Association, or partnership, makes its appearance very early and in a highly developed state. Some forms are very simple, as when two or more men buy or hire a piece of land together. There may, or may not, be any family relationship between the partners. In some cases we learn nothing about the terms of partnership. But where we are able to discern them, they follow the natural course that profits were divided, pro rata, according to the capital contributed. More obscure is the question how far the personal exertions of each partner were pledged to the benefit of the firm. There is a suggestion that some partners were content with furnishing capital, and obtaining a fair return upon it, while the others were actively engaged in the business of the firm. Prolonged study and comparison are, however, needed before all these points can be definitely decided.
The name for a “partner” is tappû, and the sign TAP serves as ideogram. This sign consists of the two horizontal strokes used to denote “two,” and may have been used to denote “union,” or partnership, and so from its name tap have given rise to the name for “partner.” In the new Babylonian times the ideogram is the sign usually read ḫarrânu, also formed of the two horizontal strokes crossed by two connecting strokes or bonds. There is little doubt that in early times this was read girru, when denoting “business,” undertaken in association. Later the dualism [pg 288] of the partnership was marked by the addition of the dual sign to ḫarrânu. That both ḫarrânu and girru are used as words for “way,” “journey,” “expedition,” may well point to the prominence of the idea of trade journeys with caravans. But partnerships were made with less ambitious aims and confined to holding and sharing in common varied sources of income.
To make a partnership, tapputam epêšu,751 it seems that each partner contributed a certain amount of capital, ummânu.752 Yearly accounts were rendered and the profit then shared. This took place by a formal dissolution of partnership, when each partner took his share. This in no way prevented a renewal of partnership. For the satisfaction of the partners sworn declarations as to the property held in common and the profit made were deposed before judicial authorities. These often take the form of a suit by one partner against the other, but it seems that they might be only formal suits to clear up the points at issue and secure a legal settlement.
A considerable number of tablets are drawn up to embody a settlement on dissolution of partnership. Some do not make any reference to a law officer as arbitrator; but all contain a careful setting-forth of each partner's share and an oath to make no further claim. It is practically certain that these were drawn up with the cognizance of the local law-court.
The Code has nothing to say as to partnership, unless its regulations on the point were embodied in the lost five columns.
A good example of partnership documents is the following:753
The word for plan, ṭêmu, means the basis of partnership, that is, its terms. Here it was “share and share alike.” The phrase babtum, “merchandise,” includes all the material in which they traded, excluding the living agents. The phrase ša ḫarrânim, literally “on the road,” may well have denoted the merchandise not in warehouse, but in circulation. Whether ḫarrânu actually referred to a caravan may be doubtful. We often read of goods ša suḳi, “on the street,” in the same sense, “out on the market.” If the partners dealt in corn, and had a quantity lent out on interest, that was ša suḳi. Whether a distinction between ša ḫarrânim and ša suḳi was kept up is not clear. But if they invested their capital in merchandise which they sent to a distant market for sale, the former phrase would be more appropriate, while if they bought wool to manufacture into cloth or garments and to sell in the bazaars of their own town, ša suḳi would be more suitable. The gate of the city was a market, and money or goods ša bâbi, “at the gate,” was as we should say “on the market.” In contrast to these phrases, ina libbi alim, “in the midst of the town,” answers to our “in stock.” While the term mitḫariš literally means “altogether,” “without reservation,” it implies exact equality of share. The amâtu was the “word,” literally, but, applied to business, means the agreement as to their mutual transactions. The completion of that was reached when they took the profits and divided them. It might include the mutual reckoning of profit and loss. The phrase “from mouth to interest” is very idiomatic. The [pg 290] “mouth,” or verbal relationships, included all they said, the terms they agreed upon. The word “interest” here replaces the more usual “gold;” both mean the “profit,” or the balance due to each. Usually we have the words “is complete,” the idea being that no verbal stipulation has been overlooked, no money or profit left out of reckoning.
As will be remarked, such pregnant forms of expression evidently presuppose a long course of commercial activity. They can only have arisen as abbreviations of much longer sentences. Clear enough to the users of them, they do not admit of literal rendering, if they are to be intelligible to us. But they are eloquent witnesses of an advanced state of commerce.
Traces of partnership are difficult to find in the Assyrian tablets which have reached us. We must not confuse with partnership the holding in common of property or lands, which may be due to heritage. Two or more brothers may sell their common property, for greater ease of division, but they are not exactly partners.
