Babylonian and Assyrian Laws, Contracts and Letters Part 31

II. The Letters Of ?ammurabi

(M754) The letters of ?ammurabi are by far the most important collection of letters. .h.i.therto published for the period of the First Dynasty of Babylon. They had a certain advent.i.tious value at one time, because one of them was thought to contain the name of Chedorlaomer, and this a.s.sociation with ?ammurabi, as Amraphel, was exploited in the interests of a defence of the historical value of Genesis xiv. Mr. L. W. King's edition of the letters, however, showed that such a use was unwarranted. But it served a much more useful end, giving us a very full picture of the times of the founder of the First Babylonian Empire. The excellent account given by Mr.

King of the contents of these letters is fairly exhaustive. The importance of such sources for history cannot be overestimated. They are contemporary. They are not written to impress posterity, but with absolute fidelity to fact. We may disbelieve some of the excuses made for misconduct, but in the references to current events or general customs we have a sure witness, if only we can understand them. This is often difficult because a letter presupposes relations between the correspondents which we must conjecture.

(M755) Since Mr. King's introduction to his first volume gives a full account of the few letters previously published, this need not be reproduced here. Of ?ammurabi's letters fifty-three are addressed to one and the same man, Sin-iddinam. It is doubtful whether he was the King of Larsa who bore this name, or the official who in the next reign seems to be Governor of Sippara. There are many persons who bore this name known at this period. However, several mentions of the temple of Shamash at Larsa occur in these letters and there is a certain presumption that Sin-iddinam of Larsa was the person intended.

(M756) ?ammurabi's ability as an administrator, which these letters reveal, and his care even for small details of his rule, may well be the reason why his empire proved so stable. He established a tradition which was long followed by his successors. He organized his land, appointed governors, and held them responsible to himself. He had a direct interest in their doings and sent minute written instructions, demanding reports, summoning defaulters to his presence, or directing their punishment where they were. The dates for his reign, as for others of the dynasty, show, not only raids and conquests, but chiefly public works of utility. The construction or repair of ca.n.a.ls, public buildings, temples, the ordering of justice, are works that repaid his care.

(M757) ?ammurabi was a man of many business enterprises. The collection of the temple revenues was an object of his attention. There is no evidence that these were available for his use, but he had a personal interest in all that was right and just. To him the herdsmen and shepherds of the temple flocks and herds had to report. He often appears as restoring, rebuilding, or adorning shrines, and he was careful of his religious duties. Thus he postponed a case because of a festival at Ur, which he seems to have found demanded the presence of one of the parties.

(M758) He had to settle important questions concerning the calendar; whether or not reports of astronomical observations were then received is not clear, but at any rate the king decided when the intercalary months should be inserted. Thus he told Sin-iddinam there was to be a second Elul.

(M759) The administration of justice was also no small part of his work.

Not only did he promulgate a code, but he also superintended its execution. There was a right of appeal to his judgment. He actively supervised his judges in the provinces. Thus a case of bribery was reported from Dur-gurgurri and he instructed Sin-iddinam to investigate the case and send the guilty parties to Babylon for punishment. He upheld a merchant's claim against a city governor, for the recovery of a loan. He protected the landowners against money-lenders. He examined claims to land and sent instructions to Sin-iddinam to carry out his decision. Thefts of corn, loans withheld, rents, were adjudicated by him. He summoned not only the parties, but the witnesses, to Babylon. Prisoners were sent under escort, and arrests ordered.

(M760) The king's own herds and flocks were a personal care to him. They were stationed in various parts of the country. He received reports about them, or sent inspectors to report upon them. On one occasion he summoned forty-seven shepherds to come and report to him in Babylon. He ordered additional shearers to a.s.sist those already at work. He regulated supplies of wood, dates, seed, and corn. These were often sent by ship, and there is evidence of a large number of ships being employed, of varied capacities.

(M761) Public buildings demanded large gangs of workmen. They were drawn from the slave and serf population. A great many letters are concerned with the supply and movements of these laborers. Whether forced labor was inflicted as a punishment may be doubted. But the _corvee_ was in full operation. The hire of laborers is referred to, and it is probable that the forced laborers were fed and clothed at the expense of the state. Thus we see that ?ammurabi was a busy man and worked hard to build up his empire. His successors, though we have fewer of their letters, seem to have been fully as active.

(M762) It is not easy to select specimens for this period. Each letter has an interest of its own, and it is tempting to include most of them. But we may take the two letters referring to the G.o.ddesses of Emutbal, because one of them by a series of misreadings and misunderstandings was made to contain the famous reference to Chedorlaomer. The first(815) may be rendered.

