Many discussions arose as to the meaning of particular sections. ThusC F. Lehmann(-Haupt)wrote inKlio, vol. iii, pp. 32-41 (1904), onEin missverstandenes Gesetz Hammurabis, which was also taken as the title of an article byF. E. PeiserinOrientalistische Litteraturzeitung, vol. vii, cols. 236-7 (1904). Neither of these scholars can be said to have quite settled the questions they had raised; but the subject of §§ 185-93 was greatly cleared by their thoughtful treatment.
In 1908M. Schorrcontributed to theWiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes, vol. xxii, pp. 385-92, an article onDie §§ 280-282 des Gesetzbuches Hammurabis, followed, pp. 393-8, by an article ofD. H. MülleronDie §§ 280-282 des Kodex Hammurabis.
M. Schorrin 1906 had written in the same journal, vol. xx, pp. 119-23, an articleZum § 27 des Hammurabi-Gesetzes, and in theVienna Oriental Journal, xx (1906), pp. 314-36,Der § 7 des Hammurabi-Gesetzes.
Br. Meissnerhas discussed the correct word for a builder in the Code in theOrientalistische Litteraturzeitung, vol. xv, cols. 38-59 (1912), under the titleZu Hammurapis Gesetz, xix, R. 93.
Die Lücke in der Gesetzes-Stele Hammurapis, byA. Ungnad, in theBeiträge zur Assyriologie, vi, Heft 5, discussed all the means known to fill the gap as existing in the text, but the new sources named on p. 66 above will very likely suffice to complete the text.
Considerable weight may ultimately have to be laid on the grouping of the laws by ‘tens’ or ‘fives’. This aspect had been discussed byD. G. Lyonin theJournal of the American Oriental Society, vol. xxv, pp. 248-65, asThe Structure of the Hammurabi Code(New Haven, Conn., 1904).
C. F. Kentin his excellent work onIsrael’s Laws and Legal Precedents(London, Hodder & Stoughton, 1907) makes considerable use of a division of Hebrew laws into groups of five or ten, of which the Ten Commandments forms a well-known example. Whether or no these divisions command general assent, we should notice thatD. G. Lyonfinds repeated evidence of the same grouping in the Code of Hammurabi. This naturally cannot be pressed too far as evidence of dependence. But it is surely non-essential that laws should be arranged in pentads unless we are to suppose that a reference to five fingers as a method of recalling the separate clauses is involved, and would be natural to expect in such cases. But that Israelite fondness for the number seven, shown in their seven-day week as against the Babylonian week of five days, or their partiality for other sacred numbers, did not affect the numbering of the laws may well be significant. If it turn out that these groups of five also correspond in contents, even though they show traces of change, we have a strong argument for dependence which supports any others pointing in the same direction.
As early as October and November, 1902, there appearedLe Code Babylonien d’Hammourabiin theJournal des Savants(Paris, Hachette), byR. Dareste, giving a luminous account of the subject-matter of the Code, illustrating it by comparison with a number of ancient legislations. He, of course, based his conclusions entirely uponScheil’stranslation, buthis work still remains most valuable. In 1903 appearedSchmersahl’sDas älteste Gesetzbuch der Welt: Die Gesetze Hammurabisin theDeutsche Juristen-Zeitung, pp. 111 ff.R. Darestealso publishedLe Code Babylonien d’Hammourabiin theNouvelle Revue historique de droit français et étranger(Paris, Larose, January and February, 1903).Hammurapi und das Salische Recht, byH. Fehr(Bonn, Marcus & Weber, 1910), is a very remarkable study.
A first-rate work wasG. Cohn’slecture,Die Gesetze Hammurabis(Zürich, Füssli, 1903).KohlerandMüller(see pp. 67, 69) have to be weighed.
C. Stoossin his articleDas babylonische Strafrecht Hammurabis, Schweizerische Zeitschrift für Strafrecht, vol. xvi (Basel, Georg, 1903), took up the question of ‘Crimes and Punishments’, on which see also the article with that title byT. G. PinchesinThe Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, iv, pp. 256 ff.; andImprisonment, by the same author, iv, pp. 260 ff.Die peinlichen Strafen im Kriegs-und Rechtswesen der Babylonier und Assyrer, byJ. Jelitto(Breslau, 1913), adds considerably to the subject. Compare alsoZum ältesten Strafrecht der Kulturvölker, byTh. Mommsenand others (Leipzig, Duncker, 1905).
The judicial procedure remains in many points obscure despite the fineEssai sur l’organisation judiciaire de la Chaldée à l’époque de la première dynastie babylonienne, byEd. Cuq, in theRevue d’Assyriologie, 1910, pp. 65-101, which records most known facts;Commentaire juridique d’un jugement sous Ammiditana, by the same author in the same journal, 1910, pp. 129-38; and againUn procès criminel à Babylone sous le règne de Samsou-iluna, 1911, pp. 173-81.P. Dhormediscussed in the same volume, p. 99,Un appel sous Samsou-iluna.A Legal Episode in Ancient Babylonian Family Life, in theProceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology, 1910, pp. 81-92, 129-42, is byW. T. Pilter.
The tenure of land was elucidated byH. WincklerinZum babylonisch-chaldäischen Feudalwesen, inAltorientalische Forschungen, i, pp. 497-503.La Propriété foncière en Chaldée, byEd. Cuq(Paris, Larose, 1907), chiefly deals with later developments; as do the articles byJ. OPPERT,Le droit de retrait lignager à Ninivein theComptes rendusof theAcadémie des inscriptions et belles-lettres(Paris, 1898), andDas assyrische Landrechtin theZeitschrift für Assyriologie, xiii, pp. 243-76 (Weimar, 1898).
The position of some classes or castes named will be dealt with under theLexicography of the Code, pp. 74 ff.The Consecrated Women of the Hammurabi Codeis an important essay byD. G. Lyonin theStudies in the History of Religions presented to Crawford Howell Toy(New York, The Macmillan Co., 1912), pp. 341-60. See alsoAltbabylonische Rechtsurkunden aus der Zeit der Hammurabi-Dynastie, byS. Daiches(Leipzig, Hinrichs, 1903).
The view of law as sworn contract has importance enough to be specially considered. It was early discovered in the so-called contracts which were once regarded as legal decisions. We may refer toSworn Obligationsunder Egyptian and Babylonian Law, by E. andV. Revillout, andSworn Obligations in Babylonian Lawby the same authors inThe Babylonian and Oriental Record, vol. i, no. 7, and vol. ii, no. 1.A. Ungnadpointed outEine neue Form der Beglaubigung in altbabylonischen Urkundenin theOrientalistische Litteraturzeitung, 1906, cols. 163-4. The whole subject was taken up byS. A. B. Mercerin his dissertation onThe Oath in Babylonian and Assyrian Literature(Munich, 1911).
The idea underlying the appeal to the ordeal is closely allied to that of the oath, andF. E. PeiserwroteZum Ordal bei Babyloniernin theOrientalistische Litteraturzeitung, 1911, cols. 477-9.
The importance of the family in the Code and Babylonian Law in general has led to several monographs.Le Mariage à Babylone, byEd. Cuq(Paris, Lecoffre, 1905), andZur Terminologie im Eherecht bei Hammurabi, byD. H. Müller, in theWiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes, xix, pp. 352-8, deal chiefly with the Code.L. Freund’sZur Geschichte des Ehegutrechtes bei den Semiten(Vienna, A. Hölder, 1909) chiefly deals with Jewish custom.Liebe und Ehe im alten Orient, byF. Freiherr von Reitzenstein(Stuttgart, Franckh, 1909), devotes pp. 51 to 70 to the Babylonian side. Of course,W. Robertson Smith’sKinship and Marriagewill be consulted in its new edition byS. A. Cook(London, A. & C. Black, 1903).
