A History of Babylon, from the Foundation of the Monarchy to the Persian Conquest

by L. W. King

The administration of justice at the period of the First Dynasty was carried out by duly appointed courts of law under the supervision of the king. The judges were appointed by the crown, and a check was put upon any arbitrary administration of the law by the fact that the elders of the city sat with them and assisted them in hearing and sifting evidence. When once a judgment had been given and recorded, it was irrevocable, and if any judge attempted to alter such a decision, he was expelled from his judgment-seat and debarred from exercising judicial functions in the future. The regulation was probably intended to prevent the possibility of subsequent bribery; and, if a litigant considered that justice had not been done, it was always open to him to appeal to the king. Hammurabi's letters prove that he exercised strict supervision, not only over the cases decided in the capital, but also over those which were tried in the other great cities of Babylonia, and it is clear that he attempted to stamp out corruption on the part of all those invested with authority. On one occasion he had been informed of a case of bribery in the town of Dûr-gurgurri, and he at once ordered the governor of the district to investigate the charge and send the guilty parties to Babylon for punishment. The bribe, too, was to be confiscated and despatched to Babylon under seal, a wise provision that would have tended to discourage those inclined to tamper with the course of justice, while at the same time it enriched the state.[36] The king probably tried all cases of appeal in person, when it was possible; but in distant cities he deputed this duty to local officials. Many of the cases that came before him arose from the extortions of money-lenders,[37] and the king had no mercy when fraud on their part was proved.

The relations maintained by the king with the numerous classes of the priesthood was also very close, and the control he exercised over the chief priests and their subordinates appears to have been as effective as that he maintained over the judicial authorities throughout the country. Under the Sumerians there had always been a tendency on the part of the more powerful members of the hierarchy to usurp the prerogatives of the crown,[38] but this danger appears to have been fully discounted under the rule of the Western Semites. One important section of the priestly body were the astrologers, whose duty it probably was to make periodical reports to the king on the conjunctions and movements of the heavenly bodies, with the object of ascertaining whether they portended good or evil to the state. The later Assyrian practice may well have had its origin at this period, and we may conclude that the regulation of the calendar was carried out in accordance with such advice. One of Hammurabi's letters has come down to us in which he writes to inform Sin-idinnam, his local governor of Larsa, that it had been decided to insert an intercalary month in the calendar. He writes that, as the year, that is the calendar, had a deficiency, the month that was beginning was to be registered as the second Elul; and he adds the very practical reminder, that the insertion of the extra month would not justify any postponement in the payment of the regular tribute due from the city of Larsa.[39] The lunar calendar of the Babylonians rendered the periodical intercalation of months necessary, in order that it should be made to correspond to the solar year; and the duty of watching for the earliest appearance of the new moon and fixing the first day of each month, was among the most important of the functions performed by the official astrologers.

In the naming of the year the priesthood must also have played an important part, since the majority of the events from which the years were named were of a religious character. The system, which was inherited from the Sumerians, cannot have been a very convenient one,[40] and no doubt it owed its retention to the sanctity of the religious rites and associations attaching to it. There can be little doubt that, normally, the naming of the year took place at the New Year's Feast, and, when the event commemorated in the formula was the installation of a chief priest or the dedication of temple-furniture, the royal act, we may assume, was performed on the day the year was named.[41] Often merely a provisional title was adopted from the preceding formula, and then perhaps no ceremony of naming was held, unless in the course of it a great victory, or other important occurrence, was commemorated by the renaming of the year. The king must have consulted with his priestly advisers before the close of the old year, and have settled on the new formula in good time to allow of its announcement in the outlying districts of the kingdom.

