The Project Gutenberg eBook of Social life among the Assyrians and Babylonians
This ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this ebook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States,
you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.
Title: Social life among the Assyrians and Babylonians
Author: A. H. Sayce
Release date: November 11, 2025 [eBook #77217]
Language: English
Original publication: Oxford: The Religous Tract Society, 1893
Credits: The Online Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images generously made available by The Internet Archive)
*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK SOCIAL LIFE AMONG THE ASSYRIANS AND BABYLONIANS ***
SOCIAL LIFE AMONG THE ASSYRIANS AND BABYLONIANS
Oxford
HORACE HART, PRINTER TO THE UNIVERSITY
By-Paths of Bible Knowledge
XVIII
SOCIAL LIFE
AMONG THE
ASSYRIANS AND BABYLONIANS
BY
A. H. SAYCE, LL.D.
DEPUTY PROFESSOR OF PHILOLOGY, OXFORD
AUTHOR OF ‘FRESH LIGHT FROM THE ANCIENT MONUMENTS’
‘ASSYRIA, ITS PRINCES, PRIESTS, AND PEOPLE,’ ETC. ETC.
THE RELIGIOUS TRACT SOCIETY
56 PATERNOSTER ROW AND 65 ST. PAUL’S CHURCHYARD
1893
PREFACE
The chapters composing this little volume originally appeared in the
_Sunday at Home_. It was my intention on their republication to add
translations of the chief original documents referred to. But on further
consideration, bearing in mind the general scope of the ‘By-Path’ Series,
I have decided that it is better to print them exactly as they were
written.
CONTENTS
PAGE
CHAPTER I.
THE PEOPLE 9
CHAPTER II.
HOW THE PEOPLE LIVED 18
CHAPTER III.
EDUCATION 30
CHAPTER IV.
MARRIAGE AND DEATH 45
CHAPTER V.
THE MARKET, THE MONEY-LENDER, AND THE TENANT 58
CHAPTER VI.
SLAVERY AND THE AGRICULTURAL LABOURER 74
CHAPTER VII.
TRADES AND PROFESSIONS 89
CHAPTER VIII.
THE RELIGION OF THE PEOPLE 106
CHAPTER I
THE PEOPLE
Ezekiel tells us how in the latter days of the Jewish kingdom the palace
walls of Babylonia were adorned with ‘images of the Chaldeans pourtrayed
with vermilion, girded with girdles upon their loins, exceeding in dyed
attire upon their heads, all of them princes to look to, after the
manner of the Babylonians of Chaldea, the land of their nativity[1].’
He had already described the Assyrians as ‘clothed in blue,’ ‘clothed
most gorgeously, horsemen riding upon horses.’ They thus differed from
the Chaldeans, while the Chaldeans again are distinguished from the
Babylonians, who, however, inhabited the same country as themselves and
were clothed with the same apparel.
The discoveries that have been made of recent years in the valleys of
the Tigris and Euphrates explain and illustrate the prophet’s words.
Chaldea or Babylonia—for the two names are used synonymously—was the
alluvial plain shut in between the two great rivers of Western Asia, and
extended southwards from a point where they almost touched one another to
the marshes at the head of the Persian Gulf, where they flowed into the
sea. Northwards came the land of Assyria. It was originally the district
which surrounded the ancient capital of Asshur, alluded to in the second
chapter of Genesis[2], built on the western bank of the Tigris. Still
further to the north were the later capitals, Calah and Nineveh, between
which stood Resen or Res-eni, ‘the head of the fountain[3].’ The country
of Assyria differed essentially from the country of Babylonia, and this
difference exercised an influence upon the character of the populations
which dwelt in them. Assyria was a land of limestone hills and thick
forests, and was watered by the Tigris and its affluents, which cut their
way through channels of rock. Babylonia, on the other hand, was flat and
marshy; its soil was rich and fertile, but the rivers and streams that
intersected it could be prevented from flooding the country only by means
of a carefully organized system of canals. The silt which was carried
down to the sea was continually adding to the land, and causing the
shores of the Persian Gulf to advance southwards; cities which stood on
the sea-coast in the early days of Babylonian history are now left far
inland.
The district adjoining the sea, however, was distinguished from the
rest of Babylonia by the great salt-marshes which covered it. It was
accordingly known as the land of Marratu, or ‘the salt-marshes,’ a name
which appears in the Old Testament under the form of Merathaim[4]. In its
midst rose the ancestral city of Merodach-baladan, whose ambassadors were
shown by Hezekiah all the treasures of the Jewish monarchy.
Merodach-baladan was a Chaldean. The Chaldeans, or Kaldâ, as they are
called on the monuments, were a tribe which inhabited the salt-marshes,
and we first hear of them in the ninth century before our era. Whether
they belonged to the same Semitic race as the inhabitants of Babylon we
do not know. But under Merodach-baladan they became famous in the Eastern
world. Merodach-baladan made himself King of all Babylonia, and the
Chaldeans became so integral and important an element in the population
as henceforth to give it their name. From this time forward ‘Babylonian’
and ‘Chaldean’ became interchangeable terms.
The Babylonian race was by no means pure. The original inhabitants of the
country had been the Accadians, or Sumerians, who spoke an agglutinative
language like that of the modern Finns or Turks, and had been the authors
of the cuneiform system of writing and of the culture of early Babylonia.
They occupied both Accad, the northern division of Babylonia, and Sumer,
or Shinar, its southern division. In Accad, however, they were subjected
at an early epoch to the domination of Semitic tribes, whose first home
had been in Arabia; in Sumer they held their ground for a longer period,
and it is probable that the Semite did not succeed in superseding them
in this part of the country until a comparatively recent time. The
Semites of Babylonia were closely allied both in race and language to the
Hebrews. It was from Ur of the Chaldees, now represented by the mounds
of Mugheir, that Abraham had migrated, and the other cities of Babylonia
must have been largely occupied by traders and settlers of the Semitic
race.
Shortly after the age of Abraham the population of Babylonia became
still further mixed, in consequence of the successful invasion of the
country by certain tribes of Elam. The Kassi, as they are termed on the
monuments, settled in numbers in the Babylonian plain, and established a
dynasty of kings who ruled for several centuries. Accadian, Semite, and
Kassite intermarried and mingled together, forming a hybrid population,
which subsequently admitted into its midst the Chaldean tribes of the
south. The people of Babylonia thus became what the English are to-day;
one of the most mixed of populations, tracing their descent from races of
various origin.
Of far purer blood were the Assyrians in the north. Out of the land of
Sumer, or Shinar, we are told, Asshur went forth to found the Assyrian
kingdom[5]. It was a colony sent out by the Semitic part of the
Babylonian population, and up to the last the Assyrians continued to
represent both in appearance and character the pure Semitic type. The
faces depicted on some of their monuments remind us of the Jewish faces
we may meet with to-day in the more squalid streets of the great European
cities.
Nature and descent accordingly combined to produce a difference between
the inhabitants of Babylonia and of Assyria. The Babylonian was a stout,
thick-set man, somewhat short, with straight nose, wide nostrils, and
square face. The Assyrian, on the other hand, was tall and muscular, his
nose was slightly hooked, his lips were full, his eyes dark and piercing.
His head and face showed an abundance of black curly hair. Such a type
was in striking contrast to that of the early Accadian figures which have
come down to us. Here the face is long and thin, with a straight beard,
not altogether unlike that represented on the faces of old men in Chinese
art. What the peculiar characteristics of the Chaldean face may have been
we have at present no means of deciding.
The Babylonian was essentially an irrigator and cultivator of the ground.
The cuneiform texts are full of references to the gardens of Babylonia,
and the canals by which they were watered. It was a land which brought
forth abundantly all that was entrusted to its bosom. The palm was
indigenous in it; so too, according to naturalists, was the wheat. Even
in classical days the yield of Babylonian wheat was enormous. Herodotus
tells us that it was sometimes as much as three hundredfold to the sower.
But the fear of floods and the reclamation of the marsh lands demanded
constant care and labour, the result being that the country population
of Babylonia was, like the country population of Egypt, an industrious
peasantry, wholly devoted to agricultural work, and disinclined for war
and military operations. In the towns, where the Semitic element was
stronger, a considerable amount of trade and commerce was carried on, and
the cities on the sea-coast built ships and sent their merchantmen to
distant lands. The Chaldeans, whose cry was in their ships[6], despatched
their trading fleets to the southern coasts of Arabia and the quarries of
the Sinaitic peninsula, and even, it would appear, to the shores of India.
The character of the Assyrian was altogether different from that of
the Babylonian. He was a warrior, a trader, and an administrator. The
peaceful pursuits of the agricultural population of Babylonia suited him
but little. His two passions were fighting and trading. But his wars,
at all events in the later days of the Assyrian Empire, were conducted
with a commercial object, and were not the meaningless displays of brute
fury and the love of bloodshed which they have usually been imagined to
be. It was to destroy the trade of the Phœnician cities and to divert it
into Assyrian hands, that the Assyrian kings marched their armies to the
west; it was to secure the chief highways of commerce that campaigns were
made into the heart of Arabia and Assyrian satraps were appointed in the
cities of Syria. The Assyrian was indeed irresistible as a soldier; but
the motive that inspired him was as much the interest of the trader as
the desire of conquest.
Unlike the Babylonian, he cared but little for education and literature.
A knowledge of books was in Assyria confined to a few, more particularly
the special class of scribes. A love of study is more likely to be
developed among an agricultural than among a military people. Both
Assyrians and Babylonians, however, were similar in one respect—they
were both intensely religious. But here again we may note a difference
between them. The religion of the Babylonians was far more mingled with
superstition than was the religion of the Assyrians. While the Babylonian
lived in hourly fear of the multitudinous demons which he believed to
be ever on the watch to injure him, the Assyrian felt secure in the
protection of his gods, above all, of the supreme god Asshur. When the
Assyrian kings went forth to war it was with a firm confidence that they
were fighting the battles of Asshur, and that Asshur would give them
success. It is ‘through trust in Asshur,’ they are perpetually telling
us, that they overcome all opposition, and compel the disobedient to
acknowledge the power of the great Assyrian deity.
The Assyrians seem to have lived mostly in towns. The country was
cultivated by slaves, or by the older population whom the Semitic
colonists found there. At all events it was from the population of
the towns that the army was recruited and the ranks of the official
bureaucracy were supplied. Consequently when the power of the army and
of the upper classes was broken no force was left capable of resisting
the foe. The continual wars of the Assyrian monarch drained the kingdom
of its military class, while the Assyrian colonies which were planted
as garrisons in conquered provinces tended still further to diminish
the dominant part of the population. When, therefore, evil days fell
upon the monarchy, and the country was overrun by Scythian hordes from
the north, the Assyrian army was no longer able to withstand them. The
troops which had garrisoned the subject provinces of the empire were
recalled home, but they did not prove sufficient to defend even Assyria
itself. The Assyrian Empire fell because the population which had
created and maintained it was exhausted. The Assyrian stock practically
became extinct, the Assyrian cities became heaps of ruins, and new races
occupied their sites. In this respect Assyria offered a conspicuous
contrast to Babylonia. There the population continued unchanged in spite
of revolution and foreign conquest. Dynasties and empires might rise
and fall; but the people of the country still cultivated their fields
or plied their trade and commerce as they had done centuries before. An
agricultural population survives, while a military caste which governs by
the sword is sure in the course of time to vanish away.
CHAPTER II
HOW THE PEOPLE LIVED
Babylonia was the land of bricks, Assyria of stone. It was in Babylonia
that the great tower had been built of brick whose head, it was intended,
should ‘reach to heaven.’ The bricks were merely dried in the sun; it
was but rarely that they were baked in the kiln. When it was wished to
give additional solidity to the walls of a building, lighted fuel was
piled up against them, and their surfaces were thus vitrified into a
solid mass. But usually the Babylonian builders were content with the
ordinary sun-dried brick of the country. Naturally it crumbled away in
the course of time, and the brick structure became a mound of shapeless
mud. Nebuchadnezzar tells us how the great Temple of the Seven Planets
of Heaven and Earth at Borsippa, near Babylon, whose ruins are now known
under the name of the Birs-i-Nimrud, and which has often been identified
with the Tower of Babel, had been destroyed before his time by rain and
storm, and neglect to repair its drains. In fact, the plain of Babylonia
was covered with artificial hills formed of the _débris_ of ancient
temples which had been allowed to fall into decay. One of the earliest
names given to it on the monuments is that of ‘the land of mounds.’
No stone was found in the country. If stone was used, as, for instance,
by Nebuchadnezzar in his construction of the quays of Babylon, it had to
be brought from the distant mountains of Elam. Even the smallest stones
and pebbles were highly prized. Hence it was that in Babylonia the art
of engraving seems to have taken its rise. We learn from Herodotus that
every Babylonian carried about with him an engraved seal attached to
his wrist by a cord, and the statement is fully confirmed by the native
monuments. The seal was of cylindrical shape, pierced longitudinally by
a hole through which the cord was passed. When it was needed to be used,
it was rolled over the wet clay which served the Babylonians as a writing
material, and it was regarded as the necessary guarantee of the owner’s
identity. No legal deed or contract was valid without the impression of
the seals belonging to the persons who took part in it; the engraved
stone, in fact, was as indispensable to its owner as his name itself.
In Assyria, on the contrary, clay was comparatively scarce, and stone was
plentiful. Hence, while the temples and palaces of Babylonia were built
of brick, those of Assyria were, at all events in part, built of stone.
The Assyrians, however, had originally migrated from Babylonia, and they
carried with them the tradition of the art and architecture of their
mother-country. Accordingly, while making use of stone they nevertheless
did not altogether forego the use of brick. The walls of Nineveh, in
spite of their height, were constructed of brick, and it was only the
basement of the palaces which was made of stone. We need not be surprised
at this slavish imitation of a style of building which was out of place
in the country to which it was transferred. In another respect the
Assyrians imitated the architecture of Babylonia even more slavishly and
needlessly. This was in the construction of vast platforms of brick, upon
which the temples of the gods and the palaces of the kings were erected.
In Babylonia such platforms were necessary, in order to secure the
edifices upon them from the danger of floods or the inconveniences of a
marshy soil. But in Assyria similar precautions were not required. There
the buildings could have been raised on a foundation of rock, without the
intervention of an artificial platform.
The brick walls of the Babylonian houses were covered with stucco, which
was then adorned with painting. Dados ran around them, whereon were
depicted the figures of men and animals. In the Assyrian palaces the dado
was formed of sculptured slabs of stone, and painted in imitation of
the dados of painted stucco which were usual in Babylonia. The cornices
and other portions of the walls were in the houses of the wealthy often
ornamented with bronze and alabaster, and even gold. At times ivory
was used for the same purpose, as in the ivory palaces of Samaria[7].
The doors more especially were overlaid with bands of bronze, and were
frequently double, the hinges revolving in sockets of bronze. The windows
were protected from the weather by means of curtains of tapestry; and
a flight of steps, open to the air, led to the upper storeys of the
house. The steps opened upon a court around which the sitting-rooms and
bed-chambers were built, the apartments assigned to the women being kept
separate from those of the men.
All these luxuries, however, were confined to the rich and noble. The
mass of the people lived, like their descendants to-day, in mud cabins,
with conical roofs of clay. They had to be content to live on the ground
floor, and to exclude the cold, and rains of winter, not with costly
tapestries, but by making the apertures in the walls which served as
windows as small as possible. It is needless to say that the bronze and
sculpture and painting which adorned the habitations of the wealthy were
unknown in those of the poor.
Even in the houses of the wealthy the furniture was doubtless as scanty
and simple as it is still to-day in the East. Rugs of variegated patterns
were laid upon the floor, and chairs and stools of various shapes and
sizes were used. The stools were generally lofty, so that the feet of
the sitter had to be supported on a footstool. Some of the chairs were
provided with arms.
At times, instead of chairs, couches or divans were employed. The
luxurious Assyrian would even recline on a couch when eating, a habit
which passed from the East to Greece, and from Greece to Rome, so that
in the days of our Saviour it was more customary to ‘recline’ than to
sit at meat. One of the bas-reliefs in the British Museum represents
the Assyrian king Assur-bani-pal lying on a couch while he drinks wine
and feasts after the defeat and death of his Elamite enemy, though his
wife, who participates in the banquet, is seated on a chair. The custom
of reclining at meals was doubtless borrowed by the Assyrians from
Babylonia, since the older native fashion was to seat the guests at a
dinner party on lofty stools on either side of a small table. At night
the wealthier classes slept on bedsteads covered with thick mattresses
or rugs. Poorer people were satisfied with the mattress only, which was
spread upon the ground, and rolled up when no longer needed for use. It
was a bed which could be taken up and carried away, like the ‘beds’ we
read of in the New Testament. All classes alike slept in their ordinary
clothes.
