Seleucid Empire Research Papers - Academia.edu (original) (raw)

This article discusses the concept of ownership of land in the Late Babylonian period, especially the Hellenistic period. All kinds of transaction concerning land ownership are discussed, such as contracts of sale, lease, pledge, donation and quitclaims. Attention is paid to different legal formularies and the ways in which ownership was protected. The article challenges the accepted opinion, expressed by Koschaker, Petschow and Cardascia, that the Babylonians lacked a concept of ownership that knew the distinction between ownership as ultimate right (in Latin dominium) and actual possession or holding (in Latin possessio and detentio). Koshaker and Petschow argued for a Babylonian concept of “divided ownership” of e.g. lessor and lessee of land and Cardascia calls pledge a “conditional alienation” and lease a “temporal alienation”. In my view the Roman distinction between ownership as highest and ultimate right and actual possession, though not identical, is closer to the Babylonian situation.
Another point at issue is the status of temple land and royal land, that was in the possession of individuals, could be sold and leased, yet remained in ownership of the temple or palace (bIt ritti).

At the end of the article ten cuneiform texts are presented in transcription, translation and brief commentary. One of these texts is a very important tablet, discovered already the beginning of the 19th century and copied by Carl Bellino by c. 1818. It was published by Robert Ker Porter in 1822. It was one of the first published tablets, copied and published in a time when the cuneiform script was not yet deciphered. Yet the copy is quite good and readable. I first edited this tablet in my dissertation, where I reproduced Bellino’s copy op p. viii and a transliteration and Dutch translation in the Appendix, text 5, p. 202-11. My dissertation, Grondbezit in het Seleucidische Rijk (Amsterdam: VU Uitgeverij 1986), is available online:
http://dare.ubvu.vu.nl/handle/1871/15433 or
http://dare.ubvu.vu.nl/bitstream/1871/15433/2/Grondbezit%20in%20het%20seleucidische%20rijk.pdf

In this article I provide an edition with English translation in the appendix as text 9, pp. 238-241. Meanwhile, however, after this publication (1995) a new (partial) edition was provided by Francis Johannès, ‘La Babylonië méridionale: continuité, déclin ou rupture?’ in: P. Briant, F. Joannès eds., La Transition entre l’empire achéménide et les royaumes hellénistiques (vers 350-300 av. J.-C.). Actes du colloque organisé au Collège de France par la « Chaire d’histoire et civilisation du monde achéménide et de l’empire d’Alexandre » et le « Réseau international d’études et de recherches achéménides » (GDR 2538 CNRS), 22-23 novembre 2004, (Paris: De Boccard, 2006), 101-35, on pp. 113-4. In the same volume Michael Jursa discussed the text in note 32 of his article ‘Agricultural management, tax farming and banking: aspects of entrepreneurial activity in Babylonia in the Late Achaemenid and Hellenistic periods’, ibid., 137-222, esp. p. 148.
Both authors suggested improved readings which I shall present here and I shall present a new English translation of lines 4-15, slightly differing from Joannès’s and Jursa’s (esp. line 10).

