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-uballit in the hands of Belshunu, fifth day,

may serve as an example, but does not convey much information to us. These lists are chiefly valuable for the means of comparison they afford. A three-year-old ox was worth half a mina of silver.(779)

(M721) For Assyrian times we have a few interesting examples, just enough to show that the same customs survived. There are no less than thirty-five kinds of sheep and goats, and fifteen kinds of cattle named in the lists; also eleven kinds of birds. Here is a specimen list of asses which gives some prices:(780)

One male working ass for one and a half minas seven shekels, one she-ass for thirty-seven shekels, a second she-ass for one mina, a third she-ass for one royal mina, a fourth she-ass for thirty-two shekels, in all five and a half minas two shekels.

There is nothing to show for whom or why the list was drawn up, but if the total is correct, we learn that a royal mina was worth one mina forty-six shekels of the ordinary standard. The lists of horses are now very numerous, some dozen varieties being distinguished. Many of these lists give the numbers of horses of different kinds which entered a certain city on a certain day.(781) The horses are often distinguished as coming from certain countries, being called Kusai, or Mesai, horses. The camels are frequently mentioned, and we learn that one was worth a mina and a third.(782) Dromedaries are also named(783) and seem to have been worth three minas apiece.

(M722) Wool accounts play an important part in documents of the early times. They may be regarded as of two kinds. The first are shearers' accounts returned by the shepherd of a flock; the second are concerned with the amounts of wool given out to weavers.

(M723) Shearers' accounts enumerate four sorts or qualities of wool. The best was called royal wool, that which was of the highest quality. The others were second, third, and fourth quality. Poor wool and black wool are also named. Sometimes we are told from what part of the sheep's body it was taken. Other terms applied are less easy to recognize. This wool was received by weight.

(M724) The weavers' accounts give a list of quantities of wool, with the same distinctions as to quality, and the price at which it was assessed. This was doubtless the sum to be paid by the weaver, if the wool was not returned made up. The values attached show very clearly the difference in quality. Thus, while two looms of royal wool were worth thirty minas, seven looms of second quality went for the same value, eleven looms of third quality for a talent, and thirty-two looms of fourth quality for one talent, one loom of another sort for one talent, and the same amount of black wool for the same value.(784) It is evident that the black wool was highly valued. The loom, literally, "beam," of wool, was some measure, perhaps what would occupy one weaver. The price was probably fixed in silver. The price of the same quality varied from time to time.

(M725) In the letters of Hammurabi and his successors there are frequent references to the shearing, and orders for the inspection of flocks and herds.(785) The Code does not refer to sheep-shearing, though it mentions wool. The shearing was concluded by the New Year feast in Nisan. In the contemporary contracts there are several wool accounts. As a rule, one talent, or sixty minas' weight, of wool was served out to several men who were to pay for it, to the palace, at the rate of one shekel of silver per mina.

(M726) In Assyrian times we have great wool and weaving accounts. Some deal with the huge amounts of wool received as tribute from the great cities of the empire and then served out to bodies of weavers in various palaces with specifications of the species of cloth or sorts of garments which were to be returned. In the later Babylonian times we have a large number of wool accounts recording the amounts given out from the temple to various persons to weave or make up into garments.(786)

(M727) Skins are also named in the accounts. They are distinguished as the skins of certain kinds of animals. Various amounts are credited to different persons, but whether as giving or receiving, and in what capacity, is not clear. Sheep and goat skins are most common, but ox and cow hides are named.

(M728) The Code does not refer to these, nor the letters of Hammurabi and his successors, but we have lists of skins and carcasses of animals.(787) The purpose of the lists is not clear. In Assyrian times there are frequent references to hides. There was a distinct grade of official called a sarip tahse, "dyer of skins." Large quantities were bought in the markets of Kalah and Harran. The price was about two shekels of silver for a skin.(788) The articles made of leather are very numerous; shoes, harness, pouches, even garments, are named. It was used for buckets, baskets, bottles, shields, and many other things not clearly recognized.

(M729) Fairly frequent also are accounts of the quantities of corn expended for the keep of flocks and herds. The amounts allowed per diem are the chief items of interest. Sheep were allowed from one to one and a half KA a day, lambs half a KA, oxen six to eight KA.(789) In the Code we find allowances for the keep of animals. There are very frequent lists in Assyrian times of amounts of corn given to various animals. These also occur at later times. The amounts allowed per day are various and by no means uniform. A very good example gives as the allowance of corn for a full-grown sheep two KA per diem, for a young sheep, one KA, for a lamb one-half KA.(790)

(M730) Acknowledgments of advances, or loans, occur in the first epoch. As a rule, we are not told what was the ground of the loan. The fact that these loans were to be repaid is not stated, and we may take the tablets to be merely receipts for things given out to officials who had a right to them. The substances were corn of different kinds, wine, beer, sesame-wine, butter, flour and other food-stuffs, wool, and other supplies. We sometimes learn prices from these tablets. Thus a GUR of corn cost one shekel.(791)

(M731) Long lists of accounts are very common at all epochs. They relate what sums or amounts were paid out to various officials for certain goods or for wages, keep, and the like. In fact, they are stewards' accounts. Unfortunately, the way in which most collections have been formed, and even more the way in which they have since been preserved, renders it impossible for us to make the use of them which has often been made of mediaeval accounts. Otherwise we could obtain from them many interesting items. They are, however, most valuable for prices and names.

(M732) Thus, in such lists we find mention of articles which would otherwise remain unsuspected. The first reference to iron is in the Hammurabi period,(792) whence we learn that a shekel of silver would buy eight times its weight of iron. Sometimes we get an important contribution to chronology. It is well known that there is no certainty as to the order of the Eponyms after B.C. 648, but we know their names for at least forty years later. Any contribution to the order of these names would be welcomed with avidity. Thus, one scribe writes: "Income from the Eponymy of Sagab to the Eponymy of Nabu-shar-aheshu, for six years, which was paid in as maintenance, eleven talents ... besides twenty-seven plates of silver." We cannot say whose income it was, but the previous section dealt with the income of the crown prince, and this may be only a resume of the last. But we now know that from Sagab to Nabu-shar-aheshu was six years in all.

Thus, from the most varied and often most unpromising sources are derived those important details which make it possible to attain an exact and realistic conception of Babylonian and Assyrian history and life.



BABYLONIAN AND ASSYRIAN LETTERS



I. Letters And Letter-Writing Among The Babylonians And Assyrians

(M733) (M734) The ancient Babylonians early discovered the convenience of written communication between friends at a distance. The origin of letter-writing is not yet clear; for, when we first meet with letters, they are fully developed. A piece of clay, usually shaped like a miniature pillow, was inscribed and then enclosed in an envelope made of a thin sheet of clay. On the envelope was written the address. As a rule, the letter was baked hard before being put into its envelope. Powdered clay was inserted to prevent sticking. The envelope, after being inscribed, was also baked hard. Of course, the letter could not be read without breaking the envelope, which was therefore a great protection to the interior letter. The envelope was naturally thrown away after being broken. Hence, extremely few envelopes have been preserved.

(M735) The practice of dating letters does not seem to have been common. We have dated letters at all epochs, but they are few. In some cases the date may have been on the envelope. It is more common for the writer to give the day of the month, sometimes also the month. But the date of a letter was probably not then of any great importance.

(M736) Some letters seem to have been covered with coarse cloth, on which was impressed a lump of clay, to act as a seal and bind down the edges. The lumps were then sealed with a signet-ring, or cylinder-seal. The clay envelopes were also sealed, before baking, with the sender's seal. So usual was this habit, that the word for seal, unku, is often used to denote a sealed letter. Thus when an official acknowledges the receipt of the king's "seal," it means a sealed order or rescript.

