Chapter V. Babylonia At The Time Of Abraham.
Much has been learnt, but there is still much to learn, concerning the early history of Babylonia.
During the period immediately preceding that of the dynasty of Babylon—the dynasty to which Amraphel (Ḫammurabi) belonged—there is a gap in the list of the kings, which fresh excavations alone can fill up. Before this gap the records, as far as we know them, are in the Akkadian language. After this gap they are in the Semitic-Babylonian tongue. To all appearance, troublous times had come upon Babylonia. The native rulers had been swept away by the Elamites, who, in their turn, had been driven out by the Semitic kings of Babylonia, but those Semitic kings were not Babylonians by origin, notwithstanding that the native scribes, who drew up the lists of kings, describe them as being a Babylonian dynasty.
The change may have been gradual, but it was great. Many of the small states which had existed at the time of Dungi, Bûr-Sin, Gimil-Sin, Ibi-Sin, and their predecessors had to all appearance passed away, and become part of the Babylonian Empire long before the dynasty of Babylon came to [pg 153] an end, though some at least were in existence in the time of the great conqueror Ḫammurabi. But the change was, as it would seem, not one of overlordship only—another change which had been gradually taking place was, by this, carried one step farther, namely, the Semiticizing of the country. Before the period of the dynasty of Babylon, the two races of Akkadians and Semitic Babylonians had been living side by side, the former (except in the kingdom of which Sippar was the capital) having the predominance, the records being written in the Akkadian language, and the kings bearing mainly Akkadian names, though there were, for the Semitic inhabitants, translations of those names. Translations of the inscriptions and legends, as well as the old Akkadian laws, probably did not (except in the Semitic kingdom of Agadé) exist.
How it came about is not known, but it is certain that, about 2200 years b.c., a purely Semitic dynasty occupied the throne of the chief ruler in Babylonia. The first king was Sumu-abi, who reigned 14 years. This monarch was followed by Sumu-la-ili and Zabû, 36 and 14 years respectively. Then come two rulers with Babylonian names—Abil-Sin and Sin-mubaliṭ, 18 years and 20 years. These are followed, in their turn, by Ḫammurabi (43), Samsu-iluna (38), Ebišum (25), Ammi-ṭitana (25), Ammi-zaduga (21), and Samsu-ṭitana (31 years). This dynasty, therefore, lasted about 28518 years, and with two exceptions, Abil-Sin and Sin-mubaliṭ, the names, though Semitic, are not Babylonian.
[pg 154]Yet it was called by Babylonians “the dynasty of Babylon!”
And this, in all probability, is correct. The dynasty must, on account of the name given to it, have come from that city, but was, at the same time, of foreign origin, its kings being descended from another dynasty which came from some other part of the Semitic world of that time. This is indicated by the following facts.
Three of the tablets of which we shall learn something more farther on, and which are preserved in the British Museum, have invocations of a personage, apparently a king, named Anmanila. The name of this ruler naturally recalls the Anman of the dynasty following that of Babylon—namely, the dynasty of Uru-ku; but the style of the writing of these three documents is not that of the later period, but of the beginning of the dynasty of Babylon, and there is, on that account, every probability that Anmanila was one of the predecessors of Sumu-abi, the first king of the dynasty of Babylon. It is, of course, possible that this ruler was simply a co-regent with one of the kings already known, like Immerum, who lived at the time of Sumu-la-îla, or Buntaḫun-îla,19 another associate with Sumu-la-îla on the throne, but there is a certain amount of improbability in this, as Anmanila is named alone, and not in connection with any other. Moreover, it is probable that, in the case of the two co-regents here mentioned, we have examples of sons associated with their father, and one replacing the other on account of the early death of his brother. Another ruler, probably of the period preceding that of the dynasty of Babylon, is Manamaltel, whose name [pg 155] is found on a tablet belonging to the Rev. Dr. J. P. Way, head-master of Rossall School, and it is noteworthy that one of the tablets bearing the name of Anmanila gives, among the witnesses, a certain Sumuentel,20 a name having the same termination as Manamaltel, a component which seems to have been common at this early period, and rare or non-existent later. Most, if not all, the above are foreign names.
The next question that arises is, what was the nationality of these rulers, who, though belonging to what was called “the dynasty of Babylon,” were not really of Babylonian origin?
