Chapter 11

[65]Cf. "Sumer and Akkad," p. 312.

[66]The name was conjecturally restored by Poebel, from a date-formula in the Pennsylvania Museum, as Sin-ikisha (cf. "Orient. Lit.-Zeit.," 1907, col. 461 ff.). But from Prof. Clay's new king-list we now know that that ruler is to be identified with Sin-iḳîsham, the eleventh king of the Dynasty of Larsa; there is no evidence to connect him with Nîsin. On the other hand, the six months' rule of the unknown king at Nîsin falls in the twentieth year of Sumu-ilum's reign at Larsa, who at least for a time was recognized in Ur, the former vassal-city of Nîsin.

[67]According to our scheme of chronology, Sumu-la-ilum's capture of Dûr-Zakar at Nippur corresponds to the year of Ura-imitti's death and to the subsequent struggle for the throne of Nîsin.

[68]In addition to Dûr-Zakar of Nippur, these were Dûr-Padda, Dûr-Lagaba, Dûr-Iabugani, Dûr-Cula-dûru, and Dûr-uṣi-ana-Ura. On their reconstruction Samsu-iluna dedicated the first four to Ninmakh, Adad, Sin and Lugal-diri-tugab, and the last two to Nergal; cf. "Letters of Hammurabi," pp. 199 ff.

[69]To this he gave the name Tâmtum-khegallum, "the Ocean (gives) abundance." He also rebuilt E-ibianu, E-sagila, and E-babbar in Sippar, installing in the last-named temple a bronze image of himself, possibly with the idea of claiming divine honours.

[70]The Sumu-dâri and Apil-Sin-khegallum Canals were both cut in his reign.

[71]The costly throne for Shamash and Shunirda, or the goddess Aia, which he dedicated in his third year, was probably for E-babbar in Sippar. Apil-Sin devoted special attention to Cuthah, the most recently acquired of Babylon's greater possessions, rebuilding on two occasions E-meslam, the temple of Nergal, the city-god. He also enriched Babylon on the material side, erecting a great city-gate in its eastern wall, and building within the city the temple E-kiku for the goddess Ishtar and another shrine for the Sun-god.

[72]For the reading of the weather-god's name as Adad, cf. Budge and King, "Annals of the Kings of Assyria," p. lxxiv. f. The name was probably of West Semitic origin, though the form Rammânu, "the thunderer," has been noted by Prof. Sayce on a cylinder-seal beside the goddess Ashratum (cf. "Zeits. f. Assyr.," VI., p. 161), and she elsewhere appears as the spouse of the god Amurru (cf. Meyer, "Geschichte," I., ii., p. 406). The Sumerian equivalent of Adad is still uncertain; Hrozný suggests the reading Ishkur (cf. "Zeits. f. Assyr.," XX., pp. 424 ff.), while Thureau-Dangin, Clay and others prefer Immer, suggested in "Königsinschriften," p. 208. Meanwhile it is preferable to employ the reading Adad, for periods at any rate after the West-Semitic invasion.

[73]That Sin-idinnam's assumption of the title was justified by the actual possession of Nippur is proved by a date-formula on a contract in the British Museum, in which he records the dedication of a statue of himself as an ornament for Nippur; cf. Rawlinson, "Cun. Inscr. West. Asia," IV., pl. 36, No. 2, and Chiera, "Legal and Administrative Documents," p. 72.

[74]Cf. Rawlinson,op. cit.,I., pl. 5, No. xx. In addition to his military prowess, he reconstructed E-babbar at Larsa, built the great fortress of Dûr-gurgurri, and by canalizing the Tigris improved his country's water-supply (cf. "Cun. Texts in the Brit. Mus.," XXL, pl. 30, No. 30215; Delitzsch, "Beitr. zur Assyr.," I., pp. 301 ff.; and Thureau-Dangin, "Königsinschriften," p. 208 f.). He also built the city-gate of Mashkan-shabri; cf. Chiera,op. cit.,p. 72 f.

[75]On a broken clay cone from Babylon (cf. Weissbach, "Babylonische Miscellen," p. 1, pl. 1) Sin-magir bears the title of King of Sumer and Akkad.

