Part 17 (2/2)
(Here follow the names of ten witnesses.)
”Year of ama and Rimmon.”
Sometimes the even tenor of early Babylonian life was interrupted by a lawsuit on the part of a relative (often one who ought to have known better), and, though less of a family convulsion than a divorce, it must have been sufficiently annoying, especially when the plaintiff was one's own father. The following gives details of such a case-
”(Tablet concerning) one slave, her maid, whom Ayatia, her mother, left to ?ulaltum, her daughter, and ?ulaltum (on that account) supported Ayatia, her mother. And Sin-na?ir (was) husband of Ayatia. Ayatia left to her (?ulaltum), in the 20th year, that which was in the city Buzu, but there was no tablet (?) (doc.u.mentary evidence) concerning Ayatia's property.
After Ayatia died, Sin-na?ir brought an action against ?ulaltum on account of the maidservant, and Iarlim, scribe of the city of Sippar and the court (?) of Sippar, caused them to receive judgment. He declared him (Sin-na?ir) to be in the wrong. He is not again to bring action in the matter. (They have invoked) the spirit of ama, Merodach, and ?ammurabi.
Judgment of Iarlim; Awat-ama, the merchant; Itti-Bel-kinni; Bur-Sin; Gimil-bani. Month Adar, year of the ca.n.a.l Tiida-Ellilla.”
Many doc.u.ments of this kind exist, though people did not generally bring actions against their own (step-) daughters, as Sin-na?ir is recorded as having done. The ancient Babylonians were at all times, however, very keen in standing up for their own rights, and went to law on the slightest provocation. The following records a claim upon some property, and its issue, which was as unsuccessful as that translated above-
”Sin-eribam, son of Upe-rabi, laid claim to the house of umu-ra?, which is beside the house of Nidnu-a and beside the house (temple) of Allat; and they went before the judges, and the judges p.r.o.nounced judgment. And as for Sin-eribam, they declared him to be in the wrong, and made him deliver a doc.u.ment which could not be proceeded against. He shall not bring action, and Sin-eribam shall not again lay claim to the house of umu-ra?.
”They have invoked the spirit of ama, Zabium (the king), and the city of Sippar.”
It is noteworthy that the name of the first of the twelve witnesses attached to the doc.u.ment is Ya'kub-ilu, or Jacob-el, which is supposed to be connected with the name of the patriarch Jacob.
As in these days, many a man in those ancient times, for the better conducting of his business, would enter into partners.h.i.+p. As usual, all would go well for a time, but at last, in consequence of disagreements or disputes or some unpleasantness, they would decide to part. Several texts of this cla.s.s exist, of which the following is a typical example-
”?ili-Itar and Iribam-Sin made partners.h.i.+p, and, to dissolve it, they had a judge, and they went down to the temple of ama, and in the temple of ama the judge caused them to receive judgment. They give back their capital, and receive back their shares, 1 male-slave Lutamar-ama, with a chain (?), and 1 female-slave Lilimam, the share of Iribam-Sin; 1 male-slave Ibina-ilu, and 1 female-slave Am-anna-lamazi, the share of ?ili-Itar, they have received as their shares. In the temple of the Sun-G.o.d and the Moon-G.o.d they declared that they would treat each other well. One shall not bring action against the other, nor act hostilely towards him. There is no cause for action on the part of the one against the other. They have invoked the spirit of Nannara, ama, Merodach, Lugal-ki-uuna, and ?ammurabi the king.
”Before Utuki-emi, son of Awiatum; before Abil-Sin, son of Nannara-manum; before Sin-ere, the provost; before Ipu-ea, the _du-gab_; before amamubali?, the priest of Gula; before Nabi-Sin, son of Idin-Sin; before Sin-uzeli, son of ?ili-Itar; before Ubar-Sin, son of Sin-emi; before Sin-gimlanni, the attendant of the judges.
”He has impressed the seal of the contracting parties.
”Month Adar, year ?ammurabi the king made (images of) Itar and Nanaa.”(28)
Iribam-Sin, however, seems not to have been satisfied that he had been fairly dealt with, for notwithstanding that they were not to act hostilely towards each other, he immediately brought an action to get possession of property belonging to ?ili-Itar and his brothers, the result of which was the following declaration on the part of the latter-
”Concerning 1 AR, a dwelling-house, and 2 AR, a large enclosure, which ?ili-Istar and Awel-ili, his brother, sons of Ili-sukkalu, bought from Sin-mubali? and his brothers, sons of Pir?um. In the temple of the Sun-G.o.d ?ili-Itar said thus: 'I verily bought (it) with the money of my mother-it was not bought with the money that was ours in common. Iribam-Sin, son of Ubar-Sin, has no share in the house and large enclosure.'(29) He has invoked the spirit of the king.
”Before Utuki-emi, son of Awiatum; before Abil-Sin, son of Nannara-manum; before Sin-ere, the provost; before Sin-uzelli, son of Nur-ili; before Ipu-ea, the _du-gab_; before Nabi-Sin, son of Idin-Sin; before Ubar-Sin, son of Sin-emi, his father; before ama-mubali?, the priest of Gula; before Singimlanni, the attendant of the judges. They have impressed the seal of the parties.
”Month Adar, year of the (images of) Itar and Nanaa.”
The day of the month is not given, so that we are in doubt as to whether the second tablet preceded the first or followed it. In all probability the latter was the case, or else the two actions were simultaneous, and the fact that the witnesses and officials of the court are the same in both doc.u.ments speaks in favour of this.
In Babylonia, as in all the ancient East, there was the great blot upon their civilization which has not even at the present time, the dawn of the twentieth century, disappeared from the earth, namely, that of slavery.
Throughout the long ages over which Babylonian domestic literature extends, the student finds this to be always present, and one of the most striking examples is contained in the following doc.u.ment, which exhibits the blot with all its possible horrors-
<script>