(M737) The early Babylonian letters usually open with the formula, "To A say: Thus saith B." The formula probably goes back to the times when the message was verbally delivered. These would be the words used to a messenger who had to remember the message. The verb "saith" is not expressed exactly. The word used is umma, which is often rendered "saying"; it introduces a direct quotation. We might render, "In the name of B." But the written letter replaced the spoken message. Some think the letter was read by a professional reader. Such readers are common still, where education is not widely diffused. It is very clear that the letter was generally written by a scribe. Thus, all Hammurabi's letters show the same hand, while those of Abeshu or Ammi-ditana are quite different. In the case of private letters we have less proof. But it is possible that the king sometimes wrote with his own hand. Some terms of expression render that very likely. It is, however, quite impossible to be certain on such points.

(M738) The same opening formula also appears in the Tell el Amarna letters. It is not known in Assyrian letters, but survived in Babylonia to a late period. In Assyria the formula is nearly the same; with the omission of the kibi, or "say," it reads "To A thus B." In addresses to superiors, B usually adds "thy servant." Polite letters generally add good wishes for the recipient. These are exceedingly varied. The word sulmu plays a great part in them. Literally it denotes "peace." "Peace be to thee" is very common. But it soon came to mean the "greeting of peace."

Thus "I have sent ana sulmika" means "I have sent to wish thee peace," "to greet thee." But it also takes the more general meaning of well-being. Thus sulmu iasi means "I am well," "it is peace with me"; not only absence from war, but health and all prosperity was included. Hence Joram's inquiry of Jehu, "Is it peace, Jehu?" means "Is everything all right?" "Be thou at peace" may be rendered loosely, "I hope you are well," in the fullest sense that "all is well with you." No consistent rendering can be given for such phrases as these.

(M739) Very often letters quote the previous message of the present recipient, sa taspuranni, "what thou didst send me." But the quotation is often omitted and then this becomes an awkward rendering. We have to fill up some general sentence such as, "as to what you sent about." A very difficult sort of construction arises when the writer sets down a list of questions, which he has been asked, and the answer to each. As there are no capitals, periods, or question-marks, there is often some difficulty in separating a question from its answer. This may be done differently by different translators, with startlingly different results.

(M740) Very many sentences are elliptical. Thus, it was common to add at the end of the letter something like, "I leave it to you to decide." This might be put, "As the king, my lord, sees fit, let him do." But a scribe would often merely say, "As the king sees fit." Such elliptical sentences are often very difficult to complete. They were obviously clear to the recipient. To us they leave a wide margin for conjecture.

(M741) Very early indeed in the history of Babylonia a sort of postal system had been developed. At any rate, in the time of Sargon I., B.C. 3800, an active exchange of commodities existed between Agade and Shirpurla. Packages or vessels of produce or goods were forwarded and with them small blocks of clay, impressed with seals and inscribed with the address of the recipient. These were probably used to prevent the fastenings of the packages from being untied, and on their backs may be seen the impressions of the strings which fastened the packages.(793) As it happens, no letters have yet been published from the era preceding the First Dynasty of Babylon; but we can hardly doubt that such exist.

(M742) In the time of the First Dynasty of Babylon letters appear frequently in the collections of tablets brought to our museums. The volumes of Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets, etc., in the British Museum, published by order of the Trustees,(794) contain a large number of letters from copies made by Mr. T. G. Pinches. These have been made the subject of a study by Dr. Mary Williams Montgomery.(795) Mr. L. W. King, in his work, The Letters and Inscriptions of Hammurabi, published fifty-five letters of Hammurabi to his subordinate officer, Sin-idinnam, six letters of Samsuiluna, thirteen of Abeshu', two of Ammiditana, five of Ammizaduga, and two private letters. These were all transcribed, translated, annotated, and, with a number of other contemporary inscriptions, issued with admirable introductions, glossary, and index.(796) Nowhere can a more vivid picture be obtained of the great empire and the manifold duties of a Babylonian king. A number of the texts published in the first volume were translated and commented upon by Dr. G. Nagel under the title, Die Briefe Hammurabi's an Sin-idinnam.(797) Professor Delitzsch added some valuable notes. Dr. B. Meissner had already published the text of four letters as Altbabylonische Briefe.(798) Professor V. Scheil gave the text of two letters of this period, found by him at Sippara, in the Recueil de Travaux(799) and noticed others, and some more in his Une Saison de fouilles a Sippar.(800) These are preserved at Constantinople, but the text has not yet been published. They are chiefly private letters and of a business nature. There are a great many other letters in American and European museums, the publication of which should not be longer delayed.

(M743) For the long period before the Tell el Amarna times, circa B.C. 1500, nothing of any extent seems to have been published, though letters are also known to exist of this period. A late copy of one such letter, addressed by Adadi-Shumnasir, King of Babylon, to Ashur-narara and Nabu-dani, kings of Assyria, about B.C. 1250, is partly preserved in the British Museum.(801)

(M744) The Tell el Amarna tablets, some three hundred in number, were discovered in 1887-88, at the ruins of the palace of Amenophis IV., in Egypt. They will form the subject of a separate volume of this series. They consist of the letters or despatches sent to kings of Egypt by the kings of Babylon, Assyria, Mitanni, and the subject-rulers of many Syrian and Palestinian cities and states. From these can be obtained a very clear view of the state of Syria and Palestine just before the exodus of the Israelites from Egypt. Naturally, these letters have formed the subject of a very large literature. The most complete edition of the texts is by Winckler, Der Thontafelfund von el Amarna.(802) With these should be compared Dr. J. A. Knudtzon's Ergebnisse einer Collation der El Amarna Tafeln and Weitere Studien zu den El Amarna Tafeln.(803) A full transcription with translation and glossary to these texts has been given by Winckler, as Die Thontafeln von Tell el Amarna.(804) An excellent English translation by J. P. Metcalf is to be had. There are a few of these tablets, which found their way into private hands, or to other museums than London, Berlin, and Gizeh, whence Winckler's copies were obtained. It is a duty to science that these should now be published. In the Bulletin de l'Institut Francais d'Archeologie orientale, t. II., published at Cairo, Professor Scheil gives the text of two more of these important letters. The explorer, Dr. F. Bliss, found another in the ruins of Lachish. It is included in Winckler's work above. Professor Sellin has lately found several tablets, which by their script and personal references are shown to belong to this period. They were found at Ta'annek, and are published by Dr. Hronzy in the Anzeige der philos. hist. Klasse der Wiener Akademie.(805) The interest of these additions lies in the fact that they were found in Palestine itself.

(M745) The numerous Cappadocian tablets are now generally recognized by their language and script to belong to this period. They also show considerable affinity with the documents of the First Dynasty of Babylon, and the Tell el Amarna letters preserve many characteristic expressions.