In the later Babylonian times, as is natural to expect with the larger number of private documents, there is much evidence regarding the many forms of association for business. We have such simple forms as the following:754
Or thus:
They had a house, as shop and warehouse, the rent of which was a charge upon the business. Slaves might be partners with free men, even with their masters. A partner [pg 291] might merely furnish the capital or both might do so, and commit it to the hands of a slave or a free man with which to do business. The slave took his living out of such capital, and the free man received either provisions or a fixed payment. Thus we read:756
It is not unlikely that each slave was to look after his own master's interests. For we read:757
Even women entered into business as agents. We read:758
As in earlier times, the dissolution of partnership usually involved a reference to the law-courts. Thus we have759 a reckoning before judges of two brothers and a third who were in a partnership from the eighth year of Nabopolassar to the eighteenth of Nebuchadrezzar. “The business is dissolved” (girru paṭrat). All the former contracts were broken and shares are assigned to each. The first two brothers were in possession of fifty shekels which were to be divided.
Provisional reckonings were constantly made at frequent intervals, but did not involve dissolution of partnership, nor need to be referred to a law-court.760 [pg 292] Some cases are interesting for additional items of information. Thus we note:761
It seems likely that he carried on some kind of manufacture. A held the south house, next door. B also paid the tithes. A similar case where some manufacture from dates is supposed, is thus stated:762
They were given a house for which they paid no rent.
Closely allied with agency is the power of attorney. In the Code763 a son in his father's house could not contract, buy or sell, or give on deposit, except by power of attorney empowering him to act for his father. The same was true of the slave. The contemporary documents contain many references to business done by agents on the order of their principals.764 The Assyrians also make frequent mention of persons acting as bêl ḳâtâti, having the power of another's hands, being in fact allowed to act as their attorney or agent. The king was represented in the law-courts by his agent.765 Sometimes the agent was called bêl paḫâti of the king's son.766 It even seems to be the case that ḳâtâtu acquired the sense of agency, or business, and bît ḳâtâti came to [pg 293] mean a “shop,” or bazaar. In many cases “agency” was expressed by ša ḳâtâ, “by the hands of.” Aliens had to act through such an agent.767 When three men borrow a quantity of straw, one alone sealed the receipt and bond to repay, and was said to be bêl ḳâtâti ša tibni, “agent for the straw.”768 A female slave was sued for property said to be due from her master, in his absence. A free man, perhaps the judge, was bêl ḳâtâti for the woman that her master would take up the case on his return, and undertook to satisfy the suitor, if she could not do so.769
In later Babylonian times the phrase survived. The commissary acted “with the hand” of his principal. We may take this to be the hand-sign, or seal, representing written authority. It involved a reckoning with his master, and naturally gave rise to a number of delicate questions. If a man bought a house for another, having been commissioned so to do, his principal must of course pay the price. But was he bound to accept his agent's selection? Could he not demur regarding the price? One of these points at least was dealt with by the later Code. Law A deals with the man who has concluded a purchase for another, without having a power of attorney from him in a sealed deed. If he has had the deed made out in his own name, he is the possessor. Of course, he can sell again to his principal, but he could not do so at a profit. Nor is the principal under any obligation to accept the purchase at the price the agent gave for it. Actual examples are far from rare: A buys a field, crop, date-palms and all, for C and D. This purchase was made on condition that all copies of the transaction be destroyed. The condition was not observed, as we still possess one of them. Later A received from C, one of his principals, about half the price he had paid. But it does not appear that D ever paid his share, and this is [pg 294] why the condition was not carried out. Presumably A and C remained owners of the field.770
There is no limit to the varieties of agency or representative action. At all periods we meet with a brother, usually the eldest, acting for his other brothers. A brother acting with the hand of his brother also occurs in the time of Evil Merodach.771
The power of attorney was also given to receive money and give a receipt, under seal.772 Again: A bought some slaves of B and paid in full. B gave receipt for the money, but did not undertake to deliver the slaves at A's house. A can send a messenger or agent to take the slaves, and B agrees to deliver them to such. Whatever is born or dies from among the slaves is credited to A.773
There are lists which are not formal contracts, but may have been used as legal evidence. The stewards of the great temples, of the palaces, and even of wealthy men in business, kept most careful accounts. These lists have some features peculiar to themselves and are not without considerable interest.
The tablets which have reached our museums from Telloh, Nippur, and elsewhere, belonging to the ages before the First Dynasty of Babylon, are for the most part temple accounts. They often concern the offerings made by various persons, often officials of high standing, and some may well have been the notes sent with the offerings. But many were drawn up as records of the receipts for a certain day, month, or year. Interesting as they are for the class of offerings, for the names of offerers, or of priests, and for the cult of particular gods, or the localities near Telloh and Nippur, and often containing valuable hints for the history and chronology of those times, they do not give us the same insight into the daily life of the people that the longer legal documents do, in later periods.
An important class consists of receipts for loans. Those drawn up at full length and witnessed, have already been considered. But the majority may only contain a list of articles delivered, with the name of the receiver, the lender being the holder as a temple official, while the receiver is [pg 296] a subordinate. These may have been as effective as the fuller bonds, but they furnish little information, except regarding the current prices of articles.