The key to the matter is probably furnished by the following inscription of Ammi-ṭitana, the ninth king of the dynasty—
| “Ammi-ṭi(tana), | his(?) ... |
| the powerful king, | (in) a seat of gladness |
| king of Babylon, | he has made him sit. |
| king of Kiš, | |
| king of Šumer and (Akkad), | |
| king of the vast land of Amoria, | |
| am I; | its wall. |
| descendant | Asari-lu-duga (Merodach) |
| of Sumu-la-îli, | has revealed him as his worshipper— |
| eldest son21 | may his name be established |
| of Abēšu',22 am I, | in heaven and earth. |
| Obedient(?) (to) Bel | “(Inscription) of Bêl-ušallim, |
| the seat(?)” | son of ... -bi, the enchanter.” |
In this inscription, Ammi-ṭitana calls himself not only “king of Babylon,” and other important places in Babylonia, but “king of Amoria” (if the coining of a word for the district be allowed) also. Now, as we know from the Tel-el-Amarna tablets, Amurrū is [pg 156] the name that the Babylonians used for “the west,” which Assyriologists formerly read (on account of the polyphony of the Babylonian system of writing) Aḫarrū. In reality, however, this word, Amurrū, stands for the land of the Amorites, and the probability is, that the land of the Amorites belonged to the Babylonian Empire because it formed part of the original domain of the rulers of Babylonia at this time, who, if not of Amorite descent, may at least have had Amorite connections.
In any case, there is but little doubt that the population of Babylonia was very mixed 2000 years before Christ. As we know from the tablets, Amorites were, during this period, numerous in Babylonia, and the god whose name is written with the characters MARTU (a common group for Amurrū)—the fact is revealed by one of the tablets of late date published by Reisner—are to be read Amurrū, and the best translation is “the Amorite god,” whose name and worship seem to have been introduced into the Babylonian Pantheon at a much earlier date, and was known to the Akkadians under the name of Martu. It is noteworthy that, in the text in question (Mitteilungen aus den orientalischen Sammlungen, Heft. x. pl. 139, 147-81), the Akkadian Martu and Babylonian Amurrū is called “lord of the mountain,” probably because the country of the Amorites, especially when compared with Babylonia, is mountainous.
In addition to the god Amurrū, other deities of western origin appear in the inscriptions (generally in the names) from time to time. Thus we have Abdu-Ištara, interesting as giving an early form of the name Astarte (Ashtoreth), before it received the feminine termination; Ụsur-Malik, probably “protect, O Malik” (Moloch), Nabu-Malik, probably “Nebo is Malik” (Moloch), or “Nebo is king”; Ibi-Šân, probably “speak, O Shân,” which reminds the reader of Beth-Shean, the modern Beisan; and there are [pg 157] also, in all probability, other Amorite deities whom we cannot identify, on account of their names not occurring in other ancient literatures than the Babylonian. Ibaru, found in the name Arad-Ibari, “servant of Ibari,” Abâ, in the name Arad (Abdi)-Abâ, Alla, in the name Ur-Alla, “man of Alla” (though this is possibly a Babylonian [Akkadian] name), etc., are probably non-Babylonian, but not Amorite.
Besides the names of west Semitic deities, however, the names of west Semites themselves occur, and show that there was a considerable immigration in those ancient days into the country. Thus the word Amurrū, “the Amorite,” is exceedingly common, and one is not surprised to learn that, in consequence of the Amorites being so numerous, there was an Amorite district in the neighbourhood of Sippar. Other names of men which are apparently from the country spoken of are, Sar-îli, probably “prince of God,” and the same as Israel; Karanatum (probably for Qaranatum), which would seem to mean “she of the horned deity” (compare Uttatum, “he of the sun,” Sinnatum, “he of the moon”), and reminds us of Ashteroth Karnaim, “Ashteroth of the two horns,” the well-known site in Palestine. Besides these, we meet more than once with such names as Ya'kub, Jacob, with its longer form, Ya'kub-îlu, Jacob-el; and in like manner the name of Joseph and its longer form Joseph-el occur—Yasup and Yasup-îlu. Êsâ, the father of a man named Siteyatum, reminds us of Esau; Abdi-îli, “servant of God,” is the same as Abdeel; and Ya'zar-îlu, “God has helped” (compare Azrael), Yantin-îlu, “God has given” (compare Nethanel), with many others similar, receive illustration. In all probability, too, many of the bearers of names compounded with Addu (Hadad), Amurrū, and other names of deities naturalized in Babylonia, as well as some of the bearers of true Babylonian names, were, in reality, [pg 158] pure west Semites. Further examples will be found in the texts translated farther on, and the more noteworthy will be pointed out when they occur.