Closely connected are other questions as to the status of women. Already in 1892J. Oppertwas able to make out much aboutLiberté de la femme à Babylonein theRevue d’Assyriologie, ii, pp. 89-90.V. MarxdiscussedDie Stellung der Frauen in Babylonienin theBeiträge zur Assyriologie, iv, pp. 1-77.
Slavery in Babylonia was very different from either Roman or modern ideals. As long ago as 1888J. Opperthad made out much from the legal documents of later times in his articleLa condition des esclaves à Babylonein theComptes rendusof theAcadémie des inscriptions et belles-lettresfor that year.Br. Meissnerhad written a dissertation in 1882,De servitute babylonico-assyriaca(Leipzig), which still deserves to be consulted.M. SchorrwroteArbeitsruhetage im alten BabylonieninRevue Sémitique, 1912, pp. 398-9.
The questions of guarantee, security, &c., are finely treated byP. Koschakerin his work,Babylonisch-assyrisches Bürgschaftsrecht(Leipzig, Teubner, 1911).
Business in general is well dealt with byFr. Delitzschin hisHandel und Wandel in Altbabylonien(Stuttgart, Deutsche Verlagsanstalt, 1910).Die Commenda im islamischen Rechte, byJ. Kohler(Würzburg, Stahel, 1885), is to be compared.
Aus dem altbabylonischen Recht, byBr. Meissner, inDer alte Orient, vii, Heft 1, 1905 (Leipzig, Hinrichs), is excellent.
On the whole subject of Babylonian law a valuable treatise isP. Koschaker’sarticle,The Scope and Methods of a History of Assyrio-BabylonianLawsin theProceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology, 1913, pp. 230-43.Babylonian and Assyrian Laws, Contracts, and Letters, by the present writer, inThe Library of Ancient Inscriptions(T. & T. Clark, Edinburgh, 1904), and the articles onBabylonian Law, by the same author, inThe Encyclopaedia Britannica, vol. iii, 1910, may be consulted, pp. 115-21, and inThe Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics. The French jurist,Ed. Cuq, in hisNotes d’épigraphie et de papyrologie, published in theNouvelle Revue historique du droit français et étranger(Paris, L. Larose), 1906-1909, discussed many points ofLe Droit babylonien au temps de la Première Dynastie de Babylone.
Most of the discussions and editions above referred to deal with points in the lexicography. The edition byUngnadin his Band II, named on p. 68, gives the latest results of the investigations in this domain. A few other works deserving of note will be added here.
The meaning ofamêluwas elucidated byH. Wincklerin hisAltorientalische Forschungen, ii, pp. 312-15, 1901 (Leipzig, Pfeiffer).
The difficult wordmushkênu, renderednoblebyScheiland after him byDaresteand others, was given this meaning because the fines and penalties inflicted on him in the Code seemed to be less than those inflicted on the ordinary man. The ideogram used in the Code was not rendered into Semitic Babylonian byScheil, but first in print byH. Zimmern. A crowd of extraordinary guesses as to the meaning of the term were hazarded, founded on the cognate languages. Thus it was discussed byE. LittmanninZur Bedeutung von miskên, Zeitschrift für Assyriologie, vol. xvii, pp. 262-5 (Strassburg, K. J. Trübner, 1903), who made it out to beleperand byEt. CombeinBabyloniaca, vol. iii, pp. 73-4, who settled the meaning from its use in modern Arabic. The present writer had already anticipated much of this in hisOldest Codeand theNotes on the Hammurabi Code, above, p. 70.
The meaning and status of therîdtsâbêwas discussed byS. Daiches,Zur Erklärung des Hammurabi-Codex, inZeitschrift für Assyriologie, 1904-1905, pp. 202-22. Many useful hints will be found inSemitica: Sprach-und rechtsvergleichende Studien, in theSitzungsberichte der philosophisch-historischen Klasse der kaiserlichen Akademie in Wien, 1906, cols. 1-88 (Wien, A. Hölder).
The exact way in which the Semitic people of the Hammurabi period exploited the stores of legal knowledge acquired by the Sumerians is still much discussed. So byM. Schorrin hisDie altbabylonische Rechtspraxis, published inWiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes, vol. xxiv, pp. 431-61, and again in theRevue Sémitique, 1912, pp. 378-97,Zur Frage der semitischen und sumerischen Elemente im altbabylonischen Rechte. See alsoDas Sumerische in den Rechtsurkunden der Hammurabi-Periode, byM. Schorr, in theHilprecht Anniversary Volume, pp. 20-32.
The question whether the Sumerian phrases in the contemporary contracts were read as Semitic or Sumerian has been discussed byA. Poebelin theOrientalistische Litteraturzeitung, 1911, cols. 241-7, under the titleZur Aussprache der sumerischen Phrasen in den altbabylonischen Rechtsurkunden, and in cols. 373-4A. Ungnadwrote, under the same title,Eine Berichtigung.M. Schorrreplied, cols. 559-61.
The question how far the Hammurabi Code was operative was soon raised. The existence of a very large number of legal documents relating to all manner of transactions seemed likely to afford a ready answer. In 1905Br. Meissnerwrote hisTheorie und Praxis im altbabylonischen Rechtfor theMitteilungen der Vorderasiatischen Gesellschaft, pp. 257-303. The need of a more extended examination made the promise ofKohlerandPeiser’sHammurabi-Gesetzso welcome, see p.67.KohlerandUngnadhave now fulfilled this by publishing in Heft III-V the whole available material asÜbersetzte Urkundenwith most valuableErläuterungen(Leipzig, Hinrichs, 1909-1911). A similar enterprise was undertaken byM. SchorrinKodeks Hammurabiego a owezesna praktyka prawna, Das Gesetzbuch Hammurabis und die zeitgenössische Rechtspraxis, in theBulletin de l’Académie des Sciences de Cracovie, followed byAltbabylonische Rechtsurkunden aus der Zeit der I. babylonischen Dynastiein theSitzungsberichte der kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien, philosophisch-historische Klasse, 155. Band, 2. Abhandlung, 1907, 160. Band, 5. Abhandlung, 1909, and 165. Band, 2. Abhandlung, 1910 (Vienna, A. Hölder), with transcription, translation, and commentary. Together withUngnad’swork this should enable any scholar to form a well-founded and independent judgement.
It is natural to inquire what were the laws of that earlier people in Babylonia who preceded the Semites and are now called Sumerians. The Semites took over their legal phrases, see above, and probably with them some of their laws. The Semitic scribes drew up long lists of these Sumerian phrases, many of which they still used in drawing up their legal documents, just as Latin phrases or Norman-French lingered on in our law-books. These phrases they translated, in parallel columns with the Sumerian. Such books of phrases were issued in long series. One such series, usually calledAna Ittishu, was discussed byBr. Meissnerin theWiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes, iv, pp. 301 ff. A great deal of it is published byP. Hauptin vol. i of theAssyriologische Bibliothek; byF. Hommelin hisSumerische Lesestücke; byFr. Delitzschin hisAssyrische Lesestücke, 3rd edition, 1900, pp. 130-2; and byMeissnerin theZeitschrift für Assyriologie, 1892, vii, pp. 16-32.Pinchesgives an account of it in theEncyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, iv, p. 256, 1910, where he calls it theUlutinabishu Series. Not much law can be made out of this scrappy source; but one tablet records a set of regulations which seem to be extracted from a code. They are usually referred to asThe Sumerian Family Laws,and are dealt with byT. G. Pinchesin theEncyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, iv, p. 257, 1910,and byJeremiasin the same work, v, p. 447. A full treatment byP. HauptisDie sumerischen Familiengesetze in Keilschrift, Transcription und Übersetzung(Leipzig, 1879).Winckler,Cook,Peiser,Ungnad, and most of the writers on the comparative side have quoted them in their above-named works.
