The People.
In all probability the Babylonians consisted of what may be called the original Semites of that tract, with the Akkadians, also aboriginal, with whom they lived and had already, at the time of the dynasty of Babylon, mingled to such an extent that they must have become a homogeneous people, notwithstanding the racial differences which were probably noticeable at certain points—for example, a more strongly-marked Semitic type at Sippar and in that neighbourhood, and a more strongly-marked Akkadian type in the State to which Lagaš belonged. Other invasions, however, seem to have taken place, the principal being that of the Amorites, to which allusion has already been made—an invasion which the tablets of this period indicate to have been sufficiently numerous, and which must have left its mark on the population, to all appearance increasing the Semitic preponderance, and emphasizing the type. The existence of an “Amorite tract” in the district of Sippar, and the fact that Sin-idinnam, Ḫammurabi's general, is designated by the characters GAL-MAR-TU, in Semitic Babylonian Rab-Amurrî, “chief of the Amorite(s),” are in themselves sufficient testimony to this invasion. It is noteworthy, too, that the dynasty to which Ḫammurabi belonged is apparently that described by Berosus as “Arabic,” in which case we should have to recognize yet another invasion of Semites; but there is just the probability, that “Arabic” and “Amorite” were interchangeable terms, the Amorites being regarded as a collection of wandering hordes of whom a portion entered the country, and took possession of the government. In any case, they shared the fate of all invaders of the kind referred to, for they were speedily conquered by the superior civilization of the conquered, and became so naturalized that notwithstanding their [pg 170] western names, they were called by the Babylonians “the dynasty of Babylon.” This Amorite element was to all appearance a sufficiently large one, as the more easily recognizable names show. Thus we have Amurrū-bani, Karasumia, Asalia, Kuyatum, Bizizana, Izi-idrê, Sumu-raḳ, Betani, Sar-ili (Israel), Awel-Addî (“man of Hadad,” described an Amorite,) with many others, though the different nationalities cannot always be distinguished, as many Amorites bore Babylonian names, and vice versâ.
Naturally other nationalities than the Babylonians, Akkadians, Šumerians, and Amorites were represented in the country—Elamites from the invasions of earlier centuries, Kassites and Sutites who came, in all probability, to trade, Qutites or Gutians brought into the country as slaves, or possibly living there as freemen—all these and others helped to increase the confusion of tongues which existed in the land from remote ages, and reminded people of the legend of the Tower of Babel, when “the Lord did there confound the language of all the earth.”[25]
Documents of an earlier date than those now under our notice indicate that Babylonian civilization goes back no less than three thousand years before the period of the dynasty of Babylon, and this, in consideration of the date calculated for the foundation of Niffer (another three thousand years earlier), must be regarded as a moderate estimate. Babylonian civilization was already, at the time now treated of, exceedingly [pg 171] ancient. The early village settlement of primitive houses, clustered around an equally primitively-constructed temple, had grown into a large city, with many fanes therein. The scattered outlying smaller villages around this primitive settlement had gradually been incorporated with it, and formed its suburbs, each retaining its ancient name. Villages of more recent foundation were scattered all over the land, and the whole country was instinct with national life, due to the increase of importance which the comparatively recent union of several small states in a single large and therefore powerful kingdom had brought into existence.
Thus we find Babylonia at the period of the dynasty of Babylon. It could even then look back into a past stretching back into a remote and dim antiquity. Its laws, manners, customs, and religion were already old, and were our knowledge of this interesting period complete, we should probably find that there was much that was excellent in their laws, and interesting and instructive in the administration of those laws, as well as in their manners and customs with regard to legal matters in general.
Something of what the tablets of the period are able to inform us concerning the sacred person of the king and the position of his family has already been treated of, and we have now to turn to the next in the social scale—the people of the middle class. To this class belonged the priests, the leaders of the troops, the landowners, the employers of labour, the scribes, the physicians, the land-hirers, and the small farmers. In all probability artists and artisans also formed part of it, though their position may have been sometimes as bad as that of many who toiled in servitude, for the slaves seem, on the whole, to have been exceedingly well treated.
With regard to the scribes at least, the head and beard were shaven, they wore a simple garment like [pg 172] a toga thrown over the left shoulder, leaving the right arm free, and in all probability had on their feet no shoes, but sandals, though this point is doubtful.
