(M659) A warrant against defects in a slave is very common. The seller warrants that if the slave prove to have certain undisclosed defects, vices, or liabilities, which would detract from his value to the buyer, the seller will indemnify the buyer. This indemnification seems to be effected by a return of the purchase-money and accepting the slave back.

But, in some cases, the seller returned part of the purchase-money according to a fixed scale of allowances. In the sale of an estate, the seller guarantees that he will indemnify the buyer in case of any defect of t.i.tle to sell, or any lien upon the estate.

(M660) Very common at all times was a personal guarantee not to dispute the compact entered into. In fact, this may always be said to be a.s.sumed.

The oaths by which parties swore to observe the terms of the compact are a form of this guarantee. The penalties, so prominent in a.s.syrian times, are voluntary undertakings to forfeit stated sums, if found attempting to go behind the contract.

(M661) As the pledge did not always leave the debtor's possession, the creditor only had a lien upon it. Hence the giver of the pledge had to guarantee that no creditor had a previous lien upon it. This is also extremely common. A slave pledged for debt might run away. His labor as the offset against the interest was thus annulled. The borrower then becomes liable for the interest lost to the creditor.(713)

XXV. Wages Of Hired Laborers

(M662) Despite the existence of slaves, who were for the most part domestic servants, there was considerable demand for free labor in ancient Babylonia. This is clear from the large number of contracts relating to hire which have come down to us. The variability of the terms agreed upon is witness for the existence of compet.i.tion. As a rule, the man was hired for the harvest and was free directly after. But there are many examples in which the term of service was different-one month, half a year, or a whole year.

(M663) One might hire labor from the master of a slave, or from the parents of a young man, not yet independent, and then the wages were small, a shekel or two. These wages were paid to the master or parents, not to the laborer himself.

Reapers for the harvest had half a shekel,(714) or two shekels,(715) each.

The first may be the daily wages, the latter the price for a specific job.

It is probable that the _GUR_ of corn for ten days also represents the wages for the whole period.(716)

(M664) Average wages have been estimated by Meissner(717) to be six shekels per year, according to the Code, and some actual examples of contracts. But it was evidently a matter of agreement, for we have rates as low as four shekels and as high as eight. Usually the employer paid down a sum, for example, a shekel, as earnest-money; the rest was paid by a monthly or daily rate, or in a lump sum at the end of the term of service. Occasionally the wages might be paid down at the start, but this was rare and the amount less.

(M665) Very frequently, of course, the wages were paid in corn instead of money. Many difficulties lie in the way of finding an equivalent of the shekel in corn. Harvest labor was probably far dearer than any other, because of its importance, the skill and exertion demanded, and the fact that so many were seeking for it at once. Further, after harvest, when the wages were paid, corn was at its lowest price. Meissner's actual examples show that two hundred and fifty _?A_ might be accepted as yearly wages. We have such a variety of rates that it is difficult to draw any clear conclusion, but two young slaves at harvest could earn three hundred _?A_, and for a whole year the wages might be over six hundred _?A_, or even as much as three _GUR_, or nine hundred _?A_.(718) The Code names ten _?A_ as daily wages. The average value of a _GUR_ of corn was a shekel, hence this gives a yearly rate of twelve shekels. In this case we may suppose that the laborer supported himself.

(M666) The laborer had to be bound to perform his task. A penalty was attached to his failure to appear at the proper time, and guarantees were sometimes taken for his appearance. In other cases it is stipulated that the penalty for non-appearance shall be fixed by the king's decision.(719)

(M667) It was usual to name expressly the time of his commencing and leaving off his work. These clauses are incidentally of importance as fixing the names and sequence of the months at this period. Thus, from the example below we see that the month Tirinu preceded Elul.

(M668) Of course, the employer took all responsibility for the slave whom he hired. He fed and clothed him during his term of service. If he suffered any injury, the employer had to compensate the master.

Occasionally the slave clothed himself,(720) and then his wages were higher.

As an example we may take the following:(721)

Namir-nurshu from Rutum, Rish-Shamash, son of Marduk-na?ir, for wages, for one year, has hired. His wages for one year, twenty-four _?A_ of oil, he shall pay, and he shall clothe him. In Elul he shall enter, in Tirinu he shall leave. Two witnesses.

Dated in the reign of ?ammurabi.