It may be doubted whether the so-calledWarnings to Kings against Injustice, seeT. G. Pinchesin hisEncyclopaediaarticle, iv, p. 261, note 1, are so early, or really preserve part of a code. References to legal reforms may be seen in the inscriptions of Urukagina, seeL. W. King’sHistory of Sumer and Akkad, pp. 178-84 and the references, but here again we cannot reconstruct much of the Sumerian law in question.
We have noted the discussion, p. 75, of the way in which Semitic scribes regarded the Sumerian phrases they used.
The conclusion that Hammurabi codified the earlier legislation was natural, and similarities in form suggested that he adopted much of the Sumerian law which was previously in force.
A. T. Clayin theOrientalistische Litteraturzeitung, xvii, January, 1914 (Leipzig, Hinrichs), writing onA Sumerian Prototype of the Hammurabi Code, has made it clear that some of the laws existed in a Sumerian dress. Hammurabi, as we have already contended, modified the previously existing Sumerian laws, and taking some over bodily, changed others to suit the peculiar prejudices of his subjects and the circumstances of his time. We may soon be able to judge whetherClay’sSumerian Code, as we may call it, was really early, or only the dress in which Hammurabi’s law appeared in his Sumerian provinces.
We may pass on to notice briefly the chief sources from which it is possible to deduce much of the local customary law throughout the history of Babylonia. It may formally be divided into Temple accounts and contracts, but a detailed classification would demand much more space than we can here afford.
At all times the great temples of Assyria and Babylonia kept extensive accounts of even daily revenue and expenditure. These accounts were most carefully preserved, being written with special care on well selected clay, and have reached us as a rule in exceptionally fine condition. They give us an immense mass of information, largely consisting of dry and disconnected items, but helping to build up knowledge. The French explorations made byDe Sarzecat Telloh resulted in the discovery of an enormous number of documents, mostly accounts kept of the daily expenses and revenues of the vast temples there, from the earliest times down to the Dynasty of Ur. One huge find of some 30,000 tablets of the latter period were stolen by Arabs, and have been sold in large quantities to European and American Museums, or to private collectors. Few of them are legal documents, or concerned with other than Templebusiness, but their contents illustrate the state of society in the times before the First Dynasty of Babylon. They are most important for determining the extent to which the Code of Hammurabi was dependent on, or influenced by, the Sumerian Law of earlier days.
Of those which reached Constantinople, the products of the season of 1894 consisted entirely of tablets of the Dynasty of Ur, and were classified byV. Scheil. The tablets found in 1895 were catalogued byThureau-Dangin, and are mostly of the Dynasty of Akkad. The finds of 1900 are all of the Dynasty of Ur. These are all now catalogued and largely published in theInventaire des Tablettes de Tello conservées au Musée Ottoman(Paris, E. Leroux, 1910), byFr. Thureau-DanginandH. de Genouillac.
But by far the largest part of the finds came into the hands of dealers, and so into the museums of Europe and America; and these were published sooner. Thus in 1891 some were reproduced by photography inDe Sarzec’sDécouvertes en Chaldée(Paris, E. Leroux), plate 41. These tablets, preserved in the Louvre, were, however, properly presented by the Sultan. A great many thus acquired were published byThureau-DanginasTablettes chaldéennes inéditesin theRevue d’Assyriologie, iv, pp. 69-86 (Paris, E. Leroux, 1897). In the same journal, v, pp. 67-102, 1902, he gave aNotice sur la troisième collection de tablettes, and in 1903 published aRecueil de tablettes chaldéennes(Paris, E. Leroux), which gave improved editions of the above. Other articles appeared in theRevue d’Assyriologie, iii, pp. 118-46 (1895), iv, pp. 13-27 (1897), and inComptes rendus de l’Académie des Inscriptionsfor 1896, by the same writer, pp. 355-61. These works not only made available large numbers of texts, but also gave most important contributions to their understanding.
In 1896H. V. Hilprechtpublished three of the tablets in the Imperial Ottoman Museum at Constantinople in hisOld Babylonian Inscriptions, part II, nos. 124-6 (Philadelphia,Transactions of the American Philosophical Society).
InCuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets, etc., in the British Museum, vols. i, iii, v, vii, ix, x (London, British Museum), copied byL. W. King, 1896-1900;Ancient Babylonian Temple Records, copied byW. R. Arnold(New York, Columbia University Press, 1896);Old Babylonian Temple Records, are texts copied and discussed byR. J. Lau(New York, Columbia University Press, 1906);Haverford Library Collection of Cuneiform Tablets or Documents from the Temple Archives of Telloh, part I, 1905; part II, 1909; part III, 1914 (Philadelphia, J. C. Winston Co.), several hundreds of these texts appeared.
G. Reisner, in 1902, publishedTempelurkunden aus Telloh(Berlin, W. Spemann), being the collection presented to the Berlin Museum byH. Simon.H. Radauin hisEarly Babylonian History(New York, 1903), published and discussed a number purchased for the E. A. Hoffmann collections in the New York Metropolitan Museum.T. G. Pinchesdealt withSome Case Tablets from Tellohin theJournal of the Royal Asiatic Societyfor 1905, pp. 815-29, and, in 1909, publishedThe Amherst Tablets, being anAccount of the Babylonian Inscriptions in the Collection of the Right Honourable Lord Amherst of Hackney, at Didlington Hall, Norfolk(London, Quaritch).H. de Genouillacpublished and discussed some texts ofH. Schlumberger’sasTablettes d’Urin theHilprecht Anniversary Volume, pp. 137-41. In 1911T. G. Pinchesdealt with someTablets from Telloh in Private CollectionsinThe Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, pp. 1039-62, andSt. LangdongaveSome Sumerian Contractsin theZeitschrift für Assyriologie, 1911, pp. 205-14.V. Scheilcontributed a series ofNotes d’épigraphie et d’archéologie assyriennesto theRecueil de Travaux(Paris, E. Bouillon), vol. xvii, 1895, pp. 28-30; xviii (1896), pp. 64-74; xix (1897), pp. 44-64; xx (1898), pp. 55-72, 200-10; xxi (1899), pp. 26-9, 123-6; xxii (1900), pp. 27-39, 78-80, 149-61; xxiii (1901), pp. 18-23; xxiv (1902), pp. 24-9, in which among other priceless records he gave many extracts from the Telloh texts, some entire texts, and much elucidation of the same. Special studies devoted to the subject are:H. de Genouillac’sTextes juridiques de l’époque d’Urin theRevue d’Assyriologie, 1911, pp. 1-32;H. Deimel’sStudien zu C. T., I, III, V, VII, IX, X, in theZeitschrift für Assyriologie, 1911, pp. 328-45;Sátilla, textes juridiques de la seconde dynastie d’OurinBabyloniaca, iii, 1910, pp. 81-132, byF. Pelégaud, andDi-tilla, textes juridiques chaldéens de la seconde dynastie d’Our, byC. H. Virolleaud(Poitiers, A. Boutifard, 1903);Comptabilité chaldéenne, by the same author, same place and publisher, 1903, is a series of valuable essays.G. A. BartongaveA Babylonian Ledger Account of Reeds and Woodin theAmerican Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures, 1911, pp. 322-7, and in the same journal, 1912, pp. 207-10, another text of the same sort.
Tablets of the same period have been found by the thousand at Jokha, the ancient Umma, for centuries the hereditary foe of Telloh, and at Dréhem, which seems to have been a closely dependent city of the Nippur district. They have already found their way in large numbers to Europe and America.
