Many a Mickle Makes a Muckle Advance Payments in the Ur-Utu Archive (Old Babylonian Sippar)

Transcription

1 Many a Mickle Makes a Muckle Advance Payments in the Ur-Utu Archive (Old Babylonian Sippar) Katrien De Graef * Abstract: This article analyses the content, structure and functioning of advance payments concerning real estate sales, a text genre that only came into being during the late Old Babylonian period. It includes the publication of 19 unpublished late Old Babylonian texts from Sippar, among which 18 texts from the Key words: advance payments, economy, Ur-Utu archive, Sippar, Old Babylonian period INTRODUCTION Old Babylonian real estate sales documents always state that the price has been paid in full (e.g. šám.til.la.bi.šè kù.babbar in.na.an.lá). The logical assumption then is that this was done at the time of the sale but, although this will have been the case in most instances, there is a number of late Old Babylonian contracts showing another procedure. These documents record advance payments, made before the sale. Among the Old Babylonian contracts from Sippar there are a few in which silver (or more rarely barley) is given by person A to person B, for the purchase (ana šám) of real estate (a house or a field) 1. They further stipulate that when the sales document will be written, person A will pay the rest of the price. In other words, person A is a prospective buyer (I will refer to him as the buyer in short) who pays an advance on the purchase of real estate to a prospective seller, person B, (I will refer to him as the seller). These documents are proofs of payment, in other words receipts issued by the sellers and kept by the buyers. In all good logic they are sealed by the recipients of the payments (the sellers) and some of the witnesses. The old theory on these partial payments, going back to San Nicolò (1922: ) according to whom credit sale of land existed in Mesopotamia, is proven wrong by the formulation of these texts as shall be seen. San Nicolò had put forward that when a sales document was drawn up it could be accompanied by a loan contract stipulating the obligation of the buyer to make further payments, implying that the statement in the sales contract that the full price was paid was a fiction ( fiktiven Barkauf ). Skaist (1994: 72), following Waetzoldt (1976: 142), had already concluded that the price was really paid in full at the time of the sale and that if partial payments were made they in fact preceded this. * 1 Ghent University. Advances on payments were not limited to the purchase of real estate. There were also advances on payments for slaves, e.g. VSMHET only advances on payments for real estate will be discussed. Akkadica 137 (2016), pp

2 Akkadica 137 (2016) In his study of Old Babylonian loan documents, Skaist identified five texts of this kind and discussed them in an Excursus (1994: 67-72). Twenty-three more texts can be added. One from the Louvre, published as TCL I 221, one from the Vorderasiatisches Museum, published as VS 29 68, and three from the British Museum collection (BDHP 29, MHET II 496 and the unpublished BM 81312). However, the largest addition came to light in the archive of the less than eightteen documents to this corpus, expanding it to twenty-eight. The following table gives an overview in which the texts from the archive of the chief dirge singers are considered as a separate group since they show some degree of coherence as will be explained further on. Texts from various late Old Babylonian Sippar archives 1 BDHP 29 1 ½ ma.na kù.babbar íb.tag 4 6 ma.na kù.babbar šám iku a.šà ša GIŠ GUD? SÌ?? 2 YOS gín kù.babbar ana šám a.šà ù é 3 MHET II gín kù.babbar ana ša-aja 4 OLA gín kù.babbar ana šám é 5 TJAUB: gín kù.babbar ana šám 3 sar é ina 6 BM šà šám iku a.šà 7 Anbar 1975: (nr 3) 2 gín kù.babbar šà kù.babbar šám a.šà ina a.gàr 8 VS gín kù.babbar ana šám é.dù.a 9 TCL I 221 ana 10 OLA date lost (Ae-Sd) šà šám é 11 Di gín kù.babbar ana šám é 12 Di gín kù.babbar ana šám a.šà 13 Di še ana šám a.šà 14 Di gín kù.babbar ana šám a.šà-im 15 Di gín kù.babbar ana šám 2 sar é.bar.ra šà é šikittim ina 16 Di ? 17 Di še.gur giš ana šám é 18 Di 1226 ša e 19 Di gín kù.babbar šà šám a.šà a.gàr e 20 Di gín kù.babbar šà šám a.šà ša a.gàr e 21 Di še šà šám a.šà-im ina a.gàr 22 Di gín kù.babbar šà šám a.šà-im 23 Di gín kù.babbar 24 Di še.gur giš šà šám a.šà a.gàr Ašlatum 2