[76]If we may identify Khallabu with Aleppo, we should find a still firmer basis for Kudur-Mabuk's title. For we know that, while Warad-Sin was still King of Larsa, he dedicated a chamber in Ishtar's temple at Khallabu (cf. "Cun. Texts in the Brit. Mus.," XXI., pl. 31, No. 91144; and Thureau-Dangin, "Königsinschriften," p. 214 f.). We should then have to assume that, before completing his conquest of Sumer, he had already pushed up and across the Euphrates and had captured large districts of Amurru. It is possible that this was so, but it should be noted that both Khallabu and Bît-Karkara are mentioned in the Prologue to Hammurabi's Code of Laws, not with "the settlements on the Euphrates," but immediately after Lagash and Girsu, suggesting a Babylonian origin (see below,p. 159).

[77]Cf. Rawlinson, "Cun. Inscr. West. Asia," I., pl. 5, No. xvi.; the erection of the wall is also commemorated in a date-formula of his reign (cf. Chiera. "Documents," p. 74).

[78]On a clay cone from Mukayyar, recording his building of a temple to Nannar at Ur, Warad-Sin describes himself as "he who carries out the decrees and decisions of Eridu (i.e.of its oracle), who increased the offerings of E-ninnû (the temple of Ningirsu at Lagash), who restored Lavish mid Girsu, and renewed the city and the land"; cf. Rawlinson,op. cit.IV., pl. 35, No. 6.

[79]During the first thirteen years of his reign Sin-muballit cut three canals, the first named after himself, the Sin-muballit Canal, and two others which he termed the Aia-khegallum and the Tutu-khegallum. He also built the walls of Rubatum, Zakar-dada, Dûr-Sin-muballit, Bît-Karkara, and Marad. It is possible, of course, that conflicts with the south took place at this time, but, if so, the absence of any reference to them in the records is to be explained by the want of success of Babylonian arms.

[80]In this period the city walls of Nanga and Baṣu were rebuilt.

[81]From two recently published date-lists of Hammurabi's reign we know that this event took place in his fifth year, while the following year appears to have been dated by a similar priestly installation of the shepherd of the goddess Ninaz; cf. Boissier, "Rev. d'Assyr.," XI., No. iv. (1914), pp. 161 ff.

[82]The territory gained on the bank of the Shu-numum-dar Canal (cf. Boissier,op. cit.) may have lain in Emutbal. The canal was possibly a portion of the famous Nâr-sharri, which in the Achæmenian period was regarded as lying "in Elam."

[83]The town lay in the neighbourhood of Sukhi on the middle Euphrates, below the mouth of the Khâbûr and probably to the south of Khana.

[84]The Tishit-Enlil Canal, which we now know was cut in Hammurabi's twenty-fourth year (cf. Boissier,op. cit.); the Hammurabi-khegallum Canal had been cut in his ninth year, at the time of Rîm-Sin's capture of Nîsin.

[85]Two years were devoted to the fortification of Sippar; and the walls of Igi-kharsagga, and probably of Baṣu, were built. In the vassal-city of Kibalbarru Hammurabi dedicated an image to Ninni, or Ishtar, while in Babylon he built E-namkhe, the temple of Adad, and a shrine also for Enlil.

[86]Cf. "Déc. en Chaldée," pl. 41; Rawlinson, "Cun. Inscr. West. Asia," I., pl. 3, No. X.; and Thureau-Dangin, "Königsinschriften," p. 218 f.

[87]See the date-formulæ cited by Chiera, "Documents." p. 80 f.

[88]Cf. Hilprecht, "Old Babylonian Inscriptions," Pt. II., pl. 58, No. 128.

[89]Cf. Hilprecht,loc. cit.,and Chiera,op. cit.,p. 82 f.

