the question how far the personal exertions of each partner were pledged to the benefit of the firm. There is a suggestion that some partners were content with furnishing capital, and obtaining a fair return upon it, while the others were actively engaged in the business of the firm. Prolonged study and comparison are, however, needed before all these points can be definitely decided.

(M697) The name for a “partner” is _tappû_, and the sign _TAP_ serves as ideogram. This sign consists of the two horizontal strokes used to denote “two,” and may have been used to denote “union,” or partnership, and so from its name _tap_ have given rise to the name for “partner.” In the new Babylonian times the ideogram is the sign usually read _ḫarrânu_, also formed of the two horizontal strokes crossed by two connecting strokes or bonds. There is little doubt that in early times this was read _girru_, when denoting “business,” undertaken in association. Later the dualism of the partnership was marked by the addition of the dual sign to _ḫarrânu_. That both _ḫarrânu_ and _girru_ are used as words for “way,” “journey,” “expedition,” may well point to the prominence of the idea of trade journeys with caravans. But partnerships were made with less ambitious aims and confined to holding and sharing in common varied sources of income.

(M698) To make a partnership, _tapputam epêšu_,(751) it seems that each partner contributed a certain amount of capital, _ummânu_.(752) Yearly accounts were rendered and the profit then shared. This took place by a formal dissolution of partnership, when each partner took his share. This in no way prevented a renewal of partnership. For the satisfaction of the partners sworn declarations as to the property held in common and the profit made were deposed before judicial authorities. These often take the form of a suit by one partner against the other, but it seems that they might be only formal suits to clear up the points at issue and secure a legal settlement.

(M699) A considerable number of tablets are drawn up to embody a settlement on dissolution of partnership. Some do not make any reference to a law officer as arbitrator; but all contain a careful setting-forth of each partner’s share and an oath to make no further claim. It is practically certain that these were drawn up with the cognizance of the local law-court.

(M700) The Code has nothing to say as to partnership, unless its regulations on the point were embodied in the lost five columns.

A good example of partnership documents is the following:(753)

Erib-Sin and Nûr-Shamash entered into partnership and came into the temple of Shamash and made their plan. Silver, merchandise, man-servant, and maid-servant, abroad or at home, altogether they shared. Their purpose they realized. Money for money, man-servant and maid-servant, merchandise abroad or at home, from mouth to interest, brother with brother will not dispute. By Shamash and Malkat, by Marduk and Ḥammurabi, they swore. Then follow seventeen witnesses. The document is not dated.

(M701) The word for plan, _ṭêmu_, means the basis of partnership, that is, its terms. Here it was “share and share alike.” The phrase _babtum_, “merchandise,” includes all the material in which they traded, excluding the living agents. The phrase _ša ḫarrânim_, literally “on the road,” may well have denoted the merchandise not in warehouse, but in circulation. Whether _ḫarrânu_ actually referred to a caravan may be doubtful. We often read of goods _ša suḳi_, “on the street,” in the same sense, “out on the market.” If the partners dealt in corn, and had a quantity lent out on interest, that was _ša suḳi_. Whether a distinction between _ša ḫarrânim_ and _ša suḳi_ was kept up is not clear. But if they invested their capital in merchandise which they sent to a distant market for sale, the former phrase would be more appropriate, while if they bought wool to manufacture into cloth or garments and to sell in the bazaars of their own town, _ša suḳi_ would be more suitable. The gate of the city was a market, and money or goods _ša bâbi_, “at the gate,” was as we should say “on the market.” In contrast to these phrases, _ina libbi alim_, “in the midst of the town,” answers to our “in stock.” While the term _mitḫariš_ literally means “altogether,” “without reservation,” it implies exact equality of share. The _amâtu_ was the “word,” literally, but, applied to business, means the agreement as to their mutual transactions. The completion of that was reached when they took the profits and divided them. It might include the mutual reckoning of profit and loss. The phrase “from mouth to interest” is very idiomatic. The “mouth,” or verbal relationships, included all they said, the terms they agreed upon. The word “interest” here replaces the more usual “gold;” both mean the “profit,” or the balance due to each. Usually we have the words “is complete,” the idea being that no verbal stipulation has been overlooked, no money or profit left out of reckoning.