The house of the well-to-do Assyrian or Babylonian was not considered
complete unless it was provided with a garden or plantation, which, it
would seem, was usually planted in front of it. It was well stocked with
trees, among which the palm naturally held a chief place. In warm weather
tables and seats were placed under the shade of the trees, and meals
were thus taken in the open air. Those who could afford to keep slaves
for the purpose employed one of them in waving a large fan, in order to
drive insects away while the meal was being enjoyed. In taking the lease
of a house, the tenant usually agreed to keep the garden in order, and to
replace any trees that might die or be cut down.
The garden was irrigated from one of the numerous canals which
intersected the whole of Babylonia. The rich employed hired labourers
for the purpose; the poor had to irrigate their own plot of ground. The
water was drawn up in buckets and then poured into a number of rivulets
which ran through the garden. Vegetables of all kinds were grown along
the edges of the rivulets, more especially onions and garlic. It would
appear that flowers also were cultivated, at all events in the gardens
of the wealthy, since vases of flowers were placed on the tables at a
banquet.
The costume of the people was as varied as it is in the modern European
world. Old lists of clothing have come down to us which contain as large
an assortment of different dresses and their materials as could be found
in a shop of to-day. Among the materials may be mentioned the _sindhu_,
or muslin of ‘India,’ which is described as being composed of ‘vegetable
wool,’ or cotton, and so bears testimony to an ancient trade between
Chaldea and the western coast of India. Most of the stuffs, however, were
of home manufacture, and were exported into all parts of the civilized
world. It will be remembered that among the Canaanitish spoil found in
the tent of Achan was ‘a goodly Babylonish garment[8].’
In spite of the changes of fashion and the varieties of dress worn
by different classes of persons, the principal constituents of the
Assyrian and Babylonian costume remained the same. These were a hat or
head-dress, a tunic or shirt, and a long outer robe which reached to the
ankles. In early Babylonian times the hat was ornamented with ribbons
which projected before and behind like horns; at a later period it
assumed the shape of a tiara or peaked helmet. The material of which it
was composed was thick and sometimes quilted; the upper classes further
protected their heads from the sun by a parasol, which in Assyria became
the symbol of royal or semi-royal authority. The tunic was of linen or
wool, the latter material being much employed, particularly in cold
weather; it reached half-way down the thigh, and was fastened round
the waist by a girdle. A second tunic was often worn under the first,
doubtless during the winter season.
The long robe or cloak was specially characteristic of the Babylonians.
It opened in front, was usually sleeveless, and was ornamented at the
edge with fringes. In walking it allowed the inner side of the left leg
to be exposed. Not unfrequently the girdle was fastened round it instead
of round the tunic. In Assyria the king sometimes wore over his robe a
sort of chasuble, richly ornamented like the robe itself.
The Babylonian priest was characterized by a curious kind of flounced
dress which descended to the feet, and perhaps was made of muslin. From
immemorial times a goat-skin was also flung over his shoulders, the goat
being accounted an animal of peculiar sanctity. On Babylonian cylinders
and seals a priest may always be at once distinguished by the flounces of
his dress.
The costume of the women differed externally but little from that of the
men—at least when the latter were dressed in their outer robe. The queen
of Assur-bani-pal is depicted in a long unsleeved robe, over which comes
a fringed frock reaching below the knees, and over that again a light
cape, also fringed and patterned with rosettes. On her feet are boots,
and around her head is a crown or fillet representing a castellated
wall, and thus resembling the mural crown of Greek sculpture. Earrings,
bracelets, and a necklace complete her costume.
Earrings, bracelets, and necklaces were also worn by the men. Anklets are
referred to in the inscriptions as well as finger-rings, though the usual
substitute for a finger-ring was the cylinder, which, as has already been
stated, was attached by a string or chain to the wrist.
The Babylonian, at any rate in earlier times, seems ordinarily to have
gone bare-footed. Already in the twelfth century B.C., however, we find
the king[9] wearing a pair of soft leather shoes, and in Assyria sandals
were in use from an early period, the sandal being furnished with a
cap for protecting the heel. The northern conquests of Tiglath-pileser
III and Sargon introduced the laced boot of the inhabitants of the
colder regions in the north. The cavalry, who had hitherto ridden
with bare legs, now adopted high boots, laced in front, and worn over
tightly-fitting breeches of plaited leather. Certain of the foot-soldiers
were also clothed in the same way; while others of them wore the boots
without the trousers. Sennacherib was the first of the Assyrian kings who
discarded the sandal in his own person and substituted for it a shoe,
which like the military boot was laced in front.
It must not be imagined that the robe or even the tunic was always worn.
In fact, the light-armed troops in the Assyrian army were contented
with a simple kilt, which, together with a felt skull-cap, constituted
the whole of their dress. This was also the costume of the Babylonian
labourer when working in the fields, and both Assyrians and Babylonians,
while engaged in manual work or military operations, discarded the long
and inconvenient outer robe. It was only the upper classes who could
afford the luxury of wearing it in every-day life. So, too, the use of a
hat or cap was not universal. Numbers of people were satisfied with tying
up their hair with a fillet or string, even when exposed to the heat of
the sun. At times even the fillet was dispensed with.
The hair of the head was worn long, and the Assyrians distinguished
themselves from their neighbours by dressing and curling both it and
their beards. The fashion must have been derived from the early Semitic
population of Babylonia, since the hero of the great Chaldean epic
is represented on ancient engraved seals with a curled beard. On the
other hand, the practice was unknown to the non-Semitic population of
the country; the sculptured heads, for instance, found at Tel-loth,
which belong to the Accado-Sumerian epoch, are either beardless or else
provided with long uncurled beards which terminate in a point, ‘the
musked and curled Assyrian bull,’ spoken of by Lord Tennyson, being a
Semitic creation. Here, as elsewhere, fashion was determined by physical
characteristics, and it was only among a Semitic people distinguished by
its thick growth of black hair that the art of the hair-dresser could
develop as it did in Semitic Babylonia and Assyria. The comparatively
beardless Sumerians rather encouraged the barber, who accordingly
occupies a conspicuous place in early Babylonian literature.
CHAPTER III
EDUCATION
The Babylonians were the Chinese of the ancient world. They were
essentially a reading and writing people. In spite of the intricacy of
their system of writing, with its multitudinous characters, each of which
had more than one phonetic value, and might be used to express an idea or
word, books were numerous and students were many. The books were for the
most part written upon clay with a wooden reed or metal stylus, for clay
was cheap and plentiful, and easily impressed with the wedge-shaped lines
of which the characters were composed. But besides clay, papyrus and
possibly also parchment were employed as writing materials; at all events
the papyrus is referred to in the texts, though all vestiges of it have
long since disappeared in the damp climate of the valley of the Euphrates.
The use of clay for writing purposes extended, along with Babylonian
culture, to the neighbouring populations of the East. In the century
before the Exodus, recent discoveries have shown that clay libraries
existed, and that an active correspondence was carried on by means of
clay tablets in all parts of the ancient Oriental world. The Babylonian
language and characters were taught and learned not only in Mesopotamia
and Aram, but also in Kappadocia, Syria, Palestine, and even Egypt.
Letters on clay in the cuneiform script were sent from Phœnicia and the
cities of the Philistines, from Gaza and Ashkelon, from Lachish and
Megiddo. If ever the site of Kirjath-Sepher or ‘Booktown,’ which was
destroyed by Othniel[10], be discovered and excavated, it is possible
that we may find a store of records in clay among its ruins. The invasion
of Syria by the Hittites and their subsequent wars with the Egyptians,
together with the conquest of Canaan by the Israelites, put an end to
the early intercourse between Babylonia and the West. The use of the
Babylonian language was discontinued among the educated circles of Syria
and Palestine; the cuneiform syllabary was supplanted by the simpler
Phœnician alphabet; and papyrus or parchment, rather than clay, became
the ordinary writing material. But in the later days of the Jewish
monarchy the employment of clay seems to have again come into favour.
From the reign of Ahaz onwards, Assyrian influence was strong in Judah;
Ahaz himself set up a sun-dial in Jerusalem[11], in imitation of those
which had existed from time immemorial in Babylonia; and Hezekiah caused
old texts to be edited[12], like the kings of Assyria and Chaldea, who
kept scribes constantly employed in copying out the ancient literature
with which their libraries were filled. It is not surprising, therefore,
that the common writing material of Assyria and Chaldea was also
introduced into Judah. We may gather from Jeremiah[13] that, as in
Assyria, so too in Judah, in the age of Jeremiah, legal documents were
inscribed on tablets of clay, which were then sealed and covered with a
clay envelope. On this was written a summary of the deed it contained;
the whole document being subsequently consigned to the safe keeping of an
earthen jar.
It is astonishing how much matter can be compressed into the compass
of a single tablet. The cuneiform system of writing allowed the use of
many abbreviations—thanks to its ‘ideographic’ nature—and the characters
were frequently of a very minute size. Indeed, so minute is the writing
on many of the Assyrian (as distinguished from the Babylonian) tablets
that it is clear not only that the Assyrian scribes and readers must have
been decidedly short-sighted, but also that they must have made use of
magnifying glasses. We need not be surprised, therefore, to learn that
Sir A. H. Layard discovered a crystal lens, which had been turned on a
lathe, upon the site of the great library of Nineveh.
Where it was found impossible to compress a text within the limits of a
single tablet, it was continued on a second, a very clever arrangement
being adopted in order to facilitate reference. The tablets were called
‘the first’ or ‘second’ of a series, which received its name from the
first word or line of the work inscribed upon them, and the last line of
the first tablet was repeated at the beginning of the second. In this way
the librarian and reader were able without loss of time to refer to any
tablet which was required in a particular series or work. Of course the
scribes who copied the tablets endeavoured to make each tablet correspond
with what we should call a chapter, so that the several tablets of a
series may be described as the successive chapters of a book.
To learn the cuneiform syllabary was a task of much time and labour.
The student was accordingly provided with various means of assistance.
The characters of the syllabary were classified and named; they were
further arranged according to a certain order, which partly depended on
the number of wedges or lines of which each was composed. Moreover, what
we may term dictionaries were compiled, in which every character not only
had assigned to it the different phonetic values it possessed, but also
the different ideographic significations with which it had been used, or
was thought to have been used, in earlier literature. These ideographic
significations resulted from the fact that the cuneiform system of
writing had been pictorial and hieroglyphic before it had developed into
a syllabary, each character representing an idea or word.
To learn the signs, however, with their multitudinous phonetic values and
ideographic significations, was not the whole of the labour which the
Babylonian boy had to accomplish. The cuneiform system of writing, along
with the culture which had produced it, had been the invention of the
non-Semitic Accado-Sumerian race, from whom it had been borrowed by the
Semites. In Semitic hands the syllabary underwent further modifications
and additions, but it bore upon it to the last the stamp of its alien
origin. On this account alone, therefore, the Babylonian student who
wished to acquire a knowledge of reading and writing was obliged to learn
the extinct language of the older population of the country.
There was, however, another reason which even more imperatively obliged
him to study the earlier tongue. A large proportion of the ancient
literature, more especially that which related to religious subjects,
was written in Accado-Sumerian. Even the law-cases of early times, which
formed precedents for the law of a later age, were in the same language.
In fact, Accado-Sumerian stood in much the same relation to the Semitic
Babylonians that Latin has stood to the modern inhabitants of Europe.
Even words and proper names had been borrowed from it, and just as the
etymology and meaning of many of our words can be understood only by a
reference to Latin, so the etymology and meaning of such words could be
understood only by a reference to Accadian.
Besides learning the syllabary, therefore, the Babylonian boy had to
learn the extinct language of Accad and Sumer. For this purpose he was
provided with lists of words or vocabularies in which the Accadian word
was explained in Semitic Assyrian, with grammatical paradigms giving the
forms of the Accadian verbs and postpositions, with the explanations
of difficult phrases, with extracts from ancient books translated into
Assyrian, notes being sometimes added upon obscure and important words,
as well as with interlinear or parallel translations of long and complete
texts. The student was also encouraged to write himself in this literary
Latin of Chaldea, and numerous works exist which show by their age, their
idioms, and sometimes even their errors, that they must have been the
work of Semitic scribes. The Accadian of the subjects of Nebuchadnezzar
could be as faulty as monkish or schoolboy’s Latin.
But a knowledge of Accadian was not all that was demanded from the
Assyrian or Babylonian gentleman, if he wished to make his way in
the world. It will be remembered that the Rab-shakeh, or ‘Vizier’ of
Sennacherib, addressed the Jews at Jerusalem in their own language, and
that the ministers of Hezekiah asked him to use ‘Aramaic’ or ‘Syrian’
instead[14]. They thus assumed that he could speak a language which,
though unknown to the uneducated ‘people on the wall,’ was evidently
considered to be included in the course of study of an educated
gentleman. Aramaic, in fact, had come to occupy a similar position to
that occupied by French in modern diplomacy and society. It was the
international language of the statesmen of the day. But, unlike French,
it had come to occupy this position from its being the language of trade.
Aramaic traders were settled in the towns of Babylonia and carried on
business in the midst of Nineveh. Commercial documents exist of the age
of Tiglath-pileser III and his successors, in which an Aramaic docket is
attached to the cuneiform text, and weights have been found in Assyria
which have upon them both Aramaic and Assyrian inscriptions. The Assyrian
and Babylonian merchant was consequently compelled to read, write, and
speak Aramaic; and the Assyrian conquests, which had for their chief
object to divert the trade of Aram and Phœnicia into Assyrian hands,
had made it necessary for the politician to follow the example of the
merchant. The Assyrian or Babylonian boy had his Latin and French to
learn no less than the English boy of to-day.
The history of the Rab-shakeh of Sennacherib shows that a knowledge of
these two languages might be supplemented by the knowledge of a third.
In addition to Assyrian and Aramaic, he was also able to speak Hebrew,
learned, perhaps, from one of the exiles from the northern kingdom who
had been carried away from Samaria eighteen years before. Assyrian
contract-tablets of this age have been found, in which mention is made
of persons with Israelitish names who resided at Nineveh. The dragoman,
or interpreter, moreover, had long been a recognized institution in the
East. As far back as the fifteenth century before our era, the King of
Aram Naharaim speaks of the _targumannu_, or ‘dragoman,’ whom he sent to
Egypt; and, seven centuries later, an Assyrian writer makes mention of a
_targumannu_ of the country of the Minni. When the ambassadors of Gyges
of Lydia first arrived in Nineveh it is recorded, as an evidence of the
distance from which they had come, that there was no one found there to
understand what they spoke.
The study of foreign tongues naturally brought with it an inquisitiveness
about the languages of other people, as well as a passion for etymology.
The latter led the grammarians to invent Accadian etymologies for Semitic
words, like the Greek or Latin etymologies invented for Teutonic words
in English by the dictionary-makers of a former generation. Thus we find
_Sabattu_ or _Sabatuv_, ‘the Sabbath,’ derived from the two Accadian
words _sa_, ‘the heart,’ and _bat_, ‘to end,’ and accordingly explained
to mean ‘a day of rest for the heart.’ The inquisitiveness about foreign
languages produced better results. We owe to it the preservation of
the meaning of several words in the ancient languages of Elam, and of
the other countries by which Babylonia was surrounded. We have, for
instance, a list of words belonging to the language of the Kassites on
the eastern side of Babylonia, together with their translation; and even
a conqueror like Sargon goes out of his way to tell us that a particular
architectural term was of Phœnician origin.
But there were other things besides languages which the young student
in the schools of Babylonia and Assyria was called upon to learn.
Geography, history, the names and nature of plants, birds, animals, and
stones, as well as the elements of law and religion, were all objects
of instruction. The British Museum possesses what may be called the
historical exercise of some Babylonian lad in the age of Nebuchadnezzar
or Cyrus, consisting of a list of the kings belonging to one of the
early dynasties, which he had been required to learn by heart. The last
ruler of the Babylonian Empire, Nabonidos, the father of Belshazzar, was
himself an enthusiastic antiquarian, and the pioneer of archaeological
excavation. He caused excavations to be made on the sites of the older
temples of Babylonia, in order to discover the inscriptions and records
of the kings to whom their foundation was ascribed. His search for the
buried monuments of the founder of the great Temple of the Sun-god
at Sippara reads like the history of similar searches made in recent
years in Westminster Abbey or Canterbury Cathedral. Natural history, as
distinguished from the history of the monumental past, was, of course,
in its infancy, and consisted of little else than a descriptive catalogue
of natural objects. The work of King Solomon on trees, and ‘beasts, and
fowl, and creeping things, and fishes[15],’ must have been of a like
character.