To Sin-iddinam say, thus saith ?ammurabi: Now I am sending Zikir-ilishu, the _AB-AB-UL_, and ?ammurabi-bani, the _DU-GAB_, to bring the G.o.ddesses of Emutbal. Do thou forthwith embark the G.o.ddesses in a procession-boat (state barge) and let them come to Babylon. Let the hierodules come with them. For the sustenance of the G.o.ddesses embark food, drink, sheep, ship's furniture, and travelling expenses for the hierodules, until they reach Babylon.

Appoint men to draw the ropes, and _bi?ru_ men, that the G.o.ddesses may come safely to Babylon. Let them not delay but come quickly to Babylon.

(M763) These G.o.ddesses were very likely captured during an expedition to Emutbal which was a border province of Elam. It is natural to a.s.sociate this with the thirty-first year of ?ammurabi, for which the full date is:

"The year of ?ammurabi, the king, in which by the help of Anu and Bel he established his good fortune, and his hand cast to the earth the land of Iamutbal and Rim-Sin, the king."(816)

The transport of the G.o.ddesses was made possible by the system of ca.n.a.ls.

Intercommunication was in an excellent state, for ?ammurabi ordered a man to be sent to Babylon from Larsa, and allowed him two days, travelling day and night. The hierodules are the female attendants of the G.o.ddesses. The officers whom ?ammurabi sent bear t.i.tles not yet clearly recognized. The name ?ammurabi-bani points to a deification of the king. Whether the G.o.ddesses reached Babylon and there brought misfortune on the country and so were sent back again, or whether their restoration to their shrines in Emutbal was part of the king's policy for a pacification of the conquered country, does not appear. But we read in another letter:(817)

"To Sin-iddinam say, thus saith ?ammurabi: The G.o.ddesses of Emutbal, which are in thy command, the troops of Inu?samar shall bring safely to thee. When they shall reach thee, combine the troops with those in thy hands and restore the G.o.ddesses to their shrines."

The construction of the pa.s.sage seems to imply that the G.o.ddesses had protected Inu?-samar. The latter was in command of troops that were within Sin-iddinam's jurisdiction; for when Sin-magir complained to ?ammurabi that Inu?-samar had impressed some of his servants for military service contrary to a bond given him by the king, ?ammurabi referred the matter to Sin-iddinam, ordering the servant to be given up.(818) It was this name Inu?-samar that Scheil misread as Kudur-nu?-gamar.

(M764) A number of letters concern the ca.n.a.ls of the country. Thus we read:(819)

"To Sin-iddinam say, thus saith ?ammurabi: Summon the people who hold fields on the side of the Damanu ca.n.a.l, that they may scour the Damanu ca.n.a.l. Within this present month let them finish scouring the Damanu ca.n.a.l."

Here we are introduced to the duty which lay upon riparians to keep the ca.n.a.ls running alongside their land in order. This was part of the _ilku_, or customary obligation. It lay with the governor to enforce it. In another letter(820) the king complains that a ca.n.a.l which had been partly cleared had not been cleared as far as Erech, and so the boats could not enter that city. Here Sin-iddinam was ordered to do the work with the men at his disposal and complete it in three days. After that he was to go on with the work he had already been ordered to do. In another fragmentary letter the king orders the clearing away of the water-plants which had obstructed the course of the Euphrates between Ur and Larsa. One is reminded of the _sudd_ on the Nile.(821)

(M765) The case of bribery is referred to in a way that leaves it rather doubtful whether a theft may not be meant. The meaning of the word rendered "bribe" by King is unknown, and his identification of _tatu_ with _da'tu_ is not certain. But at any rate the wrong was brought under the cognizance of ?ammurabi, and he writes:(822)

To Sin-iddinam say, thus saith ?ammurabi: Shumma-ilu-la-ilu saith thus, so saith he, "In Dur-gurgurri bribery has taken place. The people who took the bribe and the witnesses who know the affair are here." Thus he saith. Now I will send this same Shumma-ilu-la-ilu, a _DU-GAB_ and a ... to thee. When this letter is seen inquire into the matter. If there is bribery, take the money, or what was given as a bribe, seal it up and send to my presence. The people that received the bribe, and the witnesses who know the case, whom Shumma-ilu-la-ilu will disclose, send to me.