[90]One of his wives, Si[...]-Ninni, the daughter of Arad-Nannar, dedicated a temple, on his behalf and her own, to the goddess Nin-egal (cf. Thureau-Dangin, "Königsinschriften," p. 218 f.). The other wife, who bore the name Rîm-Sin-Shala-bashtashu, was the daughter of a certain Sin-magir, and Rîm-Sin himself had a daughter named Lirish-gamium; cf. Poebel, "Historical Texts," p. 140, who quotes the information from an inscription of Rîm-Sin-Shala-bashtashu, which Prof. Clay informs me is now in the Yale Collection. A sister of Rîm-Sin, who was a priestess, is mentioned on a cylinder of Nabonidus (cf. Scheil, "Comptes rendus de l'Académie des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres," 1912, p. 680 f.).

[91]The period would be forty-five years, instead of twenty-three, if we place the whole sixty-one years of Rîm-Sin's reign before Hammurabi's conquest of Larsa; in that case the fall of Nîsin would have taken place in Sin-muballit's seventh year. But the available evidence is strongly in favour of curtailing Rîm-Sin's period of independent rule; see above,pp. 97ff.

[92]This seems to follow from the continuation of the Nîsin era in the south for a few years after the fall of Larsa; see above,p. 103.

[93]See above, p. 144.

[94]See above, pp. 129 ff.; it was probably after these conquests that he adopted the title King of Amurru.

[95]Cf.,e.g.,"Letters and Inscriptions of Hammurabi," pp. 180 ff. It is clear from the titles in the majority of them that they date from the latter part of his reign. It was also after his annexation of Larsa that he cut the Hammurabi-nukhush-nishi Canal, building a fortress at the head of the canal for its defence, which he named after his father Dûr-Sin-muballit-abim-walidia. The erection of the granary at Babylon (op. cit.,p. 192 f.) was evidently one of his earlier works.

[96]See below, p. 194 f.

[97]As the list of cities is practically a gazetteer of Hammurabi's empire during his closing years, the names will repay enumeration, together with their temples and city-gods; they are here given in the order in which they occur in the Prologue, the names of gods, when omitted in the text, being supplied within parentheses: (1) Nippur, and Ekur, the temple of Enlil; (2) Eridu, and E-apsû (the temple of Enki); (3) Babylon, and E-sagila, the temple of Marduk; (4) Ur, and E-gishshirgal (the temple of Sin); (5) Sippar, and E-babbar (the temple of Shamash); (6) Larsa, and E-babbar (the temple of Shamash); (7) Erech, and E-anna, the temple of Anu and Ninni, or Ishtar; (8) Nîsin, and the temple E-galmakh; (9) Kish, and E-mete-ursag, the temple of Zamama; (10) Cuthah, and E-meslam (the temple of Nergal); (11) Borsippa, and E-zida (the temple of Nabû); (12) Dilbat, and its god Urash; (13) the city of Kesh; (14) Lagash and Girsu, and E-ninnû (the temple of Ningirsu); (15) Khallabu, and the goddess Ninni, or Ishtar; (16) Bît-Karkara, and E-ugalgal, the temple of Adad; (17) Adab, and its temple E-makh; (18) Mashkan-shabri and the temple Meslam; (19) Malgûm; (20) the dwellings, or settlements, on the Euphrates, and the god Dagan; (21) Mera and Tutul; (22) Akkad (Agade), and E-ulmash, the temple of Ishtar; (23) Ashur, and "its favourable protecting deity"; and (24) Nineveh, and E-mishmish, the temple of Ishtar.

[98]Gen. xiv.

[99]For the Elamite character of Chedorlaomer's name, cf. "Letters of Hammurabi," I., p. iv. f.; but there are too many difficulties in the way of accepting the suggested identification of Arioch with Warad-Sin, the son of Kudur-Mabuk (op. cit.,pp. xlix. ff.).

[100]See above, p. 152.

[101]Prof. Sayce was the first to point out that Tidal is a Hittite name, and was borne by one of the last kings of the Hittite Empire, Dudkhalia; cf. "Patriarchal Palestine," p. 60.

[102]We are not here concerned with the textual character of Gen. xiv. (on that subject, see especially Skinner, "Genesis," pp. 256 ff.), nor with the evolution of the Abrahamic traditions (see Meyer, "Die Israeliten," p. 248, and cp. Hall, "Anc. Hist, of the Near East," p. 401). It will suffice to note that, in view of the recovery of Neo-Babylonian chronicles and poetical compositions, dealing with early historical events, the employment of such a document among Hebrew literary sources seems to offer a sufficient explanation of the facts.

