The Egibi Family's Real Estate in Babylon (6th Century BC) more

Urbanization and Land Ownership in the Ancient Near East Volume II in a series sponsored by the Institute for the Study of Long-term Economic Trends and the International Scholars Conference on Ancient Near Eastern Economies A Colloquium Held at New York University, November 1996, and The Orienta! Institute, St. Petersburg, Russia, May 1997 Edited by Michael Hudson and Baruch A. Levine Pcabody Museum of Archaeology and Erhnology Harvard University Cambridge MA 1999 12 The Egibi Family's Real Estate in Babylon (6th Century BC)* Cornelia Wunsch Heidelberg-Perth General conclusions about economics and society, and specifically about urban and rural relations for each period under discussion, can be reached only by studying the available archaeological and textual information. This process must not be restricted solely to the collection of facts in and of themselves but must include an evaluation and interpretation of the data in their proper context. It therefore is necessary to discuss the archi- val background of the texts, including the inherent limitations of the information that can be obtained from rhem. Our knowledge of the Neo-Babylonian period is based mainly on economic and legal records from temple archives (especially Eanna of Uruk and Ebabbar of Sippar) and private archives of a few well-to-do Babylonian families, while evidence from the royal administration is still lacking. The incomplete picture provided by these sources is further bi- ased by the fact that much of what we know about private business is owed to (and overshadowed by) a single archive, that of the Egibi family of Babylon.1 This paper therefore aims to discuss data from this impor- tant archive. Although the family's economic activities must serve as a representative exemple for a whole group of contempory entrepreneurs, they also are exceptional with respect to their degree of economic success and available evidence for it. * Unpublished tablets from the British Museum are quoted and published with the permission of the Trustees of the British Museum. I am especially in- debted to C. B. E Walker, who has made available to me the information he has collected about the tablets from the Babylon collection. The present study has been suppotted by a Postdoctorate Grant from Deutsche Forschungs- gemeinschaft. Chart 1 Genealogical Tree (Abbreviated) Men, Women, Spouse (°°) Egibi Main Branca Sulaja I Qudastt 00 Nabu-ahhe-iddin Nuptaja 00 Itti-Marduk-balatu Iddin-Nabii Ncrgal-etir Amat-Bdba 00 Marduk-nasir-apli Nabu-ahhe-buIIit Ncrgal-usezib three sisters Susannu °° Nidinti-Bel three sisters The Egtbi archive The Egibi archive from Babylon originally may have contained two and a half to three thousand tablets covering more than one hundred years from the reign of Nebuchadnezzar II to the beginning of Xerxes' rulership (sixth and early fifth centuries BC). The texts show members of five genera- tions of this family branch actively involved in business transactions. The surviving tablets of this archive came to light in the early 1870s through clandestine excavations by native peoples in the Babylon area; the tablets ended up being sold to antiquities dealers in Baghdad. Most of the tablets were acquired by George Smith for the British Museum.2 When they arrived in London in several lots between 1876 and 1881, mixed with tablets from other proveniences, they were registered accord- ing to their date of arrival. A fraction of the archive ended up in other collections. Thanks to the publication of these British Museum texts by J. N. Strafimaier in the 1880s and '90s, assyriologists have been able to study them. But this pioneering work could not be completed during his life- time and is still far from being finished. This published corpus lacks much of the evidence from the fourth and most of the fifth generation. Many undated texts remain unpublished, as do fragments whose dates are miss- 392 Urbanization and Land Ownership in the Ancient Near East Egibi Family Chronological Framework Egibi generation Regnal Years of King Julian calendar (1) Sulaja 20 - 11 Nabopolassar 606 605 0 - 23 Nebuchadnezzar 604 582 VT L* 1_L- "JJ' (2) Nabu-ahhe-iddin 15 - 43 Nebuchadnezzar 590 562 0 - 2 Evil-Merodach 561 560 0 - 4 Neriglissar 559 556 0- 13 Nabonidus 555 543 (3) Itti-Marduk-balatu 5 - 17 Nabonidus 551 539 0 -9 Cyrus 538 530 0 - 8 Cambyses 529 522 0 Darius 521 (4) Marduk-nasir-apli 1 - 35 Darius 521 487 (5) Nidinti-Bel 32- 36 Darius 490 486 0 -4 Xerxes 485 482 ing or whose state of preservation makes deciphering difficult. The ptesent writer had the privilege of searching through the British Museum's uncatalogued Babylon collection and found a large number of fragments that could be related to alteady published Egibi rexrs. Information from this material has been included in the present paper. The main points concerning agriculture and land tenure as reflected in the published Egibi texts recently have been summarized by van Driel,3 to whom this paper is indebted. The new texts and fragments do not radically change the picture he obtained, but they provide a broader basis for judgement, many more details, and hence call for the correction of some minor points. Nevettheless an exhaustive study of the Egibis' land and house-sale contracts with their retroacta, rent contracts, and related notes of obligation is still needed4 and the provisional character of our results at present must be stressed, as well as the need for more serious work on this important archive. Real estate documentation The size and location of the Egibi's landed ptopetty can be deduced from various kinds of records. Land-sale contracts usually indicate at least the rough location, the names of neighbors, surface measure, quality, and price of the property. Often they contain exact measurements of the C. WUNSCH 393 boundaries and the price according to different agricultural use. But this information is only available if the tablet is in a perfect state. Sales con- tracts inform us about purchases made by the family (because the relevant documents and retroacta were kept in the family archive), but we have only accidental evidence concerning resales. None of the contracts pre- served names a family member as vendor, probably because sellers had no reason to keep such records and consequently did not receive a copy. Evidently the previous sales contract (or a copy of it) had to be handed over to the new owner, in order to prove the vendor's entitlement to sell the property. We therefore lack most of the records referring to fields and gardens that must have temporally belonged to the family. This makes it difficult to deduce the extent to which estates were bought and tesold in order to obtain larger or more suitable parcels, or the degree to which the Egibis may have been involved in land speculation. It is only through exchange records, debt notes, or receipts concerning balances owed on the purchase price, or accounts settled among family members with re- gard to their inheritance shares in properties that were sold, that sales made by the Egibis can be ttaced. In addition to sales contracts, some other categories of texts refer to real estate transactions: receipts or debt notes concerning part of the price owed, records about the measurements of fields or house plots, and the resulting compensation payments in cases where the area turned out to be larger or smaller than calculated, subsequent witnesses to the contract (in order to preclude litigation on their part), or litigation before judges, and dowry proposals involving real estate or inheritance divisions. Rent contracts and debt notes pertaining to commodities to be de- livered by the tenants of rental properties are the main sources of infor- mation about land use and income. Many more documents are available from the fourth generation than from earlier times, as rent contracts usu- ally covered only three to five years, and outdated documents no longer were kept in the archive. Unfortunately, these texts do not state explicitly the local details. This makes it difficult to link them to estates known from other sources. The same applies for house rental contracts. Further- more, debt notes