Tablets from Jokha were first noticed byV. Scheilin hisNotes d’épigraphie et d’archéologie assyrienneinRecueil de Travaux, vol. xix, pp. 62-3, 1897, who showed that Jokha was Umma.Fr. Thureau-Danginin theRevue d’Assyriologie(viii), 1911, pp. 152-8, who deals withLes noms des mois sur les tablettes de Djokha, gives a number of these texts from the time of the Dynasties of Akkad and Ur.St. Langdonhas publishedA tablet from Umma in the Ashmolean Museum at Oxfordin theProceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology, 1913, pp. 47-52. In contents these are very similar to the tablets from Telloh or Dréhem, and seem to have been often confused with them by the dealers.
St. LangdonpublishedTablets from the Archives of Dréhem(Paris, Geuthner, 1912);L. Delaporte,Tablettes de Dréhem in Revue d’Assyriologie, 1911, pp. 183-98;P. Dhorme,Tablettes de Dréhem à Jérusalemin same journal, pp. 39-63;H. de Genouillac,Tablettes de Dréhem, publiées avec inventaire et tables.Musée du Louvre(Paris, Geuthner, 1911), andLa trouvaille de Dréhem, Étude avec un choix de textes de Constantinople et Bruxelles(Paris, Geuthner, 1911); see alsoSome Sumerian Contracts, bySt. Langdon, in theZeitschrift für Assyriologie, 1911, pp. 205-14. A useful summary isSome Published Texts from Dréhem, byI. M. Price, in theAmerican Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures, 1912, pp. 211-15.
Sumerian Administrative Documents from the Second Dynasty of Ur, from theTemple Archives of Nippur, vol. iii, part i of Series A, Cuneiform Texts, inPublications of the Babylonian Expedition of the University of Pennsylvania(Philadelphia, 1910), deals with closely related texts.
E. HuberwroteDie altbabylonischen Darlehenstexte aus der Nippur-Sammlung im K. O. Museum in Konstantinopelas a contribution to theHilprecht Anniversary Volume, pp. 189-222.V. Scheilin hisNotes d’épigraphiemade some entries about those Nippur texts which reached Constantinople, see p.78.
An allied text was given byP. Dhormein theJournal Asiatique, 1912, pp. 158-9, asUn brouillon d’inventaire.
The whole subject of these Temple Records is being studied byH. Torczyner, who has started withVorläufige BemerkungentoAltbabylonische Tempelrechnungen, umschrieben und erklärtin theAnzeiger der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien, 1910, pp. 136-40.
On the general scope and purpose of the Temple Records, see the article onBabylonian Book-keeping, byA. T. Clay, in theAmerican Journal of Archaeology, 1910, pp. 74 ff.
The very ancient texts from Telloh, usually called Pre-Sargonic, have been issued, besideThureau-Dangin’sRecueil de Tablettes chaldéennes, byAllotte de la FuÿeasDocuments présargoniques(Paris, E. Leroux, 1908, 1909).Sumerian Tablets in the Harvard Semitic Museumwas begun, byMary Ida Hussey, with part 1 in 1912.Two Tablets of the Period of Lugalandawere published bySt. LangdoninBabyloniaca, 1911, pp. 246-7. Much the most useful publication, however, isTablettes sumériennes archaïques, byH. de Genouillac(Paris, Geuthner, 1909), which gives not only texts, but transcriptions and such translation as is possible, and also an admirable account of all they imply, as to law and custom. A considerable amount of this is strikingly like the later laws. InThe Amherst Tablets(London, Quaritch, 1908),T. G. Pinchespublished a few more. The bulk of them still await publication.
Ancient Bullae and Seals of ShirpurlabyN. P. Likhatscheff, published in theImperial Russian Archaeological Society’s Classical Section IV, pp. 225-63, 1907, written in Russian, gives a number of similar tablets.Oriental Antiquities, byM. V. Nikolsky, in theOriental Commission of the Imperial Moscow Archaeological Society, iii, Series 2, 1908, has over 300 such texts. These appear to belong to the same period.
Some valuable discussions will be found inÉtat des décès survenus dans le personnel de la déesse Bau sous le règne d’Urukagina, byAllotte de la Fuÿe, in theRevue d’Assyriologie, 1910, pp. 139-46.
In hisRecueil de Tablettes chaldéennes(Paris, E. Leroux, 1903)Fr. Thureau-Dangingave as his third series a number of texts of the Sargonic period, dated in the reigns of Shargani-shar-ali and Naram-Sin. A number more are published or described in theInventaire des tablettes de Tello conservées au Musée Impérial Ottoman, Tome I, byThureau-Dangin, 1910, and Tome II, byH. de Genouillac, 1911, and several other collections are to be published shortly.
The very early texts from the ancient Shuruppak which have reached the Louvre were published byThureau-Danginin hisRecueilnamed above, and in theRevue d’Assyriologie, vi (1904), pp. 143-54, he wroteContrats archaïques provenant de Shuruppak, with the intention of deciphering and explaining them as far as possible.
Many texts published in the above collections of Temple Accounts are bonds, deeds of sale, even legal decisions, &c., and really come under the head of contracts. But even among the collections of contracts some accounts have been published, and it is scarcely necessary here to quote the same book under both heads.
Curiously enough the first contracts to attract attention were of an early date.Loftusfound at Senkereh a number of most interesting case-tablets, the principal document being invariably enclosed in a clay envelope which, as was subsequently discovered, was inscribed with an abstract or practical duplicate of the principal document. Many speculations arose as to their purpose. Some regarded them as a substitute for money, or cheques, banknotes in clay (soLayardin 1853), and other weird guesses.George Smithfirst recognized their meaning and value for history by publishing their dates, the names which the Babylonians gave to the years, calling them after some prominent event.
Discovered in 1854, they were first published in 1882 byJ. N. Strassmaier. Owing to some misapprehension, as given inLayard’sNineveh and Babylon, p. 496, despite the clear statement on pp. 270-72 ofLoftus,Travels and Researches in Chaldea and Susiana, they were calledDie altbabylonischen Verträge aus Warkain theBeilageto theVerhandlungen des V. internationalen Orientalistischen Congresses zu Berlin, 1881. They were accompanied by a list of words and names.E.andV. Revilloutdiscussed them most interestingly inUne Famille de commerçants de Warka. They proved to be of the time of Hammurabi and his son Samsu-iluna after these kings had expelled Rîm-Sin from the South of Babylonia. But there were several dated in the reign of Rîm-Sin, and in those of Sin-idinnam and Nûr-adad, kings who had preceded him. Thus they showed how, despite changes of dynasty, the civil life of the subjectpopulation went on undisturbed, and customs changed but little. They show how closely the Code pictures the daily life of the people. As most illustrative of the Code, constituting a contemporary commentary on its regulations and consisting chiefly of examples of the same cases as there considered, we may here group in order of publication the collections from the First Dynasty of Babylon.
Inscribed Babylonian Tablets in the possession of Sir Henry Peek, Bart., 1888, contained a few texts of this period, copied, transcribed, and translated byT. G. Pinches. This made considerable advances, but there was not yet enough material to solve many obscurities. These tablets came from Sippara.
It was evident that the only hope of understanding such technical documents lay in the publication of further material, so that by comparison of similar passages some information could be obtained as to alternative readings and phrases.
In 1893 a great advance was made byMeissnerwith hisBeiträge zum altbabylonischen Privatrecht(Leipzig, Hinrichs), which gave a full transliteration and translation of 111 texts, all carefully published in autography. Full notes and invaluable comments made this a standard work. The texts were chiefly from tablets found at Sippara, and stored in the British Museum, and at Berlin where a large quantity had been purchased.Meissneralso reproduced some of the Warka texts.