Of no other period in the history of Babylon have we so intimate a knowledge as that of the West-Semitic kings under whom the city first attained the rank of capital. It was a time of strenuous growth, in the course of which the long struggle with regard to language and racial dominance was decided in favour of the Semite. But the victory involved no break of continuity, for all the essential elements of Sumerian culture were preserved, the very length of the struggle having proved the main factor in securing their survival. There had been a gradual assimilation on both sides, though naturally the Sumerian had the more to give, and, in spite of his political disappearance, he continued to exert an indirect influence. This he owed in the main to the energy of the Western Semite, who completed the task of transforming a dying culture, so that in its new embodiment it could be accepted by men of a newer race.

Hammurabi's age was one of transition, and we have fortunately recovered a great body of contemporaneous evidence on which to base an analysis of its social and political structure. On the one hand the great Code of Laws supplies us with the state's administrative ideal and standard of justice.[1]On the other we have theletters of the kings themselves, and the commercial and legal documents of the period,[2]to prove that the Code was no dead letter but was accurately adjusted to the conditions of the time. The possibility has long been recognized of the existence of similar codes of early Sumerian origin, and a copy of one of them, on a tablet of the Hammurabi period, has recently been recovered.[3]But the value of Hammurabi's Code rests not so much in any claim to extensive originality, but rather on its correspondence to contemporary needs. It thus forms a first-rate witness on the subjects with which it deals, and where it gives no information, the letters and contracts of the period often enable us to supply the deficiency.

For the purpose of legislation the Babylonian community was divided into three main classes or grades of society, which corresponded to well-defined strata in the social system. The highest or upper class embraced all the officers or ministers attached to the court, the higher officials and servants of the state, and the owners of considerable landed property. But wealth or position did not constitute the sole qualification distinguishing the members of the upper class from that immediately below them. In fact, while the majority of its members enjoyed these advantages, it was possible for a man to forfeit them through his own fault or misfortune and yet to retain his social standing and privileges. It would seem therefore that the distinction was based on a racial qualification, and that the upper class, or nobles, as we may perhaps term them,[4]were men of the predominant, race, sprung from the West-Semitic or Amorite stockwhich had given Babylon its first independent dynasty. In course of time its racial purity would tend to become diluted by intermarriage with the older inhabitants, especially where these had thrown in their lot with the invaders and had espoused their cause. It is even possible that some of the latter had from the first obtained recognition in its ranks in return for military or political service. But, speaking broadly, we may regard the highest class in the social order as representing a racial aristocracy that had imposed itself.

The second class in the population comprised the great body of free men who did not come within the ranks of the nobles; in fact, they formed a middle class between the aristocracy and the slaves. They bore a title which in itself implied a state of inferiority,[5]and though they were not necessarily poor and could possess slaves and property, they did not share the privileges of the upper class. It is probable that they represented the subject race, derived in part from the old Sumerian element in the population, in part from the Semitic strain which had long been settled in Northern Babylonia and by intercourse and intermarriage had lost much of its racial purity and independence. The difference, which divided and marked off from one another these two great classes of free men in the population, is well illustrated by the scale of payments as compensation for injury which they were obliged to make or were entitled to receive. Thus if a noble should be guilty of stealing an ox, or other animal, or a boat, which was private or temple property, he had to pay thirty times its value as compensation; whereas, if the thief were a member of the middle class the penalty was reduced to ten times the price, and, should he have no property with which to pay, he was put to death. The penalty for man-slaughter was also less if the assailant was a man of the middle class; he could obtain a divorce more cheaply,and he paid his doctor or surgeon a smaller fee for a successful operation. On the other hand, these privileges were counterbalanced by a corresponding diminution of the value at which his life and limbs were assessed.