(M746) The subsequent periods in Babylonia are represented by few letters. It is not until we come down to the end of the eighth century and the Sargonide times that we meet with many letters. The archives of Nineveh contained immense numbers. A great many of these are now in the Kouyunjik Collections of the British Museum. There they early attracted attention. Being written by the imperial officials to the kings of Assyria, they contain most valuable material (M747) for history. George Smith in 1871 gave extracts from several of them in his History of Ashurbanipal. A number were published in Rawlinson's Cuneiform Inscriptions of Western Asia. Mr. S. A. Smith, in the Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology, 1887-89,(806) and in the second and third volumes of his Keilschrifttexte Asurbanipals gave some seventy more. Professor Delitzsch also published a number in his Zur assyrisch-babylonischen Briefliteratur,(807) and in his translations and comments laid the real foundation for their interpretation. In 1892 Professor R. F. Harper began the colossal task of publishing the text of all the letters from Nineveh, in his Assyrian and Babylonian Letters belonging to the K Collections of the British Museum, of which eight volumes are already published.(808)

(M748) A considerable number of scholars have busied themselves with the translation and elucidation of these texts. Professor C. Johnston in his work, The Epistolary Literature of the Assyrians and Babylonians;(809) C. van Gelderen, Ausgewaehlte babylonisch-assyrische Briefe;(810) A. J. Delattre, Quelques Lettres Assyriennes;(811) G. R. Berry, The Letters of the Rm. 2 Collection, in American Journal of Semitic Literature, xi., pp. 174-202; F. Martin, Lettres assyriennes et babyloniennes—besides the many articles by other scholars on particular words or subjects—have contributed to the understanding of these difficult texts. Professor R. F. Harper has published a few preliminary studies on these texts.(812) Dr. H. Winckler not only gave several important texts in his Texte verschiedenen Inhalts,(813) but translations and comments on them in his Altorientalische Forschungen.(814)

(M749) The letter-texts of the latter Babylonian period at present published are extremely few. Some may be found in Strassmaier's great collection of Babylonische Texte, among the contracts. A list of those for the reigns of Nabonidus and Nebuchadrezzar is given in Dr. K. L. Tallqvist's Die Sprache der Contracte Nabu-na'ids, p. xviii.

(M750) One of the uses to which the letters may be put is to illustrate the history of the time. From the letters of Hammurabi we can gather a great deal of information as to the civil policy of the reign. From the Tell el Amarna tablets we may reconstruct almost a complete survey of the condition of politics in Palestine. From the Assyrian letters we can rewrite the history of affairs in Armenia at the end of Sargon's reign, or the wars with Elam in Ashurbanipal's time.

(M751) The letters are also a rich mine of information on all sorts of topics, and those very often on which almost all other literatures are silent. We gain here a closer and more intimate acquaintance with humanity than at any other period of ancient history. We must not expect finality in our translations for a long while to come. Fresh documents will continually be found or published that will help us to revise our views. But that is the perennial interest of the letters. We may read and reread them, always finding something fresh to combine with every new piece of information.

(M752) Several different methods of classifying the letters suggest themselves. One plan would be to group those letters which illustrate some phase of civil life. Thus we may collect the references to medical cases, or the illustrations of religious life, or the contributions to astronomy and astrology. But none of these methods will be exhaustive or generally applicable. A letter rarely deals with only one subject. The only scientific classification seems to be that adopted by Professor Harper in his edition of the Nineveh letters, or Mr. King in his letters of Hammurabi. This is to place together all the letters written by one scribe. Here we have two difficulties. There may be more than one scribe of the same name. Thus it is practically certain that in Professor Harper's groups of letters apparently assigned to one man, more than one person is often really involved. Again, a very large number of letters no longer preserve the name of their scribe. Only a prolonged study can reduce these difficulties; it is not likely that we shall ever quite eliminate error.

(M753) There is one large group that has a claim to separate consideration. Many letters are written by, or to, a king. They are on various subjects. A subdivision might be made of reports sent by officials concerning public affairs. But even these often contain side-references; and at the last we have really to consider each letter as a separate document.



II. The Letters Of Hammurabi

(M754) The letters of Hammurabi are by far the most important collection of letters hitherto published for the period of the First Dynasty of Babylon. They had a certain adventitious value at one time, because one of them was thought to contain the name of Chedorlaomer, and this association with Hammurabi, 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 Hammurabi'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) Hammurabi'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 canals, public buildings, temples, the ordering of justice, are works that repaid his care.

(M757) Hammurabi 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 assist 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 Hammurabi 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 goddesses 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 Hammurabi: Now I am sending Zikir-ilishu, the AB-AB-UL, and Hammurabi-bani, the DU-GAB, to bring the goddesses of Emutbal. Do thou forthwith embark the goddesses in a procession-boat (state barge) and let them come to Babylon. Let the hierodules come with them. For the sustenance of the goddesses embark food, drink, sheep, ship's furniture, and travelling expenses for the hierodules, until they reach Babylon. Appoint men to draw the ropes, and bihru men, that the goddesses may come safely to Babylon. Let them not delay but come quickly to Babylon.

(M763) These goddesses were very likely captured during an expedition to Emutbal which was a border province of Elam. It is natural to associate this with the thirty-first year of Hammurabi, for which the full date is:

"The year of Hammurabi, 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 goddesses was made possible by the system of canals. Intercommunication was in an excellent state, for Hammurabi 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 goddesses. The officers whom Hammurabi sent bear titles not yet clearly recognized. The name Hammurabi-bani points to a deification of the king. Whether the goddesses 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 Hammurabi: The goddesses of Emutbal, which are in thy command, the troops of Inuhsamar shall bring safely to thee. When they shall reach thee, combine the troops with those in thy hands and restore the goddesses to their shrines."

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

(M764) A number of letters concern the canals of the country. Thus we read:(819)

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

Here we are introduced to the duty which lay upon riparians to keep the canals 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 canal 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 Hammurabi, and he writes:(822)

To Sin-iddinam say, thus saith Hammurabi: 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 Hammurabi: 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 title-deed. An interesting question may be raised here. Did Hammurabi mean in his own palace? It may be so, for he writes in another letter:(825)

(M767)

To Sin-iddinam say, thus saith Hammurabi: 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 Hammurabi 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 title-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 Hammurabi: Tummumu 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 Tummumu himself to thee. Send and let them bring Amelili to thee. See what they have to say. The corn belonging to Tummumu which Amel-ili took let him return to Tummumu.

Another letter reads thus:(827)

To Sin-iddinam say, thus saith Hammurabi: Ilushu-ikish, the merchant, over five, has informed me thus, saith he, "Thirty GUR of corn I gave to Sin-magir, the Sakkanak, 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-ikish.

The title "over five" seems to be meant literally. He was a superior merchant. Like many another hint, this speaks for the strict organization of each class of the community. The Sakkanak 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 illustrates the incidence of taxes and the relations of landlord and tenant:(829)

(M769)

To Sin-iddinam say, thus saith Hammurabi: 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 God 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 God and the tax given him." As thou didst send, let them declare before God 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.

(M770) (M771) While agriculture was in the hands of free men who only paid on produce, there are indications that commerce was very strictly controlled by the State. The merchant was the only money-lender as a rule. He also seems to have acted as contractor, or farmer of taxes. The merchant, or factor, was under the king's protection and also directly responsible to him. Hence some have regarded him as a royal official. But this is hardly correct. He was to Hammurabi what the Jew of the Middle Ages was to the king then, or the Stock Exchange or Bourse is now. Probably we should not be far wrong in applying to him the term "publican," in the New Testament sense. He owed a certain amount to the treasury, which he recouped from the taxes due from the district for which he contracted. If he did not secure enough, he had to make up the deficit. The following letter(830) deals with what was probably common, namely, an evident reluctance on the part of such officials to settle accounts:

To Sin-iddinam say, thus Hammurabi: Concerning the chief collector, Shep-Sin, I wrote to thee, saying, "send him with one thousand eight hundred GUR of sesame and nineteen minas of silver, due from him, as well as Sin-mushtal, the chief collector, with eighteen hundred GUR of sesame and seven minas of silver, due from him, send them to Babylon, and send with them the market rates (?)..." But thou didst say that these chief collectors had said, "Just now is harvest-time, after harvest we will go." Thus they said, and thou didst tell me. Now the harvest is over. On receipt of this tablet, when I have sent to thee, send Shep-Sin, the chief collector, with one thousand eight hundred GUR of sesame and nineteen minas of silver, his due, and Sin-mushtal, the chief collector, with one thousand eight hundred GUR of sesame and seven minas of silver, his due, to Babylon; and with them thy trustworthy guard, and with all their property let them come and appear before me.