In the fourth volume ofSchrader’sKeilinschriftliche Bibliothek, 1896,F. E. Peisergave a collection of contract texts in transcription and translation, arranged in chronological order. He included thirty-one texts of this period (Berlin, Reuther and Reichard). These were calledTexte juristischen und geschäftlichen Inhalts, and marked a further advance in treatment. In this year also began the great series of publications calledCuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets, &c., in the British Museum, printed by order of the Trustees. Vols. ii, iv, vi, and viii (1896, 1897, 1898, 1899), contain copies of no fewer than 395 texts mostly of this period, a most valuable addition to our knowledge of the subject. They were from the practised hand ofT. G. Pinches, who gave in theJournal of the Royal Asiatic Society, 1897 and 1899, some transliterations and translations with notes and comments on fifteen of them. They were all Sippara tablets.
In 1902 appearedUne saison de fouilles à Sippar(Le Caire, Institut Français), in whichV. Scheilgave an account of his explorations at Abu Habba, the ancient Sippara, in 1892-1893, and many texts in a preliminary form, with transcription, translation, and comments, thus making known a most valuable supplement to the earlier publications of First Dynasty tablets.
In 1906Th. Friedrichpublished in theBeiträge zur Assyriologie, vol. v, a number of texts from the tablets found byScheilat Sippara, and then preserved in the Museum at Constantinople, asAltbabylonischeUrkunden aus Sippara(Leipzig, Hinrichs), which completedScheil’swork in many ways.
In 1906,A. H. RankepublishedBabylonian Legal and Business Documents from the time of the First Babylonian Dynasty, as vol. vi, part 1, of the Series A, Cuneiform Texts, of thePublications of the Babylonian Expedition of the University of Pennsylvania(Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania). They probably all came from Sippara, though two may be from Babylon, unless the king was then holding Court in Sippara.
In 1908J. É. Gautiergave usArchives d’une famille de Dilbat au temps de la Première Dynastie de Babylon(Le Caire, Institut Français), with transcriptions and translations of sixty-six tablets from a new site, which the contents of the texts certainly prove to be that of the ancient city of Dilbat. The work was well done, but needed revision by fresh material.
About this time native diggers brought to light fresh material from several new sites. Especially valuable were the texts from Kish, Larsa, Opis, Babylon, and Shittab. These were eagerly acquired by the various Museums, and shortly gave rise to a crop of fresh publications.
In 1909 cameBabylonian Legal and Business Documents from the time of the First Dynasty of Babylon, byA. Poebel, being vol. vi, part 2, of Series A, Cuneiform Texts, of thePublications of the Babylonian Expedition of the University of Pennsylvania(Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania). Again a fresh site, the ancient Nippur, yielded its contribution. Here most of the tablets exhibit the old Sumerian phraseology.
A. Ungnadpublished, in 1909, a large number of texts from tablets in the Berlin Museum, acquired at various dates. They appeared as vols. vii, viii, ix of theVorderasiatische Denkmäler(Leipzig, Hinrichs). Most of them undoubtedly came from Sippara; one from Der-ez-Zor, near the Chabour, and those in vol. vii from Dilbat, apparently the modern Delam. Thus we can again compare contemporary documents from a fresh site, which proves to have been influenced by other peoples, the Mitanni, Elamites, &c. InUrkunden aus Dilbat, vol. vi, part 5, of theBeiträge zur Assyriologie(Leipzig, Hinrichs, 1909),A. Ungnadtranscribes, translates, and comments upon the large collection of letters and contracts which had been published from Dilbat. His works brought a large amount of most valuable information for the period.
In 1910Thureau-DanginissuedLettres et contrats de l’époque de la Première dynastie babylonienne(Paris, Geuthner), a most valuable work for its indexes, as well as the interesting texts. A long and extremely fine text was also given by him asUn jugement sous Ammiditana, inRevue d’Assyriologie, 1910, pp. 121-7. Here were texts from Sippara, Babylon, Dilbat, Kish, and possibly Shittab, as well as some more from Der-ez-Zor. In theRevue d’Assyriologie, 1911, pp. 68-79,Thureau-DanginpublishedSept contratsof the reigns of the kings of Kish, who were contemporary with the foundation of the First Dynasty and themselves Amorites.St. Langdonpublished several more of theseTablets from Kishin theProceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology, 1911, pp. 185-96, and in the same journal for 1912, pp. 109-13, gave elevenContracts from Larsa.
C. E. KeiserpublishedTags and Labels from NippurinThe Museum Journal of Philadelphia, vol. iii, no. 2, pp. 29-31. These closely related documents form a borderland between contracts and accounts.
These contracts are so much more important for the elucidation of the Code than any later documents that we may now notice the chief discussions of them.
Not much of this class of documents has yet come to light for the Third or Kassite Dynasty of Babylon.A. T. Claygave us vols. xiv, xv of thePublications of the Babylonian Expedition of the University of Pennsylvania(Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania, 1906), entitledDocuments from the Temple Archives of Nippur, dated in the Reigns of Cassite Rulers. They showed how the old customs were preserved and modified with fresh immigrations. These were followed in 1912 byDocuments from the Temple Archives of Nippur, dated in the Reigns of Cassite Rulers, the Museum Publications of the Babylonian Section, vol. ii, no. 2 (Philadelphia Museum), completing the collections. Some of the same sort from Nippur, in theE. A. Hoffmanncollection in the Metropolitan Museum in New York, were noted inRadau’sEarly Babylonian History, pp. 328-9 (New York, 1900).
F. E. Peiser, in 1905, had publishedUrkunden aus der Zeit der dritten babylonischen Dynastie in Urschrift, Umschrift und Übersetzung, dazu Rechtsausführungen von J. Kohler(Berlin, Wolf Peiser). These appear to have belonged to a family of Babylonians, some of whom adopted Cassite names. More of the same group found their way to the Berlin Museums, and more are in private hands and in the Louvre.
C. J. Ballcontributed to theProceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeologyfor 1907, pp. 273-4,A Kassite Text.
D. D. Luckenbillin theAmerican Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures, 1907, pp. 280-322, gave a most valuableStudy of the Temple Documents from the Cassite Period.
The scarcity of legal documents from this period may be estimated from the fact that inTexte juristischen und geschäftlichen Inhalts(see p.81, above) only the so-called boundary-stones could be quoted.
It is in the Third Dynasty of Babylon that the Boundary-Stone or Kudurru inscriptions first appear. These have been much discussed, especially from the side of the curious symbols which occur upon them, often regarded as signs of the Zodiac, or emblems of the gods.
In theBeiträge zur Assyriologie, vol. ii, pp. 111-204, a number of such texts were published and partly discussed byC. Belser, asBabylonische Kudurru-Inschriften.Peiserincorporated some in the fourth volume ofSchrader’sKeilinschriftliche Bibliothek.W. J. Hinkegave in 1907, asvol. iv of Series D of thePublications of the Babylonian Expedition of the University of Pennsylvania(Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania),A New Boundary-Stone of Nebuchadrezzar I from Nippur, in which he also gave a full bibliography of the subject, collected names, words, &c., from all the texts of the sort hitherto published, and discussed the symbols. InBabylonian Boundary-stones and Memorial Tablets in the British Museum, with an Atlas of Plates(London, British Museum, 1912),L. W. Kinggave the whole of the British Museum material. In 1911Hinkecontributed to theSemitic Study Series(Leiden, E. J. Brill), a useful collection inSelected Babylonian Kudurru Inscriptions. Many such inscriptions are published byV. Scheilwith transcriptions and translations inMémoires de la Délégation en Perse(Paris, E. Leroux), vols. ii, pp. 86-94, 97-116; vi, pp. 30-47; vii, 137-53; x, 87-96.F. SteinmetzercontributedEine Schenkungsurkunde des Königs Melishichuto theBeiträge zur Assyriologie, vol. viii, pp. 1-38.