That a racial distinction underlay the difference in social position and standing is suggested by the current penalties for assault, in accordance with which a noble could demand an exact retaliation for injuries from one of his own class, whereas he merely paid a money compensation to any man of the middle class he might have injured. Thus if one noble happened to knock out the eye or the tooth of another, his own eye or his own tooth was knocked out in return, and if he broke the limb of one of the members of his own class, he had his corresponding limb broken; but, if he knocked out the eye of a member of the middle class, or broke his limb, he was fined one maneh of silver, and for knocking out the tooth of such a man, he was fined one-third of a maneh. Other regulations point to a similar cleavage in the social strata, which can best be explained by a difference in race. Thus if two members of the same class quarrelled and one of them made a peculiarly improper assault on the other, the assailant was only fined, the fine being larger if the quarrel was between two nobles. But if such an assault was made by a member of the middle class upon a noble, the assailant was punished by being publicly beaten in the presence of the assembly, when he received sixty stripes from an ox-hide scourge.

The third and lowest class in the community were the slaves, who were owned by both the upper classes, but were naturally more numerous in the households of the nobles and on their estates. The slave was his master's absolute property, and on the contract-tablets he is often referred to as "a head," as though he were merely an animal. He constantly changed hands, by sale, bequest, or when temporarily pledged for a debt. For bad offences he was liable to severe punishment, such as cutting off the ear, which was the penalty for denying his master, or for making an aggravated assault upon a noble. But, on the whole, his lot was not a particularly hard one, for he was a recognized memberof his master's household, and, as a valuable piece of property, it was obviously to his owner's interest to keep him healthy and in good condition. In fact, the value of the slave is attested by the severity of the penalties exacted for abducting a male or female slave from the owner's house and removing one from the city; for the death penalty was imposed in such a case, as also on anyone harbouring and taking possession of a runaway slave. On the other hand, a fixed reward was paid by the owner to anyone by whom a runaway was captured and brought back. Special legislation was also devised with the object of rendering the theft of slaves difficult and their detection easy. Thus, if a brander put a mark upon a slave without the owner's consent, he was liable to have his hands cut off; and, if he could prove that he had done so through being deceived by another man, that man was put to death. There was a regular trade in slaves, and no doubt their numbers were constantly increased by captives taken in war.

Though the slaves, as a class, had few rights of their own, there were regulations in accordance with which, under certain circumstances, they could acquire them, and even obtain their freedom. Thus it was possible for an industrious slave, while still in his master's service, to acquire property of his own, or a slave might inherit wealth from relatives; and, in such circumstances, he was able with his master's consent to purchase his freedom. Again, if a slave were captured by the enemy and taken to a foreign land and sold, and were then brought back by his new owner to his own country, he could claim his liberty without having to pay compensation to either of his masters. Moreover, a slave could acquire certain rights while still in slavery. Thus, if the owner of a female slave had begotten children by her, he could not use her as payment for a debt; and, in the event of his having done so, he was obliged to ransom her by paying the original amount of the debt in money. It was also possible for a male slave, whether owned by a noble or by a member of the middle class, to marry a free woman, and if he did so his children were free and did not become the propertyof his master. His wife, too, if a free woman, retained her marriage-portion on her husband's death, and supposing the couple had acquired property during the time they lived together as man and wife, the owner of the slave could only claim half of such property, the other half being retained by the free woman for her own use and for that of her children. The mere fact that such a union was possible suggests that there was no very marked cleavage between the social status of the better class of slaves and that of the humbler members of the middle class.