(M702) As will be remarked, such pregnant forms of expression evidently presuppose a long course of commercial activity. They can only have arisen as abbreviations of much longer sentences. Clear enough to the users of them, they do not admit of literal rendering, if they are to be intelligible to us. But they are eloquent witnesses of an advanced state of commerce.

(M703) Traces of partnership are difficult to find in the Assyrian tablets which have reached us. We must not confuse with partnership the holding in common of property or lands, which may be due to heritage. Two or more brothers may sell their common property, for greater ease of division, but they are not exactly partners.

(M704) In the later Babylonian times, as is natural to expect with the larger number of private documents, there is much evidence regarding the many forms of association for business. We have such simple forms as the following:(754)

One mina which A and B have put together for common business. All that it makes is common property.

Or thus:

Two minas each, A and B, have as _ḫarrânu_. All that it makes, in town and country, is in common. Rent of the house to be paid from capital.(755)

(M705) They had a house, as shop and warehouse, the rent of which was a charge upon the business. Slaves might be partners with free men, even with their masters. A partner might merely furnish the capital or both might do so, and commit it to the hands of a slave or a free man with which to do business. The slave took his living out of such capital, and the free man received either provisions or a fixed payment. Thus we read:(756)

Five minas and six hundred and thirty pots of aromatics belong to A and B as partners. This stock is given to C, a slave, and D, another slave, with which to do business. Whatever it makes is A and B’s in common. C and D take food and clothing from the profits where they go.

It is not unlikely that each slave was to look after his own master’s interests. For we read:(757)

Six minas belong to A and B and are given to C the slave of B as capital. A and B share what it makes. A will give another slave D to help C.

Even women entered into business as agents. We read:(758)

Two-thirds of a mina belonging to A and B are given to a free woman with which to trade.

(M706) As in earlier times, the dissolution of partnership usually involved a reference to the law-courts. Thus we have(759) a reckoning before judges of two brothers and a third who were in a partnership from the eighth year of Nabopolassar to the eighteenth of Nebuchadrezzar. “The business is dissolved” (_girru paṭrat_). All the former contracts were broken and shares are assigned to each. The first two brothers were in possession of fifty shekels which were to be divided.

(M707) Provisional reckonings were constantly made at frequent intervals, but did not involve dissolution of partnership, nor need to be referred to a law-court.(760) Some cases are interesting for additional items of information. Thus we note:(761)

(M708)

Two partners put in each fifty _GUR_ of dates. Whatever it makes is to be in common. They take a house in Borsippa for one year at rent of half a mina. The rent is to be paid out of profits. B holds the house and apparently carries on the business. At the end of the year he returns it and all the utensils to A.

It seems likely that he carried on some kind of manufacture. A held the south house, next door. B also paid the tithes. A similar case where some manufacture from dates is supposed, is thus stated:(762)

A lends one hundred _GUR_ of dates, fifty _GUR_ of corn, sixty large pots, to B and C two of his slaves, on a partnership. They are to take in common whatever it makes, in town and country. The venture is to last three years. But, in this case, they are to pay interest two minas _per annum_. At the end of the three years, the two slaves returned all.

They were given a house for which they paid no rent.