typically deal with only one product —- usually dates or barley — and do not indicate how large an area is involved. It therefore is uncertain whether the amount given represents all the lessor's share in the field's yield or only part of it. No evidence indicates that Sulaja, the representative of the first gen- eration of our Egibi branch, inherited or owned arable land. The early records suggest that he was engaged in commodity trade, especially in the 394 Urbanization and Land Ownership in the Ancient Near East rural areas near Babylon in long-standing partnerships with other trad- ers. Only one rental contract shows his involvement in agricultural affairs other than trade. He appears as a tenant of land owned by the king, for an unlimited period, to cultivate dates and share the income. But the state of the text and the lack of related records provide no further details. Sulaja's son Nabu-ahhe-iddin carried on his father's business and rose economically and socially. Like his father, he was engaged in harranu part- nerships with other traders.1" The stipulations in these contracts make it clear that the business was highly profitable. One partner supplied the financial backing, while the other oversaw the field work, i.e., lending the silver to farmers, collecting the payments due in commodities at the time of harvest in the countryside (usually at the canal), negotiating with offi- cials about taxes and transport fees, renting boats for shipment, and storing and selling the products (although textual evidence is lacking for this last step). Each partner shared in the profits (termed utru "excess"). This equity stipulation distinguishes these contracts from normal interest-bearing loans at the usual annual 20 percent interest rate, secured by pledges. The money- providing partner in such harranu undertakings could only expect to make a good deal if the anticipated profit rate equalled or exceeded 40 percent (as his half share provided just the net 20 percent return at this profit rate). In the early stages we do not find Nabu-ahhe-iddin acting as a senior partner. Apart from members of the Egibi family, at least a dozen other people are documented as being involved in the same kind of business, and the Egibis certainly were not the only ones to become rich in this way. Nabu-ahhe-iddin was trained as a scribe. While acting as a court scribe during the reign of Nebuchadnezzar II, he established business contacts with Neriglissar that evidently paid off when Neriglissar gained power.6 Nabu-ahhe-iddin's first land purchase in the Babylon area dates from this time.7 The transaction deserves attention not only because of the remark- able size of the parcel, but because of the circumstances that caused the vendots to sell and the sources of the purchase money. The surviving records also provide details concerning its structure, use, and revenue, as well as its use and disposition during three generations within the family. It therefore serves as a good example for land tenure and will be discussed more extensively below. Few details ate known about Nabu-ahhe-iddin's involvement in poli- tics or the extent of his business relations with high-ranking individuals. But his position did not rely entirely on his patron Neriglissar, for he was C. WUNSCH 395 able to consolidate his influence under the reign of Nabonidus as well, when he started acting as a royal judge. Growing wealth and power are reflected in a large number of land and house-sale contracts dating from this period. Apart from overall growth, the process of dividing, exchanging, and reassembling plots and shares in commonly held properties begins in the following generation. But only transactions involving the eldest sons are well documented, as the family business and its archive was handed down to the firstborn. After Nabu-ahhe-iddin's death at the beginning of the 13th year of Nabonidus (543 BC), his eldest son took charge of the family business on behalf of the heirs. For at least seven years the inheritance seems to have remained undivided. Unfortunately, no contract enables us to esti- mate the actual size of Nabu-ahhe-iddin's legacy and to compare it with the evidence obtained from the surviving tablets.8 From several indica- tions, however, we may deduce that the inheritance division took place after the second year of Cyrus's reign, although the fields might have been excluded and managed together for some years. Only after the death of Itti-Marduk-balatu does evidence show a mea- suring and subsequent physical division of a large plot of land between Irti-Marduk-balatu's heirs on the one side and his brother on the other (discussed below). In the next generation the eldest brother likewise acted as head of the Egibi family business, for almost fourteen years before the inheritance was divided. This time, the respective document is extant, but deals only with houses, slaves, and property in harranu partnerships, while gardens and fields were still held jointly. It thus is still not possible to assess the total value of the landed properly, but the surviving evidence of land purchased by the Egibi family is presented in Chart 3.9 The location of fields and gardens Most of the fields and gardens mentioned in sales and rental contracts lie in the region around Babylon. Their location is usually specified with respect to rivers and canals, the city gates, and their neighbors. The rough character of this description, however, does not allow a mapping of the area. The New Canal outside the Enlil Gate, the Borsippa Canal and the Samas Gate, the Banitu Canal with the Zababa Gate, and the Euphrates in connection with the districts Suppatu and Litamu near the Uras Gate are mentioned in the records. Until recently, all of it has been located in the south and southeast of Babylon. A recent study by A. R. George on the topography of Babylon, however, has relocated the Enlil Gate in the 396 Urbanization and Land Ownership in the Ancient Near East northwest on the west bank of the Euphrates."1 Therefore, the idea that the Egibis' interest in land acquisition was directed and concentrated only in the southern region cannot be upheld. Nevettheless, they preferred certain areas for their trade and land purchases. Exchange contracts, for instance, indicate a tendency to give away single lots, especially outside the Babylon region, for adjacent ones in areas where the family already held properties. Prices for fields and gardens Comparision of the Egibi archives data" on prices in relation to the quality and agricultural use of land does not indicate any obvious sign for a fluc- tuation in prices from 575 to 510 BC. This finding is corroborated by a scattering of reliable and comparable data from other archives. Date or- chards with fruit-bearing trees inside the city walls fetch the highest prices, followed by those just outside the city. One shekel of silver (about one month's wage of a hired worker) buys three to ten GAR (22.5 to 75 square meters). Gardens with only (or partially) young trees, or scattered date palms, are cheaper (up to 20 GAR per shekel). But it is difficult to com- pare and fully evaluate the data, for prices would have depended on the density of the palm trees, a figure that we hear of only occasionally when the actual number of trees per area is given. The graph provided by Miiller (1995-96:175) for prices in Babylon in the 6th century BC likewise does not show evidence for a significant increase in garden prices.12 Yet it denotes a rapid increase in barley prices from about 530 BC on, while date prices remain stable for two more decades (p. 165). He endorses van Driel's finding that date palm cultiva- tion was intensified during the 6th century BC in order to meet the expanding city's demand.13 This view can now be supported by new evi- dence from the Egibi archive. Arable land costs less than gardens. A shekel buys 30 to 100 GAR, depending on the proportion of fallow or low-quality land. Prices for par- ticular plots of course also depend on circumstanes that cannot be found in sales contracts: access to irrigation water and waterways, soil quality, other geographic considerations, and also the particular circumstances that prompted the sale. The circumstances of the