The cultivation of the land, which formed the principal source of the wealth of Babylonia,[6]was carried on mainly by slave labour, under the control of the two upper classes of the population. The land itself was largely in the hands of the crown, the temples, and the great nobles and merchants who were landed proprietors; and, including that still in communal or tribal possession,[7]a very large proportion was cultivated on lease. The usual practice in hiring land for cultivation was for the tenant to pay his rent in kind, by assigning a certain proportion of the crop, generally a third or a half, to the owner, who advanced the seed-corn.[8]The tenant was bound to till the land and raise a crop, and should he neglect to do so he had to pay the owner what was reckoned as the average rent of the land, and he had also to break up the land and plough it before handing it back. Elaborate regulations were in force to adjust the landowner's duties and responsibilities on the one hand, and what was due to him from his tenant on the other. As the rent of a field was usually reckoned at harvest, and its amount depended on the size of the crop, it would have been unfair that damage to the crop from flood or storm should have been made up by the tenant; such a loss was shared equally by the owner of the field and thefarmer, though, if the latter had already paid his rent at the time the damage occurred, he could not make a claim for repayment. There is evidence that disputes were frequent not only between farmers and landowners, but also between farmers and shepherds, for the latter, when attempting to find pasture for their flocks, often allowed their sheep to feed off the farmers' fields in spring. For such cases a scale of compensation was fixed. If the damage was done in the early spring, when the plants were still small, the farmer harvested the crop and received a price in kind as compensation from the shepherd. But if it occurred later in the year, when the sheep had been brought in from the meadows and turned on to the common land by the city-gate, the damage was heavier; in such a case the shepherd had to take over the crop and compensate the farmer heavily.

The king himself was a very large owner of cattle and sheep, and he levied tribute on the flocks and herds of his subjects. The owners were bound to bring the young cattle and lambs, that were due from them, to the central town of the district in which they dwelt, and they were then collected and added to the royal flocks and herds. If the owners attempted to hold back any that were due as tribute, they were afterwards forced to incur the extra expense and trouble of driving the beasts to Babylon. The flocks and herds owned by the king and the great temples were probably enormous, and yielded a considerable revenue in themselves apart from the tribute and taxes levied upon private owners. Shepherds and herdsmen were placed in charge of them, and they were divided into groups under head-men, who arranged the districts in which the herds and flocks were to be grazed. The king received regular reports from his chief shepherds and herdsmen, and it was the duty of the governors of the larger towns and districts of Babylonia to make tours of inspection and see that due care was taken of the royal flocks. The sheep-shearing for all the flocks that were pastured near the capital took place in Babylon, and the king used to send out summonses to his chief shepherds to inform them of the day when the shearing would take place.[9]Separate flocks,that were royal and priestly property, were sometimes under the same chief officer, a fact that tends to show that the king himself exercised a considerable measure of control over the sacred revenues.

PORTION OF THE CODE OF HAMMURABI, COLS. 6-8.After Délég. en Perse, Mém. IV, pl. 4.

In the regulation of the pastoral and agricultural life of the community, custom played a very important part, and this was recognized and enforced by royal authority. Carelessness in looking after cattle was punished by fine, but the owner was not held responsible for damage unless negligence could be proved on his part. Thus a bull might go wild at any time and gore a man, who would have no redress against its owner. But if the beast was known to be vicious, and its owner had not blunted its horns nor shut it up, he was obliged to pay compensation for damage. On the other hand, the owner of cattle or asses, who had hired them out, could exact compensation for the loss or ill-treatment of his beasts. These were framed on the principle that the hirer was responsible only for damage or loss which; he could reasonably have prevented. If, for example, a lion killed a hired ox or ass in the open country, or if an ox was killed by lightning, the loss fell upon the owner and not on the man who had hired the beast. But if the hirer killed the ox through carelessness or by beating it unmercifully, or if the beast broke its leg while in his charge, he had to restore to the owner another ox in its place. For less serious damage to the beast the hirer paid compensation on a fixed scale.[10]It is clear that such regulations merely gave the royal sanction to long-established custom.

Both for looking after their herds and for the cultivation of their estates the landed proprietors depended to a great extent upon hired herdsmen and farmers; and any dishonesty on the part of the latter with regard to cattle, provender, or seed-corn was severely punished. A theft of provender, for example, had to be made good, and the culprit ran the additional risk of having his hands cut off. Heavy compensation was exacted from any man, who, for his own profit, hired out oxen which hadbeen entrusted to his charge; while, if a farmer stole the seed-corn supplied for the field he had hired, so that he produced no crop to share with the owner, not only had he to pay compensation but he was liable to be torn in pieces by oxen in the field he should have cultivated.[11]In the age of Hammurabi the heavier penalties were no doubt largely traditional, having come down from a more barbarous time when dishonesty could only be kept in check by strong measures. Their retention among the statutes doubtless acted as an effective deterrent, and a severe sentence, if carried out occasionally in the case of an aggravated offence, would have sufficed to maintain respect for the regulations.