Some tablets are concerned with hire. The amounts paid by the temple for repairs, fresh robes for gods and officials, even maintenance of the workmen, are all set down with their totals for a week, or a month.
An important class consists of the records of the measurements, length, breadth, and area of fields, together with the amounts of corn which they were expected to produce. Were these available for a widely extended area, we might be able to map out the district round the temple from whose archives they come.
The temples and large landowners had great flocks and herds. Consequently, there is much evidence concerning the pastoral occupations of the people of Babylonia. The Code regulates the relations of the shepherds and herdsmen to the flock-masters.774 Thus an owner might hire a shepherd, nâkidu, for his sheep or cattle, at the wages of eight GUR of corn per annum. The shepherd or herdsman took out the flock or herd to the pasture and was responsible to the owner for them. They were intrusted to him, and if sheep or ox were lost through his fault, he had to restore ox for ox and sheep for sheep. If he was hired and had received satisfactory wages, he had no power to diminish, or abstract from, the flock or herd for his keep or private use. He entered into a contract with the owner, and that stipulated for the restoration of the entire flock or herd, together with a proper increase due to the breeding of the flock or herd. He had to make any deficiency good, by statute.775 This applied also to the stipulated profit in wool or other produce. It seems clear that his own profit was any excess above the stipulated return. Otherwise it is difficult to see [pg 297] what source he had from which to make good the loss to his master. He was forbidden to alter the agreement into which he had entered in any particular, or to sell any of the flock, under penalty of a tenfold restitution. He was, however, protected from liability for loss by wild beasts or accident. But, if the loss was due to his fault, by neglecting to keep the fold secure, he had to make up the loss.
It is obvious that he gave a receipt for what was intrusted to him and made his account on return from the pastures. These accounts are plentiful among the temple accounts in the earliest periods, but being written for the most part in Sumerian, have still many obscurities for us. As a rule, each deals with the liabilities of one man, whose “account,” nikasu, it is said to be. At the beginning are recounted the details of his trust, so many oxen, cows, sheep or goats, of varied ages and qualities. Here it is very difficult to translate. Anyone who knows the variety of names which are given to an animal by agriculturists according to its age, sex, and use, need not be surprised to find that the Babylonians had many names for what we can only render by “sheep.” As a rule, we know when the ram, ewe, or lamb is intended. But this by no means exhausts the variety. Anyone who glances through an Arabic lexicon must notice how many different names the Arabs have for the camel in its different aspects. But in our case we often have no clew to what was meant by the signs beyond some variety of sheep, ox, or goat. At any rate, the first section enumerates the cattle or sheep delivered to the herdsman. Then follows a section devoted to those “withdrawn,” taken back by the owner, or exacted as some due from the flock. Others are noted as taken for sacrifice, used for the wages or support of the herdsman, or else dead or otherwise missing. These the herdsman was allowed to subtract and then had to return the balance. There are similar lists of asses [pg 298] or goats. The tablets hardly lend themselves to connected translation because of the absence of verbs. The following is an example:
The meaning of the words is somewhat conjectural. “Expended” may mean used for the shepherd's own maintenance. “Snatched away” means probably deducted for revenue purposes, about one in five. The scribe did not write “none.” He merely left a blank.776
The similar lists for the second epoch are not yet available for study. Only one777 appears to have been published,778 but there are many still unpublished. It is not easy to translate them, because, though many Semitic names occur, there is still a tendency to use the old Sumerian, or ideographic writings. Such a list as:
may serve as an example, but does not convey much information to us. These lists are chiefly valuable for the means of comparison they afford. A three-year-old ox was worth half a mina of silver.779
For Assyrian times we have a few interesting examples, just enough to show that the same customs survived. There [pg 299] are no less than thirty-five kinds of sheep and goats, and fifteen kinds of cattle named in the lists; also eleven kinds of birds. Here is a specimen list of asses which gives some prices:780
There is nothing to show for whom or why the list was drawn up, but if the total is correct, we learn that a royal mina was worth one mina forty-six shekels of the ordinary standard. The lists of horses are now very numerous, some dozen varieties being distinguished. Many of these lists give the numbers of horses of different kinds which entered a certain city on a certain day.781 The horses are often distinguished as coming from certain countries, being called Kusai, or Mesai, horses. The camels are frequently mentioned, and we learn that one was worth a mina and a third.782 Dromedaries are also named783 and seem to have been worth three minas apiece.
Wool accounts play an important part in documents of the early times. They may be regarded as of two kinds. The first are shearers' accounts returned by the shepherd of a flock; the second are concerned with the amounts of wool given out to weavers.