The title which I have rendered "chief collector" may be read "scribe of the merchants." The sign PA, read aklu, does in some of its connections mean "scribe," as tamkaru does mean "merchant." But the sign often denotes merely an overseer. Hence we may take it that this was the derived meaning. The reason may well be that over a group of shepherds or merchants, one was always set who could keep accounts. Hence the term aklu, properly a "scribe," came to be an "overseer." Such a high official as the PA Martu would be the Superintendent of Martu. The person referred to in this letter, Shep-Sin, occurs also in two other letters of Hammurabi.(831) In one, Sin-iddinam is told to send him to Babylon with money; in the other, he complains of not being able to collect money due to a temple, and having to make up the deficit himself.

(M772) The officials who were under obligation to furnish men for public work and the army, doubtless often found a difficulty in making up their quota, and impressed men who were not strictly liable for duty. Such men as those called KA-DUR, KAPAR, MU, PATESI, are named on the letters as exempt from the service. But even this is not conclusive. They are not exempted because they are of these ranks, but because they have been wrongly assigned to the service. Their masters may have been exempt from the liability to furnish a man; or already engaged in royal service. Slaves and poor men were subject, as we know from the Code. Here is one of the letters on the question:(832)

To Sin-iddinam say, thus saith Hammurabi: Naram-Sin, the shepherd, hath said thus, saith he, "The herdsmen in my hands have been put in the corvee." Thus he said. The herdsmen which are the property of Apil-Shamash and Naram-Sin shall not be put in the corvee. Now summon Etil-bi-Marduk and the officials and order them to return the herdsmen of Apil-Shamash and Naram-Sin, whom they have taken.

Here the KABAR, or herdsmen, are the employees of the shepherd, his "sheep-boys." Their absence would be a danger to the flocks. The delinquent Etil-bi-Marduk was often in fault. Several other complaints against him appear in the letters, in his capacity of money-lender.(833) On two occasions he was sent for by the king, evidently with a view to punishment. Further, a patesi in his service appealed to be transferred to another master.(834)



III. The Letters Of Samsu-Iluna And His Immediate Successors

(M773) The discovered letters of Samsu-iluna are as yet comparatively few. They are not all addressed to one man. We may take one or two specimens.

(M774) Like his father Hammurabi, Samsu-iluna cared for the health of the goddesses, providing them with an occasional change of scene. This time it is the goddess Anunitum, who makes a journey:(835)

To Haiab ... say, thus saith Samsu-iluna: Concerning Anunitum's going to Sippar-edina, I have sent an officer. Forthwith let Anunitum go to Sippar-edina.

The name of the official to whom the letter is sent is broken and it could be completed in several different ways. Sippar-edina was one quarter of Sippara.

(M775) The following letter is concerned with the supply of corn for the Shamash temple at Larsa. It is addressed to three officials:(836)

To Sin-ilu, Bitu-rabi, and Nik-Sin say, thus saith Samsu-iluna: The corn for the treasure-house of the temple of Shamash of Larsa, the property of Igmil-Sin which ye deliver, verily ye shall deliver. Forthwith, from the corn that is in your hands, give corn for the supply of food for the treasure-house of the temple of Shamash; what is now standing due make up.

The "treasure-house" may be only a "store-house" in general. Instead of "make up," we may render "buy."

(M776) Samsu-iluna looked into the details of his government quite as closely as his father. We see him regulating fishing rights:(837)

To Sin-iddinam, Kar-Sippar, and the judges of Sippara, say, thus saith Samsu-iluna: They tell me that the ships of the fishermen go down to the districts of Rabi and Shamkani and catch fish. I am sending an official of the palace-gate; when he shall reach thee [summon] the ships of the fishermen (who have been catching fish) in the districts of Rabi and Shamkani, and let it not occur again that the ships of the fishermen go down to the districts of Rabi and Shamkani.

Clearly each district owned its own fishing rights, as it was responsible for the repairs of the banks and scouring the beds of the water-ways in it. It is far from unlikely that Kar-Sippar denotes some ruling body in Sippara, for in the contracts we find that cases were brought before the Kar-Sippar. As they are associated with the judges of Sippara, they may be the town elders. Sin-iddinam here is hardly the official of Larsa to whom Hammurabi usually wrote, though he might have been promoted to Sippara in the meantime.

(M777) Two other letters were addressed to him by Samsu-iluna,(838) one about corn due from certain persons, the other about a contingent of men sent to strengthen the walls of Sippar-Amnanu. In another letter, the king summons to Babylon, Sin-iddinam, Ibni-Marduk, the Kar-Sippar, and the judges of Sippara, but the letter(839) is too defaced for us to determine the reason. It was to be "at seed-time."

(M778) The letters of Abeshu' are somewhat more numerous. Mr. King published thirteen. They are all more or less defective, and add nothing to our knowledge beyond the fact that the same policy of centralization went on.

(M779) The letters of Ammi-ditana, two in number, are more interesting. One deals with the supply of corn for men at work on the citadel of Shagga, a town probably near Sippara. The king orders the authorities of Sippara to make up and send on the supply, and adds that the soothsayers were to be consulted as to favorable auspices for sending the corn.(840) The other deals, as do three letters of Abeshu', with tribute due in wool from Sippar-iahruru. The report from the superintendent of this source of revenue in each case is that the tribute is over-due and the king sends a peremptory order for it to be sent forthwith to Babylon.

(M780) Ammi-zaduga's letters, five in number, all happen to be concerned with the annual sheep-shearing at Babylon. They differ slightly, in the person addressed, and the date assigned for the shearing. Thus one(841) reads:

To Ibni-Sin, son of Marduk-nasir, say, thus saith Ammi-zaduga: A sheep-shearing will take place in the House of the New Year's Festival. On receipt of this note, take the sheep ... and the sheep which are sealed, which thou shall set in motion, and come to Babylon. Delay not, reach Babylon on the first of Adar.

(M781) The one letter written by Sin-iddinam(842) is addressed to the rabianu of Katalla, ordering him to send the plaintiff in a suit to him. Very interesting is a letter from Tabbi-Wadi and Mar-Shamash to Ahati, the wife of Sin-iddinam,(843) asking her to intercede for them with Sin-iddinam. He had himself referred them to her, perhaps because their offence immediately concerned her. They say that they are ill acquainted with the ways of the court. From several unusual forms of expression it may be concluded that they were strangers who had settled in Babylonia. They do not state either their offence or the grounds on which they would be excused, but ask for an interview, that they may remove Ahati's resentment against them.

(M782) Some letters are addressed to "the man whom may Marduk make to flourish."(844) Some have taken this as a proper name. But that seems very unlikely. Others regard it as a sort of polite address to a superior. Winckler(845) suggested that it was an address to the king. The Code has made it clear that the amelu was the "gentleman," or "noble," who lived in a "palace," or "great house." Hence, these letters may be addressed to any great official. But many turns of expression support the view that the king is really meant; he was thus the "First Gentleman" of Babylonia. It was not till Hammurabi that the title "king" was generally given. Perhaps the old nobles were slow to admit a king over them.