The libraries were established in the temples, and the schools in which
the work of education was carried on were doubtless attached to them.
Strabo, the Greek geographer, tells us that Borsippa, the suburb of
Babylon, was famous for the schools or universities that had once existed
there; and the medical college of Borsippa seems to be referred to in
a Babylonian treatise on medicine, fragments of which are now in the
British Museum. The library of Borsippa was stored in the great Temple of
Bel; and as late as the time of Darius we find a Babylonian copying out
a portion of the Epic of the Creation, and depositing it in the library,
‘for the preservation of his life, and the life of all his house[16].’ To
add fresh copies of books to the collection was thus considered a pious
act.
The libraries were open to the public. Assur-bani-pal, for instance, is
never weary of declaring that the library of Nineveh had been founded and
enlarged ‘for the use of readers,’ and from a very early epoch the office
of librarian was held in high honour. One of the earliest Babylonian
librarians of whom we know calls himself the son of the king. It was,
without doubt, a well-paid post, and the number of scribes employed in
the library required in its holder the possession of administrative
abilities.
A considerable proportion of the inhabitants of Babylonia could read
and write. The contract tablets are written in a variety of running
hands, some of which are as bad as the worst that passes through the
modern post. Every legal document required the signatures of a number of
witnesses, and most of these were able to write their own names. It was
only when they could not do so that the law was satisfied with a simple
‘nail-mark’ in the clay, the name of the witness being appended to the
nail-mark by the clerk. In Assyria, however, education was by no means so
widely spread. Apart from the upper and professional classes, including
the men of business, it was confined to a special body of men—the public
scribes. Indeed, it is probable that, before the reign of Tiglath-pileser
III (B.C. 745-727), it was only the scribes, as a general rule, who
had learned to read and write. In Assyria, accordingly, we find none
of that variety of handwritings which often makes the decipherment of
a Babylonian document so difficult. A neat official hand was in use
there, which seldom displays any individual peculiarities, and remained
practically unchanged for several centuries.
Women, as well as men, enjoyed the advantages of education. This is
evident from the Babylonian contract-tablets, in which we find women
appearing as well as men as plaintiffs or defendants in suits, as
partners in commercial transactions, and as signing, when need arose,
their names. There was none of that jealous exclusion of women in ancient
Babylonia which characterizes the East of to-day, and it is probable that
boys and girls pursued their studies at the same schools.
The education of a child must have begun early. The strain put upon the
memory by the cumbersome cuneiform syllabary and the Accadian language
that lay behind it were so great that the acquisition of them must have
commenced at an early age. The fragment of an old Accadian folk-tale,
which once formed part of a lesson-book for the nursery, shows, however,
that it was probably not before the age of five or six. The story is that
of a foundling who was picked up in the streets, and taken ‘from the
mouth of the dogs and ravens,’ being subsequently adopted by the king as
his own son. The child, we are told, was first brought before the _asip_,
or ‘prophet,’ who marked the soles of his feet with his seal[17]; he was
then handed over to the nurse, to whom the boy’s ‘bread, food, shirt and
(other) clothing were assured for three years.’ ‘So,’ the story proceeds,
‘his rearing went on for him for a time.’ Had the rest of the tale been
preserved, we should doubtless have heard something about his education,
and light would thus have been thrown on the school life of a Babylonian
lad.
We already know enough, however, to see that education was by no means
backward in the old empires of Western Asia. As in Egypt, so too in
Babylonia, if not in Assyria, a knowledge of reading and writing was
widely spread, books were multiplied, and there were plenty of readers
to study them. So far from being illiterate, the ancient civilized East
was almost as full of literary activity as is the world of to-day. The
so-called critical judgements that have been passed upon it, begotten
of ignorance and prejudice, must be revised in the light of the fuller
knowledge which we now possess.
The Israelites in Canaan were surrounded by nations who were in the
enjoyment of ancient cultures, and abundant stores of books. There is
every reason for believing that the Israelites also shared in the culture
of their neighbours, and the literary activity it implied. We now know
that Egyptians and Babylonians wrote and read, not only in the time of
David and Solomon, but ages before; why should not the Hebrews also
have done the same? If the historical authority of the Old Testament
Scriptures is to be overthrown, it must be by other arguments than the
unwarranted assumption that letters were unknown in the epoch which they
claim to record.
CHAPTER IV
MARRIAGE AND DEATH
It is doubtful how far polygamy was practised among the Assyrians and
Babylonians. The rich and powerful, indeed, permitted themselves to
indulge in the possession of more than one wife, though even in their
case one of the wives ranked before the others, and her children alone,
so far as we can gather, were considered legitimate. The bulk of the
people, however, as in the modern East, could not have afforded the
luxury of several wives. Most of the contract tablets which relate to
matrimony imply that the household acknowledged two heads only, and that
the husband was contented with a single wife. Moreover, the position
held by the woman in the Babylonian community is inconsistent with an
extensive system of polygamy. It was rather the nomad Arab tribes on
the frontiers of Babylonia than the settled and civilized Babylonians
themselves who considered the possession of several wives to be the
privilege of the man.
But while polygamy, in the strict sense of the term, seems to have been
rare, concubinage prevailed as widely as it did among the inhabitants
of Palestine. But it was fenced about with stringent penalties which
fell with especial force upon the woman. The Babylonian who made a
_mésalliance_ received no dowry with his spouse; should he wish to
divorce her, however, he had to pay her a considerable fine in money,
which served for her maintenance after she had left his house. Any
unfaithfulness to him upon her part was punished with death. We hear, for
instance, of a certain Nebo-akhi-iddin in the time of Nebuchadnezzar, who
married a singing-woman, and in the marriage contract it is laid down
that if he should divorce her and marry another he shall pay her as much
as six manehs of silver, or about fifty-four pounds; on the other hand,
if she commit adultery, she is to be put to death with ‘an iron sword.’
In ordinary cases the husband received a dowry with his wife. This dowry
served not only to provide the wedding trousseau, but also to make the
wife independent of the husband in the matter of property. In this way
she was protected from tyrannical conduct upon his part, as well as from
the fear of divorce on insufficient grounds. If a divorce took place, the
husband was required to hand over to the wife all the property she had
brought with her as dowry, and she then either returned to her father’s
house or set up an independent establishment of her own.
The dowry usually included furniture and slaves as well as money. The
slaves were valued at a certain price, and might be given in place of
a portion of the money which was originally stipulated to be handed
over. In one case, for example, a female slave was accepted in place of
two-thirds of a maneh of silver (six pounds) which the father of the
bride had agreed to pay. Where the dowry was not immediately forthcoming,
security for the payment of it was taken by the bridegroom.
The dowry was paid by the father of the bride, if he were alive. If he
were dead, or if the mother of the bride had been divorced and was in the
enjoyment of her own property, it was she by whom the dowry was given. In
such a case permission to marry the daughter was asked by the suitor from
the mother instead of from the father, and the mother accordingly was
called upon to contribute the dowry.
If the husband died, and his widow married again, she carried her
former dowry with her. In such a case, however, the children of the
first marriage received two-thirds of the dowry after the mother’s
death, and the children of the second marriage only one-third. This was
in accordance with the law that in the case of a second marriage the
children inherited only one-third of the father’s property, the other
two-thirds going to the children by the first wife. Besides her dowry,
the wife might hold other property, either bequeathed to her by her
parents or given by her husband. On her death this was usually reckoned
along with the dowry for purposes of division among the heirs. It was
also reckoned along with the dowry as constituting her property during
life. Thus, in the thirty-fourth year of Nebuchadnezzar, we find a
father stipulating that the creditors of the father of his son-in-law
should have no claim upon either the dowry or the other property of his
daughter. Where the dowry had been promised merely, and not symbolically
handed over to the bride, the bridegroom could claim only a proportionate
amount of it, should his father-in-law have incurred pecuniary losses
after the promise had been made. The heirs had to pay the dowry if the
father-in-law died between his agreement to give it and the actual
marriage, and when the wife died without children it returned to her
‘father’s house.’
The bridegroom was not usually required to offer anything, except his
hand. In some instances, however, we find him buying his wife like a
slave, with a present of money to her parents, and receiving no dowry
in return. Thus a certain Dagil-ili, who married the daughter of a
lady named Khammâ, gave the mother one and a half manehs of silver,
and a slave worth half a maneh (or about eighteen pounds in all), and
stipulated that if he married a second wife he would pay her daughter one
maneh of silver and send her back to her mother’s house. Here it would
appear that Dagil-ili was marrying beneath him, the consequence being
that his wife, as long as she lived with him, had no property of her own,
and was somewhat in the position of a slave. It is therefore interesting
to learn that even in this case marriage with a second wife brought with
it as a matter of course the divorce of the first. Nothing could show
more clearly how little hold polygamy had upon the Babylonian people.
Marriage, however, was permitted among near relatives by blood. We hear
of a man marrying his niece, and, in the time of Cambyses, of a brother
marrying his sister by the same father. Perhaps this was in imitation of
a well-known Persian custom.
Marriage was partly a religious and partly a civil function. The
contracting parties frequently invoked the gods, and signed the contract
in the presence of the priest. At the same time it was a contract, and
in order to be legally valid it had to be drawn up in legal form and
attested by a number of witnesses. Like all other legal documents, it was
carefully dated and registered.
The possession of property by the wife brought with it the enjoyment
of considerable authority. The wife could act apart from her husband,
could enter into partnership, could trade with her money, and conduct
law-suits in her own name. Numerous deeds exist which record the sale
and purchase of slaves by women, who appear in them as the legal equals
of men. In other instances the husband and wife, or brother and sister,
act together, the property sold or bought being regarded as their joint
possession. In the eighth year of Nabonidos, for example, we hear of a
brother and sister selling a Persian slave-girl ‘and her son who is on
the breast’ for nineteen shekels of silver (£2 17_s._), and four years
later (B.C. 544) of a husband and wife borrowing in common a sum of
money, on which they promise to pay interest at the usual rate of twenty
per cent. Even more interesting is a contract dated in the second year
of Nabonidos (B.C. 555), in which a father transfers his property to his
daughter, reserving to himself only the use of it during the rest of
his life. In return, his daughter undertakes to take care of him and to
provide him with the necessaries of existence, food and drink, oil and
clothing.
Equally interesting is the case of a mother in the fifth year of
Cambyses, who ‘brought a document’ to the priest of the Sun-god at
Sippara and ‘gave’ him, like Hannah, her three sons, that they might
‘enter the house of the males.’ She alleged that they had not yet entered
it, as she had ‘lived’ and ‘grown old’ with them since they were ‘little
ones’ until ‘they had been counted among grown-up men.’
The ‘house of the males,’ into which the young men were introduced, seems
to have been a sort of monastic establishment attached to the great
temples of Babylonia. The community was under a head, or superintendent,
who received each month a certain amount of food and other provision
for the support of himself and his associates. They appear to have been
celibates, to have lived together in a kind of college, into which women
were forbidden to enter, and to have taken part in the daily services of
the temple to which they were attached. The expenses of their maintenance
were borne partly by endowments, partly by the tithes and other offerings
made to the temple. The institution reminds us of the college in
which Daniel and his companions were placed, where they were under a
superintendent who provided them with the food furnished by the king[18].
The naming of a child was an important event to the Babylonians and
Assyrians. The name was believed to bring with it good or evil fortune,
and to represent the owner of it not only symbolically, but even in
a more material sense. To change the name, it was believed, had an
important bearing on the course of events. When Sennacherib determined
to nominate his favourite younger son for the succession to the throne,
he changed his name from Esar-haddon to Assur-etil-mukin-abla—‘Assur,
the lord, is the establisher of (my) son.’ The child was consequently
named immediately after birth, perhaps in the presence of the _asip_, or
‘prophet,’ to whom reference is made in the nursery-tale which has been
already quoted. As circumcision was also practised in Babylonia, it is
possible that the two ceremonies of circumcision and name-giving were
performed at the same time.
If the parents were childless, it was not unusual for them to adopt a
son or daughter, to whom the property of the family could be handed on.
The act of adoption consisted in allowing the hands to be taken by the
person who was to be adopted, and thus symbolically receiving him into
the family. The ceremony must have come down from prehistoric days, as it
served to establish the king as the legitimate ruler of Babylon. Babylon
was theoretically under a theocracy, under the divine government of Bel
Merodach; and before a claimant to the throne could be recognized as its
sovereign it was necessary that he should clasp the hands of the image of
the god, and thereby become the adopted son of the true ruler of the city.
A very curious document has been preserved which indicates the close
relation that existed between adoption and the devolution of property. A
certain Babylonian, named Bel-katsir, had married a widow, and having no
children of his own, wished to adopt his step-son. His father, however,
intervened, and ‘made a will’ to the effect that the father’s property
should descend only to a genuine son of Bel-katsir; if no son of his own
were born to him, it was to pass after his death to his brother, and in
case of his brother’s death to his sister; in no case was it to go to an
adopted child. Bel-katsir was compelled to assent to these stipulations.
The document is interesting from several points of view, as it shows
that a Babylonian had the same power as ourselves, not only of willing
his property as he chose after death, but also of tying it up.
The dead were carried to the grave on biers, and were accompanied by
mourners. The cemetery in which they were laid was outside the town, and
formed a city in itself. The corpse was placed on the ground, wrapped in
mats of reed, and covered with asphalt; it was clothed in the dress and
ornaments that had been worn during life—the woman with her earrings in
her ears, her spindle-whorl and thread in her hand; the man with his seal
and weapons of bronze or stone; the child with his necklace of shells.
Over all was laid a thick coating of clay, above which branches of palm,
terebinth, and sandal-wood were frequently placed; the whole was then
set on fire, and the corpse and all about it were reduced to ashes. This
at least was the earlier custom; in later times ovens of brick were
constructed, in which the corpse was placed in its coffin of clay and
reeds, and the cremation was not allowed to be complete. The skeletons of
the dead are consequently often found in a fair state of preservation.
Offerings were made at the same time that the body was burned: these
consisted of dates, calves and sheep, birds and fish, which were
consumed along with the corpse.
After the process of burning was over, the remains were either allowed
to continue on the spot where the cremation had taken place, or were
collected into urns and vases of clay. Of course it was only where the
cremation had been complete that the latter mode of burial was possible,
and even in such cases a portion only of the ashes was deposited in the
urn. Where the cremation had been partial, an aperture was made in the
shell of clay with which the body had been covered, the aperture was then
closed, and a tomb of bricks built over the whole. A similar brick tomb
was built over the urns containing the ashes of those whose bodies had
been completely consumed.
It was believed that the spirits of the dead needed sustenance in their
new home, and clay-vases were accordingly placed in the tombs, some
of them filled with dates and grain, others with wine and oil; but a
more bountiful provision was made in the case of water, which, it was
thought, was wholesome to drink only when it was fresh and running.
Little rivulets were made by the side of the tombs, through which a
constant supply of water could be kept flowing for the spiritual needs
of the dead. This represented ‘the water of life,’ of which we hear so
often in the inscriptions. Pure water was indispensable in all religious
ceremonies, and ancient legends recorded that there was a spring of
‘life’ bubbling up beneath the throne of the spirits of the under-world,
of which whosoever drank would live for ever. It was of this spring that
the water which ran in numberless rills through the cities of the dead
was a symbol and outward sign.
The Necropolis was constantly growing in height. Successive generations
of the dead were burned one above the other, the tombs of the older
serving as a floor for the funeral pyres of the younger generation. The
tombs thus rose one upon the other like the houses of crude brick in an
Egyptian or Babylonian village. In this way terraces were formed which
were surrounded with walls, and became the special burial-places of
particular families or districts.
The rich were distinguished in death as well as in life; for them houses
were erected, in the chambers of which their corpses were burned and
buried. The house consisted of several chambers, and sometimes served
as the last resting-place of a single individual, sometimes of other
members also of his family; rivulets of water were conducted into the
house itself; here were laid, moreover, the various offerings of food
and wine on which the soul of the dead man was supposed to live. At times
tombstones were set up recounting the name and deeds of the deceased,
at other times the tomb was adorned with seated statues of stone, which
commemorated the features of the dead.