acquisition Archival evidence reveals some of the reasons why landed property was sold.14 One example in which special circumstances apply already has been mentioned: a sale by order of the king and judges (5R 67, 1; see C. Wunsch 397 Chart 3 Egibi Family Real Estate Transaction naj Year Size Price Quality * Location Spe leers 276 0 Ngi I kur 5 m zaqpu Qalunu, Kutha 5R67.1 0 Ngl 24 kur 22 m 20 S zaqpu, mereiu, Nam ciiu (new canal), Enlil taptu Gate, Babylon (1) BM 415H Nbn 0.2.3.3.9 kur 4 m \0Yil 7,aqpu Bab nar (canal entrance) Barsip, Babylon Nbn 116 3 Nbn 5-1.3.5 kur 20 cn 37 i zaqpu, mereiu, Nar (canal) Banitu, Zababa kij'.llll Gate, Babylon (2) BM 32163 4+x Nbn 1 kur zaqpu, calani Nar Banttu, Babylon (2) ** Nbn 178 4 Nbn 0.1 kur 1 m 22«i Nar Barsip, Babylon Nbn 193 5 Nbn 0.0.2 kur 33 i zaqpu Bab nar Barsip, Samai Gate, Babylon Nbn 203 5 Nbn 0.0.2.5.6 kur 48 J zaqpu Bab nar Barsip, Babylon privare 8 Nbn 2.1.4 kur pf iulpu Hansu (50-fieId) saSa-Nabu-Su BM 33056 [9] 1.2.3 kur > Urai Gaie, Babylon Nbn 418 10 Nbn 0.0.2.2 kur ? Harm (irrigation ditch) 5a Hazuzu Nhn 437 10 Nbn 0.1 kur 1 m 3 5 zaqpu Hiiq:i {irfiijjiition ditch) sa lk'"i- Bel,Zababa Gate,Babylon (3) BM 32492 10 Nbn 0.0.4.0.9 kur zaqpu Bitqa-ia Ile"i-Bel, Zababa Gate, Babylon Nbn440+ 10 Nbn 1 kur 155 mereiu, taptu Urai Gate, Babylon Nbn 477 10 Nbn 0.1.5.4 kur 1 n US Urai Gate, Babylon TCL 160 zaqpu, pi iulpu Bab nar Barsip, Babylon (4) BM 34015 Urai Gate, Babylon ** BM 35028 [Urai Gate, Babylon] " below). More often, vendors were forced to sell in order to settle debts. Sometimes these debts had been accumulated for two generations, col- lateralized by real estate that finally had to be sold. But only rarely do we find that the creditor himself has bought the property. If he were inter- ested in doing so, he would arrange to make the purchase via a third party acting as intermediary. Sometimes the property was held jointly by several heirs or business partners. In such cases the property's revenue simply was divided among the entitled parties rather than the property being physically subdivided. One or more (or all) of the heirs might sell a property. When only one co- owner sold, the buyer would either initiate a formal division of the property, or would participate in the joint venture's income in propor- tion to his ownership share. The shifting composition of the property's heirs, as well as the names of their neighbors, suggests in several cases that plots typically were owned by one family for at least three generations, during which time they un- 398 Urbanization and Land Ownership in the Ancient Near East Transaction Year Size Price Quality * Location NAI and/or 1MB Nbn 372 9 Nbn 1.1 kur x+20 5 ? Harru sa Hazuzu BM 32197 ( ? J J [Harm ia Hazuzu] " 1MB Nbn 687 12 Nbn 0.1.4.0.8 kur 3rr 42W i zaqpu Zababa Gate, between walls Babylon BM 47925 ? ? i ? ; ** Cyr 1611| 1 3 Cyr 1.4.3.3 kur 2 n 3 i zaqpu, mereiu, Suppatu, Babylon Cyr 161||2 3 Cyr 1.1.4 37WS mercSu, kalft, gabibi Suppatu, Babylon Cyt 161113 3 Cyt 43W i zaqpu Suppatu, Babylon Cyr 161||4 3 Cyr 43WJ zaqpu Suppatu, Babylon Cyr I6l||5 3 Cyr [0.3.2 kur] 1 n zaqpu, mereiu Suppatu, Babylon Cyr 16I||6 3 Cyt (35 5) [...], kiiubbu Nar Madanu, Urai Gate, Babylon OrAn 14 7 Cyr 0.0.4.1 kur 42 S zaqpu Bttqa-sa Ile"[-Bel, Zababa Gate, Babylon (5) " (Camb217) 7? Cyr 3 kur x+2n Bab nar Kute lablri (6) Camb 286 2 Camb 1 kur Camb 226 3 4n 30 i GiSiu Gate Camb 375 7 Camb 0.3.4 Baru esiu BM 31931 Cyr/Camb 58^ i Suppatu, Babylon " MNA Dar 26 1 Dar 2 kur 9n 30 5 zaqpu, kiSubbd Litamu, Ural Gat b, Babylon Dar 102+ 3 Dar 1.0.5 kur 9rr 39WS zaqpu Bab nar Kute lab- ri. IStar Gat Babylon ** Dar 152 4 Dar 3 10 a 35 i zaqpu, mercSu, Litamu, UraS Gat e, Babylon Dar 202 6 Dar Lhamu, Urai Gat e, Babylon Dar 227 7 Dar 1.0.2 4 n zaqpu, mereiu Litamu, Urai Gat e, Babylon BRM 173 8 Dar 0.0.2 kur 28WS zaqpu Litamu, Urai Gat e, Babylon Dar 321 12 Dar 6 kur 32 n zaqpu Nam eSu, Duru- sa-kiiri rabi BM 31913 22 Dar 26 i zaqpu, kali'i, Sahrinu BM 32016 Dar (Nar Banitu, Zababa Gate, Babylon) (7) * see Chart 4 for terms ** Adjacent to a field already owned by the family (1) Half share with NergaUuiallim// Ile"i-Marduk (2) Half share with Nergai-banunu// Rab-bane (3) Half share with Rlmut//Eppes-iSl, second half later bought by 1MB (4) Half share with Belsunu//Sm-imitt (5) Former half share of Nbn 437 (6) 0.2.3 kur later sold to son-in-law (7) MNA's wife buys back a share in th field Nbn 116 II several plot ; filiation Name Abbreviations Camb = Cambyses Dar = Darius 1MB = Itri-Marduk-baiatu MNA = Marduk-nasir-apli NAI = Nabu-ahhe-iddin Nbk = Nebuchnezzar Nbn = Nabonidus Ngl = Neriglissat Weight 1 shekel (i) {about 8 grams) 1 mina (m) (about 500 grams) Surface 1 kur (54,000 square cubits, about 13,500 square merers) 5 PI = 1 kur 30 ban = 1 kur 360 sila = 1 kur 3600 GAR = 1 kur Capacity I kut (180 liters), same sub- C. wunsch 399 Chart 4 Field and Orchard Prices Record Year King Area per shekel Location Date orchard, fruit- tearing tre 0 (zaqpu , issibilti) 5r 67, 1 0 Ngl 6.66 GAR New Canal Nbn 437* 10 Nbn 6 GAR Birqa-sVIIe"i~Bel Nbn 687 12 Nbn 2.73 GAR Zababa Gate, bctw. city walls Cyr 161||1 3 Cyr 10 GAR Suppatu Dar 26 1 Dar 5.45 GAR Litamu Dar 102 3 Dar 3.75 GAR Old Kucha Canal Dat 152* 4 Dar 3.6 GAR Li cam u Dar 227 7 Dar 3.75 GAR Liiamu Date orchard, unspecified or m sect-age . . trees {zaqpu) BM 32640 30 Nbk 6 GAR Now Canal Speleers 276 0 Ngl 6 GAR Nbn 116 3 Nbn 6 GAR BanftU Canal BM 41511 3 Nbn 3.75 GAR Borsippa Canal Nbn 178 4 Nbn 3.75 GAR Borsippa Canal Nbn 193 5 Nbn 3.75 GAR Borsippa Canal Nbn 203 5 Nbn 3.75 GAR Borsippa Cana! Nbn 477 10 Nbn 10 GAR Uras" Gate Cyr 161||6 16 Nbn-3 Cyr c. 15 GAR Madanu Canal OrAn 14 7 Cyr 6.5 GAR Bitqa-5a-Ile"i-Bel BRM i 73 8 Dar 4.3 GAR Licamu Dar321 12 Dar 6 GAR New Canal, Duru-Sa-kari-rahi Dar 466 18 Dar 2.68 GAR Uras" Gate Date orchard, young trees (taldr ») 5r 67, 1 0 Ngl 20 GAR New Canal Grain field (meresu. tisutpi) Dar 227 7 Dar 25.7 GAR Litamu Grain field (meresu) andfreshly broken land (taptu) BM 32640 30 Nbk 45 GAR New Canal 5r 67, 1 0 Ngl 60 GAR New Canal Nbn 440* 10 Nbn 60 GAR Ura3 Gate Cyr 1611|1 3 Cyr 100 GAR Suppatu Dar152* 4 Dar 30 GAR Litamu Grain field (meresu) and/or unused (hisubbir) or low-quality land (kalu, gabibi) Nbn 116 3 Nbn 60 GAR Banltu Canal Cyr 161||2 3 Cyr c. 65 GAR Suppatu Dar 26 1 Dar 60 GAR Litamu Unidentified quality BM 33056 9 Nbn han 20 GAR UraS Gate Cyr 1611|3/4 3 Cyr 15 GAR Suppatu Cyr 161||5 3 Cyr c. 20 GAR Suppatu BM 31346||1 x Cyr/Camb 11.25 GAR [Suppatu] BM 31346||2 x Cyr/Camb 45 GAR (Suppatu] |j = several plots 400 Urbanization and Land Ownership in the Ancient Near East derwent several inheritance divisions. In such cases the main reason for selling the property probably was not so much financial as practical. When shares got too subdivided, this made the administration of income and expenditures too complicated. Sale was preferable simply to enable each party to consolidate his or her own resources. Purchase patterns with tegard to financing seem to have changed from the Egibi family's second and third generation to the fourth. In the second generation, Nabu-ahhe-iddin bought real estate either as sole buyer or together with business partners as an investment outlet for his profits earned originally in commerce.15 Many of the properties that he and his son Itti-Marduk-balatu purchased had been the objects of lawsuits ot had been pledged by their owners as collateral for loans or other debts. But in the foutth generation, Marduk-nasir-apli is found buying fields without making full cash payment. To the Babylonians, legal real estate sale requires the price to be paid in full. Every sales contract therefore contains a quittance clause for the entire purchase price as part of its forumla. Sales for less than full pay- ment can be traced only if separate debt notes are preserved specifying the balance remaining due as part of the purchase price. But in all our cases the balance was owed to the vendor himself, not to a third party. The money was not actually borrowed from (or turned over by) the vendor; rather, the unpaid debt was a result of a (temporary) absence of cash on the part of the buyer. The partial balance remaining on the purchase price (or part of it) was paid several months