(M709) Closely allied with agency is the power of attorney. In the Code(763) a son in his father’s house could not contract, buy or sell, or give on deposit, except by power of attorney empowering him to act for his father. The same was true of the slave. The contemporary documents contain many references to business done by agents on the order of their principals.(764) The Assyrians also make frequent mention of persons acting as _bêl ḳâtâti_, having the power of another’s hands, being in fact allowed to act as their attorney or agent. The king was represented in the law-courts by his agent.(765) Sometimes the agent was called _bêl paḫâti_ of the king’s son.(766) It even seems to be the case that _ḳâtâtu_ acquired the sense of agency, or business, and _bît ḳâtâti_ came to mean a “shop,” or bazaar. In many cases “agency” was expressed by _ša ḳâtâ_, “by the hands of.” Aliens had to act through such an agent.(767) When three men borrow a quantity of straw, one alone sealed the receipt and bond to repay, and was said to be _bêl ḳâtâti ša tibni_, “agent for the straw.”(768) A female slave was sued for property said to be due from her master, in his absence. A free man, perhaps the judge, was _bêl ḳâtâti_ for the woman that her master would take up the case on his return, and undertook to satisfy the suitor, if she could not do so.(769)

(M710) In later Babylonian times the phrase survived. The commissary acted “with the hand” of his principal. We may take this to be the hand-sign, or seal, representing written authority. It involved a reckoning with his master, and naturally gave rise to a number of delicate questions. If a man bought a house for another, having been commissioned so to do, his principal must of course pay the price. But was he bound to accept his agent’s selection? Could he not demur regarding the price? One of these points at least was dealt with by the later Code. Law A deals with the man who has concluded a purchase for another, without having a power of attorney from him in a sealed deed. If he has had the deed made out in his own name, he is the possessor. Of course, he can sell again to his principal, but he could not do so at a profit. Nor is the principal under any obligation to accept the purchase at the price the agent gave for it. Actual examples are far from rare: A buys a field, crop, date-palms and all, for C and D. This purchase was made on condition that all copies of the transaction be destroyed. The condition was not observed, as we still possess one of them. Later A received from C, one of his principals, about half the price he had paid. But it does not appear that D ever paid his share, and this is why the condition was not carried out. Presumably A and C remained owners of the field.(770)

(M711) There is no limit to the varieties of agency or representative action. At all periods we meet with a brother, usually the eldest, acting for his other brothers. A brother acting with the hand of his brother also occurs in the time of Evil Merodach.(771)

(M712) The power of attorney was also given to receive money and give a receipt, under seal.(772) Again: A bought some slaves of B and paid in full. B gave receipt for the money, but did not undertake to deliver the slaves at A’s house. A can send a messenger or agent to take the slaves, and B agrees to deliver them to such. Whatever is born or dies from among the slaves is credited to A.(773)

XXIX. Accounts And Business Documents

(M713) There are lists which are not formal contracts, but may have been used as legal evidence. The stewards of the great temples, of the palaces, and even of wealthy men in business, kept most careful accounts. These lists have some features peculiar to themselves and are not without considerable interest.

(M714) The tablets which have reached our museums from Telloh, Nippur, and elsewhere, belonging to the ages before the First Dynasty of Babylon, are for the most part temple accounts. They often concern the offerings made by various persons, often officials of high standing, and some may well have been the notes sent with the offerings. But many were drawn up as records of the receipts for a certain day, month, or year. Interesting as they are for the class of offerings, for the names of offerers, or of priests, and for the cult of particular gods, or the localities near Telloh and Nippur, and often containing valuable hints for the history and chronology of those times, they do not give us the same insight into the daily life of the people that the longer legal documents do, in later periods.

(M715) An important class consists of receipts for loans. Those drawn up at full length and witnessed, have already been considered. But the majority may only contain a list of articles delivered, with the name of the receiver, the lender being the holder as a temple official, while the receiver is a subordinate. These may have been as effective as the fuller bonds, but they furnish little information, except regarding the current prices of articles.

(M716) Some tablets are concerned with hire. The amounts paid by the temple for repairs, fresh robes for gods and officials, even maintenance of the workmen, are all set down with their totals for a week, or a month.

(M717) An important class consists of the records of the measurements, length, breadth, and area of fields, together with the amounts of corn which they were expected to produce. Were these available for a widely extended area, we might be able to map out the district round the temple from whose archives they come.