It will thus be seen that the population of Babylonia 2000 years before Christ had a considerable admixture of west Semites, many of whom would come under the designation of Amorites; besides other nationalities, such as Armenians or people of Aram-Naharaim (Mesopotamia)—at least two tablets refer exclusively to transactions between members of this northern race—Sutites, and Gutites, who were low-class people seemingly light-haired, “fair Gutian slaves” being in one place spoken of.
Life in Babylonia at this early period must have been exceedingly primitive, and differed considerably, as the East does even now, from what we in Europe are accustomed to. The city of which we can get the best idea, Sippar, the Sippara of the Greeks, generally regarded (though probably wrongly) as the Sepharvaim of the Bible, now represented by the mounds known as Abu-habbah, whence most of the early contract-tablets revealing to us the daily life of these ancient Babylonians came, was situated on the Euphrates, “the life of the land.” The name of this river is written, when phonetically rendered, by the characters Purattu (probably really pronounced Phuraththu), in Akkadian Pura-nunu, “the great water-channel,” often expressed (and then, of course, not phonetically) with characters meaning “the river of Sippar,” showing in what estimation the ancient Babylonians held both river and city. The mound of Abu-habbah is four miles from the river Euphrates, and situated, in reality, on the canal called Nahr-Malka, “the royal river,” which runs through it; but the tablets of the period of which we are now speaking refer not only to the city itself, but to the district all round from the Tigris on the east to the Euphrates on the west.
[pg 159]The following paragraph from Mr. Rassam's Asshur and the Land of Nimrod will give a fair idea of what this district is like:—
“It is most interesting to examine this canal (the Nahr-Malka) all the way between the Euphrates and the Tigris, as it shows the magnitude of the Babylonian agricultural industry in days gone by, when it irrigated hundreds of miles of rich alluvial soil. The remains of countless large and small watercourses, which intersect the country watered by those two branches23 of Nahr-Malka, are plainly seen even now. Vestiges of prodigious basins are also visible, wherein a surplus supply must have been kept for any emergency, especially when the water of the Euphrates falls low in summer.”
The digging of canals, which was an exceedingly important work in those days, as indeed it is now, was evidently very systematically done, and the king often, to all appearance, made a bid for increased popularity by digging an important new canal for irrigation purposes, to which his name was attached. Thus we find the work of Sumu-la-ilu, Sin-mubaliṭ, Ḫammurabi, Samsu-iluna, and other kings recorded and chosen as the event of the year to date by. This, with the rebuilding or new decoration of the temples and shrines, endeared the king to the people and the priesthood, ensuring for him the faithful service of both, and willing submission to his rule. Indeed, there is but little doubt that the presence of foreign rulers in the country was often due to their having made friends of the priestly classes, and afterwards of the people, in this way.
The Religious Element.
As may be judged from the specimens of Babylonian names already given, the inhabitants of this part of the world were exceedingly religious. In [pg 160] every city of the land there were great temples, each of which made its claim on the people who formed the congregation—in other words, the whole population. In the district of which we are at present treating—the tract where the majority of early contract-tablets were found, namely, Sippar—the chief objects of worship were the Sun-god Šamaš; his consort, the Moon-goddess, Aa; Bunene, a deity of whom but little is known; Anunitum, a goddess identified with Ištar or Venus; Addu or Rammanu (Hadad or Rimmon), and, in later times at least, among others, “the divine Daughters of Ê-babbarra.24” All these deities were worshipped in the temple of the place, called Ê-babbarra, “the (divinely) brilliant house,” the earthly abode of the god Šamaš and his companions. In addition to this great and celebrated temple, of such renown in later times that even Egyptians, sun-devotees in their own country, attended the services and made gifts, temples were erected to the other gods of Babylon, notably Sin, the Moon-god; to Merodach, the chief deity of Babylon; and likewise in all probability to Merodach's consort, Zer-panitum, who was worshipped along with him. There was probably hardly a town in ancient Babylonia and Assyria where one or more of these gods were not honoured—indeed, the sun had also another centre of worship, namely, Larsa, the Ellasar of Gen. xiv. 1, as well as less renowned shrines. Ištar was venerated at Erech along with Anu; Sin, the moon, under the name of Nannar, had a great and celebrated temple at Ur (generally regarded as Ur of the Chaldees), and also at Haran, the city of Abraham's sojourning; Nebo was worshipped at Borsippa; Nergal at Cuthah; Gula, goddess of healing, at Babylon; Ê-girsu (“the lord of Girsu”) at the city of Girsu, apparently a part of Lagaš; Êa and Tammuz at Eridu, etc.