(M669) In the a.s.syrian times we have certain examples of advances of corn, or money, at harvest-time for the payment of reapers, which have already been noticed under loans.(722) An advance of money and food to workmen may perhaps be put here. But it is also a contract to do work. It reads thus:

Shamash-bani-aplu, Latubashani, Ukin-abia, A?u ... in all four workmen. Two talents of bronze, three homers one _E_ of cooked corn. On the tenth of the month they shall do the work. All the repairs and the beams they shall make fast. They shall fix the balks, and set up the roof. If the bricks are not sufficient ...

the month they do not give, they shall work and finish. Then follow seven witnesses. Dated on the sixth of some month, B.C.

734.

Unfortunately, parts of the tablet are injured and so the sense is not at all clear; but the workmen seem to have had four days in which to do the work. The price offered was considerable.

In later Babylonian times we do not obtain much further information. Here is a good example:(723)

From the twentieth of Nisan to the tenth of Ab, Zamama-iddin, son of Shamash-uballi?, son of the smith, shall be at the disposal of Nabu-usallim, son of Limnia, and he shall pay him as his wages ten shekels of silver. He shall pay half the wages in Nisan and the rest in Tammuz. Whoever breaks the contract shall pay five shekels of silver.

The hire is nearly thirty shekels a year, as in the next example:(724)

Bulta, son of ?aba?iru, son of the oxherd, has put himself in the hands of Marduk-na?ir-apli, son of Itti-Marduk-bala?u, son of Egibi, for wages of half a mina of silver for one year. From the first of Sebat shall Bulta be at the disposal of Marduk-na?ir-apli. Bulta has received one-third of a mina of silver from Marduk-na?ir-apli.

XXVI. Lease Of Property

(M670) In case of lease, the specifications of the house are usually the same as in a sale. But this is often not so full, since the ident.i.ty of the house is less in evidence. A very interesting text referring to the sale or lease of a house next to the palace, in the district of Tir?a, a house belonging to G.o.ds Shamash, Dagan, and Idur-mer is published by M.

Thureau-Dangin in _Revue d'a.s.syriologie_.(725) It belonged to the King of ?ana, whose seal it bears. His name was Isar-lim, son of Idin-Kakka. The receiver was Kaki-Dagan's son. The oath was by Shamash, Dagan, Idur-mer and Isar-lim the king. The names are very interesting-Igid-lim, an official of the G.o.d Amurru; Idin-abu, king's son; Ili-esu?, a judge; Idin-Nani, son of Idin-Marduk; Sin-ukur, son of Amur-sha-Dagan; Iazi-Dagan; ?uri-Dagan; ?illi-Shamash. These prove that the land of ?ana, already known by a votive offering of one of its kings, Tukulti-mer, was largely Semitic. The names are either of the Babylonian or Aramaic type.

It is, of course, not easy to date, as the style of writing in ?ana may have been different from that in Babylonia at the same epoch.

(M671) Meissner estimates the average rent of a house to be one shekel per annum. But there are noteworthy variations which, with our available data, cannot be explained. Perhaps the best way is to take account of the size of the house, usually given in the Babylonian fashion by the area of its ground-plan. Rents were often paid in corn, but are so variable that a value for corn in money cannot safely be deduced.

(M672) A small part of the rent was usually paid as earnest-money to close the bargain. In the case of short leases the rest was paid on quitting the house, in longer leases half-yearly. Usually the term of tenancy was carefully stated. It was most commonly one year. The cost of repairs fell on the tenant, according to the Code,(726) but he was forbidden to make any alterations until he had paid over the earnest-money. The Code perhaps only means to forbid his closing the door and fastening it, until the deposit was made. The landlord, in fact, preserved the right of free entry until then.

(M673) The usual term of lease for fields was three years. It is not possible as yet to explain why three years was stipulated, but it was probably due to something more than an accident of custom. Possibly a rotation of crops or an alternation of crop and fallow may have been in vogue.

(M674) According to the Code the tenant was bound to keep the land in good condition. His duties included the ploughing or trenching, sowing the seed, snaring or driving off the birds and stray beasts, weeding, watering, and harvesting. Gardens he had to fence. The watering-machines were of great importance and had to be kept in order. They were worked by oxen-often as many as eight oxen were required to work them. A certain amount of stock was frequently leased with the land. It is not clear that oxen were used for the plough; they may have been kept for the watering-machines.

(M675) The landlord was in a very real sense a partner with his tenant, though he may be described as a "silent partner".