Hinkegives an excellent bibliography of the Babyloniankudurruinscriptions, their publications, transliterations, translations, and discussions. Some are of the nature ofFreibriefe, andMeissnerso treated one in theZeitschrift für Assyriologie, 1889, pp. 259-67, cf. pp. 403-4. He also wroteAssyrische Freibriefein theBeiträge zur AssyriologieII. (1894), pp. 565-72, 581-8, giving text, transliteration, translation, and discussion of three examples from the reign of Ashurbanipal and one of Adad-nirari. In myAssyrian Deeds and Documents(Cambridge, Deighton, Bell & Co., 1902), nos. 646, 647, 648, and 651, I republished these texts and added nos. 649, 650, two texts of Ashur-etil-ilâni, son and successor of Ashurbanipal, nos. 652, 653, 654, 655, 656 (= 808 in vol. ii) of Adad-nirari, nos. 657, 658 (dated inB. C.730), 659 (names Tiglath-Pileser), 660 (now joined to other fragments as 809, an important grant by Sargon II in connexion with the site of Dur-Sargon), 661, 662(?), 663, and possibly also nos. 669, 671, 672, 673, 674 (see now no. 1101), 692 (now part of 807), 714 (now part of 809), and in vol. ii, nos. 734, 735, 736, 737, 738(?), 739, 740(?), 741(?), on to 752, all possible fragments of similar proclamations,Freibriefe, charters, or the schedules to them. I have collected the references here, as the texts seem to have met with insufficient attention.Wincklerhad published parts of some of them in hisAltorientalische Forschungen(Leipzig, E. Pfeiffer, 1898), vol. ii, pp. 4-8, and assigned the Ashur-etil-ilâni texts to Esarhaddon’s reign, and in the note on p. 192 to Sin-shar-ishkun.F. E. Peisermade some acute suggestions as to the readings of the text and their meanings.
On no. 809Meissnerwrote a full discussion in theMitteilungen der Vorderasiatischen Gesellschaft, 1903, pp. 85-96.
In 1883H. V. HilprechtpublishedFreibrief Nebukadnezar’s I.(Leipzig, Hinrichs), with great advances on the previous treatment, and published others inOld Babylonian Inscriptions, vol. i, part 1 (1893), nos. 80, 83, part 2 (1896), nos. 149, 150. In 1891K. L. Tallqvistwrote onBabylonische Schenkungsbriefe(Helsingfors). In theBeiträge zur Assyriologie, 1894, pp. 258-73,Fr. Delitzschpublished and admirably treatedDer Berliner Merodachbaladan-Stein.
Ed. CuqinLa Propriété foncière en Chaldéegave a new view of the meaning of these documents and the significance of their first appearing in the Kassite period. It will be seen from the titles given in the above works that no complete unanimity prevails as to their nature and purpose.
We may now turn back to the class of texts usually called contracts.
The Assyrian empire has not yielded much of this class of document, before the time of Sargon II,B.C.785-722. A number of texts have been reported in theMitteilungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft zu Berlinas found at Asshur by the German excavators there, which date from times both early and late. The publication of these texts will doubtless soon be achieved and add greatly to our knowledge. The treatment in Assyria seems to be largely reminiscent of that of Babylonia under the First Dynasty, but there are wide divergences doubtless due to the foreign elements in the Assyrian population. We are not yet possessed of sufficient material to assign the changes to their true causes, but we know enough to be sure that they were not on the whole due to contemporary developments in Babylonia.
InAssyrian Deeds and Documents relating to the transfer of Property, in three volumes, byC. H. W. Johns, published in 1898-1901 (Deighton, Bell & Co., Cambridge, 3 vols.), practically all the material of this class in the British Museum then catalogued was edited. These tablets apparently all came from Nineveh. There are now many more similar tablets in the British Museum listed in theSupplement to the Catalogue. Recently inAssyrische Rechtsurkunden von J. Kohler und A. Ungnad(Leipzig, Ed. Pfeiffer, 1913), a series of transliterations and translations have been commenced which will form a key to the whole, including many other texts since published.
It was on these texts thatJ. Oppertformed his views given inDas Assyrische Landrecht, and inLe droit de retrait lignager à Ninive, see p.72.
V. Scheilpublished in hisNotes d’épigraphiein theRecueil de Travaux, xx, note xl (1898), pp. 202-5, four tablets which possibly did not come from Nineveh. I republished the texts as nos. 779-82 in myDeeds and Documentsabove. The first is discussed byMeissnerasEine assyrische Schenkungsurkundein theMitteilungen der Vorderasiatischen Gesellschaft, 1903, pp. 103-5, where he points out that my no. 619 is another like text. Here Adi-mati-ilu and other property were given to a son who was to take a double portion and divide the rest with his brothers.
F. E. Peiserin theOrientalistische Litteraturzeitung, 1905, cols. 130-4, gaveEin neuer assyrischer Kontrakt,V. Scheilin the same journal for 1904, col. 70, and in theRecueil de Travaux, xxiv, note lxii, p. 24, pointed out others, while inVorderasiatische Schriftdenkmäler, vol. i,nos. 84-111,A. Ungnadpublished several more from Kannu’ and Kerkûk.S. Schifferdiscussed many of these asKeilschriftliche Spuren der in der zweiten Hälfte des 8.Jahrhunderts von den Assyrern nach Mesopotamien deportierten Samarier, a Beiheft to Orientalistische Litteraturzeitung(Berlin, W. Peiser, 1907), with which may be compared an article in theProceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology, 1908, pp. 107-15, 137-41, onThe Lost Ten Tribes of Israel, byC. H. W. Johns. In an articleAus dem Louvre,F. E. Peiserpublished in theOrientalistische Litteraturzeitung, 1903, cols. 192-200, a new collation of no. 1,141 in myDeeds and Documents, which had been formerly treated byPlace,Oppert, andStrassmaier; and an edition of another text of this class. The newSupplement to the Catalogue of the Tablets in the Kouyunjik Collection in the British Museum, byL. W. King(London, British Museum, 1914), shows that many more such texts await publication, and there are others in the Museums in England and America.
This class of document was early known for the times of the Neo-babylonian Empire, and thousands of the so-called contracts have been published down to the century before the Christian era.
J. Oppertbegan the task of publishing and deciphering contracts, for which his legal training as well as his philological learning especially fitted him. His work may be gathered from the bibliography in the second volume of theBeiträge zur Assyriologie, pp. 523-56. His great effort wasDocuments juridiques de l’Assyrie et de la Chaldée(Paris, Maisonneuve, 1877), but he continued to deal with contracts up to his death. Here as elsewhere comparison of fresh material continually brought new light.
A number of such tablets were copied byT. G. Pinches(?) for the fifth volume ofInscriptions of Western Asia(London, British Museum, 1909, plates lxvii, lxviii), on whichOppertbuilt his determination of Babylonian measures.J. N. Strassmaier, in 1855, publishedDie babylonischen Inschriften im Museum zu Liverpool nebst anderen aus der Zeit von Nebukadnezar bis Darius(Leiden, J. Brill).