Only members of the royal family, it would appear, were permitted to be
buried within the precincts of the town. Their bodies might be burned
and entombed in one of the many palaces of the country. We are told of
one king, for instance, that he was ‘burned’ or buried in the palace of
Sargon, of another that he was ‘burned’ in his own palace. The practice
throws light on what we read in the Books of Kings: there too we are told
that Manasseh ‘was buried in the garden of his own house,’ and Amon in
the ‘garden of Uzza.’ Private burial in the palaces they had inhabited
when alive was a privilege reserved for the kings alone.
CHAPTER V
THE MARKET, THE MONEY-LENDER, AND THE TENANT
In the tenth chapter of Genesis[19] mention is made by the side of
Nineveh of ‘the city Rehoboth,’ which should rather be translated ‘the
public square of the city.’ It represented, in fact, the great open
square on the north-eastern side of Nineveh in which the market was
held. Every city of Assyria and Babylonia was provided with a similar
market-place; here were the magazines of the corn-merchants, the booths
of the vendors of country produce, and the stalls in which cattle,
horses, and camels were sold. It thus differed from the _suqu_, or
‘street’—the ‘bazaar’ of a modern Oriental city—which contained only the
regular shops.
Most commodities had to pay a duty, corresponding to the continental
_octroi_, before they were allowed to pass the gates of the city and be
exposed to sale. It was accordingly to the interest of the purchaser to
contract that country goods should be delivered to him within the walls
of the city before they were paid for. Thus, in the eighteenth year of
Darius, we hear of a lady named Akhabtu[20] selling 200 sheep on her
property in the country, and agreeing to send them into Babylon before
receiving for them the stipulated price of fifteen manehs of silver (or
£135). The purchaser was allowed ten days within which to pay the money;
if he failed to do so, he was to be charged twenty per cent. interest
upon the whole amount.
Prices naturally varied, according to the quality or scarcity of what
was to be sold. In the twenty-fourth year of Nebuchadnezzar we find one
full-grown ox, which was required for the service of the temple of the
Sun-god at Sippara, costing thirteen shekels, or about £2. In the time
of Cambyses ten shekels (£1 10_s._) are given for an ox, and fifty-eight
shekels (£8 14_s._) for eight ‘fine sheep’—that is to say, about a
guinea apiece. The price, however, included the ‘bakshish’ paid to ‘an
Arabian’ who looked after them. In the same reign a ‘mouse-coloured ass,
seven years old,’ was sold for fifty shekels (or £7 10_s._), though we
also hear of an ass of inferior quality whose price was only thirteen
shekels (about £2). It is rather surprising, after this, to learn that
a copper libation-bowl and cup together cost as much as four manehs
nine shekels (or £37 7_s._); at the same period a good-sized house,
with field attached, could be had for only four and a half manehs (£40
10_s._), while the rent of another house, with the use of the water in
its neighbourhood, amounted to one maneh. In the first year of Cambyses,
one maneh seven shekels of silver were paid for a month’s work to a
seal-cutter, and half a shekel (1_s._ 6_d._) for painting the stucco of
a wall. The work alone seems to have been paid for, the materials being
furnished to the workmen, as is still the custom in the East. This at
all events was the case as regards metal work; thus, in one instance,
three manehs of iron were handed over to an ‘ironsmith’ to be made into
rods for bows. Three manehs of iron, it may be added, were considered
sufficient for the manufacture of six swords, two door-rings, and two
bolts.
In the fourteenth year of Nabonidos (B.C. 542) a contract was made by a
builder which included two shekels (or 6_s._) for 200 bundles of reeds
for constructing a bridge across a canal, one shekel for 100 bundles of
reeds for torches, fifty shekels (£7 10_s._) for 500 loads of bitumen for
building a tower, fifty-five shekels for 8000 loads of brick, and one
shekel for a piece of wood for the handle of an axe. In the same year
skins for covering a boat or coracle cost one maneh (£9), while in the
previous year eighteen sheep were sold for thirty-five shekels (not quite
6_s._ each), and twelve shekels derived from the rent of a house were
expended upon digging a trench or canal. In the fourth year of Nabonidos
one maneh was demanded for an ass; and in the following year one maneh
seven shekels were paid for an ox, and six shekels (or 18_s._) for a
sheep.
The price of wine varied according to its quality. Thus, at one and
the same time, two ‘large’ casks of new wine were purchased for eleven
shekels, and five other casks for ten shekels. Wine was chiefly imported
from Armenia and Syria, the wines of the Lebanon being especially prized.
Nebuchadnezzar has left us a list of several of the best, among which we
find the wine of Helbon, mentioned by Ezekiel[21].
Clothes were comparatively inexpensive. In the time of Nebuchadnezzar,
for example, a ‘mountain-cloak’ cost four and a half shekels (13_s._
6_d._), though doubtless this particular article of dress was made of
cheap materials. Half a maneh of silver, together with a _gur_ of corn
from the royal granary, were given in the seventeenth year of Nabonidos
to five men for work performed in the city of Ruzabu, in the presence of
the superintendent of the clothing department, from which we may infer
that they were working tailors. Wages, however, were low, partly in
consequence of the employment of slave labour. Even a porter of the royal
granary received only half a shekel a month by way of pay.
On the other hand, grain was correspondingly cheap. In the reign of
Cambyses, two artabs (or about 100 quarts) of corn cost six and a
half shekels, and as a quart of corn was considered in ancient Greece
a sufficient daily allowance for a man, we may calculate that the
Babylonian could manage to live on 2½_d._ a day. Under Nebuchadnezzar
twelve _qas_, or the third part of an artab, of sesame were sold for
half a shekel—that is to say, the quart of sesame cost a little over a
penny. Similarly, in the twelfth year of Nabonidos, one maneh (or £9) was
paid for six _gurs_ of sesame, and as the _gur_ contained five artabs,
the quart of sesame would have been a little less than 1½_d._ In the
seventh year of Nebuchadnezzar one shekel only had been given for one and
one-third artabs of dates, or about a halfpenny a quart; while in the
thirty-eighth year of the same reign we find the quart valued at only
one-twentyfifth of a penny.
Prices, however, were frequently calculated in grain and dates—that
great staple of Babylonia—and payments accordingly made in kind instead
of in coin. The tithes, for instance, were always paid to the priests
in kind, as among the Jews. In the first year of Cambyses we are told
that the price of an ox was 150 _gur_, 114 _qas_ of dates, the _gur_
containing three homers. It was in dates, again, that the wages of the
gardeners were paid by the priests attached to the temples of Babylon. In
the nineteenth year of Darius 120 _gur_ of dates were sold for one maneh
thirty-five shekels of silver. At this time, therefore, the quart of
dates was worth about the tenth part of a penny.
Fish, both from the sea and from fresh water, were a common article of
food, and must have been cheap and plentiful. We find them included among
the offerings made to the gods. As at Athens, salted fish were largely
eaten.
The streets, where troops of dogs acted as scavengers, as they still do
in the East, were lined with shops; the business was sometimes conducted
by a woman, and often consisted of a joint partnership. Deeds relating
to the formation or dissolution of a partnership are by no means rare.
Generally it was customary for each of the persons who entered into
partnership to contribute an equal share to the business, the profits
on the business, both ‘in town and country,’ being afterwards divided
equally between them. When one of the parties contributed more than the
other, provision was made for a proportionate distribution of gains and
losses. The following deed may be taken as an illustration of the way
in which a partnership could be dissolved:—‘A partnership was entered
into between Nebo-yukin-abla and his son Nebo-bel-sunu on the one side,
and Musezib-Bel on the other, which lasted from the eighteenth year of
Nabopolassar, King of Babylon, to the eighteenth year of Nebuchadnezzar.
The contract was brought up before the judge of the judges. Fifty
shekels of silver had been adjudged to Nebo-bel-sunu and his father
Nebo-yukin-abla. No further agreement or partnership exists between
the two parties. They have ended their contract with one another. All
former obligations in their names are rescinded.’ Then follow the names
of the witnesses, and the date, ‘The eighth day of Sebat (January), the
eighteenth year of Nebuchadnezzar, King of Babylon.’
A business could be carried on by the wife in the absence of her husband.
A document belonging to the second year of Neriglissor or Nergal-sharezer
(B.C. 559) shows this very clearly. Here we read:—‘As long as
Pani-Nebo-dhemi, the brother of Ili-qanua, does not return from his
travels, Burasu, the wife of Ili-qanua, shall share in the business of
Ili-qanua, in the place of Pani-Nebo-dhemi. When Pani-Nebo-dhemi returns
she shall leave Ili-qanua and hand over the share to Pani-Nebo-dhemi.’
Among the witnesses to this deed is a certain ‘minister of the king’
called Solomon (Salammanu), the son of Baaltammuh. The name indicates
that he had come from Palestine or Syria, and it is therefore interesting
to find him holding high office at the Babylonian court.
Other goods besides money and houses might serve as the subject of a deed
of partnership. Thus, in one instance, we are told that ‘200 barrels full
of good beer, twenty empty barrels, ten cups and saucers, ninety _gur_ of
dates in the store-house, fifteen _gur_ of chickpease (?), and fourteen
sheep, besides the profits from the bazaar, and whatever property
Bel-sunu has accumulated, shall be shared between’ the contracting
parties.
Even the members of the royal family did not consider commercial dealings
beneath them. The name of Belshazzar, the son of Nabonidos, more than
once appears in the contract-tablets, though it is true that he acted
indirectly through the steward of his house, as well as through his
secretaries. One of these tablets reads as follows:—
‘Twenty manehs of silver, the price of wool, the property of Belshazzar,
the son of the king, which, by the hands of Nebo-tsabit, the steward of
the house of Belshazzar, the son of the king, and the secretaries of
the son of the king, has been handed over to Nadin-Merodach, the son
of Basa, the son of Nur-Sin, in the month Adar, the silver, namely
20 manehs, he shall give. The house of ... a Persian, and all the
property of Nadin-Merodach in town and country shall be the security of
Belshazzar, the son of the king, until Belshazzar shall receive in full
the money. The debtor shall pay the whole sum of money as well as the
interest upon it.’ The names of six witnesses, including that of the
priest who drew up the deed, are then added, as well as the date: ‘At
Babylon, the twentieth day of the month (Adar), the eleventh year of
Nabonidos king of (Babylon).’
It will be seen from this document that Belshazzar, whose name has been
made familiar to us through the Book of Daniel, was not averse to acting
as a wool merchant, when money could be made thereby.
It will also be seen that in his trading transactions the heir to the
throne had to conform to the requirements of the law like the meanest
of his father’s subjects. Witnesses and a properly attested deed were
necessary to protect the prince against fraud. The fact illustrates
the commercial and legal instincts of the Babylonians, as well as the
restrictions that were placed by them on the exercise of the royal
authority.
Money-lending was naturally carried on upon an extensive scale. Under
Nebuchadnezzar and his successors the usual rate of interest was twenty
per cent., the interest being paid each month, though at times we find it
was reduced to thirteen and a third per cent., and in a time of famine
even remitted altogether by a patriotic money-lender. In concluding a
bargain it was ordinarily stipulated that if the money were not paid by
a specified date, interest upon it at the customary rate should run on
until it was paid in full.
In Nineveh in the age of Tiglath-pileser III and Sennacherib the rate
of interest seems to have been different from that which afterwards
prevailed in Babylonia. Thus we are told of six manehs ten shekels of
silver being lent out at interest which was to be at ‘a fourfold’ rate,
and of two talents of ‘the best bronze’ being given on a loan, the
interest on them to be ‘three times’ their value. In Assyria, besides
the national standard of ‘the royal maneh,’ the Hittite standard of
‘the maneh of Carchemish’ was in use, according to which commercial
transactions could be regulated.
The metal, whether gold, silver, or bronze, was measured out by weight,
and it was only in the later Babylonian period that this somewhat
cumbersome way of conducting business was replaced by symbols or coins.
On these was marked the weight represented by each.
The extensive system of credit implied by the Babylonian contract-tablets
proves what a trading centre Babylonia had become. Goods were imported
into it from all parts of the known world, and in return corn, dates, and
palm-wine were exported abroad. A good deal of the business, however,
carried on by the money-lenders was due to the necessity the poorer
classes were frequently under of paying their taxes in coin. Many of
these taxes, it is true, could be paid in kind, but it is probable
that the capitation-tax, which was levied on the whole community, had
to be paid in cash. The tribute paid by the subject-states, as well
as the contributions to the royal treasury due each year from the
cities and districts of the kingdom, had also to be made in coin. These
contributions were levied both in Assyria and in Babylonia. In the time
of Sennacherib, for example, the contribution due from Nineveh was
assessed at thirty talents; that from Calah at five. At the same time,
Carchemish, the ancient Hittite capital, had to pay 100 talents.
In Babylonia, if not in Assyria, even the brick-yards were taxed, the
privilege of making bricks—the universal material of the buildings of
the country—requiring the permission of the Government. It is also
probable that the owners of property, if not the tenants, were obliged
to contribute a fixed amount of grain each year to the royal _sutummu_,
or ‘granary,’ which existed in each of the large towns, and out of which
grants of food were made to the religious and civil functionaries.
Whether houses were taxed is not known. At all events nothing is said
upon the subject in the numerous deeds that relate to them. These deeds,
however, throw a flood of light on the laws which regulated their sale
or letting. The exact limitations of the property to be let or sold and
the condition of the house were minutely described, as well as the length
of time for which it was to be leased, and the rent to be paid by the
tenant. The tenant usually agreed to return the property in the state in
which he found it, keeping the fabric in repair at his own expense and
carefully cultivating the garden. Any transgression of the terms of the
lease was punished with a severe fine.
The value of the house depended on its size, position, and character. In
the reign of Cambyses we hear of a house being let for three years at
sixteen shekels a year, while, at the same time, another house was rented
for a year at only five shekels. In the latter case it is stipulated that
half the rent shall be paid at the beginning and the other half in the
middle of the year, and that the tenant shall repair all damages to the
walls of the building. Any transgression of the terms of the contract
was to be punished with a fine of ten shekels, or double the amount of
the rent, which was to be paid to the wife of the owner of the house. It
is therefore probable that the husband was dead, and that the property
had passed into the hands of his widow.
At the beginning of the same reign we find four and a half manehs of
silver (or £40 10_s._) given for a field and house, and another house
sold in the joint name of a man and his wife for two manehs (or £18).
At the same time a woman pays only two shekels (or 6_s._) for the house
‘in which she lives.’ It must, therefore, have been a mere hovel. It
is curious to learn how many of the houses which were sold or let in
Babylonia belonged to women; some of them had doubtless formed part of
their dowries, but others must have been left to them by their husbands
after death. One of them, which belonged to a lady named Buhiti, is
described as being situated in ‘the Broad Street’ of Babylon, ‘the
passage of the gods and the king.’ In the deed of sale of this house it
is stipulated that if the buyer asserts that ‘the house has not been
given up’ to him, the owner shall receive twelve times the amount of its
purchase-money.
The same formalities which accompanied the sale or letting of a house in
Babylonia were observed in Assyria. Here, for example, is the translation
of a deed of sale, which is dated in the year 692 B.C., or eleven years
before the death of Sennacherib: ‘The nail-mark of Sar-ludari, the
nail-mark of Atar-suru, (and) the nail-mark of the woman Amat-suhla, the
wife of Bel-dur, a captain (?), the owner of the house which is sold.’
[Then follow four nail-marks.] ‘The house, well-constructed, with its
beams and doors, situated in the city of Nineveh, adjoining the houses of
Mannu-ki-akhi and Ilu-ittiya, and the Street of the Messenger, has been
sold, and Tsil-Assur, the superintendent, an Egyptian, has bought it for
one maneh of silver, according to the royal standard, in the presence of
Sar-ludari, Atar-suru, and Amat-suhla, the wife of its owner. The full
sum has been paid, the house in question has been bought: there shall be
no retractation or annulment of the contract. Whosoever hereafter, among
the sellers, shall claim an annulment of the contract from Tsil-Assur
shall be fined ten manehs of silver. The witnesses are: Susanqu, the
son-in-law of the king, Kharmaza, the captain (?), Rasuh, the sailor,
Nebo-dur-zikari, the spy, Kharmaza, the naval captain, Sin-sharezer,
and Zedekiah. Dated the sixteenth day of the month Sivan (May), in the
eponymy of Zazâ, the governor of Arpad. The contract has been signed in
the presence of Samas-yukin-akhi, Latturu, and Nebo-sum-utsur.’