[pg 161]In the province of which Sippar was capital, however, the people were more than usually religious, or else more records of their piety have come down to us. Numerous persons, more especially women, are described as devotees, or perhaps priestesses, of the Sun-god there, and sometimes similar devotees of Merodach are mentioned. Though we have no certain information, it is very probable that there were all over the country people dedicated to the various deities, “the gods of the land,” for what was customary in the district of Sippar (Sippar-Amnanu and Sippar-Ya'ruru) was in all probability equally so in the other provinces of the empire. From the earliest times the temples acquired and held large tracts of land, which the priests let to various people, agriculturists and others, to cultivate, a certain proportion of the produce being paid to them, added to the revenues of the temples, and passed into the treasury of the god. To this lucrative business of land-letting was added that of money-lending, and interest in the weaving-industry of the place, both of which increased enormously in later times. That the temples received from time to time rich gifts from the king, goes without saying, for the colophon-dates record many instances of this. Sumu-abu, for instance, rebuilt or restored the temples of the Lady of Isin, and the temple Ê-maḫ of Nannar (the Moon-god); Sumu-la-îla made a throne of gold and silver for the great shrine of Merodach; Abil-Sin seems to have given a similar object to the temple of the Sun at Babylon; Ḫammurabi restored or gave thrones to the temples of Zer-panitum, Ištar of Babylon, Nannar (the moon), and built a great shrine for Bel. Samsu-iluna, likewise, was not negligent of the gods, for it is related of him that he dedicated a bright shining mace (?) of gold and silver, the glory of the temple, to Merodach, and made Ê-sagila (the great temple of Belus at Babylon) to shine like the stars of heaven. It is needless to [pg 162] say, that the long lists of the pious works of the rulers of Babylon would be much too long to enumerate here.
All this the kings did from motives of policy, to conciliate the priests, and, through them, the people. Sometimes, though, they had need of the priests, who were able to render them service, and then, naturally, they bought their good-will cheerfully. The service which the priests rendered in return was to pray to the gods for the king's health and his success against his enemies, or in any undertaking in which he might be engaged, and to inquire of the gods for him whether he would be successful. Many, too, were the ceremonies and festivals in which king, priests, and people took part, and the king (who was himself a priest) and the priesthood thrived exceedingly.
Sometimes, too, it happened that a devotee or servant of another god than that which was the divinity of the place, struck with the neglect of the deities whom he worshipped, would decide to remedy that defect, and to this end he would found a small temple himself, and endow it. The following will show in what way this took place—
“Nûr-îli-šu has built for his god the temple of Šarru and Šullat. One šar (is the measure of) the temple of his god—he has dedicated it for his life. Pî-ša-Šamaš is the priest of the temple. Nûr-îli-šu shall not make a claim against the priesthood (i.e. demand the restitution of the property he has given). He is an enemy of Šamaš and Suma-îlu who brings an action.
“The light of his god,” Nûr-îli-šu apparently wished to justify his name, and to show what a faithful servant he was, and he therefore dedicated the temple to the deity mentioned. This, according to the inscriptions, should be Merodach, one of whose titles was šarru, “the king.” It is to be noted, however, that in the district of Sippar the Sun-god was “king,” and if this be the case, the pious giver of the temple, instead of wishing to honour the patron god of another district, merely intended to honour the patron god of his own in another aspect, namely, as king in the heavens, along with his consort, here called Šullat, a name which, to all appearance, simply means “the bride.” That the Sun-god was intended seems to be indicated by the name of the priest, Pî-ša-Šamaš, “Word of the Sun-god,” though it was not by any means impossible for a man bearing the name of another god as part of his own to officiate in this capacity, especially in the case of Merodach, for the latter was, in many respects, a sun-god, and therefore identified with Šamaš. In any case, the new temple was under the protection of the Sun-god, as the statement (“he is an enemy of Šamaš and Šuma-ilu”) shows. It is noteworthy that, in the names of the witnesses, Šamaš does not occur as a component part in any case.