Shearers' accounts enumerate four sorts or qualities of wool. The best was called royal wool, that which was of the highest quality. The others were second, third, and fourth quality. Poor wool and black wool are also named. Sometimes we are told from what part of the sheep's [pg 300] body it was taken. Other terms applied are less easy to recognize. This wool was received by weight.
The weavers' accounts give a list of quantities of wool, with the same distinctions as to quality, and the price at which it was assessed. This was doubtless the sum to be paid by the weaver, if the wool was not returned made up. The values attached show very clearly the difference in quality. Thus, while two looms of royal wool were worth thirty minas, seven looms of second quality went for the same value, eleven looms of third quality for a talent, and thirty-two looms of fourth quality for one talent, one loom of another sort for one talent, and the same amount of black wool for the same value.784 It is evident that the black wool was highly valued. The loom, literally, “beam,” of wool, was some measure, perhaps what would occupy one weaver. The price was probably fixed in silver. The price of the same quality varied from time to time.
In the letters of Ḥammurabi and his successors there are frequent references to the shearing, and orders for the inspection of flocks and herds.785 The Code does not refer to sheep-shearing, though it mentions wool. The shearing was concluded by the New Year feast in Nisan. In the contemporary contracts there are several wool accounts. As a rule, one talent, or sixty minas' weight, of wool was served out to several men who were to pay for it, to the palace, at the rate of one shekel of silver per mina.
In Assyrian times we have great wool and weaving accounts. Some deal with the huge amounts of wool received as tribute from the great cities of the empire and then served out to bodies of weavers in various palaces with specifications of the species of cloth or sorts of garments which were to be returned. In the later Babylonian times we have a large number of wool accounts recording [pg 301] the amounts given out from the temple to various persons to weave or make up into garments.786
Skins are also named in the accounts. They are distinguished as the skins of certain kinds of animals. Various amounts are credited to different persons, but whether as giving or receiving, and in what capacity, is not clear. Sheep and goat skins are most common, but ox and cow hides are named.
The Code does not refer to these, nor the letters of Ḥammurabi and his successors, but we have lists of skins and carcasses of animals.787 The purpose of the lists is not clear. In Assyrian times there are frequent references to hides. There was a distinct grade of official called a ṣârip taḫšê, “dyer of skins.” Large quantities were bought in the markets of Kalaḫ and Ḥarrân. The price was about two shekels of silver for a skin.788 The articles made of leather are very numerous; shoes, harness, pouches, even garments, are named. It was used for buckets, baskets, bottles, shields, and many other things not clearly recognized.
Fairly frequent also are accounts of the quantities of corn expended for the keep of flocks and herds. The amounts allowed per diem are the chief items of interest. Sheep were allowed from one to one and a half ḲA a day, lambs half a ḲA, oxen six to eight ḲA.789 In the Code we find allowances for the keep of animals. There are very frequent lists in Assyrian times of amounts of corn given to various animals. These also occur at later times. The amounts allowed per day are various and by no means [pg 302] uniform. A very good example gives as the allowance of corn for a full-grown sheep two ḲA per diem, for a young sheep, one ḲA, for a lamb one-half ḲA.790
Acknowledgments of advances, or loans, occur in the first epoch. As a rule, we are not told what was the ground of the loan. The fact that these loans were to be repaid is not stated, and we may take the tablets to be merely receipts for things given out to officials who had a right to them. The substances were corn of different kinds, wine, beer, sesame-wine, butter, flour and other food-stuffs, wool, and other supplies. We sometimes learn prices from these tablets. Thus a GUR of corn cost one shekel.791
Long lists of accounts are very common at all epochs. They relate what sums or amounts were paid out to various officials for certain goods or for wages, keep, and the like. In fact, they are stewards' accounts. Unfortunately, the way in which most collections have been formed, and even more the way in which they have since been preserved, renders it impossible for us to make the use of them which has often been made of mediæval accounts. Otherwise we could obtain from them many interesting items. They are, however, most valuable for prices and names.
Thus, in such lists we find mention of articles which would otherwise remain unsuspected. The first reference to iron is in the Ḥammurabi period,792 whence we learn that a shekel of silver would buy eight times its weight of iron. Sometimes we get an important contribution to chronology. It is well known that there is no certainty as to the order of the Eponyms after b.c. 648, but we know their names for at least forty years later. Any contribution to the order of these names would be welcomed with avidity. Thus, one scribe writes: “Income from the Eponymy of Sagab to the Eponymy of Nabû-shar-aḫêshu, for six years, which was paid [pg 303] in as maintenance, eleven talents ... besides twenty-seven plates of silver.” We cannot say whose income it was, but the previous section dealt with the income of the crown prince, and this may be only a résumé of the last. But we now know that from Sagab to Nabû-shar-aḫêshu was six years in all.
Thus, from the most varied and often most unpromising sources are derived those important details which make it possible to attain an exact and realistic conception of Babylonian and Assyrian history and life.