or even years aftet the sale took place. There is increasing evidence that the Egibi family's homes and fields, as well as slaves, were pledged and even forfeited for nonpayment. These signs suggest a shift in the family's business strategies and attitude regard- ing landed property. Obviously part of their real estate was employed in the normal course of business. The field at the New Canal According to sales contract5R 67,1 (= BM 41399 from 8/11/0 Neriglissar, 559 BC) Nabu-ahhe-iddin purchased a 24 kur estate (about 324 000 square meters, 2300 x 140 m) located on both sides of the New Canal {na.ru essu) opposite the Enlil Gate outside the walls of Babylon.16 It is the largest plot of land ever attested as having been bought by a member of the Egibi family. The contract was drafted in the presence of high rank- ing witnesses: the governor {sakin temt) of Babylon and a team of eight royal judges and four scribes. All of them impressed their seals on the margins of the tablet, an indication of the transaction's importance. C. WUNSCH ■101 Normally the presence of judges was not necessary for a land-sale contract to be valid. Only in cases of litigation or other problems were judges involved to certify the property's title. However, the transfer of landed property seemed to have required some act of publicity, referred to in the set phrases by sima nabu "to announce the purchase (price)," although we do not know precisely in which way. Land-sale contracts (apart from documents issued by judges in the process or as a result of a lawsuit) appear to have been the only type of private legal documents from the period in question to be sealed, although not all of them are. Only a few scribes seem to have specialized in drafting sale records and were licenced to use seals. Their function therefore might be described as that of notaries.17 In our above example, four brothers appear as sellers of the field (ob- viously inherited from their father), while Nabu-ahhe-iddin acts as the sole buyer. However, the purchase price — 22 minas and 20 shekels — was not handed over to the vendors, but was given to the Esagil Temple as a compensatory payment to satisfy its claims against the four brothers for oxen owed to the temple. Van Driel (!985-86:63f.) points out that the sale was forced. He suspectes the reason concerned backlogs due for the delivery of oxen to the Marduk Temple. Several hitherto unknown documents from the British Museum shed new light on this affair. The four brothers who sold the field to Nabu- ahhe-iddin handed over to him the previous purchase contract called ummi eqli "mother of the field" to attest to the legitimacy of the transfer. It was a regular practice to hand over such records (or copies of them) to the buyer; the vendor often was obliged to do so under the terms of the con- tract. In many archives such retroacta have been found and identified. In this particular case the identification of the ummi eqli was diffi- cult, as the previous purchase was not arranged by the father of the four brothers, but through a third person acting as a front man. We learn this fact, along with the name of the intermediary, only through another tab- let (BM 32184), drafted two years after Nabu-ahhe-iddin had bought the field. The tablets poor state of preservation prevents its full content and purpose from being determined with certainty, but it mentions the cir- cumstances surrounding the previous sale and hence represents the key to identifying the ummi eqli and provides additional information about the parties involved. It shows that the father of the four brothers, Marduk-etir, son of Marduk-zera-ibni from the Etiru family, was governor {sakin temi) of Babylon in the 30th year of Nebuchadnezzar II, at which time he ar- 402 Urbanization and Land Ownership in the Ancient Near East ranged lor the field to be bought. He seems to have been in trouble after Neriglissar became king, as an unfortunately damaged part of BM 32184 reads: ina qibatisarri [ . . . ] Marduk-etir ina sakin temuii mare Bd[bili...] ana mare Bdbili turru iqabbi "by order of the king . . . M. from(?) the government of the people of Babylon ... to the people of Babylon he promised to give back." This suggests that the land sale was ordered by Neriglissar, and it does not come as a surprise to find Nabu-ahhe-iddin profiting from his good business connections with this king. A comparison of the two sale contracts—5R67, 1 and its ummi eqli BM 32640 — reveals that the sakin temi's representative paid 19 minas and 8 shekels in total, while Nabu-ahhe-iddin paid 22 minas 20 shekels. This was nonetheless a lower price per square measure of date orchard and arable land, for in the intervening fifteen years the field had under- gone intensive cultivation, which considerably increased the proportion of date orchard. At first it measured only 4 PI'8 (one thirtieth of the total surface), but according to5R67, 1 it consisted of 10 PI with fully grown trees and more than 9 PI with young trees. This means that nearly one sixth was cultivated with date palms. Therefore the field's value had in- creased more than the slight rise of the purchase price indicates, and Nabu-ahhe-iddin made a very good deal. Some 41 years later, when Nabu-ahhe-iddin's son and grandsons di- vided up their shares in this field, the respective plots were measured and mapped (BM 30627, see below). By this time the area cultivated with date palms tepresented more than one fourth of the total surface, stretched along both sides of the canal. It seems that at this point, date palm culti- vation had reached the limit set by the irrigation facilities. This is indicated by a stipulation in a rental contract (BM 31401) in which one of the tenants is permitted to cultivate an area in addition to his lot, but must water this land with buckets (i.e., it could not be irrigated directly). The aforementioned record BM 32184 contains some further im- portant information. It states that Nabu-ahhe-iddin had bought the field and established a half-share with Nergal-usallim, the son of Suma-iddin from the Ile"i-Marduk family. The key words ahi zitti, "half share," call to mind the appropriate clauses in harranu records, in which usually two businessmen agree to undertake certain business affairs together and to share the profits and losses. No such record is known about a partnership with Nergal-usallim, but it must be pointed out that Nabu-ahhe-iddin bought several other properties together with three persons who had worked as his harranu partners.19 Except for these cases he always acted as the sole buyer. We therefore may assume that Nabu-ahhe-iddin assigned C. Wunsch 403 Illustration of a cuneiform tablet recotding the division of property at the New Canal among Egibi family heirs (BM 30627, obverse), c. 11x7 cm. (See cover photo.) a half share to Nergal-usalHm in the aforementioned property because the money paid for it had originated from their joint business. In this context the purchase of gardens and arable land should be understood as representing a secure and profitable investment of their commercial prof- its. One certainly can conclude that Nabu-ahhe-iddin at this point in his career did not yet possess the means to buy the whole lot for himself. Until today, the evidence from 5R 67, 1 (the sales contract) suggested that he purchased and owned 24 kur, a remarkably large estate as com- pared to the size of the other lots he bought. It now turns out that only half of it should be considered for calculations of the size of the Egibis' landed property. 404 Urbanization and Land Ownership in the Ancient Near East a 65 - . 65 — v. I . ?