(M783) As an example we may take:(846)

To "the man whom may Marduk make to flourish" say, thus saith Ashtamar-Adadi: May Shamash and Marduk ever make thee flourish. The gardeners, inhabitants of Sippara, have spoken concerning their servants who fled and have been recaptured. Therefore I have sent a note thus to thee, I sent those men to thee. Accept their petition (?) and may they be acceptable to thee before Shamash. Grant their entreaty and set them free. If they come not to Babylon, do this in my name.

It is probable that recaptured runaway slaves, who would not name their owners, were forfeit to the State. The king is the only one who would have power to release such slaves. It is clear that the recipient of the letter was at Babylon.



IV. Private Letters Of The First Dynasty Of Babylon

(M784) In these cases, as a rule, we know neither the sender nor receiver, beyond their names, and what we can gather from the letter itself. Hence a great deal must always remain uncertain. Here is a letter which comes from a prisoner, who says he is nearly starved and does not know why he was imprisoned:(847)

(M785)

To my lord say, thus saith Belshunu, thy servant: From the time that I was shut up in the house of the abarakku, thou, my lord, hast kept me alive. What is the reason that my lord has neglected me for five months? The house where I am imprisoned is a starvation-house. Now have I made the jailer carry a letter to my lord. When thou, my lord, shalt make an end of my misery, send, and the imprisonment, since it has been ended by thee, I will cause to conduce to thy blessing (I will even thank thee for). I am ill ... ten KA of SU-DA, thirty-one KA ZAG-HI-LI ... two KA SAR-SAR EL-SAR send me that I die not; and clothing send me that I may cover my nakedness. A hubidu has come upon me on account of thee, my lord. Either half a shekel of silver, or two minas of wool, send to me, for my service, let him bring it. Let not the jailer be sent away empty-handed. If he comes empty-handed, the dogs may eat me. As thou, my lord, and the people of Sippara and Babylon, all of them know, I am imprisoned, not for robbery, nor was I caught at burglary. Thou, my lord, didst send me with oil across the river, but the Sutu fell upon me and I was imprisoned. Speak a friendly word to the servants of the king's abarakku. Send, that I die not in the house of misery. Send a KA of oil and five KA of salt. That which thou didst lately send no one gave me. Whatsoever thou sendest, send it fastened up (?).

There are many obscurities about this letter. Some are caused by the difficulty of reading the defaced characters. Some by the fact that the signs, printed here in capitals, are ideograms whose meaning is not yet clear. The prisoner, if his plea is true, was sent on an errand for his master, apparently to trade for him. He was either robbed by the nomad Sutu, or compelled to give up his oil to them. Why this led to imprisonment is not clear, unless it was regarded as furnishing supplies to the enemy. But though his master did not get him out of prison, it seems that he had sent him supplies from time to time. The word rendered "jailer" is perhaps a name, Mar-abulli, "son of the gate." But it may be a title used as a name, "Mr. Jailer." The prisoner thinks that it is in the power of his master to put an end to his imprisonment and promises to be grateful. But he does not seem sure whether his master can do this. He asks, however, for further supplies, if he is to live. Let us hope he was released or at least fed. We may perhaps conclude that imprisonment was the punishment due for robbery and burglary.

(M786) Here is a letter reminding a father of a broken promise:(848)

To my father say, thus saith Elmeshu: Shamash and Marduk fill with well-being the days of my father perpetually. My father, be thou well, flourish; the God that preserves my father direct my father's source of grace. I have sent to greet my father. May my father's peace endure before Shamash and Marduk. From the time that Sin Amurru named my father's name, and I answered for my fault, thou, my father, didst say, "When I shall go to Dur-Ammi-zaduga, which is on the River Sharku, I will forward a sheep and five minas of silver, in a little while, to thee." This thou saidest, my father, and my expectation was from my father. But thou hast not sent; and now, my father, thou hast returned to the presence of Taribu, the Queen. I have sent a note to my father's presence. My father, thou shalt not ask the purport of my note, until Lasher has brought me my father's note. My father has not sent one to bring even a single shekel, in accordance with thy promise. Like Marduk and Sin Amurru, who hearken to my father, my ears are attentive. Let my father send and let not my heart be vexed. Before Shamash and Marduk, may I pray for my father.

The letter suggests that the father was king, by the phrase so common in the historical inscriptions, "named his name," usually equivalent to "nominated" to rule. The word rendered "fault" is sardu, which may be for sartu. There is nothing to show whether Elmeshu is a man or woman. There was an Elmeshu (the name means "Diamond") who was daughter of Ammi-ditana.(849) But the mention of Dur-Ammi-zaduga seems to demand a date at least as late as that in which this wall or city was built. But Ammi-zaduga succeeded Ammi-ditana. Unless the latter built Dur-Ammi-zaduga and called it after his son, we can hardly identify this Elmeshu with the daughter of Ammi-ditana. The mention of Sin Amurru is not quite clear. We may suppose two gods, Sin and Amurru, or take the latter name as an epithet, "Sin of the Amorites." To have "the ears attentive," is to be in a state of expectation. In the last sentence, Elmeshu seems to hint that, if she does not have a favorable answer, she will not be able to pray for her father. This may be regarded as an un-Christian attitude, but people then thought more of the efficacy of prayer; and it was a threat, if so meant, likely to have great weight with the father. But it may mean that Elmeshu being vowed to a religious life, yet needed material means to maintain her alive, and she merely hopes, by her father's continued sustenance of her, to be long spared to pray for him.

(M787) Another letter is apparently from a tenant, or serf, to his landlord:(850)

To my lord say, thus saith Ibgatum thy servant: As, my lord, thou hast heard, the enemy has carried off my oxen. Never before have I sent to thee, my lord. Now I have caused a letter to be brought to thee, my lord. Do thou, my lord, send me one young cow. I will weigh out and send five shekels of silver to thee, my lord. My lord, what thou sayest, under the command of Marduk, thy protector, what pleases thee, no one can hinder thee, my lord. My lord, do thou make her worth the five shekels of silver that I have weighed out and sent to thee. Do thou, my lord, treat seriously this request, do not trifle with my wish. Let my lord not wonder at this request, which I send my lord. I am thy servant. I will do thy will, my lord. As to the young cow, which thou, my lord, dost send, let her be on credit, and either to Basu, or wherever is convenient to my lord, do thou send. With Ili-ikisham, my brother, let the young cow come. And I, in order that my lord should quickly consent and send the young cow, will forthwith weigh out and send fifteen shekels of silver to thee, my lord.

Evidently, the wise man sent only five shekels on deposit with his brother, holding back the rest of the price, till he had seen what sort of a cow he was to get for his money. It was from this letter that Winckler(851) deduced a meaning for samadu something like "weigh out," "pay," whence a better meaning for simittu than "yoke" was readily obtained. As Dr. Peiser pointed out, the word is also used in the Cappadocian tablets in a way that leaves small doubt of its meaning. It may have come to mean simply "pay," but must have ordinarily meant "measure," or "weigh," according as it was applied to grain, or money.