In Babylonia, where education was more widely spread, the contracting
parties would have attached their names and seals to the deed instead
of their nail-marks. One of the witnesses, Zedekiah, seems to have been
an Israelite, while the purchaser of the property is described as an
Egyptian, who held a high position in Nineveh. It would therefore appear
that foreigners in Assyria were able to hold property as well as offices
of state.
House-property, like slaves, could be bought and sold through the
intervention of an agent. In this case the purchaser was careful to state
that the property which had been bought did not belong to its nominal
buyer, and also to keep the deed of sale in his own hands. When the
money for the purchase was advanced by the agent it was agreed that it
should be repaid within a limited time—in one instance within two months;
failing its repayment within the specified period, what had been bought
became the property of the agent. Advantage was occasionally taken of
this system of purchase to buy a piece of land or other property in the
name of the wife, whose property was usually protected from distraint for
her husband’s debts.
The legal formalities attendant on the sale of property in Assyria and
Babylonia are an interesting commentary on the purchase of Hanameel’s
field by Jeremiah[22]. The prophet agreed to pay seventeen shekels of
silver for it, and the money was accordingly weighed out in the presence
of witnesses. He then added his signature to the deed, and sealed it
afterwards, as it would appear, enclosing the whole in a clay envelope,
on which was inscribed a statement of its contents. The witnesses had
previously attached their names to the document. The deed, containing
both the document that had been sealed and the document that was
exposed to view[23], was subsequently deposited ‘in an earthen vessel,’
which must have resembled the earthen jars in which the Babylonian
contract-tablets are found. Such jars served the purpose of a modern
safe, and were each appropriated to a particular set of documents, or to
those that related to a particular family. Who can say whether we shall
not yet recover the deed of sale signed by Jeremiah, and the jar to which
it was entrusted, as we have already recovered the similar deeds that
were drawn up and signed by his contemporaries in Babylonia? Stranger
events have happened in the romance of modern excavation.
CHAPTER VI
SLAVERY AND THE AGRICULTURAL LABOURER
In Assyria and Babylonia, as throughout the ancient world, slavery formed
one of the most important elements of social life. The distinction
between the freeman and the slave was one which it is difficult for us of
Western Europe to realize. The gulf between the two was profound while
it lasted, but it was not necessarily permanent. The slave might always
look forward to the recovery of his freedom. Nay, more, it was possible
for him to rise to high offices of state and become the political ruler
of his former master. Moreover, between the slave and his owner there was
none of that antagonism of race or colour which has characterized slavery
in the America of our own days. They belonged to the same or an allied
race, sometimes to the same population: their ideas, beliefs, religion,
even education, were not very dissimilar. The slave was, in fact, a
member of the family, like the child, with this difference, however, that
when the child grew up he necessarily became his own master, whereas the
slave remained subject to another until he recovered his freedom.
From an early period the slave had been an object of care to the
legislature. In Accadian law it had already been laid down that the life
of the slave was not absolutely at his master’s disposal. If the master,
it is enacted, kill, beat, maim, or destroy the health of the slave, the
hand which has so offended shall pay each day half a measure of corn.
This was doubtless to be given to the slave for his maintenance if he
still lived; we are not informed as to who should receive it in case of
his death. We hear, however, of a master receiving a maneh of silver as
compensation for the murder of his slave by another person.
In later times a slave could even appear as party to a suit. In the tenth
year of Nabonidos (B.C. 546) a slave called Nergal-ritsua brought the
following case before the judges. He had been sent by his master with 480
_gur_ of fruit from the fields to the ships of a certain Baalnathan, who
had been commissioned to transport it to Babylon. A portion of the fruit
was stolen on the way to that city, and Baalnathan, whose name indicates
his Phœnician origin, undertook to replace it. Instead of doing so he
absconded, and had but just been caught again. Five judges deliberated
on the matter and gave judgement in favour of the slave and his master.
The slave could also, under certain circumstances, engage in business
upon his own account, and so lay by a sum of money by means of
which he might eventually purchase his freedom. He could also hire
himself to another than his own master. In the twenty-eighth year of
Nebuchadnezzar (B.C. 577), for example, a deed was drawn up before
several witnesses enjoining that ‘on the day when Nebo-nadin-akhi the
slave of Ina-Esaggil-suma-epus enters into the service of Ubar he shall
give his wages’ to his former master. In this case, however, it may be
questioned whether the deed does not mean, not that the wages the slave
received on first entering the service of another were to be given to
his original owner, but that he was, as it were, lent by his master to a
second employer, the wages he received from the latter being his master’s
property during the whole period of his absence from the latter’s house.
The slave could become a freeman, either by manumission, or by purchase,
or by proving that he had been unlawfully enslaved. He might also recover
his liberty by being adopted as a son into the family of a citizen. His
master might also lose him by his being taken into the household of
the king as ‘a royal servant,’ or, in the case of a female slave, as a
concubine. As the ‘royal servant’ enjoyed a considerable amount of civil
power, the position was highly prized. Any slave, it would appear, was
liable to be impressed into the royal service, just as he was liable to
be adopted into a family. Accordingly, in buying a slave, it was usual
for the seller to agree to bear all the risk and trouble which such
claims would cause. Here, for instance, is a deed of sale which was
registered at Borsippa before three witnesses in the twenty-ninth year
of Nebuchadnezzar: ‘The woman Bahu-edirat and Itti-Nebo-panya, the son
of the woman Ubartu, the slaves of the lady Gusummu, the daughter of the
lady Sabullatu, have been sold on account to Merodach-edir-napisti, the
son of Mandidi, for half a maneh of silver in shekel pieces; Gusummu
undertakes all responsibility, whether as plaintiff or defendant in
regard to claims for freedom or for royal service on the part of the
slaves.’
A curious case which was decided at Babylon on the seventeenth of
Marchesvan, in the seventh year of Nabonidos (B.C. 549), illustrates the
attempts sometimes made by a slave to recover his freedom, and at the
same time the care taken by the law that justice should be done to all
parties, freemen and slaves alike. A certain Barachiel, whose name seems
to show that he was of Jewish descent, had been sold in the thirty-fifth
year of Nebuchadnezzar by Akhi-nuri, the son of Nebo-nadin-akhi, to a
lady named Gaga. Gaga had given him to her daughter Nubta (‘the Bee’)
as part of the latter’s dowry, and Nubta had subsequently ‘alienated
him by a sealed contract in exchange for a house and slaves.’ Barachiel
then asserted that he was a freeman, born of a noble Babylonian family
and unlawfully detained in servitude. The case accordingly came before
the court, consisting of ‘the high priest, the nobles, and the judges.’
Akhi-nuri did not appear, and it was eventually decided, by the
confession of Barachiel and a true account of his former life, that his
claim was a fiction.
‘Twice have I run away from the house of my master,’ he said, ‘but many
people were present and I was seen. I was afraid, and said (accordingly)
that I was the son of a noble ancestor. My citizenship has no existence;
I was the slave of ransom of Gaga. I am a slave. Go now (pronounce
sentence) upon me.’ The court consequently ‘restored him to his condition
of slavery[24].’
One of the proofs of his citizenship brought forward by Barachiel
had been that he had joined the hands of the brother and daughter of
Akhi-nuri in matrimony. It would therefore appear that this was a
ceremony which could be performed only by a freeman, and that Akhi-nuri
should have allowed Barachiel to perform it was a tacit admission that he
was no longer a slave. In order to prevent similar attempts to escape on
the part of the slaves, it was usual for the owners to brand or tattoo
them, generally with their masters’ names.
The husband and wife must often have been separated when a slave was
sold. Thus in the time of Nebuchadnezzar we hear of a woman Sakinna
and her daughter, a little girl of three years of age, being sold for
thirty-five shekels of silver, or five guineas; and in the eighth year
of the same reign a brother and sister sold two Persians, a slave-woman
and ‘her son who was upon her breast,’ for nineteen shekels. The ancient
Accadian law ordered that if children had been born to slaves whom their
former owner had sold while still keeping a claim upon them, he should
in buying them back take the children as well at the rate of one and a
half shekel each. At times, however, husband and wife were sold together.
In one case the price received for a slave and his wife was fifty-five
shekels, or £8 5_s._, part of which was paid on the spot, part on
account; and in the reign of Cambyses two slaves who had been sold along
with their wives, but afterwards reclaimed by the seller, were not given
back to him without their wives. We even find that parents sold their
children into slavery, especially if they were girls, and it is possible
that debtors might be treated in the same way. By the early Accadian law,
a son who denied his father was ordered to be shorn and sold as a slave.
The slave was regarded as a chattel, like any other kind of property. He
could form a portion of a daughter’s dowry, as we have seen; he could
serve as the security for the payment of a debt; he could be lent by
his master to a friend; and the master could hire him out, the wages he
received in this way going into his master’s pocket. His price depended
on his strength, abilities, age, and appearance, and varied from a very
high to a very low figure.
In parting with a slave the seller commonly stated that he did so ‘in the
joy of his heart,’ which seems to mean that he had not been driven to the
act by any faults in the slave himself. The expression, in fact, denoted
that he had nothing to say against the slave’s character, and that he was
not deceiving the purchaser into a bad bargain. That the purchaser of
a slave had to be on his guard is evident from a case which was brought
before the judges in the early part of the reign of Nabonidos, and which
has been translated by Dr. Oppert as follows:—‘Beli-litu, the daughter
of Bel-yusezib, the wine-merchant (?), gave the following evidence
before the judges of Nabonidos, King of Babylon: “In the month Ab, the
first year of Nergal-sharezer, King of Babylon, I sold my slave Bazuzu
for thirty-five shekels of silver to Nebo-akhi-iddin, son of Sula, the
descendant of Egibi; he has pretended that I owed him a debt, and so has
not paid me the money.” The judges listened, caused Nebo-akhi-iddin to be
summoned and to appear before them. Nebo-akhi-iddin produced the contract
which he had made with Beli-litu; he proved that she had received the
money, and convinced the judges. And Ziriya, Nebo-sum-lisir, and Edillu
gave (further) evidence before the judges that Beli-litu their mother had
received the silver. The judges deliberated, and condemned Beli-litu to
(pay) fifty-five shekels (by way of fine), the highest fine that could be
inflicted on her, and then gave it to Nebo-akhi-iddin.’ The text affords
a good example of the independent position occupied by the Babylonian
free-women.
The regulations relating to slavery were similar in Assyria to what
they were in Babylonia. A deed of sale of three slaves, dated B.C. 709,
in the reign of Sargon, may be quoted, as it is interesting on account
of the names of three of the witnesses, Pekah (_Paqakha_), Nedabiah
(_Nadbiyâhu_), and Ben-didiri, all of whom were evidently Israelites.
Pekah and Nedabiah are described as holding offices of state. The
slaves were sold by a certain Dagon-melech for three manehs of silver,
‘according to the standard of the maneh of Carchemish,’ and it is
stipulated that if the seller or any of his sons, grandsons, or relatives
shall maintain that the price was not paid, or that the contract had been
violated by the purchaser, the latter was to receive ten times the amount
of the price he had paid, while the offender was further punished with a
fine of one maneh of gold (or £140) to the goddess Istar of Arbela.
Another deed of sale of somewhat later date is equally interesting on
account of its contents. It relates to the sale of his daughter by a
certain Nebo-rikhti-utsur for sixteen shekels of silver (£2 8_s._) to a
lady who wished to marry the girl to her own son and heir. The contract
could be annulled by the father or relatives of the girl upon the payment
of ten silver manehs, that is to say, £90. We learn from it that the
women of Assyria had the same power of transacting business as the women
of Babylonia, and that in both countries parents were able to sell their
children into slavery. But it is new to find that a wife could be bought
in this way.
There were few Babylonians so poor as not to be able to keep a slave;
even one slave might possess another slave of his own. A deed exists,
dated in the twenty-seventh year of Nebuchadnezzar, which records the
sale of a female slave for two-thirds of a silver shekel (2_s._) to ‘the
slave of Nebo-baladh-yulid, the porter’ of the temple of the Sun-god
at Sippara. The smallness of the price indicates the poverty of the
purchaser, and as it is stated that the money was to be paid on account,
it would seem that even the small sum required was not forthcoming at the
moment. The deed was attested by several witnesses, the first of whom was
a slave. Nothing can show more clearly what a definite legal position a
slave must have occupied in Babylonia.
The large amount of slave-labour necessarily caused wages to be low; it
also introduced into the country a numerous population, which might be
dangerous in times of war or civil discontent. We know from the history
of Barachiel that the slave was not always contented with his lot in
life, and sometimes seized an opportunity of running away. On the other
hand, the slaves possessed neither cohesion nor discipline; they had no
leaders, they belonged to different nationalities, and were without arms.
Moreover, they were divided into different classes. There were the royal
slaves, among whom the eunuchs may be included, who occupied posts of
importance and power, and regarded themselves as the superiors of many of
the poorer freemen. Then, secondly, there were the temple-slaves, devoted
to the service of the gods, like the Nethinim in the temple of Jerusalem,
whose persons were consecrated and sacrosanct. Thirdly, there were the
household slaves, a large number of whom were virtually members of the
family in which they lived, and who might look forward to being adopted
by their masters. Those who belonged to rich households were probably
well-fed, well-clothed, and little worked. Lastly, there were the slaves
who laboured in the country, whose lot was doubtless harder than that of
the slaves in the towns, but who, nevertheless, enjoyed a certain amount
of freedom which country life necessarily brought with it.
It is probable, however, that the number of slaves employed in the
country was vastly exceeded by that of the slaves who lived in the
towns. The Babylonians were an agricultural people, and the greater
part of the work carried on in the country was conducted by free men.
They were irrigators, gardeners, shepherds, and goatherds, tenders of
cattle, and agricultural labourers. The gardener and shepherd held a high
place in popular esteem. Tradition alleged that Sargon I, the founder of
the first Semitic Empire, and of the great library of Accad, had been
a gardener before he was called to the throne through the love of the
goddess Istar, and it further related that when, like Moses, he had in
his infancy been consigned to an ark of bulrushes and bitumen, and cast
upon the Euphrates, he was discovered and brought up as a son by Akki,
the irrigator. Tammuz himself, the young and beautiful Sun-god, had been
a shepherd, according to the old belief, and the Bedouin Arab, or nomad
Aramaean, who usually looked after the flocks of the wealthy Babylonian
in the later days of the kingdom, was not only a freeman, but respected
on account of his strength, his courage, and his connexions.
We hear a good deal about the life of the Babylonian farmer or labourer
from the fragments of an old Accadian work on agriculture, extracts
from which were provided with translations into Assyrian, and used as a
reading-book by students who were learning Accadian[25]. Here we are told
that the agriculturist must begin his work in the sixth month of year,
when he agrees with his landlord about his rent, pays his taxes to the
Government, hedges in his fields, brings together his flocks, and works
from dawn to dusk.
The sixth month, as Mr. Bertin points out, was Elul, hence we may
conclude that the agricultural year originally began with Tisri, or
September, the seventh month, and not with Nisan, or March. This throws
light on the fact that Tisri was the first month of the Jewish civil
year, and that the Feast of Trumpets was celebrated on its first day.
The tenure of a farm was of various kinds. In some cases the property
belonged half to the landlord and half to the tenant, when the tenant
bound himself to plough, sow, manure, and water, and to hand over the
produce of the landlord’s half to the agent appointed by the latter. In
other cases the whole farm, with its produce, was shared equally between
the landlord and the tenant; the tenant giving his labour, and the
landlord in return providing him with carts, oxen, and other necessaries.
But there were several modifications of this system of partnership. The
landlord might stipulate that the farmer should receive only a third,
a fourth, a fifth, or even a tenth of the produce, the rest being
appropriated by himself. In addition to this, it would seem, the tenant
was required to pay a fixed rent, which consisted of two-thirds of the
dates gathered from the trees on the farm, or their equivalent in money.
The dates had to be handed over to the landlord on the last day of the
month Marchesvan, or October. The landlord reserved to himself the right
of dismissing his tenant, who was required to keep the farm in order,
repair the walls and fences, plant date-palms, and water the young trees.
When taking a new farm, moreover, on which there was no house, he was
required to build the house in the middle of the property, paying the
wages of the workmen when the work was finished. If the house was badly
or improperly built, it is stated that he might be fined as much as ten
shekels.
It must be remembered that all these are regulations of a very early
period, and that as time progressed the tenure of land, and the laws and
customs relating to it, necessarily became much more complicated. Still,
the general outlines of the system remained unaltered; the farmer paid
his rent in kind rather than in money, and the tenure resembled that of
the French _métayer_. The system of farming was essentially co-operative.