3 K. De Graef, Many a Mickle Makes a Muckle 25 Di gín kù.babbar ša šám iku a.šà a.gàr Ašlatum ina ki 26 Di 1543 ana im ina latum 27 Di gín kù.babbar ana šám a.šà a.gàr Ašlatum 28 Di 1294 date lost (post Table 1: Overview of the Texts Belonging to the Corpus šám iku a.šà a.gàr THE CORPUS These contracts are dated from Ad 1 (BDHP 29) to Sd 10 (VS 29 68), implying this is a new document type belonging to the late Old Babylonian period. This raises the question whether the practice expressed by these texts also is a late phenomenon. The answer must be positive since it is unthinkable that an Old Babylonian Sipparian would give sheqels of silver to anyone without written proof. Had the practice existed earlier, we would have documents attesting to it. Outside of the archive of the chief dirge singers seem to have paid advances for fields and houses quite often. The document BDHP of Šamaš, cial point for us is that this payment is further defined as the remainder of 6 mina of silver, price of a 19,44 ha field (BHDP 29: 2-3: íb.tag 4 In other words, this is the last payment due for this field, for which 4 ½ mina (i.e. ¾ of the total price) had been paid previously. No mention is made of the purchase document, and the presence of the overseer of the merchants and three judges as first witnesses could point to this being the result of a legal decision, settling a dispute about the price or payment of this very large field. In that case there is no relation with advances on field sales. If, on the other not the outcome of a lawsuit, then it could be the first advance payment known up to date. It would then not yet have been an established type of document, which could explain the absence of a mention of the sales document, always present in the later documents. Silver and Barley The advance is paid in silver or more exceptionally in barley. On one occasion (TCL I 221) the amount is completely broken. In twenty-three documents the advance is paid in silver. In four of them the amount of silver is broken (on one occasion it can be restored, cf. infra). The very first document, BDHP 3

4 Akkadica 137 (2016) 29, stands out with an advance of 1 ½ mina of silver, far outside the 1 to 12 sheqel range of the other documents. It is clear that these advances are not given in standard amounts but vary, probably according to the total value of the property to be bought and the number of advances to be paid. The distribution of the advances, other than the 1 ½ mina, is as follows: Table 2: Overview of the Amounts of Silver Paid as an Advance in Sheqels Surprisingly, in four texts the advance is paid in barley. The following table lists the amounts as given in the text, recalculated in litres (silà) and converted into silver (based on pare them with the payments in silver: text date object barley in litres (barley) in silver (sheqels) 21 Di 1574 field (1,66 gr) 13 Di 995 field (5,53 gr) 24 Di 1514 field (16,6 gr) 17 Di 1898 house (83 gr) Table 3: Overview of the Payments in Barley Paid as an Advance Two of the payments in barley are much lower than the lowest payments in silver. The other two are comparable. It is crucial to observe that in all of these four documents it is stipulated that the rest of the silver will be paid at the time of the sale. So even if the advance was given in barley, the total price (as it would be mentioned on the purchase contract) was always calculated in silver. Five contracts add a note starting with except for (), referring to previous advance payments for the same purchase. The note follows the clause in which it is stated that the remainder of the agreed price will be supplied by the buyer on the day the sales document will be drawn up, implying that the remainder of the agreed price the already paid instalments is to be supplied. In other words, payments for the purchase of real estate were not 4

5 K. De Graef, Many a Mickle Makes a Muckle necessarily a one-time transaction but could be done in several instalments before the actual sale took place. The notes were no doubt added to the documents in order to keep track of the different payments for the same piece of real estate. text date 2 YOS : 13 Di :rim ša še.gur ù 1 gín kù.babbar 19 Di 1482 ez10 gín kù.babbar 20 Di '-3': ša 12 gín kù.babbar 21 Di : 1 gín kù.babbar Table 4: Overview of the Texts Mentioning a Previous Advance for the Same Purchase Di 995 and Di 1574 refer to mixed payments. In Di 995 reference is made to two previous payments, one of gur (540 litres) of barley and one of one sheqel (8,3 grams) of silver. Together with the advance of gur (200 litres) of barley this makes gur (800 litres) of barley and one sheqel of silver. In Di gur (60 litres) of barley is given as an advance. The text mentions that previously one sheqel of silver had been given. These advances show that it was not a matter of payments either in silver or in barley, both could complement each other. Chains of Advances Di 1180 and Di 1482 go together with Di In these texts the same two brothers, Ibbi-Ilabrat and Sîn-iddinam, sons of Ilšu-ibni, receive advances from Inana-mansum, chief district (0.1.4 iku a.šà ša a.gàr iku.e). The texts are dated in Ad 36 and 37, two of them text date advance 18 Di Di gín kù.babbar 10 gín kù.babbar 20 Di gín kù.babbar 12 gín kù.babbar Table 5: Overview of the Texts Belonging to Chain 1 The combination of these texts makes a nice sequence. In Di 1226 an advance of ten sheqels of silver can be restored, because this is referred to in Di Di 1226 does not refer to a previous payment, implying it is the first one in the series. In Di 1482 an advance of two sheqels of silver is paid and a reference is made to the previous advance of ten sheqels (Di 1226). Together this makes twelve sheqels of silver and that is precisely the amount referred to in Di 1180 as having been paid previously. Together with the four sheqels of silver of Di 1180, this makes sixteen sheqels (132,8 grams) of silver. 5