®f f I f f ®f f h « f ~ 1.0.2.4.2 f f 8 , * 1 1.0.2.3.6 f f » If f f f f f f f > f E i - 75 1/2 ' - ' i 75 1/2 •*----76 1/6 f Tfds>f f i f"«1-1-5-3-8 • f \ T f (20C«) f _ ! f f f f f 79 1/3 <---76 1/3--► 1.2.1.5.5 T (254) f , f f f t r M 3.3.3.4.7 3.3.3.5.5 66 1/2 39 "it BM 30627 (schematic). Length measures in cubits, surface measures (bold type) in kur, and number of palm trees in parentheses. The property was held in common after its purchase and rented out by Nabil-ahhe-iddin and his partner (or the latter's heirs) to a series of tenants until it was finally divided among members of both families after Nabu-ahhe-iddin's death.20 It is difficult to estimate the actual yield of this field or to establish a relation between its purchase price and the revenue.21 Some surviving debt notes concern the volume of dates from orchards at the New Canal owed by the tenants to Nabu-ahhe-iddin and his partner, but they only refer to rent charged on the date palms. We have no evidence about the grain field or the crop underneath the trees. Liv 12 (from the third season after the purchase) specifies 165 kur of dates and by-products owed by two persons, one of whom is Nergal- C. wunsch 405 usallim's slave. A debt note has been preserved from the 9th year of Nabonidus, in which four persons owe 171 kur, one of them a slave of Nabu-ahhe-iddin. These figures seem plausible22 and the records are likely to refer to our field, although perhaps Nabu-ahhe-iddin and his partner owned or rented and sublet additional lots in the same area. A revenue of about 150 kur (27,000 liters) represents a value of 2 minas 30 shekels of silver, given the "ideal" exchange rate of one kur per shekel that seems applicable until the end of Nabonidus's reign.23 This figure compares well with the interest of 2 minas 24 shekels that could be obtained from 12 minas of silver (the price portion Nabu-ahhe-iddin paid for the land cultivated with date palms) at the usual annual interest rate of 20 percent. Another unpublished document (BM 31959), drafted during the first years of Dariuss reign,2,1 reveals the property situation after Nabu-ahhe- iddins death. According to this document he had transferred his field at the New Canal to his wife Qudasu and granted her lifetime usufruct. In addition, his three sons were designated as remaindermen after her death and were to inherit "according to their shares," i.e., the oldest son was to receive a double portion. We therefore may expect Qudasu to have re- ceived the field's yield after her husband's death. In fact, her ownership of the field is attested by three records. In two debt notes, Cyr 123 and Camb 118 (from the 3rd year of Cyrus and the 2nd year of Cambyses, 536 and 528 BC respectively) tenants owe her dates as rent for the field at the New Canal. The tenant mentioned in Camb 118 also appears in the rent contract BM 31401. This fragmentary text seems to contain an additional stipulation to a previous contract. Obviously the tenant is as- signed a lot that cannot be reached by normal irrigation, but must be watered with buckets.25 The crop is to be shared with Qudasu.21' After Qudasu's death, her sons — Itti-Marduk-balatu, Nergal-etir, and Iddin-Nabu — took over the field in the 7th year of Cambyses (523 BC). BM 31959 speaks of the brothers having divided the field; Iddin- Nabu immediately transferred his quarter to his brother in order to settle debts. Later on Nergal-etir used his share as a pledge (Camb 372). Nev- ertheless, the field was not physically divided but was held in common and the yield was distributed according to their shares until the 3rd year of Darius (519 B.C.). Only after the death of Nabu-ahhe-ddin's eldest son, Itti-Marduk-balatu, did his heirs initiate a formal division of the property. Two records refer to this division and provide information about the field's size and shape, soil quality, and agricultural use including the number of date palms, the names of the field's neighbors, and the manner of partition. Dar 80 (with duplicate BM 32216) is the division contract, 406 Urbanization and Land Ownership in the Ancient Near East and BM 30627 the corresponding field plan27 (see illustrations on pp. 404-405).28 Both tablets were drafted by the same scribe in front of the same witnesses in a settlement at the New Canal, that is in the region where the field is located and the measuring took place. Both records are slightly damaged, but some of the gaps can be filled by data from the other text. The obverse of BM 30627 depicts a rectangle that is divided verti- cally into two sections. Horizontally they are subdivided into four parts each, the first border being specified as na.ru essu, the New canal. The lengths of all sides (in cubits) are indicated in each part as well as the corresponding Babylonian surface measure and the agricultutal use. This sketch does not represent a field plan to scale, but is an abstraction, for the lot actually is almost 30 times longer than it is wide.29 The owners of the neighboring plots are named in the margins. The reverse of the tablet summarizes the size of the shares and assigns the left half to Nergal-etir, the right half to Marduk-nasir-aph and his brothers. Evidently the long field has been divided vertically at a right angle to the canal in order to provide both sides with access to the irrigation facilities. This achieved a balanced proportion of date orchards to arable land for both shares and therefore assured that the same surface area represented an equal value. The length and surface measures, as well as the names of the neigh- bors, correspond with the data that can be read in the badly damaged division contract Dar 80 and help to reconstruct the missing parts. The map reveals some interesting details of the field layout that are rarely expressed so exphcity in other sources. On the south bank of the canal we find an area of date orchard that contains about 500 trees on 38,520 square meters30 {i.e., one tree per about 77 square meters or 130 trees per hectare in modern metrology). The area north of the canal is described as consisting of two thirds palm orchard, obviously streched out along its bank. Further away from the canal we find an area suitable for barley cultivation, starting at a distance of 500 meters south of the canal and having a length of over 1.37 kilometers. Its bottom end is trapezoidal and leads to a basin or drainage canal. Seven years after the division took place, Nergal-etir died, and we find his widow and daughters in the contract Dar 265 exchanging his lot with Marduk-nasir-apli and his brothers for a smaller field in Dilbat and a compensation payment that was used to settle Nergal-erir's debts. After all this, Nabu-ahhe-iddin's original share was reunited in the hands of his grandsons but probably was divided again some years later. C. Wunsch 407 Discussion Hudson: You mentioned earlier that you found that when something had to give, it was control of the land rather than the debt burden, in contrast to the andurarum and misharum Clean Slates of the Old Babylo- nian period. In other words, debt created an inexorable relationship that altered land-tenure relations. Wunsch: I was referring to cases where the land was not alienable (royal fiefs, for instance) and was connected with services to be performed by its holder. M. W. Stolper analyzed the underlying patterns reflecred in the Murasu archive. Although such land holdings could not be sold, they could be used as a pledge in exchange for a loan. At first they only served as a security for the debt. But if the debtor fell behind with interest pay- ments, the land was converted into an antichretic pledge; that is to say, the creditor was entitled to take possession of the pledged land and enjoy its usufruct in lieu of interest payments on the outstanding debt. He thus became the virtual owner and was entitled to rent it out. This shift in the control of the land through debt did not necessarily change the land's use or occupancy. The most appropriate tenant was the debtor himself. He ended up working the field, performing the duties that were linked with it while trying to repay the capital amount of his debt. This was of course more difficult under such conditions, as a sub- stantial part of the crop had to be paid as rent to the creditor-lessor. Indebtedness therefore created a long-term dependency that provided the creditor with access to land and its usufruct even though no actual trans- fer of title took place. Harrison: Was the New Canal part of the landscape, or was it built arti- ficially, and if so, who built it and was responsible for maintaining it? Wunsch: It definitely was not part of the original landscape. It was the task of the king to have such canals dug and maintained. This was an organized palace responsibility. The users of the irrigation waters had to pay for their use. Renger: The revenue was paid to the royal administration, at least in the Achaemenid period under Persian domination. Harrison: How did they establish the amount to be paid? Did it depend on the land's location near or far from the water? Was there something recognized as being a favorable location? 