(M788) Here is a very interesting example showing how the merchants of those days transacted business at a distance:(852)

To Erib-Sin say, thus saith Ibni-Nabu, I am here (?): As to the case of Ardi-ilishu, son of Ibni-Dibbara, I gave him two-thirds of a mina of silver, and it was acknowledged in writing, in the presence of my witnesses. He went to Assyria. He did not give the money to Shamaiatu. I and Shamaiatu met in Daganna and disputed over the affair. Said I, "I sent thee money by Ardi-ilishu." He said, "If Ardi-ilishu has paid the money, let him [here come some uncertain signs]." And concerning what thou didst send about Shamash-bel-ilani's fourteen shekels, I did not give him the money. There is two-thirds of a mina due from Ardi-ilishu; take Ardi-ilishu and cause him to weigh out the money, and its interest, more or less, and from that take the fourteen shekels and send the surplus.

The two, Erib-Sin and Ibni-Nabu, are either partners, or agents. The former had asked the latter to pay over fourteen shekels to a certain Shamash-bel-ilani, either because the latter had money of his, or had promised to honor his order. But this particular order was not honored. Ibni-Nabu had intrusted a sum of forty shekels to one Ardi-ilishu, with which to pay Shamaiatu. But Ardi-ilishu had gone off to Assyria without discharging the obligation. So Shamaiatu had demanded payment and perhaps the doubtful signs express the fact that Ibni-Nabu had to pay a second time. Fortunately, he could prove that Ardi-ilishu had had the money, having taken a receipt. He seems to think that Erib-Sin can find Ardi-ilishu. Was the former resident in Assyria? If so, this must be a copy of the letter sent him. But perhaps Erib-Sin was to arrest the defaulter on his return to Sippara. At any rate, this was a warrant for so doing. That, perhaps, is why the letter was kept. If Erib-Sin could get forty shekels and the interest, he had a fair margin from which to pay the fourteen shekels, due to him from Ibni-Nabu. But he had to take risks. If Shamash-bel-ilani had given Erib-Sin consideration for his order on Ibni-Nabu for fourteen shekels, he was badly served.

(M789) Here is a letter, warning a man of a suit brought against him in his absence:

To my lord, say, thus saith Sin-taiar: May Shamash and Marduk give thee health. As to the case of the field about which thou didst send, belonging to the sons of Sin-remeni, which is in Bitutu, which my lord sold me for five minas of silver; Sin-aham-iddinam, Marduk-taiar, and Nabu-malik, have gone about to the king, and have turned over this title to Nur-parim. Hasten, come, save thy title from Nur-parim.

The word of most difficulty is nistu, rendered "title." It may mean something different, but the "title" seems the most likely thing to be disputed.

(M790) A letter to a father from an absent son(853) is interesting for its personal character:

To my father say, thus saith Zimri-erah, may Shamash and Marduk give thee health forever. Be thou well. I have sent for thy health. Tell me how thou art. I am located at Dur-Sin on the canal Kashtim-sikirim. There is no meat fit to eat. Now I have made them bring two-thirds of a shekel of silver to thee. For this money send some nice fish and something to eat.

(M791) The following is what may be fairly described as a love-letter, though the real relation between the correspondents is not certain:(854)

To Bibea say, thus saith Gimil-Marduk: May Shamash and Marduk for my sake preserve thy health forever. I have sent for thy health. Tell me how thou art. I went to Babylon and did not see thee. I was greatly disappointed. Send me the reason of thy leaving, and let me be cheered. In Marchesvan do thou come. For my sake keep well always.

It is certain that Bibea was a lady, perhaps the writer's wife.

(M792) The interest which these ancient letters inspire in us was felt in the seventh century B.C., for there are two Assyrian copies of early Babylonian letters, preserved in the remains of Ashurbanipal's library. One was a letter from the Babylonian King Adadi-shum-usur to Ashur-nirari and Nabudaian, kings of Assyria, about B.C. 1250.(855) It is too fragmentary to translate. Another(856) is a letter from a King of Assyria to his father, who is King of Babylon. The names are lost, and its contents cannot now be made out. It was a copy made for Ashurbanipal, and has his "library mark."(857)



V. Sennacherib's Letters To His Father, Sargon

(M793) Among the Ninevite collections we can single out several periods where the history is supplemented by the letters. Thus Sennacherib's letters to his father, Sargon, chiefly deal with events in Armenia, which must have transpired during Sargon's last few years, when his annals and other historical inscriptions are silent. This view of them was first worked out by the present writer,(858) and later with increased material by R. C. Thompson.(859) Briefly put, the argument from them is this: a person called Sennacherib, who might be any officer from the times of Sargon onward, writes to the king, whom he does not address as his father, on the reports which have reached him from a number of officials, concerning events in Armenia. We have, however, two letters which refer to the same events, naming the same officials and certainly from the same Sennacherib. In one of them he is twice referred to as the king's son. The officials named are all found in documents of the reign of Sargon, or the early part of Sennacherib's reign. The King of Armenia is named Argista in one of these reports to the king, which belongs to the same group. The King of Assyria himself is said to be at Babylon at the time. One report quoted comes from Tabal, and is brought by the major-domo of the Princess Ahat-abisha, probably the daughter of Sargon, who was married by him to the King of Tabal. We have independent copies of these reports, quoted by Sennacherib, which enlarge our knowledge of the events. Hence, there can be no doubt that we have here Sennacherib's letters to his father, Sargon, while that king was absent in Babylonia. We are, therefore, able to reconstruct a chapter of Assyrian history, on which the historical monuments have nothing to say. The first letter reads thus:(860)

(M794)

To the king, my lord, thy servant Sennacherib. Peace be to the king, my lord. There is peace in Assyria, peace in the temples, peace in all the fortresses of the king. May the heart of the king, my lord, be abundantly cheered. The land of the Ukkai has sent to me, saying, when the King of Armenia came to the land of Gamir, his forces were utterly defeated; he, his commanders, and their forces were driven off; [_then comes a broken space from which the few traces left refer to _"_two commanders,_"_ someone who _"_came,_"_ someone or something _"_was captured,_"_ someone _"_came to me,_"_ something _"_of his country,_"_ something _"_he appointed._"_] This was the news from the land of the Ukkai. Ashur-risua has sent, saying, "News from Armenia. What I sent before, that is so. A great slaughter took place among them. Now his land is quiet. His nobles are dead. He has come into his own land. Kakkadanu, his tartan, is taken, and the King of Armenia is in the land of Uazaun." This is the news from Ashur-risua. Nabu-li', the commander of Halsu, has sent to me, saying, "Concerning the garrisons of the fortresses which are on the border, I sent to them for news of the King of Armenia. They report that when he came to the land of Gamir, his forces were all slain, three of his nobles together with their forces were killed, he himself fled and entered into his own land; but that as yet his camp is not attacked." This is the news from Nabu-li'. The King of Musasir, his brother, and his son, have gone to greet the King of Armenia. A messenger from Hupushkia has gone to greet him. The garrisons of the fortresses which are on the boundary all send news like this. The letter of Nabu-li', the major-domo of Ahat-abisha, brought from Tabal; to the king, my lord, I have sent it on.

(M795) The second letter(861) began in exactly the same way, so far as one can judge from the traces of the first seven lines. As before, Sennacherib quotes reports, which he has received, in the sender's own words. From what is left of the first report we learn that the King of Armenia had ordered the forces at his command to capture the commanders of the King of Assyria and bring them alive to him. The city of Kumai is named as the place where these commanders were. As yet the sender "is cut off" and has not withdrawn from his post. But, as he has heard, so he has sent to the king's son:

"Now let him quickly send forces. This is the news from Arie: On the fourteenth of Elul, a letter came to me from Ashur-risua, saying that the King of Armenia, when the Zikirtai brought things to him, at least obtained nothing, they returned empty-handed; that he went to the city Uesi with his forces and entered it, that his forces are in the city Uesi, that he and his forces are few, that they are with him with their possessions."