6 Akkadica 137 (2016) A more problematic chain depends on how to link Di 1294, Di 1580 and Di In text date object advance 28 Di Di 1574 a.šà-im še 1 gín kù.babbar 22 Di 1580 a.šà-im 1 gín kù.babbar Table 6: Overview of the Texts Belonging to Chain 2 A first possibility is that we consider Di 1580, where one sheqel of silver is given as an advance for a field in an unspecified location, as the preceding document of Di 1574 where or 60 litres of barley is given and in which reference is made to a previous payment of preceded Di 1580, as proposed above, then Di 1574 must also have been written (earlier) on the same day since it is the first day of the month. This would be odd: if Ur-Utu gave two advances to the same person on the same day, why would he do this on two different documents? Even if he did, then we would expect the witnesses to be the same, which is not the whereas Di 1580 does not add this might also point to the same conclusion: these are two advances for two different fields although both belong to the same person. There is another possibility. Another text of the corpus, Di 1294, records an advance in silver but unfortunately the amount is broken. Suppose this were one sheqel, then this text would become a good fit as a precursor of Di 1574, which refers, as noted above, to a previous advance of that amount. The fit is better even because in both documents it is specified unfortunately, it is broken. If this reconstruction holds true, Di 1294 should be dated between 2011: 585 fn. not mention any previous payments, whereas we would expect it to mention the previous payments of one sheqel of silver (Di 1294) and 60 litres of barley (Di 1574). Four other texts that possibly can be linked are Di 1514, Di 169, Di 1543 and Di ki ). Only Di 169 gives the area of the field, viz iku. 6

7 K. De Graef, Many a Mickle Makes a Muckle text date object advance seller(s) 24 Di 1514 a.šà a.gàr Ašlatum še.gur Ilšu-bani & Ibni-Sîn sons of Sîn-iddinam 25 Di iku a.šà a.gàr 12 gín kù.babbar Ibni-Sîn son of Sîn-iddinam Ašlatum ina ki 26 Di 1543 a.šà-im a.gàr Ašlatum Ilšu-bani son of Sîn-iddinam 27 Di 1268 a.šà a.gàr Ašlatum 2 gín kù.babbar Ilšu-bani son of Sîn-iddinam Table 7: Overview of the Texts Possibly Belonging to Chain 3 None of the texts refer to a previous payment, and if we suppose that when different payments are made, the previous one(s) are always noted at the end of the text, as seems logical, then these four advances concern four different fields in the Ašlatum irrigation district, owned by the same family. This would also explain why in the first text both brothers are recipients of the advance they owned this field in common property and why the next documents have one of them only these are fields each of them inherited or bought separately. One could argue that, after having bought or at least paid an advance the field the brothers held in common, Ur-Utu also wanted to buy the no doubt adjacent fields the brothers held each separately, in order to increase his landed estate in the Ašlatum irrigation district. This would explain the timespan between the advance for the field they held in com- Di 1543 and Di 1268 are adjacent to a field already owned by Ur-Utu (and possibly the one(s) could well have been part of a larger (original) field, out of which both brothers in common 11) to him separately. Another possibility is that both fields mentioned in Di 1543 and Di 1268, for which Ur-Utu pays an advance to one and the same brother (Ilšu-bani) and which are adjacent to a field already owned by Ur-Utu, are in fact one and the same field, although Di 1268 does not refer to a previous payment, but the same goes for Di 1580 which belongs in all probability to Chain 2 (cf. ). This is corroborated by the fact that both texts are written by the same scribe, witnessed by the same persons (apart from one) and are dated only 25 days apart. Yet another possibility is that in all four texts it concerns one and the same field despite the absence of the -note in the texts. As both brothers held the field in the Ašlatum each of the brothers separately, according to their share. Unfortunately, no purchase document was found in Ur-Utu s archive that could be linked to these advances (cf. infra). As such, all options remain open. An interesting fact is that when more than one previous payment was made and the next text refers to these advances, the amount of the previous payments is added up and given as a single amount, which could mislead us into thinking there had been only one advance, as in Di 1180, mentioning a previous payment of twelve sheqels of silver referring to 7