408 Urbanization and Land Ownership in the Ancient Near East Wunsch: Probably, and wc would know more abour it if we had the royal administration archives. But all we have got are clauses in rent docu- ments stating that the canal fee (gugallutu) is paid or not paid. We have no idea about the specific proportion of the harvest that is to be paid to the canal authorities. Neither its amount nor the size or location of the property is mentioned in these texts. They only record the amount of dates or barley still to be delivered as rent by the tenant to the lessor. The appearance of such a clause in a contract between lessor and tenant how- ever suggests rhat the officials actually dealt with the tenant when they came to collect the fee. But it was not considered to be part of the rent. We also know that the Egibis had an obligation to supply corvee la- bor to work on the canal system and to perform other construction work. It is not clear just what the basis was for having to provide such workers. Was it because of their own land holdings, or because they were manag- ing other land, for instance temple estates? We know that temples had to provide labor for canal maintenance and construction. We can assume the same for large private land owners. The canal inspector (gugallu) was responsible for organizing mainte- nance work at the local level, while the owner had to keep intact the intake of water from the canal system into his own field. Dandamayev: You said that there are no documents in which members of the Egibi family appear as sellers of land. You explain this by the fact that when a landholder sold his land, he turned over all earlier sales docu- ments relating to this land to the new buyer. But some other explanation is possible in this particular case. Why should members of the Egibi fam- ily sell any land? They may sell slaves, but why would they sell any land? After all, land was the most valuable property, and everybody tried to acquire it. Nobody would have wanted to sell. Therefore, selling would be expected only in cases of extreme need or by old owners who had no children. I am not sure that the Egibis were forced to sell land. Wunsch: They were certainly not forced, as they had alternatives. But there might have been cases when their neighbors wished to buy a plot and offered a good deal. The Egibis have sold a certain piece of land as a favor to someone whom they could expect to be helpful for their busi- ness. It was probably not very effective to manage scattered fields in faraway areas anyway. Indeed we have one record that points out that the Egibis sold properties, but it is not a sales contract. The record (Liv. 33) states that two brothers sold one field plot each in which the other one had a half share. As they had not yet divided the inheritance of their father, C. Wunsch 409 neither of them would have had full title to any field. The purpose of this record was to oblige both of them to have the plots measured in order to make sure that they wete of equal size and value. Should one of them be larger or smaller, the other brother would have to be compensated. I think we can deduce from these traces that the Egibis indeed sqld plots of land. I agree that land was the most valuable asset and that people tried to avoid selling their land. It was, after all, their livelihood. The reason why the Egibis were willing to sell land voluntarily was precisely the fact you cite, that they were incredibly rich. They had lots of such little bits of properties, and they obviously sold some of them for the sake of other business operations. In this case they did not treat land as a vital soutce of their subsistence, but as an asset to be used in the most economic man- ner. Dandamayev: You mentioned that the governor of Babylon was ordered by the king to sell his land. This document is difficult to interpret, for it is destroyed in a crucial place. I can understand that he could remove his officials, but I doubt that he could order somebody to sell his land if it was that persons own property. This would be against traditional cus- tom, a violation of the rights of citizens. So your interpretation is difficult for me to accept. Wunsch: We do not know exactly the contents of the king's order, but it resulted in the sons of the governor selling the field. It should be noted that it was not the king who took the money. The purchase price went to the Esagila, the Marduk temple. The king simply might have acted in his capacity as supreme judge. I infer that we must assume that the governor somehow was involved in the administration of the Marduk temple, per- haps with the temple's cattle as oxen are mentioned. Perhaps he simply profited from his position and put something aside. Or, he srill owed something to the temple. I don't find it strange that his sons inherit his debts and have to (or decide to) sell. Renger: There was no constitutional provision regarding property. This is not a free country or even a civic society. This is a despotic king who is the supreme ruler of his country and can do with his subjects as he wants, within certain limits. If there was something he thought had to be straight- ened out, then he could order it. Stager: It depends on the customary law and tradition. A king may be the ruler, but that doesn't mean he can pluck away everything he wants in a noncustomary manner. Of course, the situation will vary from society to 410 Urbanization and Land Ownership in the Ancient Near East society. Now if your society has no customs against this sort of thing, then the king could do it. Renger: This is not a case in which the king takes the land for himself. There were some claims from the temple that wete served by royal order to return the proceeds. Levine: The king is an enforcer. Hudson: From the vantage point of the economic historian, one of the most interesting things in your paper is the last document you mention, which is about a property that seems to have been bought in conjunction with a loan. Moses Finely mentioned that he had looked through all of the literature of Greece and Rome and had not found a single instance of anyone borrowing money to make money, of any productive loan. Do you believe that you have found something in the Neo-Babylonian pe- riod that would represent borrowing money to make money via land ownership? Wunsch: First of all, it is difficult to trace such cases, as the transfer of property requires the price to be paid in full for the ttansaction to be valid. Therefore, every sales contract contains a quittance clause that states that the full amount of money has been paid. Out only chance to detect loans linked with purchases are additional debt notes that specify the money as part of the purchase price or intetest payments. Such cases occur, but normally it is a small fraction of the price only (for instance, to be paid when the vendor brings family members as addi- tional witnesses to the contract or hands over a previous record ro the new owner). In such cases rhe buyer simply withholds part of the price to reenforce an obligation. No actual loan is involved. Sometimes, the pay- ment is delayed by some days. But there is one case (Dar 152 and relating records) in which about three quarters of the price of a field are owed by the Egibis to the vendor. Part of it has to be paid within one month, the balance within three months. From an additional record (Dar 217) we learn however, that it had not yet been paid in fiill after two years. There is no mention of interest payments, and we cannot exclude that there was some commer- cial connection. However, according to a lawsuit (Nbn 356), a couple bought a house and a quarter of the price was a loan. After the death of the husband, the wife tried to keep up with interest payments but eventually failed and the C Wunsch 411 house had to be sold. One of the stipulations made by the judges was that the creditor's claim had to be paid out of the