This seems to be the end of Ashur-risua's news. A few traces refer to news from the Mannai concerning some "letter," "as yet" something has "not" happened.

"As I have heard I have sent, that the commander in the district, in the midst of the city Uesi, he and his forces are assembled; that with his troops he has set out and driven him out of Uesi, that he has not seen the roads (to some place), that he has made good the bridges, that as he has heard, whatever takes place, whether he comes with his forces, or whether he goes off free, I will quickly send to the king's son."

These fragments of the report are difficult to disentangle, as the person referred to seems sometimes to be the King of Armenia, sometimes another person. But all may be news sent from the Mannai to Ashur-risua.

This is the news from Ashur-risua: The land of Arzabia sends word, saying, The land of the Ukkai has broken away from me (?), that now they are killing me; you care for yourselves. I have sent my body-guards to the Ukkai. The messengers of Arzabia said, ...

Then follow a few traces from which we gather that a messenger came to the writer and brought a present; that the "Mannai said" something, someone "returned" and "I appointed him" something, that a messenger from the land of Sadudai came to Kalah, that "I received and sealed" something, and "I appointed" something. Again we have a reference to the month of Elul, a letter, and the word "brought."

(M796) This letter is very obscure from the many lacunae. We naturally turn to the letters of Ashur-risua. This man may well be the same as the witness, shaku, and scribe of the queen, at Kalah in B.C. 709. We have nine letters of his referring to Armenian affairs. In one of them(862) he announces that "at the commencement of Nisan the King of Armenia set out from Turushpia and went to Elisada, that Kakkadanu, his tartan, went into the city Uesi, that all the forces of Armenia have gathered to Elisada." The rest of the letter is obscure. At the end of another(863) he says: "I have heard, saying, 'the king has come into the midst of Uesi, as yet he has not left.' " In the same letter he reports that "three thousand foot-soldiers, with their officers, belonging to Setini, his military commander, have set out to Musasir, crossed the river by night, that Setini has camels with him, and that Suna, who is in command among the Ukkai, has started with his troops for Musasir." It is clear from these that the movements here refer to the beginning of the year after that in which, in Elul, the King of Armenia was in Uesi, and before the defeat of Armenia by the Gimirri.

A mere glance at the contents of his other letters will show their connection with these events. In one,(864) he sends Narage, a colonel, with twenty men who had plotted against the king and were caught. He mentions the capture of a second tartan, Ursini, in Turushpia and the mission of Ursini's brother, Apli-uknu, to see him there. The King of Armenia had entered Turushpia with a number of restless men. In another,(865) he reports the return to Assyria of a messenger from the Ukkai, who had gone up into Armenia; and mentions Musasir. In a third,(866) he reports that "Gurania, Nagiu, the fortresses of Armenia and Gimirri, are giving tribute to Armenia." But that "when the Armenians went to Gimirri, they were badly defeated." The rest is so injured as to give little sense. In another,(867) he names Arie and Arisa, Dur-Shamash, Barzanishtun, the city of Ishtar-duri, and Shulmu-bel-lashme; but the text is so defective that one cannot discern what he had to say about them. In another,(868) he acknowledges the king's order to send scouts into the neighborhood of Turushpia. In another,(869) he writes that "the Mannai in the cities of Armenia on the coast of the sea rebelled, that Apli-uknu, the commander of Musasir, and Tunnaun, the commander of Kar-Sippar, went to the borders of the Mannai, to garrison Armenia and made a slaughter there, that all the commanders are present." But these are not the only references to him. Tab-shar-Ashur(870) writes to the king that he has received a letter from Ashur-risua: "Thus it is written in it, saying, a messenger of the Ukkai went to Armenia, he has sent a letter to the palace, and these are the contents of the letter, on the morning of the sixth, this letter came to me; he sent, saying, the Ukkai have heard concerning Arie that he went against him (the king of Armenia) and his city." Then the letter becomes very defective, but we hear again of Kumai and Elis (clearly the Elisada above). Tab-shar-Ashur again mentions Ashur-risua,(871) saying that a letter of his was brought, which referred to the King of Armenia entering some city. But too little is preserved to make out the message. In a report(872) about beams of wood, collected by Ashur-risua, he is associated with Arie, and Urisa, evidently the Arisa above, and the city Kumai. Finally, on a letter by Gabbu-ana-Ashur he is mentioned in a most significant way. The writer says: "Concerning the news which the king gave me about the garrisons of Armenia, from the time that I entered the city Kurban, my messengers went to Nabu-li', to Ashur-bel-danan, to Ashur-risua; they came to me." After a break he goes on, "Like this I have heard; the Armenian (king) has not gone out of Turushpia." After some more uncertain traces, he adds: "On the twenty-third of Tammuz I entered into Kurban, on the twentieth of Ab I sent a letter to the king, my lord." It is evident that Nabu-li', Ashur-bel-danan, and Ashur-risua were the commanders most concerned in these events. Nabu-li', we have already seen, sent reports to Sennacherib; no letters of Ashur-bel-danan, yet published, seem to refer to these events. But clearly the king was concerned to hear from other quarters than Kalah, where Sennacherib evidently was. Ashur-risua is also named elsewhere on fragments not yet published.

We may now pursue the clew given by the fact that Uesi was the city which seems to have been the bone of contention. Thus Urzana, whose name recalls that of the King of Musasir, who may have been reinstated as a vassal by Sargon, writes(873) to the nagiru of the palace:

"What thou didst send me, saying, Has the King of Armenia with his troops moved away? He has gone. Where is he dwelling? The commander of Uesi, the commander of the district of the Ukkai, came, they sacrificed in the temple, they say that the king has gone, he is dwelling in Uesi; the commanders returned and went away. In Musasir they sacrificed. What thou didst send, saying, Without the king's order let no one put his hand to the work, when the king of Assyria shall come, I will serve him, what I have [always] done I will keep doing, and this according to his hand (?)."

Evidently Urzana lived in Musasir and was anxious to be thought a faithful vassal. An unknown writer(874) tells the king that

"five commanders of Armenia entered the city of Uesi, Seteni [of whom we heard above] commander of ... teni, Kakkadanu of the writer's district, or of Ukkai, Sakuata of Kaniun, Siblia of Alzi, Tutu of Armiraliu, these are their names. With three underlings, they entered Uesi. Now their forces are weak and weakening (?), the forces are (?), the king has set out from Turushpia, he has come into Kaniun. What the king, my lord, sent me, saying, 'Send scouts,' I have sent a second time. The spies (?) came, these are the words they say, and the spies as yet have not started."

The whole tone of the letter and the fact that Ashur-risua above acknowledges having received an order to send scouts make us think he is the unknown writer. But, of course, the king may have sent the order to other commanders as well. In an unpublished text we read that the commander of Uesi was slain.

The references to Turushpia are also significant. We know that this city was once the stronghold of Sardaurri, King of Armenia, and was doubtless still attached to its old rulers. We have a letter written by Upahhir-Bel, doubtless the Eponym of B.C. 706, and governor of Amedi. He writes in the same style as Sennacherib and Ashur-risua:(875)

Concerning news of Armenia I sent scouts, they have returned; thus they say: "The commander of that district, and the deputy-commander with him, in Harda, the district of the sukallu, keep ward from city to city as far as Turushpia; weakness is written down, the messenger of Argista has come,"

and so on. The rest does not concern us here. But another letter,(876) evidently from the same writer, gives news from Armenia and a message from Argista, which the writer says he has answered, as the king directed. It also states that the commander keeps ward in Harda. Turushpia is also mentioned on fragments not yet published.