8 Akkadica 137 (2016) two previous payments, one of ten sheqels of silver (Di 1226) and one of two sheqels of silver (Di 1482). However, when there had been an advance in barley and one in silver these are not added up but given separately, as in Di 995, mentioning a previous payment of 540 litres of barley and one of one sheqel of silver, although in the end, when the final payment had to be made and the total price was to be written on the purchase contract, the barley would have to be converted in silver. Prices On ten occasions 2, the area of the field or house to be bought, is mentioned, which allows to make an estimate of their value and give an idea of the relation between the advance and the total price. BDHP 29 is the only document mentioning both the (last) advance payment and the total price, viz. 1 ½ mina and 6 mina of silver, for a iku field, being 2 2 ). According to Farber (1978: 26-27, esp. Graph 9), fields in the Sippar area were sold at approximately six sheqels of silver per iku during the reigns of Ammi-ditana and Ammi- for equivalent acreage, no doubt due to the more or less favourable location of the fields and the law of supply and demand, combined with the propensity of families to group their fields in the same areas. Moreover, many more data concerning field prices are at our disposal nowadays, showing that prices of fields generally vary from 1 to 3 mina or 60 to 180 sheqels 3 36 m 2 ) during the late Old Babylonian period (see and M. 7 sheqels per sar for houses, the advance payments vary from more than 85% (Di 887) to 3% (Di 1482) or even less than 1% if Di 1574 is part of the chain of advance payments for price of the 3,6 ha field in the iku.e irrigation district. The same goes for his successor irrigation district, if the chain of advance payments is correct. It is remarkable that such small instalments were being paid by the well-to do of Sippar, which raises the question: were they in short of quick cash or did they simply want to safeguard themselves against other possible buyers by giving the sellers an advance, however small it was? 2 TCL the amount of silver or barley paid as advance is broken, these tablets are not considered here. 3 E.g. MHET MHET sheqels silver per iku, not counting the tower), and VS per iku). It is interesting to note that in this last text, the same field was sold for the same price under the reign 8

9 K. De Graef, Many a Mickle Makes a Muckle text date advance total price object 1 BDHP 29 1 ½ mana kù.babbar 6 mana kù.babbar ša GIŠ GUD? SÌ?? 3 MHET II gín kù.babbar 5 TJAUB: gín kù.babbar 15 Di gín kù.babbar 2 sar é.bar.ra šà é šikittim ina Di 1226 Di 1482 Di gín kù.babbar 4 gín kù.babbar total: 16 gín kù.babbar iku a.šà(-im) (ina ša) a.gàr iku(.e) 23 Di gín kù.babbar Di 169 Di 1514 Di 1543 Di gín kù.babbar = 1,6% = 1,6% = 12,6+x% iku a.šà a.gàr Ašlatum ina ki Di 1294 Di 1574 Di 1268 = 2,5% = 5,5% Table 8: Overview of the Texts Mentioning the Area of the Field or House to be Bought (possibly related texts in italics) 9

10 Akkadica 137 (2016) THE PROPERTY TO BE BOUGHT Nineteen texts mention an advance for a field, three of which certainly refer to the minimum twelve and maximum sixteen different fields. Six texts mention an advance for a house. One text mentions an advance for a field and a house, one text for an outbuilding part of a constructed house, and one text is broken. description of the property to be bought text(s) date fields without specification ana šám a.šà Di 1082 ana šám a.šà Di 995 ana šám a.šà-im Di 1890 šà šám a.šà-im Di 1580 fields including area ana TCL I 221 fields including location in irrigation district šà šám a.šà-im Di 1574 šà šám a.gàr Ašlatum Di 1514 ana im ina ana šám a.šà a.gàr Ašlatum Di 1543 Di 1268 im ša Anbar 1975: (nr 3) fields including area and location in irrigation district šám iku a.šà ša GIŠ GUD? SÌ?? BDHP 29 im ša šà šám iku a.šà a.gàr iku.e ša Di 1226 Di 1482 Di 1180 ana MHET II 496 Di 1644 ina ki Di 169 šà šám iku a.šà ina a.gàr iku.e BM Di 1294 houses without specification ana šám é Di 882 ana šám é Di 1898 ana šám é OLA ana šám é.dù.a VS šà šám é OLA date lost (Ae-Sd) houses including area and location in town or city ana TJAUB:

11 K. De Graef, Many a Mickle Makes a Muckle outbuilding including location in town or city ana šám é.bar.ra šà é šikittim ina Di 887 field and house without specification ana šám a.šà é YOS broken Di 1022 Table 9: Overview of the Description of the Property to be Bought It is remarkable that in one third of the cases the object to be bought is not defined more precisely than a field or a house. There can be no doubt that a very specific field or house was meant, so we must conclude that the name of the recipients, soon to become sellers, was enough to know exactly which field or house was meant. We must surmise then that when more specifications were added, like the irrigation district in which the field was situated or the town where the house stood, sometimes including the area, these were necessary to distinguish the items to be sold from other property of the sellers. The only real exception is TCL I 221 in which a very complete description of the field to be sold is given: a iku field, remainder of a iku field, share of Šamaš-bani and to the circular threshing-floor path and adjacent to the small irrigation canal of the irrigation bought, and its rear being the small irrigation canal of the irrigation district (ll. 2'-11'). A part of this iku field is probably also mentioned in ARN share of one of the three sons of Ipquša: a iku field in the iku.e irrigation district, ing-floor path, and its rear being the small irrigation canal of the irrigation district 4. Due to the fragmentary state of ARN 166, the name of the legatee is not preserved, but it must have among the three heirs, it seems logical that each of the brothers received iku of the field, especially as two of the brothers sold their shares of this field, being iku in total. It is, in other words, probable that the iku of the first line of ARN 166 is a mistake by the ancient scribe or the modern copier for iku. Another possibility is that one brother received iku, one brother iku and one brother iku, dependent on the division of the rest of Ipquša s estate. Anyway, it is clear that after the division of the iku field in three shares of probably iku, two of the heirs, Šamaš-bani and Marduk-mušallim, decided to sell their shares to Utu-šumundib, overseer of the merchants, who paid them an instalment recorded in TCL I 221. It is more than probable that the same scribe, Awil-Sîn, 4 ARN bani sag.bi.2.kam.ma a.gàr. 11

12 Akkadica 137 (2016) son of Ipquša 5, wrote both ARN 166 and TCL I 221, which explains his very exhaustive description in TCL I 221: he wanted to clarify as much as possible which part of the original field was going to be sold. Moreover, it seems likely that Marduk-mušallim and Šamaš-bani decided to sell their shares shortly after the estate was divided, There are twelve texts in which the advance received is specified as for the purchase of (ana šám) 6 and ten in which the formula part of the price (šà šám) 7 is used. Four texts are broken on that point (some of which can be restored based on their belonging to a chain), and BDHP tag 4 ana šám vs. šà šám although it reflects a different viewpoint, does not mean these are different types of receipt. This variation rather points to the fact that this is a new document type. There seems to be a temporal division of the use of the formulae: in general, ana šám is used more often in the earlier texts In most texts (21), the two parties are identified by the Sumerian rendering from PN 1 PN 2 received (ki PN 1 PN 2 šu ba.an.ti) 8 this is done by the Akkadian variant which PN 1 gave to PN 2 (ša PN 1 ana PN 2 or PN 1 ana PN 2 iddin) 9. Since there is obviously no difference in meaning between both, it seems to be a free variation, consistent with a text type that was not stereotyped yet, which is corroborated by the fact that two texts have variant renderings: BDHP 29 (5-12: PN 1 PN from PN 1 PN 2-3 received ) and TJAUB: (1-9: silver PN 1 ana 2-6 šu ba.an.ti.meš silver of the sealed sales document of PN received ). In two texts, BM and VS 29 68, the buyers are replaced by another person (PN 1 PN 2 ) 10, no doubt due to their physical absence in which case they were represented by a local. In only one document, YOS ment will be drawn up, they must break the tablet stating the payment of the advance (ll. 7-11: 5 In both texts last witness without title (in ARN 166: 6' only partially legible: igi a- ša), but probably to be identified with the scribe of that name known from the archives of Utu-šumundib and the chief dirge singers, described in 2004a: YOS MHET OLA TJAUB VS 7 OLA (Ae-Sd). 8 YOS MHET OLA TCL VS OLA (Ae-Sd) For this expression, see, M. and J