A member of this upper class was polite in his address. When he wrote to a friend, whether on business or otherwise, he said, “to so and so, whom Merodach preserve,” and after saying who it was who was writing, added, “may the Sun-god and Merodach grant thee to live for length of days—mayest thou have peace, mayest thou have life, may the god thy protector preserve thy head (rêš-ka) for happiness. I have sent to ask after thy health,—may thy health before the Sun-god and Merodach be lasting.” Other forms of address are found, generally shorter, but this may be taken as a fair specimen of the general style, which, however, seems to have been regulated by established usage, the form quoted here being that used in addressing a personage named Epišu, and it is always the same, though the letters, four or five in number, all come from different persons.
The following letter from a son to his father will show the general style of these missives—
“Say to my father thus: ‘It is Elmešum.’[26]
“May Šamaš and Merodach cause my father to live enduring days. My father, mayest thou have health and life. The god protecting my father preserve my father's happy head. I have sent (to ask) after my father's health—may my father's health before Šamaš and Merodach be lasting.
“From (the time) Sin and Amurrū recorded thy name, my father, and I humbly (?) answered, thou, my father, hast said thus: ‘As I am going to Dûr-Ammi-zaduga on the river Sarqu, one sheep with five mana of silver (?) I will cause to be brought for the young man (?).’ This, my father, thou saidst—my ear, my father, I made to attend—and thou hast not [pg 173] caused (these things) to be brought. And when thou, my father, sentest to the presence of Taribu, the queen, I caused a tablet to be brought to the presence of my father. My father, thou didst not (even) ask (concerning) the information of my tablet, when I caused the tablet of my father to be brought to the city, and he took it to my father for a shekel of silver. Like thy brother, thou hast not caused (the things) to be brought. Like Merodach (?) and Sin Amurrū who are gracious to my father, my ears are attentive. My father, cause (the things) to be brought, and my heart will not be downcast—Before Šamaš and Merodach for my father let me plead.”
Such is the way in which a son writes to his father, or to one who, from his age, might have stood in that relationship. It is one of the less difficult of a number of exceedingly difficult texts, and the translation is therefore given with all reserve. As, however, the words and phrases are for the most part fairly familiar, it is believed that the general drift of the whole is correctly indicated. Although it is a letter in which the writer seems to believe that he has just reason to find fault, the respectful and apparently reverent tone of the whole is very noteworthy.
In all probability the Babylonian household consisted of the man and his wife, children if he had any, and as many servants or slaves as he could afford. A second wife was taken if the man was rich enough to afford such an addition, though he seems to have sometimes married again for economic reasons, namely, the acquisition of a suitable attendant for his first wife without having to pay her wages.
The following is an example of the ordinary wedding contract—
“Ana-Aa-uzni is daughter of Salimatum. As Salimatum has set her free, she has given her in marriage to Bêl-šunu, son of Nemelum. Ana-Aa-uzni is a virgin—no one has anything against Ana-Aa-uzni. [pg 174] They have invoked the spirit of Šamaš, Merodach, and Šumu-la-îlu (the king). Whoever changes the words of this tablet (shall pay the penalty).
“Before Libit-Ištar; before Bûr-nunu; before Amurrū-bani; before Rammānu-rêmeni; before Nida-dum; before Šamaš-êmuki; before Imgurrum; before Sin-ikišam; before Belizunu; before Aa-šiti; before Lamazi; before Ḫunabia; before Betani; before Amat-Šamaš; before Nabritum; before Šad-Aa.”
Sometimes, however, the wedding contract contains severe penalties in case the newly-wedded wife should prove to be unfaithful, as in the following text—
“Aḫḫu-ayabi is daughter of Innabatum. Innabatum, her mother, has given her in marriage to Zukania. Should Zukania forsake her, he shall pay one mana of silver. Should Aḫḫu-ayabi deny him, he may throw her down from the tower. As long as Innabatum lives, Aḫḫu-ayabi shall support her, and Innabatum afterwards (shall have nothing?) against Aḫḫu-ayabi, ... (They have invoked the spirit of the Sun-god and Zabi)um (the king). Whoever changes the words of (th)is (tablet) (shall pay the penalty”).
Here follow the names of sixteen witnesses—seven males and nine females, one of the former being the priest of the devotees of the Sun-god.
When there were two wives, a marriage contract was given to each, and by a fortunate chance, the British Museum possesses two documents connected in this way, which have come together, though acquired at different times.[27] The following is the document drawn up for the principal wife—
“Arad-Šamaš has taken in marriage Taram-Sagila and Iltani, daughter of Sin-abu-šu. (If) Taram-Sagila [pg 175] and Iltani say to Arad-Šamaš, their husband, ‘Thou art not (our) husband,’ he may throw them down from the tower; and (if) Arad-Šamaš say to Taram-Sagila or Iltani, his wives, ‘Thou art not my wife,’ she shall depart from house and goods. And Iltani shall wash the feet of Taram-Sagila, shall carry her seat to the house of her god; Iltani shall put on Taram-Sagila's ornaments, shall be well inclined towards her, shall not destroy her (marriage) contract, shall grind (?) her meal (?), and shall obey (?) her.”