(M718) The temples and large landowners had great flocks and herds. Consequently, there is much evidence concerning the pastoral occupations of the people of Babylonia. The Code regulates the relations of the shepherds and herdsmen to the flock-masters.(774) Thus an owner might hire a shepherd, _nâkidu_, for his sheep or cattle, at the wages of eight _GUR_ of corn _per annum_. The shepherd or herdsman took out the flock or herd to the pasture and was responsible to the owner for them. They were intrusted to him, and if sheep or ox were lost through his fault, he had to restore ox for ox and sheep for sheep. If he was hired and had received satisfactory wages, he had no power to diminish, or abstract from, the flock or herd for his keep or private use. He entered into a contract with the owner, and that stipulated for the restoration of the entire flock or herd, together with a proper increase due to the breeding of the flock or herd. He had to make any deficiency good, by statute.(775) This applied also to the stipulated profit in wool or other produce. It seems clear that his own profit was any excess above the stipulated return. Otherwise it is difficult to see what source he had from which to make good the loss to his master. He was forbidden to alter the agreement into which he had entered in any particular, or to sell any of the flock, under penalty of a tenfold restitution. He was, however, protected from liability for loss by wild beasts or accident. But, if the loss was due to his fault, by neglecting to keep the fold secure, he had to make up the loss.

(M719) It is obvious that he gave a receipt for what was intrusted to him and made his account on return from the pastures. These accounts are plentiful among the temple accounts in the earliest periods, but being written for the most part in Sumerian, have still many obscurities for us. As a rule, each deals with the liabilities of one man, whose “account,” _nikasu_, it is said to be. At the beginning are recounted the details of his trust, so many oxen, cows, sheep or goats, of varied ages and qualities. Here it is very difficult to translate. Anyone who knows the variety of names which are given to an animal by agriculturists according to its age, sex, and use, need not be surprised to find that the Babylonians had many names for what we can only render by “sheep.” As a rule, we know when the ram, ewe, or lamb is intended. But this by no means exhausts the variety. Anyone who glances through an Arabic lexicon must notice how many different names the Arabs have for the camel in its different aspects. But in our case we often have no clew to what was meant by the signs beyond some variety of sheep, ox, or goat. At any rate, the first section enumerates the cattle or sheep delivered to the herdsman. Then follows a section devoted to those “withdrawn,” taken back by the owner, or exacted as some due from the flock. Others are noted as taken for sacrifice, used for the wages or support of the herdsman, or else dead or otherwise missing. These the herdsman was allowed to subtract and then had to return the balance. There are similar lists of asses or goats. The tablets hardly lend themselves to connected translation because of the absence of verbs. The following is an example:

Forty-three ewes, forty-three rams, seven ewe-lambs, seven he-lambs, three she-goats, one sucking kid, to start with. Expended in ewes and rams, none; six ewes, seventeen rams, snatched away; no lambs lost: no ewes, one ram, no lambs. Total: one hundred and four to start with. Total expended: none. Total: twenty-three snatched away. Total: one lost. Namḫâni, shepherd. Overseer: Duggazidda. At Girsu. The year after the king devastated Kimash.

The meaning of the words is somewhat conjectural. “Expended” may mean used for the shepherd’s own maintenance. “Snatched away” means probably deducted for revenue purposes, about one in five. The scribe did not write “none.” He merely left a blank.(776)

(M720) The similar lists for the second epoch are not yet available for study. Only one(777) appears to have been published,(778) but there are many still unpublished. It is not easy to translate them, because, though many Semitic names occur, there is still a tendency to use the old Sumerian, or ideographic writings. Such a list as:

Eight oxen, twenty-three work-oxen (for watering-machines), eleven milch cows, sixteen steers, sixteen heifers. In all seventy-four oxen (or cattle) belonging to Marduk-uballiṭ in the hands of Bêlshunu, fifth day,