The tablets in the British Museum from Sippara, Babylon, Borsippa, &c., dated in the reigns of Nebuchadrezzar, Nabopolassar, Evil-Merodach, Neriglissar, Nabonidus, Cyrus, Cambyses, and Darius, were also edited byJ. N. StrassmaierasBabylonische Texte, Inschriften von den Thontafeln des British Museums copiert und autographiert, in twelve volumes (Leipzig, 1887-1897). On the mass of material thus rendered available to scholars were based a very large number of memoirs and monographs which may be arranged here.K. L. Tallqvist, in 1890, publishedDie Sprache der Contracte Nabû-nâ’id’s(Helsingfors, J. C. Frenckell), in which he collected all the words and phrases occurring in these texts, with useful indexes.R. ZehnpfundgaveBabylonische Weberrechnungenin theBeiträge zur Assyriologie, i, pp. 492ff. (1890):L. Demuth,Fünfzig Rechts-und Verwaltungsurkunden aus der Zeit des Königs Kyros, in the same journal,vol. iii, pp. 393-444 (1898);E. Ziemer,Fünfzig Rechts-und Verwaltungsurkunden aus der Zeit des Königs Kambyses, same volume, pp. 445-92;V. Marx,Die Stellung der Frauen in Babylonien gemäss den Kontrakten aus der Zeit von Nebukadnezar bis Darius, same journal, vol. iv, pp. 1-77, 1902; andE. Kotalla,Fünfzig babylonische Rechts-und Verwaltungsurkunden aus der Zeit des Königs Artaxerxes I, same volume, pp. 551-74.Fr. DelitzschcontributedNotizen zu den neubabylonischen Kontrakttafeln, same journal, vol. iii, pp. 385-92 (1898), andJ. Kohler,Ein Beitrag zum neubabylonischen Recht, vol. iv, pp. 423-30.F. E. Peiser, in 1889, publishedKeilinschriftliche Actenstücke aus babylonischen Städten(Berlin, W. Peiser), and, in 1890,Babylonische Verträge des Berliner Museums(Berlin, W. Peiser). This marked great advances onOppert’swork, owing toStrassmaier’snew material and the Berlin collections. He next contributed a selection of transliterations and translations to the fourth volume ofSchrader’sKeilinschriftliche Bibliothek(1896), p. 81, above. Then from 1890-1898 appearedAus dem babylonischen Rechtsleben(Leipzig, Pfeiffer), in conjunction withJ. Kohler, containing many new texts.A. B. Moldenke, in 1893, published for the Metropolitan Museum at New York a volume ofCuneiform Texts, all of this period. In 1890 appearedRecherches sur quelques contrats babyloniens, byA. Boissier(Paris, E. Leroux).
In theZeitschrift für Assyriologie(Weimar, E. Felber, 1894)Y. le GacpublishedQuelques inscriptions assyro-babyloniennes du Musée Lycklama à Cannes, pp. 385-90, and inBabyloniaca(Paris, P. Geuthner, 1910),Textes babyloniens de la Collection Lycklama à Cannes, pp. 33-72. In 1902T. G. Pinchescontributed to theVerhandlungen des XIII.Orientalistischen CongressessomeNotes on a Small Collection of Tablets from the Birs Nimroud belonging to Lord Amherst of Hackney.
In vols. III-VI of theVorderasiatische Schriftdenkmäler(1907-1908),A. Ungnadpublished many texts of this period, and gave later some valuableUntersuchungenon the same,Aus der altbabylonischen Kontrakt-literatur, to theOrientalistische Litteraturzeitung, 1912, cols. 106-8.
A new source for this material was the finds at Nippur, printed inThe Publications of the Babylonian Expedition of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Series A.Cuneiform Texts, vol. viii, part 1 containedLegal and Commercial Transactions from the Neo-babylonian Empire to Darius II, byA. T. Clay, 1908; vols. ix and x, by the same author, containedBusiness Documents of Murashû Sons of Nippur in the reign of Artaxerxes I(1898), andBusiness Documents in the reign of Darius II(1904). A new series has since been commenced.
The Museum Publications of the Babylonian Section of the University of Pennsylvania(Philadelphia Museum), vol. ii, no. 1, givesBusiness Documents of Murashû Sons of Nippur, byA. T. Clay(1912), and vol. ii, no. 2,Documents from the Temple Archives at Nippur, by the same author (1912).
Selected Business Documents of the Neo-Babylonian Periodin theSemiticStudy Series, byA. Ungnad(Leiden, Brill, 1908), forms a useful introduction to the subject.
In 1911 appearedHundert ausgewählte Rechtsurkunden aus der Spätzeit des babylonischen Schrifltums von Xerxes bis Mithridates, 485-93 v. Chr., byA. UngnadandJ. Kohler(Leipzig, Pfeiffer), andI. L. Holtcontributed to theAmerican Journal of Semitic Languages and Literaturesa study ofsome Tablets from the R. C. Thompson Collection in Haskell Oriental Museum, The University of Chicago.
Of considerable interest as in some senses a link between Babylonia and Palestine are the Cappadocian Tablets. The first notice of them was given byT. G. Pinchesin theProceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology, Nov. 1, 1881, pp. 11-18. Some tablets in the British Museum were acquired from a dealer who said they had been found in Cappadocia. The script was then quite unfamiliar, and they were supposed at first to be written in a language neither Sumerian nor Semitic.Golenischeffpublished in 1891 the text of twenty-four tablets of the same class which he had acquired at Kaisareyeh. He made out that many words were Assyrian and read many names.Fr. Delitzschmade a most valuable study of them in theAbhandlungen der philos.-hist. Classe der K. Sächs. Gesellschaft d. Wissenschaften, 1893, no. 11. In 1894P. Jensenin theZeitschrift für Assyriologie, vol. ix, pp. 62-81, made many corrections and additions.F. E. Peiserthen discussed them in his introduction to the fourth volume ofSchrader’sKeilinschriftliche Bibliothek, and gave the transcription and translation of the texts of nine, pp. 50-56. A considerable number more were discovered at Boghaz Köi, Kara Eyuk, and elsewhere, and published byV. Scheilin theMémoires de la Mission en Cappadoce, and commented upon byA. Boissierin theProceedings of the Society for Biblical Archaeology, 1900, pp. 106 ff. Four Cappadocian tablets were published byThureau-Danginamong hisLettres et Contrats, see p.82, above.
InBabyloniaca, 1908, pp. 1-45,A. H. Saycetranslated the Golenischeff texts, and others published by Chantre, or found by Ramsay, &c.
T. G. PincheswithA. H. Saycepublished and discussedThe Cappadocian Tablet from Yuzghat in the Liverpool Institute of Archaeology, 1906.
In 1908T. G. Pinchespublished twenty more in theAnnals of Archaeology of the Liverpool University, vol. i, pp. 49-80. In theFlorilegium de Vogüé, pp. 591-k,Thureau-DangindiscussedUn acte de répudiation sur une tablette cappadocienne, 1909, and in theRevue d’Assyriologie, 1911, pp. 142-51, gave more texts fixingLa date des tablettes cappadociennesas contemporary with theDynasty of Urin Babylonia, thus proving cuneiform to have been widely used in that region to write a Semitic language long before the time of Hammurabi. InBabyloniaca, 1911, pp. 65-80,A. H. Saycegave someCappadocian Cuneiform Tablets from Kara Eyuk, affiliating them with early Assyrian rulers. In the same journal, 1911, pp. 216-28,A. Boissiergave more texts under thetitleNouveaux documents de Boghaz Köi. In the same journal, 1912, pp. 182-93,A. H. Saycewrote uponThe Cappadocian Cuneiform Tablets of the University of Pennsylvania.
All these works have contributed comments of more or less value, and the whole point to a close connexion with Babylonia and Assyria, and the extended use of cuneiform in Cappadocia from very early times, whence it was doubtless taken over by the later Hittites.
A very large number of letters have been preserved to us from all periods of Babylonian and Assyrian history. Many of them are addressed to private correspondents, and concern matters of everyday life. They are often most obscure, as they assume so much knowledge on the part of the recipient which is withheld from us. Where we can grasp their reference they furnish considerable light upon social conditions.