Some of the songs have been preserved to us with which the Accadian
peasants beguiled their labour. They, too, were translated into Assyrian,
and formed part of a reading-book used by students of the ancient
language. This is how the cattle were addressed as they ploughed the
field:—
A heifer am I;
To the cow am I yoked:
The plough-handle is strong—
A shaft of palm—
Lift it up, lift it up!
Or again, while threshing was going on, the peasant would sing:—
My knees are marching,
My feet are not resting;
Working not thyself,
Drive me in company!
Like all agricultural populations the Babylonian peasantry delighted in
proverbs: ‘Like an oven which is old, be firm against opposition.’ ‘The
corn is high, how know we it is ripe? The corn is cut down, how know we
it is good?’ ‘The fruit of death a man may eat, and yet find it the fruit
of life.’ Such are some of the sayings which have come down to us from
the popular wisdom of ancient Chaldea.
CHAPTER VII
TRADES AND PROFESSIONS
Society in Assyria and Babylonia in the later period to which most of our
documentary evidence belongs was highly complex. Trades and professions
of all kinds were recognized by it. Agriculturists, shepherds and
drovers, masons, carpenters, brickmakers, blacksmiths, silversmiths,
weavers, dyers, tailors, bakers and cooks, musicians, barbers,
wine-merchants, sailors and soldiers, architects and doctors, bankers and
poets, lawyers and priests, scribes and librarians, all alike existed
and exercised their trade or profession, like their representatives in
modern days. Caste, such as we find in India, was unknown. The son was
free to follow any trade or profession he liked, irrespective of that of
his father. Naturally there was a tendency for the father to bring up his
son to his own calling; the son of a priest, for instance, was often a
priest, the son of a blacksmith a blacksmith, but it was a tendency only,
and the exception to it was the rule. Even the king himself might be a
usurper, the ‘son of a nobody,’ as he was termed, who had begun life in
some humble trade.
In Babylonia, and still more in Assyria, an aristocracy existed by the
side of the king, which derived its descent from the ancient families
of the land. They were the ‘princes’ referred to in Jeremiah[26], among
whom was Nergal-sharezer, who afterwards seized the crown. But even the
‘princes’ included those who owed their position to the personal favour
of the king. The Rab-shakeh (_Rab-saki_), or Prime Minister, the Tartan
(_Turtannu_), or Commander-in-chief, and other high functionaries, were
appointed by the monarch, and might be selected by him from among the
dregs of the people, as well as from among the members of the nobility.
The king, in fact, was an autocrat, and consequently the source of all
honour. But, as in Russia, his autocracy was tempered and controlled by a
powerful bureaucracy. The civil service was on a vast scale, descending
from the governors of provinces and cities, from the statesmen who
surrounded the king and managed affairs at home and abroad, and from
the heads of departments, down to an army of clerks and subordinate
officials. A considerable part of the revenue raised by taxation was
devoted to the payment of the bureaucracy.
Ability to read and write and to speak foreign languages was a passport
to its ranks. In Assyria its influence was counterbalanced by that of the
army, which seems to have been mainly recruited at home. It was by means
of its well-disciplined and well-armed forces that Assyria was enabled
to establish its empire, and it was the exhaustion of that army which
brought about the fall, not only of the empire, but of Assyria itself.
It took several centuries to bring the Assyrian army to that point of
perfection which it attained in the time of Tiglath-pileser III and
Sargon. It consisted of infantry and cavalry as well as of a corps of
chariot-drivers. The chariots had two wheels and a single pole, and were
drawn by a couple of horses, to which a spare horse was often attached,
in case of accidents. The chariot held a driver and a warrior; if the
latter was the king, he was accompanied by an armed attendant, sometimes
even by two. They all rode standing, and were armed with bows and spears.
In the earlier days of the Assyrian monarchy chariots were employed in
preference to cavalry. As time went on, however, the horse-soldiers
were increased, while the number of chariots was lessened. At first the
cavalry rode without saddles, with bare legs, and armed with the bow.
Subsequently saddles came into use, the unarmed groom who had previously
looked after the horse ceased to run by its side, and along with the
mounted archers mounted spearmen made their appearance. The rider’s legs
were completely protected by leathern drawers over which high boots were
drawn, laced in front. This costume was introduced towards the end of the
reign of Tiglath-pileser III. In the time of Sennacherib the dress was
improved by a closely-fitting coat of mail.
The infantry were about ten times as numerous as the cavalry, and were
divided into heavy-armed and light-armed. The regular dress consisted
of a peaked helmet and a tunic, which was fastened round the waist by a
girdle, and descended half-way down the thighs. From the time of Sargon
onwards, however, the infantry were separated into the two classes of
bowmen and spearmen. The bowmen were either light-armed or heavy-armed,
the latter being again subdivided into two classes. One of these classes
wore sandals, and a coat of mail over the tunic. The other class was clad
in a long fringed robe which came down to the feet, over which a cuirass
was worn; they carried a short sword at the side, and used sandals. They
were accompanied by attendants, one of whom held a long rectangular
shield of wicker-work. The dress of the light-armed bowmen consisted
simply of a kilt and of a fillet bound round the head. The spearmen were
distinguished by a crested helmet and a circular shield: their feet were
usually bare.
Sennacherib introduced a corps of slingers, possibly, as Canon Rawlinson
suggests, in imitation of Egyptian modes of warfare. They were clothed in
helmet and cuirass, leather drawers, and short boots. Sennacherib made
changes in the equipment of the bowmen, providing the second class of
heavy-armed among them with leather greaves and boots, and depriving them
of the long robe. The first class now usually appear without sandals,
and their head-dress consists of an embroidered turban with lappets, not
unlike the _kuffiyeh_ of the modern Bedouin. In addition to the other
forces of the army a corps of pioneers was also established, armed with
double-headed axes, and clothed with conical helmets, greaves, and boots.
The helmets, it may be observed, were made of iron or bronze, underneath
which was a leather cap, while the coats of mail consisted of metal
scales sewn to a leather shirt. The shields were partly of wicker-work,
partly of metal, and were of various shapes. The heads of the spears and
arrows were of bronze, more rarely of iron; in ancient Chaldea stone
weapons had also been used. The metal heads were sometimes socketed,
sometimes tanged.
The army carried with it, on the march, standards, tents, baggage-carts,
battering-rams, and other engines for attacking a town. The tents were
occasionally very elaborate, that of the king, for instance, being
accompanied by a cooking and dining tent. They were furnished with
chairs, tables, couches, and various utensils.
The commissariat department has left us some records of the amount of the
provisions required for the troops at home. Thus in the first year of
Nabonidos seventy-five _qas_ of flour and sixty-three _qas_ (or nearly
100 quarts) of beer were furnished to the troops in the neighbourhood of
Sippara on the eleventh of the month Iyyar, presumably, therefore, for
their maintenance during a given period; and in the second year of the
same king, fifty-four _qas_ of beer were provided on the twenty-ninth of
Nisan ‘for the troops which had marched from Babylon.’ At the beginning
of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign we find a contractor guaranteeing ‘the goodness
of the beer’ that had been furnished to ‘the army which had entered into
Babylon.’ In the first year of Nabonidos, three _gur_ of sesame were
ordered for the use of ‘the bowmen’ during the first two months of the
year, and in the thirteenth year of the same king, fifteen soldiers were
provided with five _gur_ of wheat. Accordingly, rather more than two
bushels and a half were allotted to each man.
The Assyrians were essentially a military nation, and never turned their
attention to naval matters. When Sennacherib wished to pursue the relics
of Merodach-baladan’s troops across the Persian Gulf, he had to fetch
Phœnician sailors to build and man his ships. On the Tigris, rafts on
which heavy monuments were transported, or small round boats like the
_kufas_ still in use on the river, were almost the only means employed
for crossing the water. When the Assyrian army had to pass a river
pontoons were thrown across it, or else the soldiers swam across the
stream on inflated skins. The ferry-boat was rarely used.
In this respect the Babylonians were markedly different from their
northern neighbours. ‘The cry’ of the Chaldeans, whose original home was
among the marshes at the head of the Persian Gulf, was in their ships.
One of the earliest seats of culture in Babylonia was the seaport of
Eridu, which carried on an extensive trade by sea with distant lands.
Certain forms of ships were named after the districts or cities of
Babylonia where they had been invented or were chiefly used. A fleet, in
fact, was kept by the later kings of Babylon, as well as an army, and
a receipt, dated in the month Tammuz, or June, of the sixteenth year of
Nabonidos, runs as follows:—‘210 _qas_ (about 300 quarts) of dates have
been given to Samas-sumebus, the son of Sula, from the royal granary,
for the support of the sailors during the sixteenth year’ of the king’s
reign. As the Phœnician ships of war employed by the Assyrians were
biremes, with two tiers of oars, it is probable that the Babylonian
war-ships were at least of the same size.
Ships were often hired for the conveyance of goods; in the tenth year of
Nabonidos, for example, a shekel and a quarter were given by Belshazzar
‘the son of the king,’ through the agency of Bel-sar-bullidh, for the
hire of a boat, in order to convey three oxen and twenty-four sheep for
sacrifice at the beginning of the year in the great temple of the Sun-god
at Sippara. The boatmen were at the same time furnished with sixty _qas_
of dates. In the time of Nebuchadnezzar, three shekels, or 9_s._, were
paid for the hire of a grain-boat, thirty-two shekels, or nearly £5,
being given at the same time for an ass.
The king, it may be observed, kept a state-barge on the Euphrates. A
contract has been preserved which informs us that in the twenty-fourth
year of Darius a new state-barge was made for the king, the two
contractors agreeing to work upon it from the beginning of Iyyar, or
April, to the end of Tisri, or September, and employ one particular
growth of wood for the purpose.
Among the various trades that were represented in Babylonia the only one
that need be specially noticed is that of the blacksmith. Originally
only the coppersmith was known; when iron, however, came into use the
ironsmith took his place by the side of the coppersmith, whose trade
ceased to have the importance it once possessed. A document has been
preserved which acknowledges the payment of six _qas_ (about eight and
a half quarts) of flour to ‘Libludh, the coppersmith,’ for overlaying a
chariot with a lining of copper in the second year of Nabonidos.
The cost of building may be gathered from a contract which was made in
the sixth year of the same king’s reign. Here we read: ‘It is agreed that
twelve manehs of silver (£108) be paid for bricks, reeds, beams, doors,
and chopped straw for building the house of Rimut,’ who was a grandson
of the priest of the goddess Beltis. The contract was undertaken by the
grandson of another priest, ‘the priest of Sippara.’ At another time we
hear of four shekels of silver, or 12_s._, being paid for certain loads
of brick. The material cost a good deal more than the wages of the men
who made or delivered it. Remembering the price of corn, we have only to
compare the cost of building a house with the following receipt, which is
dated in the first year of Cyrus: ‘One _gur_ (180 _qas_) of corn from the
granary of the store-house on the river (Euphrates) for the wages of the
men who have carried to the store-house the corn that has arrived from
Borsippa.’
The doctor had long been an institution in Assyria and Babylonia. It
is true that the great bulk of the people had recourse to religious
charms and ceremonies when they were ill, and ascribed their sickness
to possession by demons instead of to natural causes. But there was a
continually increasing number of the educated who looked for aid in their
maladies rather to the physician with his medicines than to the sorcerer
or priest with his charms. The British Museum contains fragments of an
edition made for the library of Nineveh of an old and renowned Babylonian
treatise on medicine, which seems to have emanated from the school of
Borsippa. In this work an attempt is made to classify and describe
diseases, and to enumerate the various remedies that had been proposed
for them. Some of the prescriptions are of inordinate length, containing
a mixture of the most heterogeneous drugs. At other times the patient
was given his choice of the remedies he might adopt. Thus, for an attack
of spleen, he was told that he might ‘slice the seed of a reed and dates
in palm-wine,’ or ‘mix calves’ milk and bitters in palm-wine,’ or ‘drink
garlic and bitters in palm-wine,’ or finally try several other recipes
which are severally named. ‘For an aching tooth,’ we are told, ‘the root
of the plant of human destiny (perhaps the mandrake) is the medicine;
it must be placed upon the tooth. The fruit of the yellow snakewort is
the medicine for an aching tooth; it must be placed upon the tooth....
The roots of a thorn which does not see the face of the sun when growing
is the medicine for an aching tooth; it must be placed upon the tooth.’
In the midst of all these prescriptions, however, room was still found
for some of the old superstitious charms and incantations, which might
be tried when everything else had failed. The practice of medicine had
advanced to a much higher point in Egypt, but it is probable that it
was from Babylonia rather than from Egypt that the Jews acquired their
knowledge of it. At all events the name of King Asa who ‘sought not to
the Lord, but to the physicians[27],’ not only signifies ‘physician,’ but
is of Aramaic origin, pointing to the fact that medical knowledge came to
Judah from North-eastern Asia. It will be remembered that when Hezekiah
was ‘sick unto death,’ Isaiah ordered a poultice of figs to be laid upon
the boil from which he suffered[28].
In a country of merchants and traders, where law entered so largely into
the daily life of the people, it was inevitable that lawyers should be
numerous. At the head of the profession stood ‘the judges,’ who were
appointed by the king. Over the judges presided a superior judge—the
Chancellor, as we may call him—who took his seat among them in important
cases. Examples have already been given of the cases which were brought
before them, and of the procedure of the court. Cases, however, might
be settled by arbitration; in this event, the matter was brought before
an official called the _gugallu_, and witnesses were produced on both
sides. Here, for instance, is the report of a case which happened in
the twenty-eighth year of Nebuchadnezzar:—‘On the second day of the
month Ab (July), Imbiya summoned his witnesses to the gate of the
house of Bel-nadin, the _gugallu_; against Arrabi, the grandson of the
superintendent of the works, he alleged that a cloak and kilt belonging
to himself had been carried off by him. If he convicts him, Arrabi shall
return the cloak and kilt to Imbiya; if he does not convict him, Arrabi
shall stand acquitted. If Arrabi does not appear on the second day of the
month Ab, without witnesses he shall restore the cloak and kilt.’ Then
follow the names of the witnesses produced by Imbiya.
An interesting case which was tried before the judges in the ninth
year of Nabonidos (B.C. 547) has recently been translated by Dr.
Peiser. It concerned a Syrian family settled in Borsippa, whose names,
Ben-Hadad-nathan, ‘the god Ben-Hadad has given,’ Ben-Hadad-amar,
‘Ben-Hadad has spoken,’ and Aqab-ili, ‘Jacob is god,’ are especially
worth the attention of the Biblical student. ‘Bunanit,’ we read, ‘the
daughter of the Kharitsian, made the following statement before the
judges of Nabonidos, the King of Babylon, “Ben-Hadad-nathan, the son of
Nikbaduh, obtained me for a wife, and received three and a half manehs of
silver as my dowry, and I bore him one daughter. I and Ben-Hadad-nathan,
my husband, bought and sold with the money of my dowry, and we purchased
eight canes of land occupied by a house in the district called _Beyond
the Galla_ in Borsippa for nine manehs forty shekels of silver, and two
and a half manehs of silver which we had borrowed from Iddin-Merodach
the son of Iqisa-abla of the family of Nur-Sin, and we purchased the
house together. In the fourth year of Nabonidos, King of Babylon, I
demanded my dowry from Ben-Hadad-nathan, my husband, and Ben-Hadad-nathan
willingly registered the eight canes on which the house stood in
Borsippa, and handed them over to me for ever, and declared in the deed
that Ben-Hadad-nathan and Bunanit have paid in common two and a half
manehs of silver which they had borrowed from Iddin-Merodach, and had
given towards the price of the aforesaid house. This deed he sealed, and
wrote upon it the curse of the great gods (against its transgressor). In
the fifth year of Nabonidos, King of Babylon, I and Ben-Hadad-nathan, my
husband, adopted Ben-Hadad-amar as a son, and registered the adoption,
and declared that two manehs ten shekels of silver, and the furniture of
the house, should be the dowry of my daughter Nubta. My husband died,
and now Aqab-ili the son of my father-in-law lays claim to the house and
all that was registered and made over to me, as well as to the slave
Nebo-nur-ili, whom we bought for money from Nebo-akhi-iddin. I have
brought the defendant before you; give judgement upon us.” The judges
heard their pleadings, read the deeds and bonds which Bunanit produced
before them, and did not grant Aqab-ili possession of the house in
Borsippa, which had been assigned to Bunanit in place of her dowry or of
the slave Nebo-nur-ili whom she and her husband had bought with money,
or of any of the property of Ben-Hadad-nathan. They confirmed Bunanit
and Ben-Hadad-amar in the validity of their deeds. Iddin-Merodach was
first to receive in full the two and a half manehs which had been given
towards the purchase of the aforesaid house; then Bunanit should receive
in full her dowry of three and a half manehs of silver, and part of the
property of her husband. Nubta should receive the slave Nebo-nur-ili,
according to the stipulation of her father. By the order of the judges
of the country.’ Then follow the names of the six judges and their two
clerks, and the date (the twenty-sixth of Elul or August, B.C. 547), and
the place of registration (Babylon).