Here follow the names of nine witnesses.
The marriage contract drawn up for Iltani, the second wife, is as follows—
“Iltani is sister of Taram-Sagila. Arad-Šamaš, son of Ili-ennam, has taken them in marriage from Uttatum, their father. Iltani, her sister, shall prepare her food, shall be well inclined towards her, (and) shall carry her seat to the temple of Merodach. The children, as many as have been born, and they shall bear, are their children. (If) Taram-Sagila say to Iltani, her sister, ‘Thou art not my sister,’ (then) ... (If Iltani say to Arad-Šamaš, her husband), ‘Thou (art not my husband),’ he may shave (her head), and sell her for silver. And (if) Arad-Šamaš say to his wives, ‘(Ye) are not my wives,’ he shall pay one mana of silver. And they, (if) they say to Arad-Šamaš, their husband, ‘Thou art not our husband,’ he may strangle (?) them, and throw them into the river.”
This document is attested by eleven witnesses.
To all appearance there was a kind of adoption of Iltani as daughter of Uttatum (she is called daughter of Sin-abu-šu in the first text), and having thus been raised in position so as to be somewhat the equal of Taram-Sagila in rank, she could become the second wife of Arad-Šamaš, to live with and wait upon her adopted sister.
The household itself, however, seldom or never meets our gaze in these texts, though we get glimpses of it from time to time. One of the best is in all probability the following for the insight it gives—
“... He has made him his adopted son. The field, plantation, goods, and furniture of his house, which Êtel-pî-Sin and Sin-nada, his wife, possess—Êtel-pî-Sin and Sin-nada have five sons—to Bêl-êzzu, their son, like a son, they will give. If Bêl-êzzu say to Êtel-pî-Sin, his father, and Sin-nada, his mother, ‘Thou art not my father—thou art not my mother,’ they may sell him for silver. And if Êtel-pî-Sin, and Sin-nada, his wife, say to Bêl-êzzu, their son, ‘Thou art not my son,’ field, plantation, and goods, his share, he may take, and may carry away. He (apparently Êtel-pî-Sin) has invoked the spirit of the king.”
“Before Lugal-gištug, the lord of the oracle; Lu-Dingira, the inspector(?) of the deep(?); Îlu-dakullu, do.; Nidnat-Sin, do.; Ṣili-Ê-kišnugal, do.; Mu-batuga, son of Azagga-Innanna; Zarriqu, son of Nannara-manšum; Aappâ, son of Sin-êribam; Nûr-îli-šu, the ...; Êrib-Sin, the scribe; ... -Ningal, the sword-bearer; ... -Sin, son of Zazia;”
“(The seal of) the contracting parties (has been impressed).”
(The remainder of the text, containing the date, is lost.)
The above tablet from Tel-Sifr gives a most complete statement of the circumstances attending the adoption of a son (a very common thing during this period in Babylonia), omitting only the reason for this step. It is to be noted, however, that five of the witnesses belong, apparently, to the priestly class, and this may, perhaps, have been the reason, their influence being, at this time, to all appearance, very great, and the necessity for appeasing them proportionately so.
The following is an example under different conditions, and presents other points of interest—
“Arad-Išḫara is son of Ibni-Šamaš. Ibni-Šamaš has taken him as his son. The day that Arad-Išḫara says to Ibni-Šamaš his father, ‘Thou art not my father,’ he may put him into fetters and sell him for silver. And (if) Ibni-Šamaš say to Arad-Išḫara, his son, ‘Thou art not my son,’ he shall depart from the house and the goods. And he may have sons, and with his sons he shall share.” (This last phrase is expressed clearer on the envelope of the tablet as follows: “And Ibni-Šamaš may beget sons, and Arad-Išḫara shall share like one.”)
The names of ten witnesses are attached to this document.
In this case the reason for the adoption of Arad-Išḫara probably was, that Ibni-Šamaš had no sons, though there was a possibility that he would have some later on.
The following refers to the adoption of a daughter, which was also a common custom—
“Karanatum is daughter of Nûr-Sin, with his sons and his daughters. No one has anything against Karanatum, daughter of Nûr-Sin. Damiqtum is sister of Karanatum. He (Nûr-Sin) will give her to a husband.”
Here follow the names of five witnesses.