13 K. De Graef, Many a Mickle Makes a Muckle ). Remarkably, it is said that they must break their tablet, whereas there is only one buyer, Erišti-Šamaš, who received this tablet, sealed by the sellers, and kept it in her archive as proof of her payment of the advance. This is confirmed by the chief dirge singers archive in which Inana-mansum or his son Ur-Utu gave silver to sellers as an advance, the receipts of which, sealed by the sellers, were found in their archive. In YOS , their Ipiq-Šala, son of Šarrum-Adad, but being the sellers, they did not receive any tablet. Does their tablet mean in this case the tablet given by the sellers to the buyer and does the plural of the verb mean that when the sale is concluded, the buyer would return the tablet she received from the sellers (their tablet), which recorded the advance payment, in order for the sellers to break it? Even more remarkable is the fact that after the breaking-clause, it is said except for the earlier sealed document ša which we would expect to see after the clause concerning the payment in full upon drawing up the sales document, absent in YOS Does the absence of the payment-in-full-clause imply that this was the final payment? This is of course possible, although a complete price of 8 ½ sheqels of silver for a field and a house seems rather low. Did the scribe forget to insert she will supply the remainder of their contractually agreed sum in full to them (or a variant) between and erroneously instead of? After all, YOS is the only document mentioning the breaking-clause. On the other hand, the breaking itself was in principle necessary because, as long as the buyer held the advance payment contract(s), he could claim to have a right to some real estate of the seller, especially so since in most of the advance documents the property is not specified further than a field or a house. It is thus highly remarkable that only one of these contracts mentions the breaking-clause. This in turn raises the question of the statute of the unbroken advance documents which constitute our corpus. What happened here? Did the sale never come through? I will come back on this further on. Seals All identifiable seals are those of the sellers as well as some of the witnesses. This is expected in the chief dirge singers archive since they are the buyers. Those texts outside of the archive which have identifiable seals follow this same pattern, which confirms the very logical assumption that all of these tablets were kept in the archive of the buyers. Why they were not broken or discarded is another matter. All the advances are given in view of a purchase: when the sales document will be written the rest of the agreed sum will be paid. In one document, OLA (Ae-Sd), this order is reversed: when the silver of the purchase will be completed, the purchase document will be sealed and written (ll. 6-11: kù.babbar šám é ana di.kud.meš kar Sippar é ). Although the link with purchase documents is expected, of the twenty- 13

14 Akkadica 137 (2016) eight advances preserved, none can be linked to a preserved sale document. This is less surprising for the documents found outside of the chief dirge singers archive, they could be loose pieces and chance finds. Within the archive however, we could have hoped to find a link. Sometimes the texts themselves do not simplify this kind of search. When it is stated that the advance is meant for the purchase of a house or a field this does not provide much linking information. Still, even in these cases, in good logic, the recipients of the silver should be the later sellers. Since our advance documents are in fact receipts issued by the sellers to the buyers, they were kept in the archive of the latter. The advances found outside of the chief dirge singers archive thus come from ten different archives. Nothing much can be said about these people. Many of the sellers appear only once in our documentation, some others own real estate but this can never be linked to these advance texts. The buyers all are people of means and high standing: four 11 (or five 12 ) of Šamaš, among whom a king s daughter, two judges, a captain, a leader and an overseer of the merchants. Although we know they owned real estate, none of their properties can be linked to the ones they paid advances for. text date pay(s) advance 13 1 BDHP 29 of Šamaš dm Ilšu-ibni 2 YOS Erišti-Šamaš of Šamaš dm Ilšu-ibni 3 MHET II 496 of Šamaš dm Ilšu-ibni ugula gidru 4 OLA Šamaš receive(s) advance Ilšu-ibni & Nabium-malik dme Šarrum-Adad Ibni-Šamaš 5 TJAUB: BM Anbar 1975: (nr 3) 8 VS Iškur-mansum igi.du Marduk-mušallim Gimillum d Adad-mušallim 9 TCL I 221 date lost 10 OLA date lost (Ae-Sd) Utu-šumundib ugula dam.gàr d Ilšu-ibni Iltani of Šamaš dm lugal Šamaš-bani & Marduk-mušallim dme Ipquša di.kud.meš & kar Sippar Table 9: Buyers and Sellers in the Texts from Various Late OB Sippar Archives 11 As there are two contemporaneous with this name, daughters of two different Ilšu-ibni s, a captain BDHP 29 to the one from MHET II name, it is possible or even probable that she was a of Šamaš