A large number, however, are royal letters or dispatches from the king and his officers to subordinates, orvice versa. These more often concern public affairs.
As yet few letters have come down to us which we can date before the First Dynasty of Babylon, but some will be found in theInventaire des tablettes de Tello(see p.80), and among the various publications of Temple accounts and contracts, as early as the times of Sargon of Akkad.
In theBeiträge zur Assyriologie, vol. ii, pp. 557-64, 572-9,MeissnerpublishedAltbabylonische Briefe(1893), with discussions.
In the times of Hammurabi, or the First Dynasty of Babylon, our sources for epistolary correspondence become very ample.L. W. Kingin his magnificent work,The Letters and Inscriptions of Hammurabi, King of Babylon, aboutB. C.2200; to which is added a series of letters of other Kings of the First Dynasty of Babylon(vol. i,Introduction and Babylonian Texts; vol. ii,Babylonian Texts, continued; vol. iii,English Translation, Commentary, Vocabularies, Introduction, etc., London, Luzac & Co., 1898), gave a complete edition of these letters. The materials for history and social life were epoch-making. In theBeiträge zur AssyriologieG. Nageltranslated a number of these texts,Briefe Hammurabi’s an Sin-iddinam, vol. iv, pp. 434-83, to whichFr. DelitzschaddedZusatzbemerkungen, pp. 483-500. He, withJ. A. Knudtzon, wrote on the same subject, vol. iv, pp. 88-100.M. W. MontgomerytookBriefe aus der Zeit des babylonischen Königs Hammurabias subject for her doctor’s dissertation (Leipzig, Pries, 1901).A. KlostermannpublishedEin diplomatischer Briefwechsel aus dem 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr.(Leipzig, Deichert, 1903).C. V. GelderencontributedAusgewählte babylonisch-assyrische Briefeto theBeiträge zur Assyriologie, iv, 1902, pp. 501-45. Another great collection was published byThureau-DangininLettres et contrats de l’époque de la première dynastie babylonienne(Paris, P. Geuthner, 1910). The authortransliterated, translated, and commented upon three of these texts asLettres de l’époque de la première dynastie babylonienneinThe Hilprecht Anniversary Volume, pp. 156-63.
Les Lettres de Hammurapi à Sin-idinnam, transcription, traduction et commentaire, précédées d’une étude sur deux caractères du style assyro-babylonien, byF. C. Jean(Paris, J. Gabalda, 1913), gives an idea of the subject.
P. S. Landersdorfer, in 1908, had editedAltbabylonische Privatbriefe, transkribiert, übersetzt und kommentiert, nebst einer Einleitung und 4 Registern(Paderborn, Schöningh), andG. A. Bartongave an articleOn an old Babylonian Letter addressed to Lushtamarin theJournal of the American Oriental Society, pp. 220-22.
A. Schollmeyerwrote onAltbabylonische PrivatbriefeinBabyloniaca, vi, pp. 57-64, 1912, and in 1911 publishedNeuveröffentlichte altbabylonische Briefe und ihre Bedeutung für die Kultur des Orients: Sechs Vorträge vor der Hildesheimer Generalversammlung(Köln, P. Bachem).
E. Ebelingcontributed to theRevue d’Assyriologie, 1913, pp. 15 ff., 105-56, articles onAltbabylonische Briefe.The First Letter of Rîm-Sin, King of Larsa, was published bySt. Langdonin theProceedings of the Society for Biblical Archaeology, 1911, pp. 221-2.
The period of the Third or Kassite Dynasty has not yet yielded much.
H. Radaumade as much as possible out of a number of fragments found at Nippur in vol. xvii, 1 of Series A ofThe Publications of the Babylonian Expedition of the University of PennsylvaniacalledLetters to Cassite Kings from the Temple Archives of Nippur(1908).
Very little more is known of Epistolary Literature till we reach the Sargonide Dynasty in Assyria. With the Library of Ashurbanipal at Nineveh were found a large number of letters and dispatches, alike royal, public and private, Assyrian and Neo-babylonian, which early attracted notice.S. A. Smithpublished a number from the collections in the British Museum in hisAssyrian Letters from the Royal Library at Nineveh, transcribed, translated, and explained(Leipzig, Pfeiffer, 1887-1888), and inMiscellaneous Assyrian Texts of the British Museum with Textual Notes(Leipzig, Pfeiffer, 1887), besides a series of articles in theProceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeologyfor 1887-1888 calledAssyrian Letters.
The present writer dealt withSennacherib’s Letters to his Father Sargon, in theProceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology, 1895, pp. 220-39.Fr. Delitzschin theBeiträge zur Assyriologie, vol. i, pp. 185-248, 613-31, and vol. ii, pp. 19-62, under the titleZur assyrisch-babylonischen Briefliteratur, laid deep the foundations of the study of letters, editing many fresh texts (1890-1894).H. Wincklerpublished a large number of letters in hisSammlung von Keilschrifttexten(Leipzig, Pfeiffer, 1894).T. G. PinchespublishedZwei assyrische Briefe(Leipzig, Pfeiffer, 1887).
R. F. Harperhas continued to edit theAssyrian and Babylonian Letters belonging to the Kouyunjik Collections of the British Museum, vol. i, 1892; vol. ii, 1893; vol. iii, 1896; vol. iv, 1896; vol. v, 1900; vol. vi, 1902;vol. vii, 1902; vol. viii, 1902; vol. ix, 1909; vol. x, 1911; vol. xi, 1911; vol. xii, 1913; vol. xiii, 1913 (Chicago University Press; Luzac & Co., London), which will contain all the British Museum collections from Nineveh. These copies have been made with the greatest care, and constitute the chief source of this material up to the present time. Numerous works have been built upon them as foundation.Christopher Johnstonwrote onThe Epistolary Literature of the Assyrians and Babylonians(Baltimore, 1898), reprinted fromJournal of the American Oriental Society.E. Behrenspublished in 1906 hisAssyrisch-babylonische Briefe kultischen Inhalts aus der Sargonidenzeit(Leipzig, Pries, 1905).Lehmann-HauptgaveZwei unveröffentlichte KeilschrifttexteinHilprecht Anniversary Volume(1909), pp. 256-8.
In 1910 cameM. Zeitlin’sLe style administratif chez les Assyriens; choix de lettres assyriennes et babyloniennes, transcrites, traduites et accompagnées de notes(Paris, Geuthner). In theZeitschrift für AssyriologieC. BezoldgaveZwei assyrische Berichte(vol. xxvi, 1912, p. 114-25).
In 1911,E. G. KlauberwroteZur babylonisch-assyrischen BriefliteraturinBabyloniaca, iv, pp. 180-86; and in 1912Zur Politik und Kultur der Sargonidenzeit: Untersuchungen auf Grand der Brieftextein the January and July numbers of vol. xxviii of theAmerican Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures. In the January number of this volume also appearedL. Waterman’sTextual Notes on the Letters of the Sargon Period. A most valuable contribution to an obscure period of Ashurbanipal’s reign was made byH. H. Figulla,Der Briefwechsel Bêlibni’s: Historische Urkunden aus der Zeit Asurbanipals, inMitteilungen der Vorderasiatischen Gesellschaft(Leipzig, Hinrichs, 1912).E. G. Klauber, in 1910, publishedAssyrisches Beamtentum nach Briefen aus der Sargonidenzeit(Leipzig, Hinrichs), and inDer alte Orient, xii, Heft 2,Keilschriftbriefe: Staat und Gesellschaft in der babylonisch-assyrischen Briefliteratur(Leipzig, Hinrichs, 1911).V. Scheilunder the titleDiplomaticadealt with similar texts in theHilprecht Anniversary Volume, pp. 873 ff.