Though the inscription is short, it is sufficient to suggest that Nûr-Sin adopted Karanatum for some special reason, though what that reason may have been is uncertain. Probably it was in order that she should accompany Damiqtum as second wife of a man who wished to marry two women, as in the case of Iltani and Taram-Sagila.
Tablets referring to adoption are, however, very numerous, and do not furnish much variety. Considerations of space also forbid any great multiplication of examples, so that it is needful to pass to [pg 178] the next stage, namely, the inscriptions referring to inheritance, which, though containing less information, are not without interest.
On the death of the father of the family, his children to all appearance met and divided his property as agreed upon, or in accordance with the will of their father. Thus we have the record of the three brothers Sin-ikišam, Ibni-Šamaš, and Urra-naṣir, who divided their inheritance after the death of their father—
1.
“1 ŠAR, a dwelling-house (and) domain, beside the house of Ibni-Šamaš, and beside the house of the street, its exit (being) to the street, is the share of Sin-ikišam, which he has shared with Ibni-Šamaš and Urra-naṣir. From the word to the gold the division of the property is completed. They shall not make claim against each other. They have invoked the spirit of Šamaš, Aa, and Sin-mubaliṭ (the king).
“Before Liširammu; before Sin-puṭram, son of Êa-balaṭi (?); before Sin-idinnam, son of Mannîa; before Arad-ili-šu, son of Nûr-Sin; before Ša-Išḫara, son of Ilâ; before Sin-magir, son of Etelum; before Arad-Amurri, before Sin-îlu, sons of Upîa; before Libur-nadi-šu, son of Uštašni-ili; before ... ; before ... ; before ... . Year of the river (canal) Tutu-ḫengal.”
2.
“1 ŠAR, a dwelling-place (and) domain, beside the house of Sin-ikišam, and beside the house of Ištar-umma-ša, the second exit to the street, is the share of Ibni-Šamaš, which he has shared with Sin-ikišam and Urra-naṣir. From the word to the gold they have shared the (property). They shall not make claim against each other. They have invoked the spirit of Šamaš, Aa, Marduk, and Sin-mubaliṭ.
“Before Sin-puṭram; before Sin-idinnam; before [pg 179] Liširram; before Arad-ili-šu; before Ša-Išḫara; before Sin-magir; before Arad-Amurri; before Sin-îlu; before Libur-nadi-šu. Year of the river Tutu-ḫengal.”
3.
“1 ŠAR, a dwelling-house and domain, beside the house of Ubarria, and beside the house of Puṭur-Sin, the second exit to the street, is the share of Urra-naṣir, which he has shared with Sin-ikišam and Ibni-Šamaš. From the word to the gold the division is completed. They shall not make claim against each other. They have invoked the spirit of Šamaš, Aa, Marduk, and Sin-mubaliṭ.
“Before Sin-puṭram; before Liširram; before Sin-magir; before Sin-idinnam; before Arad-ili-šu; before Ša-Išḫara; before Arad-Amurri; before Sin-îlu; before Libur-nadi-šu. Year of the river Tutu-ḫengal.”
That the first tablet translated above was that first written is proved by the fact that the fathers' names of several of the witnesses are given, and by the blank spaces with the word “before,” showing that the scribe did not know exactly how many witnesses there would be. In the other two documents he had the right number, and did not therefore write the word in question too many times. In all probability the three brothers are mentioned in the first document in the order of their age, and it is naturally the title-deed of the eldest which is written first. All three documents are attested by the same witnesses.
The following tablet in the possession of Sir Cuthbert Peek, Bart., shows a division of property consisting of goods and chattels, as well as land—
“3 GAN, a field by the territory of Kudma-bani, with 1 GAN, a field which (was) the share of Aḫḫati-šunu, (situated) beside the field of Amat-Samaš, daughter of Libit-Ištar, and beside the field of Bêl-šunu, its first end (being) the river Euphrates, (and) [pg 180] its second end the common. 2/3 of a ŠAR (and) 5 ZU (of ground by) the temple of Sippara, 1-½ ŠAR (by) the temple of Kudma-bani, 1 ox, 1 young bull, 1 'ikuše stone—all this is the share of Kubbutu, which, along with Ibku-Annunitum, Bêl-šunu, Bêl-bani, Il-šu-bani, Rêmum, and Marduk-naṣir, they have divided. The division is complete. They are satisfied. From the word to the gold they shall not at any future time bring claims against each other. They have invoked the spirit of Šamaš, Aa, Marduk, and Samsu-iluna the king.
“Before Dadu-ša, son of Aḫum; before Ṭaridum, the scribe; before Sin-idinnam, son of Ibku-Šala; before Anatum, son of Sin-âbu-šu; before Šamaš-naṣir-âbli.