purchase price with first priority. This example at least illustrates that purchase at credit was actu- ally practiced, although we cannot term it a productive loan. Hudson: In terms of quantity this may not be important, but structur- ally speaking, it seems very important. Renger: On the other hand, in terms of these business ventures in which someone provided commodities to another person to trade, we do not find people making deposits with others as bankers who turn around and use it to finance trading ventures. So what Cornelia said (and you pointed out from classical antiquity, Michael) — the fact that there was no credit being used or created for investment — also applies to Mesopotamia in this period. This document seems to be a very exceptional case. I don't remember any other like it. Wunsch: I guess it goes together with a tendency we can observe in that generation of the Egibis. They are freer to pledge theit own property. Obviously they undertook numerous ventures that required them to pledge their property as security ro back their commitment. There even was a foreclosure, and the pledged property actually was sold. At first glance you would not expect this in so rich a family. What it seems to indicate is that the Egibi were using their land more as an asset in the modern way, rather than with the attitude of someone who had to earn a living from that property. Hudson: Do you have examples of people buying an urban property and changing its land use from one type of activity, such as gardening, ro one yielding a higher rent, such as building a residential town house? Wunsch: We find cases of people buying urban property, tearing down whatever is on it, and building something new. We see the Egibis buying houses and renting them out, often for very high rents. Hudson: Is there such a thing as what modern economists call "rent of location," with some sites being more valuable than others because of their proximity to the gates or markets, or to the palace and temples? Wunsch: The problem is that the houses are not well described in the rent contracts, which hardly ever enable us to identify them with the properties known from our purchase contracts. We thetefote cannot es- tablish any link berween rhe size of the properties and their rental income. Even in house sale contracts the informarion on location is fat from be- 412 Urbanization and Land Ownership in the Ancient Near East ing satisfactory. Usually only the town district and the names of neigh- bors are given, but tarely a street name. There is no chance of creating a land-value map. Of course, when the house of a high official of even the palace of the crown prince is mentioned as adjacent property, we can presume that the property is prestigious and valuable. The important point is that landowning by itself did not make high profits. Land prices did not increase in the way that they would in mod- ern European or American cities. For agricultural properties, prices did not inctcasc significantly either, unless their owner invested money to plant date palms or improve the infrastructute, for instance. When back- ground information on landowners is available, they seem to have derived their wealth not from urban real estate (for there does not seen to have been speculative activity in this period), but rather from their position in the temple or royal administration, or from commerce such as buying commodities in the countryside and delivering them to Babylon. C. Wunsch 413 Notes Babylonian dates are cited in the following form: day/month/regnal year, King's name. Filiations are referred to by the person's name/father's name/ ancestor's name or person's name//ancestot's name. 1. For general information on the archive, V/eingort (1939) and Ungnad (1941- 44), concentrate on the family relations and establish the genealogical tree. Krecher (1970) catalogues the published records where members of the main family branch are involved and provides abstracts (regestae) of these documents together with an index of subjects and valuable cross-references. Van Driel (1985-86) gives an outline of the family business during the first and second generations. Roth (1991) and Wunsch (1995-96) deal with dowries comprising real estate and the property left to and by the women who married into and out of the Egibi family. 2. For details, see Reade (1986) and Evers (1993). 3. van Driel (1985-86, 1988 [152-55 presents a table on "Land in the Egibi archive"], 1990 [esp. concerning agricultural terminology]). Previous stud- ies by Beljavskij (1968) and Martitosjan (1977) on land tenure according to the Egibi archive hardly reached an audience outside Russia. 4. My forthcoming Studien zum Egibi-Archw. 1. Die Felder und Garten deals with the family's fields and gardens and will contain text editions (includ- ing copies of unpublished texts) of the material in question. For the present, unpublished texts are quoted by their BM number for identification. 5. Lanz (1976) provides a detailed study of such harrdnu undertakings during the Neo-Babylonian period and deals with the affairs of members of the Egibi family on pp. 148-165. 6. For a recent treatment and details of the "Netiglissar connection," see van Driel (1985-86:57-59), summarizing: "Commercial relations, neighborli- ness and politics ate closely connected." 7. The first purchase attested at all took place only three months before in the Kutha area: Speleers Recueil no. 276 (cuneiform text, abbteviation listed in CAD and AHw under Speleers or Recueil). 8. We have to assume that the existing tablets refer to the one half share of Itti- Marduk-bafatu, the eldest son who took over his father's business and archive, whereas sale documents referring to the shares that later have been assigned to the younger brothers must have been handed over to them and left the archive. The same happened in the next generation and another set of docu- ments is probably missing for this teason. There is evidence for Itti-Marduk-balatu and Marduk-nasir-apli trying to buy back shares from their brothers or other relatives, but it remains uncertain for various rea- sons to what extent we have knowledge of Nabu-ahhe-iddin's activities in land purchase. 414 Urbanization and Land Ownership in the Ancient Near East 9. Such references are omitted in debt notes, etc., that merely mention a "field in ... without any details. 10. George (1985-86: 9; 1992:24 with map). 11. Chart 4 arranges the prices according to land quality and the date of the contract. Some texts are mentioned in more than one section when they indicate different prices for different sorts of land. The sign || followed by a number refers to contracts about several plots (numbered in sequence) that may contain in themselves various types of land. Fot a recent discussion of the meaning of the terms describing the fields according to quality and agricultutal use, see van Driel (1990:220). 12. The data have been treated with statistical methods in otder to emphasize trends, but unfortunately there is no table to indicate where the data them- selves derive from. Most likely the majority of the soutces from the period in question are extracted from the same texts dealt with in the ptesent pa- per. They thetefore are not suitable as additional support for my observations. 13. Van Driel (1990:144-146); for new evidence from Sippar see Jursa (1995:122f). 