In the case of the great temple landowners it seems to have been the custom to supply a very large amount of the tenant's necessities.

Seed-corn was frequently furnished, also corn for food for farmer and men, until the crop was gathered. The stock and farm implements were also provided by the landlord. This metayer system of leasing land probably accounts for loans without interest. It is not clear that such a system was already in vogue in early times.

(M676) In hiring a field it might be stipulated that the lessee should place a dwelling upon it,(727) _mana?tu ana e?lim iakkanu_. Here the field was at a distance from the city, "beyond the upper stream." If the crop was to be properly looked after, protected from birds, stray beasts, and robbers the farmer must live there some part of the year. There was no dwelling. The lessee was therefore called on to erect a dwelling. Probably a simple edifice sufficed. At the end of the tenancy the tenant was called on to resign this building.

(M677) There were two sorts of land. That called _AB-SIN_ or _eru'_, seems always to have paid six to eight _GUR_ of corn per _GAN_. The other sort, _KI-DAN_, probably read _kigallu_, and certainly meaning land, not cultivated but to be brought into cultivation, was exceedingly variable in quality. It is set down for a rent of from three up to eighteen _GUR_ per _GAN_, but some land is rented at seventy-two _GUR_ per _GAN_.(728)

(M678) On account of the hire, some deposit was usually made, which seems to bear no direct relation to amount of rent. But while this was in many cases money-one to three shekels-a number of cases exhibit a list of quant.i.ties of food and drink. What these were it is difficult to say, as the terms are written ideographically. But joints of meat, pieces of flesh, drinks, bread and oil, seem to be intended. The custom is obscure.

Possibly these are set down as weekly or monthly rations secured on the whole rent and to be set off against it later. That the quant.i.ties are in some sense distributive is certain, "so much each," but whether "each person," "each day," "each month," or "each year" is not stated. One plausible suggestion is that the landlord, like the votary in the Code whose brothers do not content her, let the farm to a man who covenanted to support or maintain him. The contention is strengthened by the fact that the cases known to us are all female landlords, and may actually be examples of what the Code contemplates. Having only a life interest in the property and being without capital, they could not afford to wait until harvest to receive the rent, but needed a frequent allowance for maintenance.

(M679) (M680) The lease of an estate for a term exceeding a few years was always rare. One is found on a tablet which is one of the most interesting of all those supposed to be of the First Dynasty of Babylon. The script and the language recall a.s.syrian types most vividly and it is full of non-Babylonian names, which suggest Hitt.i.te, or even Armenian, origin.

Unfortunately, it is not dated. It might well have been found at Kala?, or a.s.shur, and belong to somewhat early a.s.syrian times, perhaps before a.s.syrian independence of Babylonia. Not one person named in it occurs in the other tablets of the Bu. 91-5-9 Collection-a thing which cannot be said of another of them. If this was really found with them, we can only suppose that centralization was carried to such a pitch that important legal doc.u.ments, even when executed as far away as a.s.syria, or Mesopotamia proper, had to be sent in duplicate to the capital of Babylonia. Or was it possible that the princ.i.p.al party came to the capital with this doc.u.ment in his possession, deposited it in the temple archives there, and died, leaving no one to reclaim it.

Dr. T. G. Pinches gave a transcription and translation of the text in the _Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society_, 1897, pp. 589 ff., with many interesting and valuable comments:

Six homers of corn [land] belonging to Ishtar-KI-TIL-LA, son of Te?ip-TIL-LA, Kibia, son of Palia, Ur?ia, son of It?ip-sharru, and Irishenni, son of Iddin-PU-SI, have taken for three homers of land, to harvest and transport. As long as Ishtar-KI-TIL-LA lives, Kibia, Ur?ia, and Irishenni shall transport the crop of three homers of land and shall deliver the same in caldrons. If Kibia, Ur?ia, and Irishenni do not harvest and transport and deliver the same in caldrons, and the corn perish, they shall pay in full one mina of silver and one mina of gold to Ishtar-KI-TIL-LA. Each is surety for the other. Before A?li-Teshup, son of Taishenni; before Ukuia, son of Gesh?ai; before Sh.e.l.lu, son of Wantia; before Kushshu, son of ?ulu??u; before Durar-Teshup, son of Gil-Teshup; before A?li-Babu, the _?azanu_, son of Nubananu; before Zinu, son of Kiannibu, the scribe.