The poet and musician each occupied a place in the social system of
Babylonia. As far back as the age of the Judges in Israel, a poet at
the Babylonian court was rewarded with the present of a piece of land
for some verses which had pleased the sovereign. Figures of musicians
often appear in the Assyrian sculptures. One of them wears a curious cap
of great height, and shaped like a fish. The instruments on which they
played were numerous; drums and tambourines, trumpets and horns, lyres
and guitars, harps and cithers, pipes and cymbals, are all represented
on the monuments. Besides single musicians, bands were employed, under
the conduct of leaders who kept time with a double rod. Occasionally
the music was accompanied by dancing, sometimes also by clapping the
hands. In one instance three captives are depicted playing on the lyre,
and proving that like the Babylonians the Assyrians also ‘required’
from their prisoners ‘a song[29].’ Canon Rawlinson notices that the
speaking-trumpet was known to the Assyrians as well as the musical
trumpet. In the representation of the conveyance of a colossal bull from
the quarries of the Baladians to the palace of Sennacherib, one of the
overseers is standing on the body of the bull, and giving orders through
a trumpet to the workmen.
The most striking fact brought out by a survey of the trades and
professions carried on in the two great kingdoms of the Tigris and
Euphrates is the industrial character of their population. This indeed
was more the case in Babylonia than in Assyria, where the military
organization became predominant, and eventually fell crushed by its own
weight. But even in Assyria the merchant was a leading figure, and the
campaigns of the later kings were directed by the jealousies of trade. In
neither kingdom was there anything that resembled a feudal aristocracy.
Below the monarch and the civil service stood a large middle class,
whose chief aim in life was the acquisition of riches. The foundation of
the fabric of the state was essentially plutocratic. A man’s worth was
measured by his wealth, and in Babylonia, at least, the possession of
money meant power and dignity. Hence the keen interest taken in commerce
by all classes of the community, from the king downward; hence, too,
the independent position occupied by women, and the right they had to
buy and sell on their own account. There was, however, a fatal flaw in
the industrial system of Babylonia. This was the existence of slavery.
It lowered the position of the free labourer, it depressed his wages,
and enabled the capitalist to tyrannize over him. The overthrow of the
commercial prosperity of Babylonia was due more to the slavery that
existed in its midst than to the wars and invasions that came upon it
from abroad.
CHAPTER VIII
THE RELIGION OF THE PEOPLE
The religion of Assyria and Babylonia was substantially the same. In
both countries it was derived in the first instance from the beliefs of
the early Accadian or Sumerian population. Every object and force of
Nature was supposed to possess a ‘spirit’ or ‘life,’ corresponding to the
‘spirit’ or ‘life’ of man. It was because they were thus endowed with a
spirit of their own that the stars journeyed through the sky, that the
arrow sped through the air, or that the fire consumed the victim. Even
the earth and the heaven were possessed of ‘spirits’ of their own through
which they were able to act. All Nature, in fact, was alive, but the
life was like that of the individual man, and manifested itself in the
same way. To the primitive inhabitant of Chaldea, life and motion were
synonymous terms.
Gradually the spirits became separated in thought from the objects or
forces to which they belonged. The whole world became filled with
demons, supernatural agencies whose power and scope of action were as
limited as that of the objects of Nature out of which they had been
formed. Like the objects of Nature too, they were in no sense moral
agents. The same spirit or demon could be at once harmful and beneficent.
The fire that slays also warms and supports mankind. At the same time the
demons were more usually harmful than beneficent, because in an early
condition of society man has not yet learned to subdue Nature to his own
use and benefit. Evil rather than good seems to him to predominate in the
world.
The aid of the sorcerer was invoked to ward off the attacks of hostile
demons or to compel them to become the friends of man. It was only the
sorcerer, the medicine-man as he would be called in America, who was
imagined to know the magic spells and incantations by means of which the
multitudinous spirits that surrounded the Accadian could be driven away.
Disease was believed to be due to possession by an ‘evil spirit,’ and its
cure was sought in various magical ceremonies and words.
In course of time, however, certain of the spirits, whose action
was regarded as more uniformly beneficent than the reverse, and who
represented the larger units of Nature, came to assume a sort of
supremacy over the rest. The spirit of the earth or under-world, the
spirit of the water, the spirit of the sky, began to rank above the
spirits of the individual objects that are to be found in the earth, or
water, or sky. Certain of the spirits of the old Accadian creed thus
began to pass into gods.
The change was assisted by the existence of totemism in ancient
Babylonia. Certain animals—or rather the ‘spirits’ of these animals—were
regarded as peculiarly sacred; their flesh was forbidden to be eaten, and
tribes and individuals called themselves after their names. There were
tribes and individuals, for instance, of the name of ‘dog,’ to whom the
dog was specially an object of veneration. These sacred animals came to
be associated with the higher spirits who were tending to become gods.
With the transformation of some of the spirits or demons into gods went
the transformation of the sorcerer into a priest. He did not, indeed,
cease to be a sorcerer; his chief duty was still to attract or repel
the spirits by charms and incantations, which he and other members of
his class alone knew; but he now added to this duty the further duty of
performing a fixed ritual and of offering prayer and praise to the new
gods.
In this early epoch of history Babylonia contained two centres of
religion and culture. One of these was Nipur, now Niffer, in the interior
of the country, the other was Eridu, now Abu-Shahrein, on the shores of
the Persian Gulf. Nipur was the seat of the worship of Mul-lil, ‘the lord
of the ghost-world,’ who had originally been the spirit of the earth,
and it continued to be the chief home of Babylonian sorcery. Eridu, on
the contrary, was influenced by a foreign culture which had probably
come from Egypt. It was from Eridu that a purer and more exalted form of
faith emanated than that which was practised at Nipur; its god, who had
primarily been the spirit of the water, gathered about him attributes
more worthy to be called divine; and his son Merodach became the ‘culture
hero’ of Chaldea, the god who had introduced, as it was believed, the
elements of civilization among his people, and was continually occupied
in looking after their good. Babylon, it would appear, was a colony of
Eridu; at all events Merodach of Eridu became the patron-deity of Babylon.
By conquest or peaceful colonization, or a mixture of both, the
Semitic tribes of Northern Arabia entered Babylonia, and established
their dominion there. They adopted the civilization of their Accadian
predecessors, at the same time modifying and improving it. But their
conception of religion was totally different from that of the older
inhabitants of the land. To the Semite the primary object of worship was
the supreme Baal or ‘Lord,’ who manifested himself in the sun. By the
side of Baal stood his wife and son, since the divine family was likened
to the human family. In the Semitic household the wife was but the shadow
and slave of the husband, in contrast to the Accadian household, where
the woman was almost on a footing of equality with the man, and the wife
of Baal accordingly assumed the same subordinate position in the divine
family that was occupied by the wife of his worshipper. The Semitic
goddess was thus essentially different from the Accadian goddess, where
she had developed out of an earlier ‘spirit,’ as the Accadian goddess was
in all respects the equal of the god.
The meeting of two systems of religious belief, so unlike one another,
one of which was closely bound up with the older culture and literature
of the country, could not have been other than a shock. But in course
of time a union took place between them. A compromise was effected, and
that official system of religion arose which lasted through the whole
remaining history of Babylonia. It was carried to Assyria by the Semitic
colonists, who founded there the Assyrian kingdom, though in Assyria its
character was more genuinely Semitic than in Babylonia, in consequence
of the purer Semitic blood of the Assyrian people.
In official Babylonian religion the older Accadian gods had been
recognized, and placed at the head of the hierarchy of heaven, the
multitudinous spirits of the ancient cult becoming the three hundred
spirits of heaven, and the six hundred spirits of earth, who formed the
‘hosts’ of the supreme deities and acted as their ministers. Wherever it
was possible the older gods assumed a solar character; not only Merodach
of Babylon, but even Mul-lil of Nipur, became a Baal. The worship of the
‘older Bel,’ however, Mul-lil of Nipur, faded more and more out of sight,
and after Babylon had become the capital of the country (about B.C. 2280)
it was practically superseded by that of the younger Bel, Merodach of
Babylon. The Bel or Baal addressed in the later inscriptions always means
Merodach.
Under Semitic influence the Accadian goddesses either became the
colourless companions of the gods, or else were changed into male
divinities. One goddess only resisted the general tendency; this was
Istar, or Ashtoreth, originally the spirit of the evening star. Her
worship at Erech was too firmly fixed to be uprooted, and she remained
to the last an independent goddess who took equal rank with a god. Her
cult was even carried by the Semites to foreign lands along with the
Babylonian civilization with which she was associated. But in Arabia and
Moab she was transformed into a god; in Canaan she was assimilated to
the other goddesses in the Semitic pantheon; she lost her independent
position, and added to her name the final _th_, which denotes the
feminine gender. It was only in Babylonia and Assyria, in the country of
her origin, that her primitive character remained unchanged.
Another result of the Semitic occupation of Chaldea was the compilation
of sacred books. The ancient Accadian magical charms and hymns to the
gods were translated into Semitic Babylonian, and published in two great
works. The hymns became a sacred book, and the Accadian, in which they
were written, a sacred language. Any mistake in the recitation of them
came to be considered an impiety, which might bring down upon it the
anger of the gods. New hymns were composed, chiefly in honour of the
Sun-god, but though they were written by Semitic priests, the language of
them was Accadian. Accadian, in fact, now assumed the same place in the
religious services of the temples that Latin has in the Roman Catholic
Church, or Coptic in the Coptic Church. It was only the rubric of the
Liturgy which was permitted to be in Semitic Babylonian; the hymns and
most of the prayers were in the extinct language of Sumer and Accad.
But the mass of the people, at all events in the country, could not have
been much affected by the official system of religion. They brought their
sacrifices to the temples, they attended the services that were held in
them, they paid their tithes to the priests, but they also retained a
large part of their old beliefs and superstitions. The sorcerer still
practised his arts among them, like the wise woman in the remote parts
of our own island. The countless spirits of the old Accadian creed still
existed in the popular belief, though they had become demons, mostly of a
malevolent character. In fact, a large part of the life of the Babylonian
was occupied in devising charms and amulets, or uttering spells which
should keep at a distance from him the evil spirits. They might enter
into him through the water he drank, or the food he ate, if due
precautions were not taken that the water was pure, and the food clean.
It was at night, and during the hours of darkness, that the evil spirits
were specially dangerous; nightmare was a demon that sought to strangle
its victim, and vampires were ever on the watch to suck his blood. Among
the means employed for warding off these dreaded visitants were magical
threads twisted seven times round the limbs, to which phylacteries were
bound, consisting of ‘sentences from a holy book.’
At the head of the evil spirits of the night was Lilat, the wife of Lilu,
a name which the Semites had borrowed from the old Accadian _lil_, ‘a
ghost.’ In Hebrew, Lilat became Lilith, who occupies a prominent place
in Talmudic legend, and is once mentioned in the Old Testament[30] among
the creatures of popular Babylonian mythology whom the prophet cites in
illustration of the approaching desolation of Chaldea.
But, besides the malevolent spirits which peopled the air and the
under-world, there were also good spirits, who acted as the ministers of
the gods, who ‘bowed themselves’ in the courts of heaven, and formed the
‘hosts’ of which Bel, the supreme god of Babylon, and Assur, the supreme
god of Assyria, were entitled the ‘Lords.’ Among them were the _sedi_,
or guardian spirits, who were symbolized by the huge winged bulls at the
entrance to an Assyrian palace. Here they were supposed to protect the
house from the assaults of evil. We learn from Deuteronomy[31] that the
Israelites also fell away to the worship of these _sedi_ or _shedim_
(translated ‘devils’ in the Authorized Version) and offered sacrifices to
them. Along with the _sedi_ were associated the _kirubi_, or ‘cherubs,’
who are sometimes depicted in the Assyrian sculptures as standing or
kneeling on either side of the tree of life. They are winged, with the
heads of eagles, or more rarely of men.
The heaven of popular Babylonian belief was not ‘the land of the silver
sky,’ to which Assyrian poets declared that the souls of the great and
good would ascend, nor even that highest of the heavens, far above the
firmament, which is referred to in the Chaldean account of the Deluge.
It was, like the Greek Olympos, the summit of a mountain, hidden in
perpetual cloud, called sometimes ‘the mountain of the East,’ sometimes
‘the mountain of the world,’ and often identified with Mount Rowandiz,
east of Assyria. This was the mountain to which the Babylonian king is
described in Isaiah[32] as saying in his heart that he would ascend and
exalt his ‘throne above the stars of God.’ It was imagined that the apex
of the firmament rested, like that of an extinguisher, upon the peak of
the mountain, the stars which hung as lamps from the firmament being
below it.
The world of the dead, it was believed, lay under the ground. Here
the spirits of the dead flitted in gloom and darkness, like bats, with
dust alone for their food. Here, too, the shades of the ancient heroes
sat on their thrones, rising only to welcome the spirit of a Babylonian
king who should come to join them. In the midst of this dark land of
forgetfulness, which was barred in by seven gates, sat the rulers of
Hades, on a golden throne, beneath which bubbled up the waters of life.
It was only through the aid of Merodach, ‘the pitiful god who raises the
dead to life,’ that any could drink of the waters and rise once more to
the world of light.
It is difficult to say how far these popular beliefs were shared in by
the educated. In later times, at all events, purer and more spiritual
ideas prevailed among the upper classes, and found their expression in
literature. A school even arose at Erech which endeavoured to resolve the
manifold deities of the pantheon into one supreme God, and in Assyria,
Asshur tended more and more to become ‘God of gods’ and ‘Lord of lords.’
How nearly, for instance, do the words of Nebuchadnezzar approach the
language of monotheism in two of the prayers which he has bequeathed to
us. Here is one:—
‘To Merodach, my lord, I prayed: I began to him my petition: the word of
my heart sought him, and I said: “O prince, thou art from everlasting,
lord of all that exists, for the king whom thou lovest, whom thou callest
by name, as it seems good unto thee, thou guidest his name aright, thou
watchest over him in the path of righteousness! I, the prince who obeys
thee, am the work of thy hands; thou hast created me and hast entrusted
to me the sovereignty over multitudes of men, according to thy goodness,
O lord, which thou hast made to pass over them all. Let me love thy
supreme lordship, let the fear of thy divinity exist in my heart, and
give what seemest good unto thee, since thou maintainest my life.”’
Centuries before Nebuchadnezzar, however, language almost equally lofty
had been used of the Moon-god in a hymn which had been composed before
the age of Abraham in the city of his birth, Ur of the Chaldees. Here are
some of the lines of the hymn:—
Father, long-suffering and full of forgiveness, whose hand upholds
the life of all mankind!...
First-born, omnipotent, whose heart is immensity, and there is none
who may fathom it!...
In heaven, who is supreme? Thou alone, thou art supreme!
On earth, who is supreme? Thou alone, thou art supreme!
As for thee, thy will is made known in heaven, and the angels bow
their faces.
As for thee, thy will is made known upon earth, and the spirits
below kiss the ground.
The temples of Assyria and Babylonia resembled that of Jerusalem in
general appearance, excepting only that a tower was attached to them,
from the top of which astronomical observations could be made. The temple
itself stood within a large court, and the public library was established
in one of its chambers. The court was surrounded with the rooms in which
the priests lived, and in it was a ‘sea’ or large basin of water for
purificatory purposes, supported, like that of Solomon, on the heads of
bronze bulls. At the extreme end of the temple was the ‘holy of holies,’
which took its name from the curtain that concealed it from the eyes of
the profane. Here, according to Nebuchadnezzar, was ‘the holy seat, the
place of the gods who determine destiny, the spot where they assemble
together, the shrine of fate, wherein on the festival of first-fruits
at the beginning of the year, on the eighth and the eleventh days, the
divine king of heaven and earth, the lord of the heavens (Bel Merodach)
seats himself, while the gods of heaven and earth listen to him in fear
and stand bowing down before him.’ Here, too, was the image of the god,
and the golden table of offerings in front of it.