15 K. De Graef, Many a Mickle Makes a Muckle The documents form the chief dirge singers archive can be subdivided in three groups: (1) those of Inana-mansum, (2) those of Marduk-mušallim and (3) those of Ur-Utu. mansum buys real estate are preserved 14. However, none of these can be linked to one of the advance documents. As noted earlier, three advances (18-20) are linked: they are three advances paid for the same iku field in the iku.e irrigation district. text date 11 Di Di 887 Lamassani 16 Di 1022 Sîn-išmeanni d Sîn-iddinam 18 Di 1226 Ibbi-Ilabrat & Sîn-iddinam dme Ilšu-ibni 19 Di 1482 Ibbi-Ilabrat & Sîn-iddinam dme Ilšu-ibni di.kud 20 Di 1180 Ibbi-Ilabrat & Sîn-iddinam dme Ilšu-ibni Table 10: Overview of Advance Payment Documents in which Inana-mansum is Buyer Marduk-mušallim is attested in an active role as erén from Ad 13 (TLOB 17) to Ad 31 (Di 1898). Sixteen documents found in the chief dirge singers archives belong to him: five loans and five harvest labour contracts in which he is creditor 15, five advances on sales in which he is buyer 16 and one sales document in which he buys a male slave 17. Although no actual purchase contract in which he buys real estate is preserved, he is mentioned in a silver account (BBVOT I 107) as having bought a iku field in the Amurru they do this in common, they must have inherited it, implying Marduk-mušallim was deceased by then. Unfortunately, none of these fields can be linked to any of the advances. Otherwise he is mainly attested as creditor of loans or of harvest labour contracts, which again shows him to be a landowner. It is as if a small part of his archive (the rest of which we do not have) was kept in the house of the chief dirge singers. He must have kept his property deeds in his own archive (in Babylon?), but local loans, harvest labour contracts and advance payments for property located in Sippar were of more use in Sippar, as Tanret (2004b: 260) already proposed. 14 was not preserved, (4) the purchase of three fields and a tower in the Buša irrigation district mentioned in the was not preserved. For an in-depth analysis of the certificates and their relation to the sales documents, see and C. ( ) ox, not considered in this article

16 Akkadica 137 (2016) His four advances preserved in the chief dirge singers archive are all paid to different persons and there seems to be no connection between them. One, Di 995, has an -note at the end, referring to a previous advance by him, which is not preserved. text date 12 Di Di Di Di 1898 Sîn-imguranni d Sîn-išmeanni Table 11: Overview of Advance Payment Documents in which Marduk-mušallim is Buyer Only two sales documents (or replacing certificates) in which Ur-Utu buys real estate are preserved 18 in his archive. Unfortunately, none of these can be linked to one of the advance documents. This is odd, since the total amount in silver he paid as advances is more than 18 gín (149,4 gr) of silver and gur (660 litres) of barley. Not a negligible sum. text date 21 Di Di Di Di 1514 Ilšu-bani & Ibni-Sîn dme Sîn-iddinam 25 Di 169 Ibni-Sîn d Sîn-iddinam 26 Di 1543 Ilšu-bani d Sîn-iddinam 27 Di 1268 Ilšu-bani d Sîn-iddinam 28 Di 1294 Table 12: Overview of Advance Payment Documents in which Ur-Utu is Buyer In all, it is highly remarkable that none of the fourteen texts found in the chief dirge singers archive in which either Inana-mansum or Ur-Utu pays an advance can be linked to an actual sales document. Does this imply that none of these advances actually led to a sale? I will come back on this further on. The second part of the advance payment contract is generally introduced by a temporal clause starting with on the day that... ( ) or with a fixed term within x days ( u 4 ). The grammatical difference is that after the verb of the temporal clause will take the subordinate marker -, whereas this is not the case for the sentences introduced 18 MHET not preserved. For an in-depth analysis of the certificates and their relation to the sales documents, see and C. ( ). 16

17 K. De Graef, Many a Mickle Makes a Muckle by expressing a specific time span. In OLA (Ae-Sd), the clause is reversed: the day she will supply in full the silver, the price of the house, to the judges and the of Sippar, they will seal and draw up the sales document (ll. 6-11: kù.babbar šám é ana di.kud.meš kar Sippar é ), stressing that the insead of. Whereas most of the documents simply state the day when the sales contract shall be drawn up ( x ), three give a specific time span for the writing of this document: five days in OLA TJAUB: and two na4 kišib. ba.meš-) the verb is unfortunately illegible before they will seal the sales document. Remarkably, none of these texts refers to a previous instalment, implying that these were probably the only advance payments done taking into account the short timespan two to ten days in which the transaction would be concluded. MHET that the seller must bring the sealed tablets of the field concerned within two days (ll : ina u 4.2.kam ) referring to the dossier of the field to be transferred at the time of a sale. The fact that the text continues with the day the sales document shall be drawn up then shows there could be a time span between the handing over of this dossier and the actual sale, no doubt leaving time for the scribe to ascertain that the dossier was complete. In most cases the object of the temporal clause is the sales document ( or followed by a specification of the property to be sold). Two texts, Di 1082 (Ad VS ) followed by a specification tion ( é and resp.) followed by the verb to complete ( ) and to be done ( ) resp. The final payment has to be made when the sales document shall be written. This is expressed in the texts either by the passive (when the sale document) shall be written or by the active (when) they shall write (the sale document). The scribe seems to choose freely between both. In some cases, this is expressed by the verb to seal (either passive or active), and in a few cases both verbs and are combined. These variations again point to the fact that this is a new document type, as well as to the unsurprising fact that sealing had to take place for the sales document to be valid. Here too, the choice of the formulation seems to be free and did not imply some difference in meaning or procedure. All but two texts state that the remainder of the agreed price is to be supplied in full upon drawing up the sales document. The texts use various ways to specify that the remainder of the contractually agreed sum (íb.tag 4 or ) or simply the silver (kù. ana níg.šid- for his account. Half of the texts use the verb, either active (D-stem) or passive (Dt-stem), sometimes with a dative pronoun added. Others use to express that the seller(s) will take it. Once is used and twice to express that the buyer(s) will supply it. 17