14. Speleers Recueil Nr. 276: Two heirs were indebted to a thitd person, the debt dates back to their grandfather's time; Nbn 116: purchase by a front man; BM 32163 + : the field had been pledged to the vendor's daughter-in- law (as security for her dowry silver) before being sold to NAI and his partner; Nbn 178: sold by three heirs; BM 33056+: three heirs, indebted to a thitd person, a lawsuit with a relative had to be settled before the sale could be completed; Nbn 418: several heirs and various lawsuits (Nbn 372, 477, BM 34015, BM 35028 and BM 32197 refer to several sales by members of the same family); Nbn 687: the vendot was first indebted to 1MB and the field served as pledge, debt title and pledge were then transferred to a toyal official before finally 1MB bought the field and paid the vendot's creditor; Cyr 161: sale by thtee heirs, the lessor was indebted to IMB's parents-in- Iaw and two more creditors; OrAn 14: two heirs of a former business partner of NAI sold to 1MB in order to settle debts owed to a third person; Camb 217: The vendor was originally indebted to 1MB, part of the purchase price was not paid immediately but owed to the vendor at a 20 percent interest rate; Camb 375: exchange contract; BM 31939: vendor indebted to 1MB; Dar 26: sale within the familiy (vendor is MNA's father-in-law); Dar 102+: a receipt teveals that the price was paid in total only eight years after the purchase, the dissolving of a harrdnu undertaking is mentioned as well. Dar 152: bought at credit (two thirds of the purchase price out of which 5 m were to be paid within one month, 2 m 10 s with thtee months, neverthe- less, years later 2 m are still owed to the vendor); Dar 202: only a quittance of a fraction of the putchase price is extant; Dar 227: 1 m out of a total purchase price of 4 m is owed to the vendot on an interest-ftee basis; BRM C. Wunsch 415 1 73: sold by three heirs; BM 31913: coral purchase price paid in full only after 9 months; BM 32016: sale within the family. 15. For references, see note 20. 16. According to George (1985-86:9; 1992:24), this gate lay to the northwest. The canals and water courses near it must be relocated accordingly, as pointed out by van Driel (1990:218). 17. A study on this subject by H. D. Baker and the present writer is to be published in a forthcoming volume of Iraq. 18. This figure has been calculated on the basis of a total of [23].2.3 kur (con- firmed by BM 32184:15) and the relation of 6 GAR per shekel for date orchard and 45 GAR per shekel for arable land, both figures given in BM 32640. 19. Nbn 1 ! 6 and related documents: more than 5 kur, commonly owned with NergaI-banCinu//Rab-bane; BM 32163+: 1 kur with Nergal-bantinu//Rab- bane; Nbn 437:1 PI with Rlmut//Eppcs-ili; TCL 13, 160: field of unknown size together with Beisunu//Sin-imittu. 20. We have have only indirect proof that after Nabu-ahhe-iddins death the field was properly divided. Another 16 years later, according to the field plan BM 30627, the shares of Nabu-ahhe-iddin's heirs measured about 12 kur; the neighbour at one of the long sides is a member of the I!e"i-Marduk familiy and very likely a descendent of Neigal-usallim. 21. The ratio between the shares of lessor and tenant is not relevant in this context, and therefore will be left aside. 22. A tecent discussion of the available information for date crops in Neo-Baby- lonian times can be found in Jursa (1995:148-50). On the basis of data from the Sippar temple archive, he concludes that 30 to 40 kur of dates per kur of surface were expected to be paid as imittu rent (comparable with our case). This was an average figure, with extremes being as high as 70 kur and as low as 7 kur. Given a surface measure of 2 kur of fruit-bearing trees and 2 more kur of young trees by the year 0 Ngl {i.e., probably starting to yield crops by the time when our debt notes were drafted), the amounts of 165 kur and 171 kur are within the expected range. 23. See Miiller (1995-96:165). However, this figure normally refers to the price paid by traders to farmers, or the equivalents of commodities in silver men- tioned in debt notes. The actual income might therefore he higher. 24. Duplicate: BM 41551. Although the year in these tablets is not preserved, prosopographical evidence suggests that the record is to be dated between the 1st and 3rd years of Darius (521-519 BC). 416 Urbanization and Land Ownership in the Ancient Near East 25- ina ddli dalu. CAD D p. 56, s.v. dafu suggests this term means the drawing of water from wells rather than canals. 26. The clause ia ii-se-la Q. it-ti PN ta-ak-kal "whatever he causes to grow, Q. will consume it with PN" does not specify the proportion, but it probably implies equal shares. 27. By a lucky chance we are able to link such a field plan to an archive and to the actual contract for which it has been established. By contrast, none of the mostly fragmentary field plans published by Nemet-Nejat (1982) con- tains comparable details, and all of them lack archival background infor- mation. Part of the maps, termed "field plan" by the author, actually refer to houses (as pointed out by Liverani (1996:35). For the identification of a house plan and its corresponding sales contract, see Joannes (1990). 28. The tablet will be fully published and studied in the present writer's forth- coming volume (see note 4). 29. Liverani (1996:35-37) has calculated the average length-width relation of fields on the basis of field plans and property descriptions in Neo-Babylo- nian contracts. For date palm orchards, he quotes an average ratio of 7:1 (with examples from the Egibi and Sin-ilT archives showing a 20:1 ratio). He points out that orchards generally have a more elongated shape than grain fields "as a result of more specific irrigation needs and practices." However, these figures do not say too much. If we take our field as an example, the ratio at the time of purchase was 15:1, after the first division between the business partners, it was 30:1. After the division documented by BM 30627, it was as much as 60:1. When MNA bought back the share of his uncle, it reached 30:1 again. This shows the degree to which the ratio is determined by the stage of the ongoing process of division and reuniting of shares. Our evidence is very accidental. When we take only the date-orchard stripe alongside the canal inro consideration, the ratios would be roughly 3-5:1, 7:1, and 15:1. As the distance between the trees was about 8.5 to 9 meters in each direction (see next note), a single plot at its 60:1 stage was only 5 trees (or 40 meters) wide. The length of a garden plot is determined by the irrigation facilities. Therefore the only useful figure that might emerge at the end is that of the minimum size of a plot, when further division was prohibited by practical reasons. 30. This figure corresponds with the data from Sippar provided by jursa (1995:150, n. 302: 6.5 to 10 meters distance between trees). C. Wunsch 417 Bibliography Beljavskij, A. (1968), "7xmlevladenie doma Egibi," Geograficeskoc obscesrvo SSR, Doklady otdelenii i komisii 5:160-181. van Driel, G. (1985-86), "The Rise of the House of Egibi: Nabu-ahhe-iddina," JEOL 29:50-67. —■ (1988), "Neo-Babylonian Agriculture," Bulletin on Sumerian Agriculture 4 (Cambridge): 121-1 59 [pp. 152-155: Land in the Egibi archive]. — (1990), "Note on BSA 4, pp. 127 and 150-1 and Neo-Babylonian Agri- culture. III. Cultivation," Bulletin on Sumerian Agriculture 5 (Cambridge): 218-265- Evers, S. M. (1993), "George Smith and the Egibi Tablets," Iraq 55:107-117. George, A. R. (1985-86), "The Topography of Babylon Reconsidered," Sumer 44:7-24. — (1992), "BabylonianTopographicalTexts," Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 40 (Leuven). Joannes, F. (1990), "Cadastre et titre de propriete en Babylonie achemenide," NABU 1990/10 Jursa, M. (1995), "Die Landwirtschaft in Sippar in neubabylonischer Zeit," AfO Beiheft 25 (Wien). Krecher, J. (1970), Das Geschdftshaus Egibi in Babylon in neubabylonischer und achamenidischer Zeit. Habilitationsschrifc [unpublished] (Miinster/W.). Lanz, H. (1976), Die neubabylonischen hmznu-Geschafisuntemehmen, Miinchner Universitatsschriften. Beitrage zur rechtswissenschaftlichen Grund- lagenforschung, 18 (Berlin):l48-165 [Das Haus Egibi]. Liverani, M. (1996), "Reconstructing the Rural Landscape of the Ancient Near East," JESHO 39:1-41. Martirosjan, A. (1977), "Arendnye operacii v delovom dome Egibi v 543-522 gg. do n.e,"v4W. NaukArmSSR /5>5>7/7(Erevan):84-91. Muller, G. G. W. (1995/96), "DieTeuerung in Babylon im 6. Jh.v.Chr.," AJO 42/43, 163-175. Nemet-Nejat, K. R. (1982), Neo-Babylonian Field Plans (Roma). Reade, J. E. (1986), "Introduction," in E. Leichty, Catalogue of the Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum, 6, (London):xiv-xvi. 418 Urbanization and Land Ownership in the Ancient Near East Roth, M.T. (1991), "The Dowries of the Women of the Itti-Marduk-balatu FamUy," JAOS 111/1:19-37. Ungnad, A. (1941-44), "Das Haus Egibi," AfO 14:57-64. Weingort, S. (1939), Das Haus Egibi (Berlin). Wunsch, C. (1995-96), "Die Frauen der Familie Egibi," AfO 42/43:33-63. C. Wunsch 419