The shrine further contained a coffer in which two written tables of
stone were placed. Those found by Mr. Hormuzd Rassam, in a chapel
near Nineveh, record the victories of the king and the account of
the erection of the building. In front of the coffer, or ark, was an
altar approached by steps. At times, instead of a temple or chapel, a
‘beth-el,’ or ‘house of god,’ was built, which originally consisted of a
stone consecrated by a libation of oil, and supposed to have thus been
turned into a habitation of the deity.
The temples were served by a large body of priests. At the head of them
was the high priest, whose office could be held by the king, and in
Assyria was usually held by him. Besides the supreme high priest, or
pontiff, as we might term him, there were also subordinate high priests,
reminding us of the ‘high priests’ of the Jewish Sanhedrim. The lower
ranks of the hierarchy consisted of ‘the anointers,’ whose duty it was to
cleanse the vessels of the temple, the priests of the goddess Istar, and
the ‘elders.’ Connected with the temple, but separate from the regular
priesthood, were the ‘prophets’ and their servants, at the head of whom
was ‘the chief of the prophets.’ The prophet predicted the future, and
was consulted on most matters of state. He accompanied an army on the
march, and as, like the Roman augur, he claimed to know the will of
heaven, its action depended upon his decision. The general ventured to
engage in battle only when the prophet promised him victory. When the
Assyrian king had suppressed a revolt in the Babylonian cities, he tells
us that ‘by the command of the prophets,’ he ‘purified their shrines and
cleansed their chief places of prayer. Their angry gods and wrathful
goddesses he soothed with supplications and penitential psalms. He
restored and established in peace their daily sacrifices, which they had
discontinued, as they had been in former days.’
The offerings to the gods were divided into sacrifices of animals, such
as oxen, sheep, goats, and doves, and offerings of meal, dates, oil, and
wine. The animals were slaughtered by a servant who does not seem to
have belonged to the priestly caste, and certain portions of them only,
such as the caul of the heart, the chine, and the legs, were offered to
the gods. One of the Babylonian temples received as a yearly gift from
Nabonidos about six bushels of dates.
In addition to the ‘daily sacrifice’ there were constant services in the
temples both by day and at night. On the great festivals of the year
there were, moreover, services of a special character. Each temple,
furthermore, had its commemoration festival, and from time to time
extraordinary days of thanksgiving or humiliation were ordained. Thus
when the Assyrian Empire was in danger from an invasion of Scythians
from the north, Esar-haddon prescribed a fast with particular prayers and
ceremonies that should last for ‘a hundred days and a hundred nights.’
The ‘new moons’ also were observed with special solemnity, and, like the
Israelites, the Babylonians and Assyrians kept a _sabattu_ or ‘sabbath,’
which a Babylonian writer describes as ‘a day of rest for the heart.’
It was observed on the seventh, fourteenth, nineteenth, twenty-first,
and twenty-eighth day of each month, and on it all kinds of work were
disallowed. No food was to be cooked, no new garments put on, no medicine
taken. The king was forbidden to ride in his chariot, and even the
prophet was forbidden to prophesy. In the night a ‘free-will offering’
was made to the gods.
The temple and priests were supported by the contributions of the people,
which were partly obligatory and partly voluntary. The most important
among them were the ‘tithes’ paid upon all produce. The tithes were
contributed by all classes of the population, from the king to the
peasant, and lists exist which record the amounts severally due from
the tenants of an estate. The tithes were paid for the most part in
corn; thus we find a Babylonian paying about eleven bushels of corn to
the temple of the Sun-god as the ‘tithes’ required from him for the
year. The ‘tithes’ paid to the same temple by Nabonidos just after his
accession amounted to as much as six manehs of gold, or £840. Nabonidos,
however, had just usurped the throne, and he may therefore have wished to
gain the favour of the priests by an unusually large gift.
Voluntary gifts were common, and were often made in pursuance of a vow
or in gratitude for recovery from sickness. Among such gifts various
articles of dress were included, with which the images of the gods were
adorned. Both the gods and their ministers were distinguished by their
vestments, and special vestments were required to be worn on the various
festivals of the year.
It might indeed have been said of the Babylonians that in all things
they were ‘too superstitious.’ Their lives were passed in perpetual fear
of the multitudinous demons by which they believed themselves to be
surrounded, or in a constant round of religious services. The priest was
supreme in the State. The king received his power from Bel, who was in
theory the true ruler of the community, and his highest title was that of
‘pontiff.’
It was different in Assyria. Here the military element was dominant, and
the king, as general of the army, exercised his tyranny over priests and
laity alike. Not but that the Assyrians also were deeply imbued with
the religious spirit. Asshur, their chief deity, was, like the Assyrian
monarch, ‘king of kings’ and ‘lord of lords.’ It was he who gave victory
to his worshippers, and took vengeance on their foes; in his name
they subdued ‘the unbelieving,’ and compelled them to acknowledge the
supremacy of Asshur. Asshur, in fact, was a national god, who brooked no
rivalry or companionship, not even that of a wife. But he was stern and
unforgiving, unlike Bel Merodach of Babylon, ‘the merciful one who sends
help to those that trust in him.’
Both deities reflected the character of the populations who adored them.
Their attributes were human, untouched by the light that cometh from
above. When we compare the noblest gods of Assyria and Babylonia with
the God revealed to a kindred people, inferior in numbers and political
power, in wealth and culture, we may see as in a glass the unfathomable
gulf which divides them. There was much in Babylonian religion that
commands our respect, there was much that shows how there were men on the
banks of the Euphrates who were seeking ‘the Lord, if haply they might
feel after Him and find Him,’ but it lacked the one thing needful, the
revelation of Himself that was made alone to the chosen people of Israel.
FOOTNOTES
[1] Ezek. xxiii. 14, 15.
[2] Gen. ii. 14.
[3] Gen. x. 12.
[4] Jer. l. 21.
[5] Gen. x. 11.
[6] Isa. xliii. 14.
[7] Amos iii. 15; comp. Ps. xlv. 8.
[8] Joshua vii. 21.
[9] Merodach-nadin-akhi, B.C. 1106. He has on his head a tall square
cap, ornamented in front with a band of rosettes immediately above the
forehead, while a row of feathers in an upright position runs round the
top. It is curious that a similar head-dress was worn by the Zakkur, who
are usually identified with the Teukrians, and are among the foreign
enemies depicted upon the Egyptian monuments.
[10] Judges i. 12, 13.
[11] Isa. xxxviii. 8.
[12] Prov. xxv. 1.
[13] Jer. xxxii. 10, 14.
[14] 2 Kings xviii. 26.
[15] 1 Kings iv. 33.
[16] As the copyist was the son of ‘an irrigator,’ one of the poorest of
the free labourers of Babylonia, the fact is a striking illustration of
the extent to which education was spread in the country.
[17] Compare Job xiii. 27: ‘Thou settest a print upon the soles of my
feet.’
[18] Dan. i. 3-5, 11.
[19] Gen. x. 11.
[20] A feminine form of a masculine name corresponding to the Hebrew Ahab.
[21] Ezek. xxvii. 18.
[22] Jer. xxxii.
[23] Jer. xxxii. 14.
[24] See Dr. Oppert’s translation and remarks upon the case in the new
series of _Records of the Past_, i. pp. 154-162.
[25] The fragments have been translated by Mr. Bertin for the new series
of _Records of the Past_, iii. pp. 91-101.
[26] Jer. xxxix. 3.
[27] 2 Chron. xvi. 12.
[28] 2 Kings xx. 7.
[29] Ps. cxxxvii. 3.
[30] Isa. xxxiv. 14.
[31] Deut. xxxii. 17.
[32] Isa. xiv. 13.
INDEX
Accadian language, the, 35.
Adoption, 52.
Agents, House, 72.
Anointers, 120.
Aristocracy, the, 90.
Army, the, 91.
Ashtoreth, the goddess, 111.
Asshur, the god, 124.
Assyria, description of, 10;
stone in, 20;
slavery in, 82;
religion in, 123.
Assyrians, the, clothing of, 9;
history of, 13;
character of, 14;
religion of, 16, 123;
decay of, 17;
writing of, 31.
Babylonia, description of, 10;
use of bricks in, 18;
religion in, 106;
Semites in, 109.
Babylonians, the, clothing of, 9;
history of, 12;
character of, 14;
religion of, 16, 106;
condition of, 17;
houses of, 21;
education of, 30;
writing of, 30;
learning of, 36, 41;
their system of farming, 85;
trades and professions of, 89;
their industry, 104.
Barachiel, a slave, case of, 78.
Barge, State, 96.
Bel-katsir, story of, 53.
Belshazzar, contract of, 65.
Blacksmiths, 97.
Books, sacred, 30, 112.
Boots, 27.
Borsippa, the library of, 40.
Bowmen, 93.
Bricks, the use of, in Babylonia, 18.
Building, cost of, 97.
Bulls, winged, 114.
Bunanit, the case of, 101.
Burial, mode of, 54.
Cavalry, 91.
Chaldeans, the, 11.
Chariots, 91.
Charms, belief in, 113.
Cherubs, 115.
Civil Service, the, 90.
Clay tablets, 30.
Clothes, 9, 61.
Commissariat, the army, 94.
Coppersmiths, 97.
Costume, 24.
Cotton, use of, 24.
Credit, the system of, 68.
Demons, belief in, 107.
Devils, belief in, 114.
Divorces, 46.
Doctors, 98.
Dowry, 46.
Dragoman, the, 38.
Dress, 24.
Elders, 120.
Eridu, a centre of religion, 109.
Etymology, 38.
Evil spirits, belief in, 113.
Farming, the system of, 85.
Festivals, 121.
Fish, 63.
Foundling, story of a, 42.
Furniture, 22.
Gardens, 14, 23.
Grain, 62.
Hair, mode of wearing the, 28.
Head-dress, 27.
Heaven, belief in, 116.
High priests, the, 120.
House of the males, the, 51.
Houses, description of, 21;
deeds relating to, 69.
Hymn to the Moon-god, 118.
Infantry, 92.
Interest, rate of, 67.
Irrigation, use of, 23.
Israelites, the, learning of, 44.
Istar, the goddess, 111.
Jewels, use of, 26.
Judges, 100.
Kassi, the, 12.
King, the, position of, 90.
Lawyers, 100.
Learning, state of, 36.
Lens, discovery of a, 33.
Libraries, 40.
Lilat, a demon, 114.
Lords, 114.
Maneh of Carchemish, the, 82.
Market-places, 58.
Marratu, 11.
Marriage customs, 45.
Medicine, the practice of, 98.
Merodach, the god, 109.
Merodach-baladan, 11.
Money-lending, 66.
Moon-god, a hymn to the, 118.
Mul-lil, the god, 109.
Musicians, 103.
Muslin, use of, 24.
Nabonidos, 39.
Nail-marks, 41.
Naming of a child, the, 52.
Nebuchadnezzar, a prayer of, 117.
Nergal-ritsua, the case of, 75.
New Moons, observance of, 122.
Nipur, a centre of religion, 109.
Partnerships, 63.
Physicians, 98.
Poets, 103.
Polygamy, 45.
Prayer of Nebuchadnezzar, 117.
Prices of various articles, 59.
Priests, 108, 120.
Princes, 90.
Prophets, 120.
Proverbs, use of, 88.
Rab-shakeh, the, 36.
Rafts, 95.
Religion, description of, 106.
Resen, 10.
Rowandiz, Mount, 116.
Sabbaths, observance of, 122.
Sacrifices, 121.
Sargon I, origin of, 85.
Semites, the, in Babylonia, 109.
Ships, 95.
Shoes, 26.
Slaves, position of, 74;
sale of, 79;
classes of, 84.
Slingers, 93.
Songs, 87.
Sorcerers, 107.
Stone, free use of, in Assyria, 20.
Streets, 63.
Syllabary, the, 33.
Tammuz, the god, 85.
Taxes, 68.
Temples, description of, 119.
Tithes, 122.
Totemism, 108.
Trumpets, 104.
Vegetables, 24.
Vestments, 123.
Wines, 61.
Women, position of, 42.
Year, the, 86.
LIST OF SCRIPTURE REFERENCES
_GENESIS._
ii. 14 10
x. 11 13, 58
x. 12 10
_DEUTERONOMY._
xxxii. 17 114
_JOSHUA._
vii. 21 24
_JUDGES._
i. 12, 13 31
_1 KINGS._
iv. 33 40
_2 KINGS._
xviii. 26 36
xx. 7 100
_2 CHRONICLES._
xvi. 12 99
_JOB._
xiii. 27 43
_PSALMS._
xlv. 8 21
cxxxvii. 3 104
_PROVERBS._
xxv. 1 32
_ISAIAH._
xiv. 13 116
xxxiv. 14 114
xxxviii. 8 32
xliii. 14 15
_JEREMIAH._
xxxii. 73
xxxii. 10, 14 32
xxxii. 14 73
xxxix. 3 90
l. 21 11
_EZEKIEL._
xxiii. 14, 15 9
xxvii. 18 61
_DANIEL._
i. 3-5, 11 52
_AMOS._
iii. 15 21
*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK SOCIAL LIFE AMONG THE ASSYRIANS AND BABYLONIANS ***
Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will
be renamed.
Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright
law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works,
so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United
States without permission and without paying copyright
royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part
of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™
concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark,
and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following
the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use
of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for
copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very
easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation
of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project
Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away—you may
do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected
by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark
license, especially commercial redistribution.
START: FULL LICENSE
THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free
distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work
(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full
Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or online at
www.gutenberg.org/license.
Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works
1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™
electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to
and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all
the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or
destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in your
possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a
Project Gutenberg™ electronic work and you do not agree to be bound
by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person
or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.
1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be
used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who
agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few
things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See
paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works if you follow the terms of this
agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™
electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.
1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the
Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection
of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the individual
works in the collection are in the public domain in the United
States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the
United States and you are located in the United States, we do not
claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing,
displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as
all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope
that you will support the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting
free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg™
works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the
Project Gutenberg™ name associated with the work. You can easily
comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the
same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when
you share it without charge with others.
1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are
in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States,
check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this
agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing,
distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any
other Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes no
representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any
country other than the United States.
1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other
immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must appear
prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™ work (any work
on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the
phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed,
performed, viewed, copied or distributed:
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most
other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you
are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws
of the country where you are located before using this eBook.
1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is
derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not
contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the
copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in
the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are
redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply
either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or
obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg™
trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is posted
with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any
additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms
will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™ License for all works
posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the
beginning of this work.
1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg™
License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this
work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg™.
1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
Gutenberg™ License.
1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including
any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access
to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work in a format
other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official
version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website
(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense
to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means
of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain
Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the
full Project Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,
performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ works
unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing
access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
provided that:
• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the method
you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed
to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, but he has
agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid
within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are
legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty
payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in
Section 4, “Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation.”
• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he
does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™
License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all
copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue
all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™
works.
• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of
any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of
receipt of the work.
• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.
1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project
Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different terms than
are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing
from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of
the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set
forth in Section 3 below.
1.F.
1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable
effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread
works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project
Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™
electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may
contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate
or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other
intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or
other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or
cannot be read by your equipment.
1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the “Right
of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project
Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a Project
Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all
liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal
fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE
LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR
INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
DAMAGE.
1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a
defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can
receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a
written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you
received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium
with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you
with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in
lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person
or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second
opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If
the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing
without further opportunities to fix the problem.
1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth
in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO
OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT
LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied
warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of
damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement
violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the
agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or
limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or
unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the
remaining provisions.
1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone
providing copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in
accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the
production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses,
including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of
the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this
or any Project Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or
additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any
Defect you cause.
Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg™
Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of
electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of
computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It
exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations
from people in all walks of life.
Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the
assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™’s
goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ collection will
remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure
and permanent future for Project Gutenberg™ and future
generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see
Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org.
Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit
501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification
number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by
U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws.
The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500 West,
Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up
to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website
and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact
Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation
Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without widespread
public support and donations to carry out its mission of
increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be
freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest
array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations
($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt
status with the IRS.
The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up
with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations
where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND
DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular state
visit www.gutenberg.org/donate.
While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we
have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition
against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who
approach us with offers to donate.
International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make
any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation
methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other
ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To
donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate.
Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project
Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could be
freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and
distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network of
volunteer support.
Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printed
editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in
the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not
necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper
edition.
Most people start at our website which has the main PG search
facility: www.gutenberg.org.
This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™,
including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to
subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.