4. Add ina IGI in the break (Jursa)
7. Add KUR in the break (Joannès)
9. Read [i-(te)-ri-i]š instead of [iš-ku]n; Joannès reads ina áš-bi instead of ina qí-bi, but Bellino’s copy has a very clear qí (KI), so I shall not follow him in this. He reads the personal name mPar-ta-ri-ih?-li-su as mtu!?-ri-il!-li-su (Troilos?). The copy, however, has a clear par-ta. The reading of the first sign, par (UD, tú), is a mere guess. The reading –ut- is a good alternative. The sign read as ih or il is difficult to interpret. Collation (1984) did not help. It seems indeed that a Greek name is at issue, ending on –lēs, -lios or –klēs perhaps.
10. Read [lúGAL] É LUGAL (Jursa) and ig!-re-e’ instead of EN re-‘i (Joannès and Jursa), from the verb gerû, ‘to start a lawsuit’. See CAD G, p. 62, s.v. gerû, 1 b 3’: dīna gerû. Certainly correct. It is uncertain whether the phrase mišil ... našatat?, “half of the barley which returns from the land, the property of Shamash, is (to be) brought(?) to the royal treasury”, is the result of the verdict (so Jursa), or the reason to start the lawsuit. I opt hesitatingly for the latter option: I suspect that the legal dispute originated in the fact that suddenly in year 9 the chief of the royal treasury requisitioned half of the yield of the entire estate of the Shamash temple.
11. Joannès reads ta-tu-ru instead of ta-tur-ru, but this is erroneous. Taturru is the present tense, which means that the barley is not harvested yet or is in the process of being harvested. Jursa reads na-šá-ti?! sup. ras. instead of na-šá-tat?; both readings problematic. Collation did not help. I assume that the form is a fem. stative of našû. Note that taturru is also feminine . The subject, uțțatu, “barley”, is feminine.
13. Read mu-šu-ur instead of MU-šu lu (Joannès and Jursa). Certainly correct. From the verb uššuru (wuššuru, muššuru), “to let go; to release; the hand over; to exempt, remit debts, annul obligations”; cf. CAD U and W, s.v. uššuru, p. 310-325. It is probably a stative: muššur ; cf. undašar for undaššar in line 13.
19. Both Joannès and Jursa read É LUGAL TIN.TIR.KI as Bīt šar Bābili, and do not interpret it as Treasury (Bīt šarri =lit. ‘house of the king’, but always ‘royal office’, ‘royal treasury’ or ‘royal estate’) of Babylon (TIN.TIR.KI), but as the locality with the name Bīt šarri Bābili (mostly written, however, with the determinative for ‘city’ URU), a locality close to Babylon. N.B.: the royal treasury is mentioned in line 10! If so, Iltalimatu has nothing to do with the royal treasury of Babylon and is no more than some city governor who accidentally had rented an estate belonging to the temple of Shamash.

New translation of lines 4-20:

4. [.......... arable land,] property (makkūru) of Shamash, king of the world,
5. [.......... was at the disposal of Ilt]alimatu, the governor
6. [of Bīt-šar-Bābili,] the slave of Intaphernes, the governor
7. [of the land? Sa?]-gashtu. Later, in the 9th year
8. [of Alexand]er, son of ditto (=308-7 BC), he jointly (with the temple) [cultivate]d(l. 9) the land in question
9. and he started lawsuits at the command of Partarihlisu (Uttari x lisu),
10. [the chief] of the royal treasury (on account of the fact that) half of the barley in question, which will return from the arable land,
11. [the pro]perty (makkūru) of Shamash, is (to be) brought to the royal treasury.
12. Iltalimatu will leave(l.13) the arable land at the disposal
13. of the exchequer (makkūru) of Shamash and the barley, the rent (sutu) of this arable land,
14. is relinquished(l. 15) by the exchequer of Shamash to Iltalimatu.
15. There will not be(l. 17) any lawsuit, legal proceeding or claim on the part of the Temple Council (kiništu)
16. of Ebabbar with regard to the barley, the rent (sutu) of these arable lands,
17. against Iltalimatu in perpetuity
18. and there will not be(l. 21) any lawsuit, legal proceeding or claim on the part of Iltalimatu,
19. the governor of Bīt-šar-Bābili, with regard to these arable lands
20. against the exchequer of Shamash and the Temple Council of Ebabbar in perpetuity.

This document is a verdict concerning a legal conflict between two parties, namely Ebabbar, the temple of the god Shamash in either Sippar or Larsa, and a certain Iltalimatu, the governor of Bit-šar-Babili (= a settlement at the edge of the city of Babylon, perhaps the summer palace of Babylon). Apparently some arable land, belonging to the Ebabbar had become at the disposal of Iltalimatu and he cultivated it jointly with the temple, which probably meant that the profit should be divided, half would go to the temple, half to Iltalimatu. The conflict seems to concern the fact that half of the harvest was requisitioned by the state (represented by Partarihlisu), so that Iltalimatu could not pay half of the harvest to the temple (his sutu, his rent). Now Partarihlisu seems to have ordered or advised a lawsuit (or perhaps better a settlement), so that the mutual claims by temple and Iltalimatu were rescinded: Iltalimatu relinquishes his right to cultivate the temple land and at the same time is freed from the obligation to pay his rent to the temple. One should note that it was during or briefly after the Babylonian War between Antigonus and Seleucus (311-308) when the grain prices were extremely high. Now the result of this lawsuit is: half of the yield of year 9 (308-7 BC) goes to the royal treasury and the contract between Iltalimatu and the temple is dissolved: the temple is granted ownership rights of the arable land and Iltalimatu is freed from paying rent to the temple in perpetuity.