Another important religious class at this period was the guild of soothsayers, and they also appear to have been directly under the royal control. This we gather from a letter of Ammi-ditana, one of the later kings of the First Dynasty, written to three high officials of Sippar, which illustrates the nature of their duties and the sort of occasion on which they were called upon to perform them.[42] It had come to the king's knowledge that there was a scarcity of corn in Shagga, and since that town was in the administrative district of Sippar, he wrote to the officials concerned ordering them to send a supply thither. But, before the corn was brought into the city, they were to consult the soothsayers, in order to ascertain whether the omens were favourable. The method of inquiry is not specified, but it was probably liver-divination, which was in common use during all periods.[43] Only if the omens proved favourable, was the corn to be brought into the town, and Ave may conclude that the king took this precaution as he feared that the scarcity of corn in Shagga was due to the anger of some local deity. The astrologers would be able to ascertain the facts, and, in the event of their reporting unfavourably, no doubt the services of the local priesthood would have been called in.

We have already seen that flocks and herds which were owned by the great temples were sometimes pastured with those of the king, and there is abundant evidence that the king also superintended the collection of temple-revenues along with his own. Collectors of both secular and ecclesiastical tribute sent reports directly to the king, and, if there was any deficit in the supply expected from a collector, he had to make it up himself. From one of Hammurabi's letters, for example, we gather that two landowners, or money-lenders, had lent money or advanced seed-corn to certain farmers near the towns of Dûr-gurgurri and Rakhabu and along the Tigris, and in settlement of their claims had seized the crops, refusing to pay the proportion due to Bît-il-kittim, the great temple of the Sun-god at Larsa. The governor of Larsa, the principal city in the district, had rightly, as the representative of the palace, caused the tax-collector to make up the deficiency, but Hammurabi, on receiving the subordinate officer's complaint, referred the matter back to the governor, and we may infer from similar cases that the defaulting parties had to make good the loss and submit to fines or punishment.[44] The document throws an interesting light on the methods of government administration, and the manner in which the king gave personal supervision to the smallest details.

It will be obvious that for the administration of the country a large body of officials were required, and of their number two classes, of a semi-military character, enjoyed the king's special favour and protection. They were placed in charge of public works and looked after and controlled the public slaves, and they probably also had a good deal to do with the collection of the revenue. As payment for their duties, they were each granted land with a house and garden; they were assigned sheep and cattle to stock their land, and in addition they Received a regular salary. They were, in a sense, personal retainers of the king, and were liable to be sent at any moment on a special mission. Disobedience was severely punished, for if such an officer, when detailed for special service, hired a substitute, he was liable to be put to death and the substitute could take his office. Sometimes an officer was sent to take charge of a distant garrison for a long period, and when this was done his home duties were performed by another man, who temporarily occupied his house and land, and gave it back to the officer on his return. If the officer had a son old enough to perform the duty in his father's absence, he war allowed to do so; and, if he was too young, his maintenance was paid for out of the estate. Should the officer fail to arrange, before his departure, for the proper cultivation of his land and the discharge of his local duties, another could take his place after the lapse of a year, and on his return he could not reclaim his land or office. When on garrison duty, or on special service, he ran the risk of capture by the enemy, and in that event his ransom was assured. For if his own means did not suffice, the sum had to be paid from the treasury of the local temple, and in the last resort by the state. It was specially enacted that his land, garden, and house were in no case to be sold to pay for his ransom. They were inalienably attached to the office he held, which appears to have been entailed in the male line, since he was precluded from bequeathing any of the property to his wife or daughter. They could only pass from him and his male issue through neglect or disobedience.

IMPRESSIONS OF BABYLONIAN CILINDER SEALS.
Brit. Mus., Nos. 89771, 89388, 89110, 89367.

It is not improbable that the existence of this specially favoured class of officer dates back to the earliest settlement of the Western Semites in Babylonia. The first of their number may well have been personal retainers and followers of Sumu-abum, the founder of the dynasty. Originally soldiers, they were probably assigned lands throughout the country in return for their services to the king, and they continued to serve him by maintaining order and upholding his authority. In the course of time specified duties were assigned to them, but they retained their privileges, and they must have remained a very valuable body of officers, on whose personal loyalty the king could always rely. In the case of war, they may have assisted in mobilization for the army was probably raised on a territorial basis, much on the lines of the corvée for public works which was under their control.