Other fragments occur which clearly belong to this group. Thus(877) a letter from an unknown writer names Ashur-risua in connection with Kumai, Babutai, Ukkai, and Uliai, and narrates something about ten commanders. The loss of nine commanders in Armenia, at one time, is the subject of a very fragmentary letter,(878) but it is not clear that it refers to this period.

To the same period seems to belong another letter of Sennacherib, probably to his father Sargon.(879) It begins with precisely the same formulae of greeting in the first seven lines. Then it goes on:

The chieftains of the land of Kumuhai (Commagene) have come and brought tribute. Seven mule mares apiece they brought and tribute with the mules. The chieftains are in the house appointed for the Kumuhai. They are fed at their own expense, they would journey on to Babylon [where Sargon evidently is]. They have brought sakla (?), they have received them here. As we have told the king, my lord, let him send quickly. They brought cloth and fruit each of them. The factors say that we have received seven talents from them, that the Kumuhai are not contented, saying, "Our produce is reduced, let them bring the king's weavers and let them take charge." Let the king, my lord, send word to whom they shall assign them.

(M797) Another letter-fragment only preserves the opening address.(880) Another very defective letter(881) with the same introduction refers to Dur-Sargon,

"in the district of Kurban are excessively great floods, they go on."

We know from another source that this was the case, in B.C. 708, when the floods came into the lower part of the city, and the tribute could not be levied in the district.(882) Yet another fragment, opening in precisely the same manner, refers to a certain Nabu-etir-napshate and the city of Kalhu.(883) Here also we have too little left to make out any connected sense.



VI. Letters From The Last Year Of Shamash-Shum-Ukin

(M798) Another period on which the letters throw considerable light is the close of the reign of Shamash-shum-ukin in Babylon. This was coeval with the suppression of a great combined rebellion against the rule of Assyria. From the historical texts of Ashurbanipal's reign we know the names of many of the actors in that great struggle. They are frequently referred to in the letters. Already G. Smith, in his History of Assurbanipal, 1871, had used the information given by some of the letters. This was utilized by C. P. Tiele in his Babylonisch-assyrische Geschichte.

(M799) But much more may be made out when the letters are fully available. Thus Nabu-bel-shumate, grandson of Merodach Baladan II., had been made King of the Sealands on the death of his uncle, Na'id-Marduk. When the revolt broke out, Ashurbanipal sent Assyrian troops to help Nabu-bel-shumate to repel Shamash-shum-ukin. During the long process of suppressing the revolt, it is clear that Nabu-bel-shumate conceived the idea of reasserting the independence of the Sealands. He endeavored to gain the alliance of the Assyrian garrison, some he imprisoned, others may have joined him. On the fall of Babylon, in B.C. 648, he saw that Ashurbanipal's vengeance must overtake him, so he fled to Elam. He took with him a certain number of Assyrians, evidently to hold as hostages. Ashurbanipal had a long score to settle with Elam. He began by demanding of Indabigash the surrender of Nabu-bel-shumate and the Assyrians with him. But before the ambassador could deliver the message, Indabigash had been succeeded by Ummanaldash. Nabu-bel-shumate was evidently a difficult person to lay hands upon. At any rate, Ummanaldash's land was invaded and devastated. But when the Assyrian troops were gone, he again returned to his capital, Madaktu, and Nabu-bel-shumate joined him there. Again Ashurbanipal sent to demand his surrender. Rather than further embarrass his host, and quite hopeless of protection or pardon, Nabu-bel-shumate ordered his armor-bearer to slay him. Ummanaldash attempted to conciliate Ashurbanipal by sending the body of the dead man and the head of the armor-bearer to him. Such is the story as Ashurbanipal tells it in his great cylinder inscription.

(M800) The letters make no less than fifty distinct references to him. The officers write many bad things of Nabu-bel-shumate, and it is plain that he had been a very vicious enemy. We have a number of letters from a writer of his name, who may well be the King of the Sealands before he broke with Assyria. Thus we read:(884)

(M801)

To the king, my lord, thy servant Nabu-bel-shumate. Verily peace be to the king, my lord; may Ashur, Nabu, and Marduk be gracious to the king, my lord. Cheer of heart, health of body, and length of days may they grant the king, my lord. As I hear, the King of Elam is deposed and many cities have rebelled against him, saying, "We will not come into thy hands." According to what I hear I have sent to the king, my lord. I have inhabited the Sealands from the time of Na'id-Marduk. The brigands and fugitives who came to the Gurunammu, five hundred of them, did Sin-balatsu-ikbi, when he caught them, lay in fetters and hand over to Natanu, the King of the Uttai, their ruler, whom the king had given them.

Then come a number of defective lines, from which not much can be made out. But there can be little doubt that this letter was written in the days when policy still kept him faithful to Assyria. There was another Nabu-bel-shumate, whose letters(885) begin quite differently, and refer to horses and troops. There is even a third, a kepu of Birati, named by Tab-sil-esharra,(886) who was concerned in repelling a raid on Sippara, and is named in a contract of B.C. 686.(887) It is just possible that the second and third are the same man. But while we must exercise care in assigning the references of the letters, we have a guide in the historical connection.

(M802) Bel-ibni was a very important officer who held the position of a manzaz pani, having the right of access to the royal presence and a place near the king on all state occasions. He is probably to be distinguished from the Bel-ibni set on the throne of Babylon by Sennacherib in B.C. 702. He is a frequent writer to the king during this period. Ashurbanipal placed him over the Sealand after the flight of Nabu-bel-shumate. The king's proclamation to the Sealanders(888) reads thus:

(M803)

Order of the king to the Sealanders, elders and juniors, my servants: My peace be with you. May your hearts be cheered. See now how my full gaze is upon you. And before the sin of Nabu-bel-shumate, I appointed over you the courtesan of Menanu. Now I have sent Bel-ibni, my dubasu, to go before you. Whatever order is good in my opinion which is [written] in my letters [obey].

Then after some defaced lines, he threatens that if they do not obey,

"I will send my troops."

This order is dated the fifth of Iyyar, B.C. 650. By that date Nabu-bel-shumate had fled. It is not easy to say whether Ashurbanipal had appointed a lady, once the harimtu, or courtesan, of Menanu, as ruler of the Sealand before Nabu-bel-shumate, or whether he means to call Nabu-bel-shumate by this opprobrious epithet. Who is meant by Menanu is hard to see, unless it be the Elamite King, Umman-minana, the contemporary of Sennacherib, who had protected the family of Merodach-Baladan II.

(M804) We have a fragmentary letter(889) from the King of Elam, Ummanaldash, to Ashurbanipal, which says:

Letter of Ummanaldash, King of Elam, to Ashurbanipal, King of Assyria, peace be to my brother. From the beginning, the Martenai [_Elamite name for the Sealanders, from Marratu, _"_the Salt Marshes_"_] have been sinners against thee. Nabu-bel-shumate came from there. The crossing of the land ... over against Elam I broke down, [to keep him out]. Thou hast sent letters [_or forces?_] saying, "Send Nabu-bel-shumate." I will seize Nabu-bel-shumate and will send him to thee. The Martenai whom from the beginning Nabu-bel-shumate brought us ... they are people who came by water from ... it entered into their minds and they came, they broke into Lahiru and there they are. I will send to their border my servants against them and by their hands I will send those who have sinned against us. If they are in my land, I will send them by their hands; and, if they have crossed the river, do thou [take them].