In the semi-tropical climate of Babylonia the canals played a vitally important part for the successful prosecution of agriculture, and it was to the royal interest to see that their channels were kept in a proper state of repair and cleaned out at regular intervals. There is evidence that nearly every king of the First Dynasty of Babylon cut new canals and extended the system of irrigation and transport by water that he had inherited. The rich silt carried down by the rivers was deposited partly in the canals, especially in those sections nearer the main stream, with the result that the bed of a canal was constantly in process of being raised. Every year it was necessary to dig this deposit out and pile it upon the banks. Every year the banks rose higher and higher, until a point was reached when the labour involved in getting rid of the silt became greater than that required for cutting a new channel. Hence sections of a canal were constantly being recut alongside the old channel, and it is probable that many of the canals, the cutting of which is commemorated in the texts, were really reconstructions of older streams, the beds of which had become hopelessly silted up.

At the present day the traveller in certain parts of Babylonia comes across the raised embankments of old canals extending across the plain within a short distance of each other, and their parallel course is to be explained by the process of recutting, which was put off as long as possible, but was at last necessitated by the growingheight of the banks. As the bed of a canal gradually rose too, the high banks served the purpose of retaining the stream, and these were often washed away by the flood-water which came down from the hills in spring. An interesting letter has been preserved, that was written by Hammurabi's grandson, Abi-eshu', who describes a sudden rise of this sort in the level of the Irnina Canal so that it overflowed its banks.[12]At the time the king was building a palace in the city of Kâr-Irnina, which was supplied by the Irnina Canal, and every year a certain amount of work was put into the building. At the time the letter was written little more than a third of the year's work had been done, when the building-operations were stopped by flood, the canal having overflowed its banks so that the water rose right up to the town-wall.

It was the duty of the local governors to see that the canals were kept in good repair, and they had the power of requisitioning labour from the inhabitants of villages and the owners of land situated on or near the banks. In return, the villagers had the right of fishing in the waters of a canal along the section in their charge, and any poaching by other villagers in their part of the stream was strictly forbidden. On one occasion in the reign of Samsu-iluna, Hammurabi's son, fishermen from the village of Itabim went down in their boats to the district of Shakanim, and caught fish there contrary to local custom. So the inhabitants of Shakanim complained to the king of this infringement of their rights, and he sent a palace-official to the authorities of Sippar. in the jurisdiction of which the villages in question lay, with instructions to inquire into the matter and take steps to prevent any poaching in the future. Fishing by line and net was a regular industry, and the preservation of rights in local waters was jealously guarded.

The larger canals were fed directly from the river, especially along the Euphrates, whose banks were lower than those of the swifter Tigris. But along the latter river, and also along the banks of the canals, it will be obvious that some means had to be employed to raise the water for purposes of irrigation from the mainchannel to the higher level of the land. Reference is made in the Babylonian inscriptions to irrigation-machines,[13]and, although their exact form and construction are not described, they must have been very similar to those employed at the present day. The most primitive method of raising water, which is commoner to-day in Egypt than in Mesopotamia, is theshadduf,which is worked by hand. It consists of a beam supported in the centre; and at one end a bucket is suspended for raising the water, while at the other end is fixed a counter-weight. Thus comparatively little labour is required to raise the bucket when full. That this contrivance was employed on the Tigris is proved by an Assyrian bas-relief, found at Kuyunjik, with representations of theshaddufin operation. Two of them are being used, the one above the other, to raise the water to successive levels. These were probably the contrivances usually employed by the early Babylonians for raising the water to the level of their fields, and the fact that they were light and easily removed must have made them tempting objects to the dishonest former. A scale of compensation was therefore in force, regulating the payments to be made to the owner by a detected thief. From the fact that these varied, according to the class and value of the machine he stole, we may infer that other contrivances, of a heavier and more permanent character, were also employed.