(M766) A case of oppression by a governor is complained of, and redressed by the king. He writes:(823)

To Sin-iddinam say, thus saith ?ammurabi: Lalu, the _kadurru_, hath informed me thus, saith he, "Ani-ellati, the governor _rabianu_, has laid claim to [alienated] the field which I have held since ... and [taken] the corn of the field." Thus he hath informed me. The tablet can be seen in the palace. Lalu holds two _GAN_ of land. Why has Ani-ellati, the governor, laid claim to Lalu's field? Inquire into the matter. If Ani-ellati has lent on mortgage to Lalu, the _kadurru_, grant him his debt and lay the blame on Ani-ellati, who lent on pledge.

It is clear that Lalu was one of those privileged officials who held lands by royal charter, and who could not be dispossessed of their land. The Code directs(824) that a governor shall not lend on mortgage to a reeve or runner or tributary, under pain of death. Although a _kadurru_ is not there named, this letter makes it probable he was similarly protected. It is interesting to notice where the record was to be found. The palace, or "great house," was the residence of the governor. The tablet probably recorded the appointment of Lalu to his benefice; it therefore was his t.i.tle-deed. An interesting question may be raised here. Did ?ammurabi mean in his own palace? It may be so, for he writes in another letter:(825)

(M767)

To Sin-iddinam say, thus saith ?ammurabi: One _GAN_ of water-meadow, a field in the district of Dur-gurgurri is an old possession of Ea-lubani. In a tablet it is inscribed as his. Give the field to Ea-lubani.

Now how could ?ammurabi know this unless the tablet had been shown to him?

Perhaps the claimant brought his tablet with him when he came to lay his plea before the king. That is quite possible, but it may well be that the king insisted that all t.i.tle-deeds be deposited in the capital.

(M768) An order for the restoration of stolen corn appears in another letter:(826)

To Sin-iddinam say, thus saith ?ammurabi: ?ummumu of Nippur hath informed me thus, saith he, "I deposited seventy _GUR_ of corn in a granary in Unabu and Amel-ili has opened the granary and taken the corn." Thus he hath informed me. Now I will send ?ummumu himself to thee. Send and let them bring Amelili to thee. See what they have to say. The corn belonging to ?ummumu which Amel-ili took let him return to ?ummumu.

Another letter reads thus:(827)

To Sin-iddinam say, thus saith ?ammurabi: Ilushu-i?ish, the merchant, over five, has informed me thus, saith he, "Thirty _GUR_ of corn I gave to Sin-magir, the _akkanak_, and I took his receipt. I have asked for it for three years and he has not given back the corn." Thus hath he informed me. I have seen his receipt.

Cause Sin-magir to give up the corn and its interest and give it to Ilu-shu-i?ish.

The t.i.tle "over five" seems to be meant literally. He was a superior merchant. Like many another hint, this speaks for the strict organization of each cla.s.s of the community. The _akkanak_ was usually the superior official, "governor," of a city, or of a ward of a city. We are not told what was Sin-magir's district. But it was under Sin-iddinam's rule. In other letters we read of a Sin-magir being sent to Babylon.(828) Perhaps he refused to give up the corn.

Another letter ill.u.s.trates the incidence of taxes and the relations of landlord and tenant:(829)

(M769)

To Sin-iddinam say, thus saith ?ammurabi: As to what I sent to thee about the corn that is the tax on the field of Ibni-Martu, which is in the hands of Etil-bi-Marduk, to be given to Ibni-Martu; thou didst say, "Etil-bi-Marduk hath said thus, saith he, 'I have cultivated another field together with the field of Ibni-Martu, and the corn is all garnered in one place, let them declare on oath before G.o.d how much corn was from the field of Ibni-Martu and let them take the tax.' Thus he said. But Ibni-Martu did not agree. Saith he, 'Without Ibni-Martu one can do nothing.' Thus he said, and went away." As to what thou didst send, "the corn, as much as was in his field, should be declared before G.o.d and the tax given him." As thou didst send, let them declare before G.o.d how much corn was in the field of Ibni-Martu, and pay Ibni-Martu the corn that is the tax on his field.

The case is not quite clear, but Ibni-Martu owed a tax on his field. He had either mortgaged or let his field to another. This tenant had not given him the corn to pay the tax and excused himself on the ground that the produce of the field was now mixed up with that of another field.

Hence he could not say how much the tax should be; clearly it was proportionate to the yield. The method of solving the difficulty was that a sworn estimate had to be taken from competent witnesses and the tax levied on that basis. This course was recommended by Sin-iddinam in a previous report on the situation. The amount was to be given to the landlord, who then had to pay the tax. He clearly had no rent in corn from the land; but he could not sell or mortgage his crop except subject to the tax. The mortgagee was liable for the tax and the owner was bound to pay.

The mortgagee must furnish him the means to do so; he had no right to claim the part of the crop due as tax, whatever bargain he had made with the owner of the land.