“Month Iyyar, day 18th, second year after the completion (?) of the temple of Bêl.”
Where the division of the property and the drawing up of the tablets took place is uncertain, there being in the documents translated above no indication. In the case of the three brothers Urra-kaminiši, Riš-Urra, and Buria, the declaration of the division of the property which they inherited, and possibly the drawing up of their respective tablets as well, took place in the Beth-el (bêt îli) of the city, where legal matters were often transacted. Whether this Beth-el was the temple of the Sun and the Moon, where solemn contracts were also made, is uncertain, but not improbable.
It is noteworthy that there is sometimes a statement indicating that the inheritors chose their lots—
“1 ŠAR, a dwelling-house beside the house of Belaqu, and beside Awel-Nannara, is the share of Erištum, the sodomite, daughter of Ribam-îli, which she has shared with Amat-Šamaš, the priestess of the sun, her sister. The division is complete. From the word to the gold they shall not bring claim against each other. Choice of Amat-Šamaš, her sister. (The envelope has: Her choice—the place [pg 181] (which seems) good unto her she will give.) (They have invoked) the spirit of Šamaš, Merodach, Sin-mubaliṭ (the king), and the city of Sippar.”
Here follow the names of eighteen witnesses, all of them, apparently, men.
Another tablet, referring to the sharing of property, shows how brothers sometimes cared for their sister, all the property (at least in this case) being in their hands—
“Tablet (referring to) 1 GAN, a field in the karê, beside (the field of) Aḫi-daani (?) and Enkim-îlu, Kiš-nunu, Imgurrum, and Ilu-abi, her brothers, have given to Ḫudultum, daughter of Inib-nunu, as her share.
“Before Mašpirum (var. Mašparum), son of Ušlu-rum; before Bûr-ya, son of Munawirum; before Ḫayâbum, (before) Kiranum (?), sons of Sin-ennam; before Sin-naṣir.
“Year Sumulel the king built the wall of Sippar.”
Thus, in varying ways, did the ancient Babylonians live and wed, adopt children and inherit. Other incidents were there in their lives also, as when a man divorced his wife—an unpleasant experience for them both, in all probability—though often enough this must have taken place to the great joy of one or the other, or possibly of both, for it must have been a much less solemn thing with them than with us—the marriage tie. It is gratifying to know that documents referring to divorce are comparatively rare, though they are to be met with sometimes, as the following text shows—
“Šamaš-rabi has divorced Naramtum his wife. She has taken away her property (?) and received her portion (as a woman divorced). (If) Naramtum wed another, Šamaš-rabi shall not bring action against her. They have invoked the spirit of Šamaš, Aa, Marduk, and Sin-mubaliṭ.”
(Here follow the names of ten witnesses.)
“Year of Šamaš and Rimmon.”
Sometimes the even tenor of early Babylonian life was interrupted by a lawsuit on the part of a relative (often one who ought to have known better), and, though less of a family convulsion than a divorce, it must have been sufficiently annoying, especially when the plaintiff was one's own father. The following gives details of such a case—
“(Tablet concerning) one slave, her maid, whom Ayatia, her mother, left to Ḫulaltum, her daughter, and Ḫulaltum (on that account) supported Ayatia, her mother. And Sin-naṣir (was) husband of Ayatia. Ayatia left to her (Ḫulaltum), in the 20th year, that which was in the city Buzu, but there was no tablet (?) (documentary evidence) concerning Ayatia's property. After Ayatia died, Sin-naṣir brought an action against Ḫulaltum on account of the maidservant, and Išarlim, scribe of the city of Sippar and the court (?) of Sippar, caused them to receive judgment. He declared him (Sin-naṣir) to be in the wrong. He is not again to bring action in the matter. (They have invoked) the spirit of Šamaš, Merodach, and Ḫammurabi. Judgment of Išarlim; Awat-Šamaš, the merchant; Itti-Bêl-kinni; Bûr-Sin; Gimil-bani. Month Adar, year of the canal Tišida-Ellilla.”
Many documents of this kind exist, though people did not generally bring actions against their own (step-) daughters, as Sin-naṣir is recorded as having done. The ancient Babylonians were at all times, however, very keen in standing up for their own rights, and went to law on the slightest provocation. The following records a claim upon some property, and its issue, which was as unsuccessful as that translated above—
“Sin-êribam, son of Upê-rabi, laid claim to the house of Šumu-râḫ, which is beside the house of Nidnu-ša and beside the house (temple) of Allat; and they went before the judges, and the judges pronounced [pg 183] judgment. And as for Sin-êribam, they declared him to be in the wrong, and made him deliver a document which could not be proceeded against. He shall not bring action, and Sin-êribam shall not again lay claim to the house of Šumu-râḫ.