One of these must certainly have corresponded to a very primitive arrangement that is in general use at the present day in Mesopotamia, particularly along the Tigris, where the banks are high and steep. A recess or cutting with perpendicular sides is driven into the bank, and a wooden spindle is supported on struts in a horizontal position over the recess, which resembles a well with one side opening on to the river. A rope running over the spindle is fastened to a skin in which the water is raised from the river, being drawn up by horses, donkeys, or cattle harnessed to the other end of the rope. To empty the skin by hand into the irrigation channel would, of course, entail considerable time and labour, and, to avoid this necessity, an ingenious contrivance is employed. Theskin is sewn up, not in the form of a closed bag, but of a bag ending in a long narrow funnel. While the skin is being filled and drawn to the top, the funnel is kept raised by a thin line running over a lower spindle and fastened off to the main rope, so that both are pulled up together by the beasts. The positions of the spindles and the length of the ropes are so adjusted, that the end of the funnel stops just above a wooden trough on the bank below the struts, while the rest of the skin is drawn up higher and shoots its water through the funnel into the trough. The trough is usually made from half the trunk of a date-palm, hollowed out, and one end leads to the irrigation-channel on the bank. To give the beasts a better purchase in pulling up the weight of water, an inclined plane is cut in the ground, sloping away from the machine, and up and down this the beasts are driven, the skin filling and emptying itself automatically. To increase the supply of water, two skins are often employed side by side, each with its own tackle and set of beasts, and, as one is drawn up full, the other is let down empty. Thus a continuous flow of water is secured, and not more than one man or boy is required to keep each set of beasts moving. No more effective or simpler method could be devised of raising water to a considerable height, and there can be no doubt that, at the period of the First Dynasty, cattle were employed not only for ploughing, but for working primitive irrigation-machines of this character.

On the Euphrates, where the river-banks are lower, a simple form of water-wheel was probably in use then as it is to-day, wherever there was sufficient current to work one. And the advantage of this form of machine is that, so long as it is in order, it can be unlocked at will and kept working without supervision day and night. The wheel is formed of stripped boughs and branches nailed together, with spokes joining the outer rims to a roughly hewn axle. Around the outer rim are tied a series of rough earthenware cups or bottles, and a few rude paddles are fixed to the wheel, projecting beyond the rim. The wheel is then set up in place near the bank of the river, its axle resting on pillars of rough masonry. The current turns the wheel, and thebottles, dipping below the surface, are raised up full, and empty their water into a wooden trough at the top. The banks of the Euphrates are usually sloping, and the water is conducted from the trough to the fields along a small aqueduct or earthen embankment. Such wheels to-day are usually set up where there is a slight drop in the river-bed and the water runs swiftly over shallows. In order to span the difference in level between the fields and the summer height of the stream the wheels are often huge contrivances, and their rough construction causes them to creak and groan as they turn with the current. In a convenient place in the river several of these are sometimes set up side by side, and their noise when at work can be heard at a great distance.[14]

It is not unlikely that the later Sumerians had already evolved these primitive forms of irrigation-machine, and that the Babylonians of the First Dynasty merely inherited them and passed them on to their successors. When once invented they were incapable of very great improvement. In the one the skin must always remain a skin; in the other the wheel must always be lightly constructed of boughs, or the strength of the current would not suffice to turn it. We have seen reason to believe that, in the palace of Nebuchadnezzar II. at Babylon, the triple well in the north-west corner may be best explained as having formed the water-supply for a hydraulic machine, consisting of an endless chain of buckets passing over a great wheel. Such is a very common form of raising water in Babylonia at the present day. It is true that in some of these machines the wheel for the buckets is still geared by means of rough wooden cogs to the long pole or winch, turned by beasts, who move round in a circle. But it is very unlikely that the early Babylonians had evolved the principle of the cogged wheel, and it was probably not till the period of the later Assyrian empire that bronze was so plentiful that it could have been used in sufficient quantity for buckets on an endless chain. There seems reason to believe that Sennacherib himselfintroduced an innovation when he employed metal in the construction of the machines that supplied water to his palace;[15]and we may infer that even in the Neo-Babylonian period a contrivance of that sort was still a royal luxury, and that the farmer continued to use the more primitive machines, sanctioned by immemorial usage, which he could make with his own hands.

Back to Index Next