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.
Speculation not unknown
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.
Caravan trade
We learn from many hints, that caravan trade was always active. The name of Ḥarran in Mesopotamia is supposed [pg 284] 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.
These dealings frequent in later times
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.
Importance of the canals for commerce