“They have invoked the spirit of Šamaš, Zabium (the king), and the city of Sippar.”
It is noteworthy that the name of the first of the twelve witnesses attached to the document is Ya'kub-ilu, or Jacob-el, which is supposed to be connected with the name of the patriarch Jacob.
As in these days, many a man in those ancient times, for the better conducting of his business, would enter into partnership. As usual, all would go well for a time, but at last, in consequence of disagreements or disputes or some unpleasantness, they would decide to part. Several texts of this class exist, of which the following is a typical example—
“Ṣili-Ištar and Iribam-Sin made partnership, and, to dissolve it, they had a judge, and they went down to the temple of Šamaš, and in the temple of Šamaš the judge caused them to receive judgment. They give back their capital, and receive back their shares, 1 male-slave Luštamar-Šamaš, with a chain (?), and 1 female-slave Lišlimam, the share of Iribam-Sin; 1 male-slave Ibšina-ilu, and 1 female-slave Am-anna-lamazi, the share of Ṣili-Ištar, they have received as their shares. In the temple of the Sun-god and the Moon-god they declared that they would treat each other well. One shall not bring action against the other, nor act hostilely towards him. There is no cause for action on the part of the one against the other. They have invoked the spirit of Nannara, Šamaš, Merodach, Lugal-ki-ušuna, and Ḫammurabi the king.
“Before Utuki-šemi, son of Awiatum; before Abil-Sin, son of Nannara-manšum; before Sin-êreš, the provost; before Ipuš-Êa, the du-gab; before Šamašmubaliṭ, [pg 184] the priest of Gula; before Nabi-Sin, son of Idin-Sin; before Sin-uzeli, son of Ṣili-Ištar; before Ubar-Sin, son of Sin-šemi; before Sin-gimlanni, the attendant of the judges.
“He has impressed the seal of the contracting parties.
“Month Adar, year Ḫammurabi the king made (images of) Ištar and Nanaa.”[28]
Iribam-Sin, however, seems not to have been satisfied that he had been fairly dealt with, for notwithstanding that they were not to act hostilely towards each other, he immediately brought an action to get possession of property belonging to Ṣili-Ištar and his brothers, the result of which was the following declaration on the part of the latter—
“Concerning 1 ŠAR, a dwelling-house, and 2 ŠAR, a large enclosure, which Ṣili-Išstar and Awel-ili, his brother, sons of Ili-sukkalu, bought from Sin-mubaliṭ and his brothers, sons of Pirḫum. In the temple of the Sun-god Ṣili-Ištar said thus: ‘I verily bought (it) with the money of my mother—it was not bought with the money that was ours in common. Iribam-Sin, son of Ubar-Sin, has no share in the house and large enclosure.’[29] He has invoked the spirit of the king.
“Before Utuki-šemi, son of Awiatum; before Abil-Sin, son of Nannara-manšum; before Sin-êreš, the provost; before Sin-uzelli, son of Nûr-îli; before Ipuš-Êa, the du-gab; before Nabi-Sin, son of Idin-Sin; before Ubar-Sin, son of Sin-šemi, his father; before Šamaš-mubaliṭ, the priest of Gula; before Singimlanni, [pg 185] the attendant of the judges. They have impressed the seal of the parties.
“Month Adar, year of the (images of) Ištar and Nanaa.”
The day of the month is not given, so that we are in doubt as to whether the second tablet preceded the first or followed it. In all probability the latter was the case, or else the two actions were simultaneous, and the fact that the witnesses and officials of the court are the same in both documents speaks in favour of this.
In Babylonia, as in all the ancient East, there was the great blot upon their civilization which has not even at the present time, the dawn of the twentieth century, disappeared from the earth, namely, that of slavery. Throughout the long ages over which Babylonian domestic literature extends, the student finds this to be always present, and one of the most striking examples is contained in the following document, which exhibits the blot with all its possible horrors—
“(Tablet of) Šamaš-nûri, daughter of Ibi-Šân. Bunini-âbi and Bêlisunu have bought her from Ibi-Šân, her father—for Bunini-âbi a wife—for Bêlisunu a servant. The day Šamaš-nûri says to Bêlisunu, her mistress, ‘Thou art not my mistress,’ they shall shave off her hair, and sell her for silver. As the complete price he has paid five shekels of silver. He has taken the key.[30] The affair is concluded. He is content. (At no future time) shall one bring a claim against the other. They have invoked the spirit of Šamaš, Aa, Marduk, and Ḫammurabi.”