But a small foundation like this must have had but little influence beside the great temple of the Sun-god at Sippara, with its revenues from lands, dues on grain, tithes, free-will offerings, and gifts on special occasions. In addition to all that has been mentioned above, the temple of the Sun-god was the great court of justice, and the people resorted thither to settle their disputes, and in all probability gifts were made to the Sun-god on those occasions. The gates of the city, too, were favourite places for this, especially that of Šamaš, and there is every probability that gifts to the god had to be made there also. The power and [pg 164] influence of the places of worship on account of all these temporal and sacerdotal duties invested in them can be easily imagined.
The King.
Around the Babylonian king is hedged a certain amount of mystery, for we see him but dimly. What he did year by year we know, but what his general way of life was the tablets do not reveal to us. He lived in a “great house,” ê-gala in Akkadian, êkallu in Semitic Babylonian, and there is hardly any doubt that the people looked upon him as a great high-priest, and often as being himself divine. Indeed, some, if not many, of the Babylonian kings were regarded as gods, and had their worshippers, apparently whilst they were still inhabitants of this earth. The deification of the early Babylonian kings is made known to us by the scribes placing the usual divine prefix before their names, and with certain rulers this is seldom or never wanting. Thus we know that Dungi (about 2650 b.c.) was deified, as were also Bûr-Sin, Gimil-Sin, and Ibi-Sin. This custom seems to have been continued until later times, for Rim-Sin of Larsa, the opponent of Ḫammurabi or Amraphel, was thus honoured, and even Ḫammurabi himself, who never has this divine prefix before his name, was sometimes paid this exceptional tribute, as such names as Ḫammurabi-Šamši, “Hammurabi is my Sun,” or “my Sun-god,” show. The East was ever the home of flattery, which could hardly reach a higher point than that of deification.
Yet the king does sometimes come forth from his shell, and then we see him in his two aspects—as king, giving his orders to the officials of his court and army, and as the chief citizen of the country over which he ruled. The former is illustrated by the despatches and letters in which his name occurs, [pg 165] and the latter by such references to him as we find in the contracts—and these are very few, as the colophon-dates and invocations of his name in the legal oaths do not count.
Many letters of Ḫammurabi have been found, and indicate how active he was as a ruler. These texts, which, as far as they are published, are generally in a very incomplete state, nevertheless show that this most successful king paid every attention to the welfare of his subjects, even those in distant parts of the country. Thus in one of these communications he gives instructions to Sin-idinnam (who was apparently military governor of Larsa or Ellasar) to pronounce judgment against a certain person who laid claim to a field. Another letter to the same person refers to grain taken by Awel-îli, concerning which the king says, “I have seen these reports. The grain of the recorder (?), which Awel-îli has taken, let him return to the recorder.” In another place he writes to his officer rather angrily because Inuḫ-samar, apparently Sin-idinnam's lieutenant, had taken away from Sin-magir certain documents signed by the king. He asks Sin-idinnam why he had done this (placing the blame directly upon him), and concludes, “The documents, the property of Sin-magir ... with the impress of my seal, which thou hast taken, restore to him.” If Sin-idinnam had not been a very high-placed official, he would in all probability have been dismissed.
The following is a letter from king Ammi-ṭitana to his agent—
“To the agent of Sippar-Ya'rurum say thus: ‘It is Ammi-ṭitana. The wool-merchant has thus informed me: “I keep sending to the purveyor of Sippar-Ya'rurum concerning the wool ordered from him, to cause (it) to be sent to Babylon, but he has not caused the wool ordered from him to be sent.” Thus he informs me. Why hast thou not caused the wool [pg 166] ordered from thee to be sent to Babylon? As thou hast not feared to do this, when thou seest this tablet, cause the wool ordered from thee to be brought to Babylon.’ ”
It will thus be seen that the early kings of Babylonia identified themselves with the people of the country over which they ruled much more than the sovereigns of Europe have for many hundreds of years been accustomed to do. More than this—their families were accustomed to intermarry with the people, as did Elmešu—“Diamond” or “Crystal,” daughter of Ammi-ṭitana—
(“Tablet of) Elmešum, daughter of Ammi-ṭit[ana the king], whom Kizirtum, daughter of Ammi-ṭitana the king, by the consent of Šumum-libšî, her brother, Šamaš-lipir, son of Riš-Šamaš, and Taram-šullim (?), his wife, have married to Ibku-Annunitum, their son, as (his) consort. Four shekels of silver, the wedding-gift of Elmešu, daughter of Ammi-ṭitana, the king, Šumum-libšî, son of Ammi-ṭitana, the king, and Kizirtum, his sister, have received. If Ibku-Annunitum, son of Šamaš-lipir, say to Elmešum, his wife, ‘Thou art not my wife,’ he shall pay (1)[½] (?) mana of silver. If Elmešum say to Ibku-Annunitum, her husband, ‘Thou art not my husband,’ to.... Before Utul- ...; before ... -šemi, son of ... -um; before Ibni-Addu, son of ... -um; before Šumma-lum- ..., (son of) Ili-bani; before Addu-šarrum, son of Riš-Šamaš; before Baši-îlu (?), son of ... -mar; before Nabi-îlu (?), (son of) ... -be (?); before ... -pi- ....