(Here follow the names of seven witnesses.)
“Month Iyyar, day 3rd, year of the throne of Zērpanitum” (the 12th year of Ḫammurabi or Amraphel).
That a father should part with his daughter for [pg 186] money in order that that daughter should become the wife of a man already married, agreeing at the same time that the young woman should become the slave of the first wife, would seem to the ordinary Western mind at the present day most barbarous. That it was not the lowest depth, however, is implied by the condition attached to the contract, and containing a kind of penalty, namely, that if the new wife denied that the first wife was her mistress, she might be sold as a slave. In what her position differed from that of a thrall, however, does not appear.
Naturally the case of Hagar, the slave of Sarah, Abraham's wife, will at once occur to the reader, though the two differ somewhat. Nevertheless, it is not improbable that the well-known Bible-story explains that of the tablet, in giving a reason for the purchase of Šamaš-nûri—namely, in order to give the purchaser, Bunini-âbi, a chance of having offspring, which, in all probability, his first wife Bêlisunu had not brought him. It is difficult to imagine that she would consent to the introduction of a rival for any other reason. Of course, the new wife may have been well treated, but a transaction of the kind here recorded naturally gave an opening to all possible abuses. Another case of the taking of a second wife, with the proviso that she is to be the servant of the first, is that of Iltani (see pp. [174-175]), who, however, was not a slave, and had a regular marriage-deed. Moreover, she is described as the sister (âḫat), not the slave (âmat) of the first wife.
On the same plate of the British Museum publication from which the foregoing is taken, there is a more ordinary document referring to slavery, and in this case it is to all appearance the sale of a real slave-woman and her child—
“1 slave-woman, Bêlti-magirat by name, and her child, handmaid of Šarrum-Addu and Ḫammurabi-Šamši, Nabium-malik, son of Addu-naṣir, has bought [pg 187] from Šarrum-Addu, son of Addu-naṣir, and Ḫammurabi-Šamši, his wife. As the complete price he has paid 18-½ shekels of silver. At no future time shall they make claim against each other. They have invoked the spirit of Marduk and Ḫammurabi.”
(Here follow the names of eight witnesses, including two brothers of the contracting parties.)
“Month Tebet, day 21st, year Ḫammurabi the king destroyed, by command of Anu and Bêl, the fortification of Mair, and Malgia.”
Tablets referring to the sale and purchase of slaves are numerous, and do not present much variety, being nearly all written in accordance with the usual legal forms. In the hiring of slaves, however, there is a little more dissimilarity—
“Awel-Addi, son of Sililum, has hired Arad-îli-remeanni from Erišti-Šamaš, sun-devotee, daughter of Sin-bêl-âbli, for a year. The hire for a year, 5 shekels of silver, he will pay. A first instalment of the sum, 2 shekels of silver, she has received. He will be clothed by his hirer.
“He entered (upon his duties) on the 16th of Elul.
“Before Šamaš, Aa; before Taribatum; before Nûr-Marduk; before Laḫutum.
“Year Samsu-iluna (made) a throne of gold (shining like the stars, for Nin-gala”).
The following is a similar text with additional clauses—
“Asir-Addu, son of Libit-Urra, has hired Šamaš-bêl-ili from Aḫatani, sun-devotee, daughter of Šamaš-ḫazir, for his first year. As hire for his first year, he shall pay 3-½ shekels of silver. He shall clothe himself. He entered (on his duties) on the 4th of the month Dûr-Addi, in the month Mamitu he will complete (his term), and may leave.
“Before Asirum, son of Ea-rabi; before Nin-gira-âbi, son of Eribam; before Arad-Sin, son of Sin-idinnam.
“The year of Samsu-iluna, the king.”
(The accession-year of Amraphel's successor.)
In the following the slave is hired for produce—
“Riš-Šamaš, son of Marduk-naṣir, has hired Nawir-nûr-šu from Šubtum for a year. He will pay 20 qa of oil as his hire for the year. He will clothe him. He entered in the month Elul, in the month Tirinu he may go forth.
“Before Rišutum; before Êrišti-Aa.
“Year the great fortification....”
When a man had no master—was his own master, in fact—he was hired “from himself”—
“Idin-Ittum has hired for wages Naram-ili-šu from himself, for six months. He will receive 2 shekels of silver as wages for the six months.
“Before Êtel-pî-Uraš, before Sin-îlu, before Aḫum, the scribe.
“Month Nisan, day 20th, year the throne ... was....”
Servants were not only hired from their masters and themselves, but also from their fathers, mothers, brothers, and whoever else might have charge of them. There are also lists of workmen hired for various purposes in batches. Those who went about doing reaping seem to have been of various nationalities, and interesting names are on that account found in the lists from time to time.
In all probability the towns at that early period resembled closely those of the Semitic East at the present day, the streets being as a rule narrow (from the necessity of obtaining protection from the excessive heat of the sun during the hot season) and exceedingly dirty. This is shown by the excavations at Niffer, where, at the earliest period, when the street in question was constructed, the houses were entered by going up a few steps. Later on, in consequence of the accumulations, the footpath became level with the floor of the house, and, at a later period still, a [pg 189] little staircase had to be built leading down into the building. As may easily be imagined, the conditions in which the ancient Babylonians lived were in the highest degree insanitary, and such as would probably not be tolerated for a day in Europe at the present time.
Judging from the remains of private houses which have been found, these buildings were not by any means large. In fact, they must have contained only a few small rooms. Where, however, there was space—as, for example, when the house was built in the middle of a field—the rooms were probably moderately large, and more numerous. They were of either unburnt or burnt brick, and the roofs were supported by beams. The floors seem to have been generally the bare earth.
Many lists of the furniture of these dwelling-places are extant, and allow us to estimate to a certain extent the amount of comfort which their inhabitants enjoyed. They reclined upon couches, and sometimes—perhaps often—it happened that the owner of the house possessed several of these articles of furniture. Apparently, too, it was their custom to sit upon chairs, and not upon the ground, as they do in the East at the present day, and have done for many centuries. Various vessels, of wood, earthenware, and copper, were also to be found there, together with measures of different kinds,[31] implements needed in the trade of the owner, and certain objects of stone. In some cases things of precious stone are referred to, a circumstance which points to a considerable amount of prosperity on the part of the owner of the house and its contents.
As will be seen farther on, when Babylonian life of a later period comes to be treated of, the leasehold system, with all its disadvantages, was in full force, and there is just the possibility that it was already in use during the time of the dynasty of Babylon. Even at this early date the question of party walls was an important one, as the tablet of Šamaš-în-mâtim and Êrišti-Aa, daughter of Zililum, shows. They were to set up the dividing wall (gušuru, apparently palings) aḫum mala aḫim, lit. “brother as much as brother,” i.e. one as much as the other. They managed things differently in ancient Babylonia, and if this was the usual arrangement, it must have given rise to endless disputes.
It is probable that, before the time of Ḫammurabi, the ancient Babylonians had no code of laws in the true sense of the term. All the legal decisions known seem to have been decided on their merits by the judges who tried the cases, and in such actions in which the judges could not come to a decision, the matter seems to have been referred to the king, whose word was, to all appearance, final. Naturally an enormous responsibility rested on the judges on account of this, but they were not entirely without help in the matter of deciding difficult and unusual questions. Lists of precedents were kept, and to these, in all probability, they constantly referred—indeed, the tablets of legal precedents were held in such high esteem, that copies of them were kept in the libraries of Assyria, and in Babylonia also, in all probability, until long after the destruction of the Assyrian power, notwithstanding that legal use and wont had by that time somewhat changed. One or two examples of these legal precedents may here be quoted to show their nature:—
“If a son say to his father, ‘Thou art not my father,’ they may shave him, put him in fetters, and sell him for silver.
“If a son say to his mother, ‘Thou art not my mother,’ they may shave off his hair, lead him round the city, and drive him forth from the house.
“If a wife hate her husband, and say to him, ‘Thou art not my husband,’ they may throw her into the river.
“If a husband say to his wife, ‘Thou art not my wife,’ he shall pay her half a mana of silver.
“If a man hire a slave, and he dies, is lost, runs away, gets locked up, or falls ill, he shall pay as his hire every day half a measure of grain.”
Thus did the ancient Babylonians punish those who offended against their laws, and protect property (for the slave-hirer was undoubtedly saddled with a heavy responsibility). Was it that the death of a hired slave was regarded as testifying to the severity of his temporary hirer? In all probability it was so, and in that case, one cannot help regarding the law as a wise one. To all appearance, also, illness was attributed to his employer's cruelty. As to his running away, or falling into the hands of the police, these things would prove that his employer was not watchful enough with regard to him. A modern European lawyer would most likely not regard this particular law as being very exactly worded (there is no limit of time during which the slave's wages were payable, and one can only guess that the term of his service with his hirer was understood), but there seems to be no doubt as to its intention—to safeguard the slave, and his owner at the same time, by making his hirer responsible for every mishap and accident which might happen to him whilst he was with his temporary master.