“Month Sebat, day 2nd, year Ammi-ṭitana the king built (?) Kar- ... (and) the wall of....”
This is not only a curious document—it is also an interesting one, and shows under what conditions a woman of royal blood and race could in ancient Babylonia be wedded to a commoner. To all appearance the king himself, Elmešu's father, had nothing [pg 167] to do with the transaction—perhaps he purposely held aloof—and this being the case, it is the bride's brother and sister who have charge of the ceremony and contract; and, with the bridegroom's father and mother, marry her as consort to Ibku-Annunitum. The wording differs from that used in ordinary cases, and is more elegant and select. A wedding-gift of four shekels of silver is hardly, perhaps, what one would expect to be made to a royal bride, but perhaps it was the customary amount in such cases. The penalty if the husband afterwards divorced his wife was, as usual, a money-payment, but the amount is doubtful, though it seems to be above the average. The penalty if Elmešu forsook her husband is unfortunately wanting by the mutilation of the document, but in ordinary cases it was generally death.
Naturally, the members of the king's family were rich, and had a tendency to “add field to field,” for their own advantage. Or they would, like other people of means, hire land adjoining their own, in order to cultivate them both together, as did Iltani, daughter of king Abēšu'—
“1/3 gan, a field in the good tract, beside the field of the king's daughter, its first end (i.e. front) the river (or canal) Pariktum, from Melulatum, sun-devotee, daughter of Ibku-ša, owner of the field, Iltani, the king's daughter, has hired the field for cultivation, and for profit. At harvest-time, (upon) every gan, she will pay six gur of grain, the due of the Sun-god, in Kar-Sippar.
“Before Edi- ..., (son of) ...-te (?); before Abil (?)- ... (son of) ... -aqar; before Šumu-libšî, son of Pî-ša-Sin; before Addu-napišti-iddina, the scribe.
“Month Nisan, day 2nd, year Abēšu', the king (made ?) an image (?) of (gold) and silver.”
Thirty years, or thereabouts later, Iltani (or a younger namesake, daughter of Ammi-zaduga) is [pg 168] found providing the wherewithal for agricultural operations—
“One gur of grain, the property of the Sun-god, for the reaper, which was from Iltani, sun-devotee, daughter of the king, Šeritum, son of Ibni-Amurrū, has received. At harvest-time, (in) the month Adar, he will come—(if) he come not, he shall be like a king's thrall.
“Before Idin-Marduk, the officer, son of Idin-îli-šu; before Ina-lali-šu, son of Ibni-Marduk.
“Month Adar, day 25th, year Ammi-zaduga the king (made ?) a weapon (?) of gold.”
This contract is not quite clear without a little explanation. The grain advanced was, to all appearance, from the storehouse of the temple of the Sun-god at Sippara, and Iltani, as a sun-devotee, seems to have had it at her disposal for the benefit of the temple. In any case, the amount came from her, and was received by Šeritum, who seems to have been the reaper referred to. He promises to come to do the work in Adar, that very month, when the grain would have to be reaped, and the penalty for failing to fulfil his contract was apparently slavery. Evidently the work was urgent.
It is needless to say, that interesting as these texts are, they are very incomplete, and leave a great deal to the imagination, and still more altogether unrecorded. Nevertheless, they are very valuable as far as they go, and show us the royal family of Babylonia at the time working among the people as members of the community. Each one, however, evidently worked for his or her own interest, or for the interest of the religious community to which he or she belonged, and not for the people at large. It was only the king who worked for his people, and he did it, it is hardly going too far to say, because it was his interest to do so. Most people, however, acted for their own interest in those days, as now.