18 Akkadica 137 (2016) text date first part second part timespan object verb remainder verb 2 YOS a.šà é x 11 Di 882 é kù.babbar 12 Di 1082 a.šà íb.tag 4 kù.babbar ana níg.šid- inaddin 13 Di 995 kù.babbar- x 14 Di 1890 íb.tag 4 kù.babbar 15 Di 887 ana 2 na4 kišib.ba.meš- x x x x x 16 Di Di 1898 dub é íb.tag 4 kù.babbar (sic) 18 Di 1226 a.šà-im 19 Di 1482 x 20 Di 1180 x 3 MHET II 496 ina u 4.2.kam iku a.šà a.gàr GN kù.babbar 4 OLA ana 5 é íb.tag 4 kù.babbar 21 Di 1574 kù.babbar- x 22 Di 1580 dub a.šà 23 Di Di 1514 kù.babbar 5 TJAUB: ina u 4.10.kam é ša GN 25 Di 169 kù.babbar- 26 Di 1543 kù.babbar 27 Di 1268 kù.babbar 6 BM a.šà 7 Anbar 1975: (nr 3) a.šà íb.tag 4 8 VS é 9 TCL I 221 date lost (post íb.tag 4 28 Di 1294 date lost (post kù.babbar 10 OLA date lost (Ae-Sd) kù.babbar šám é ana di.kud. meš é Table 13: Overview of the Payment-in-Full-Clause 18

19 K. De Graef, Many a Mickle Makes a Muckle The absence of the second part of the clause in YOS scribal error (cf. this text has a deviant, and unfortunately partly illegible, first part of the clause including an action involving seals (cf. ). A possible explanation is that Di 887 is the final payment: twelve sheqels of silver is after all a fair price for a 2 sar of outbuilding (é.bar.ra), or at least the greater part of the price (85,7% as calculated ). The reason why the sales document was not yet drawn up lies no doubt in the first part of the clause stating that within two days at their disposal at the time of the payment, and did they have to send for them? Question is seals are referred to. The only ones whose seals could have caused any trouble are the sellers, who obviously had to seal the sales document. Remarkably, however, both sellers sealed the advance document. A figurative seal, featuring a figure with wide open legs and upper arms raised between two Lamma-like figures turned towards him, is impressed on the top of the left and right edges and twice on the upper edge, adding on the left edge the kišib of Lamassani. Under it on the left and right edges, another figurative seal, featuring a bow legged figure and to his right a figure turned to its right, towards another, indistinct, both brother and sister used a different figurative seal, attributed to them by their respective kišibs. Were these figurative seals not theirs, but did they borrow them for the occasion as they did not have their own seals with them? Seals with a legend identifying Lamassani and 19, possessed a seal with a legend 20, it is possible that they were awaiting this seal to use as their official seal (although this does not explain the plural seals infra), but his death might have been only recent, and the conveyance of their fathers seal might have been delayed. Note, moreover, that this text does not refer to a previous payment. So, instead of a final payment it might have been the only payment ever done, but as the sales document could not be drawn up due to the absence of appropriate seals, a receipt was drawn up instead. Or, is there another explanation all together? As noted above, it seems that none of the advances actually led to sales documents, or at least, none of them were found. Was the sales transaction of the 2 sar of outbuilding for which Inana-mansum already paid twelve sheqels of silver never concluded? Some other texts from the chief dirge singers archive sar and 15 gín (225 m 2 of Šamaš, daughter son of Šamaš-liwwir (Di ). It seems more than probable that the outbuilding (é.bar See and 1994: for a transliteration and analysis of this text. Collation of the tablet showed that the name of the owner of the neighbouring outbuilding (and former seller) is to be read instead of ra.gab (ll. 9 and 13). 19

20 Akkadica 137 (2016) - 22 must have passed away in the meantime, to buy part of their neighbouring property, the outbuilding (é.bar.ra) of 2 sar. 23, upon the division of Inana-mansum s inheritance, his son and successor Ur-Utu received 3 sar, part of the 6 sar 15 gín house bought by is nowhere to be found in the division of the inheritance. In good logic it should have been added to the neighbouring 6 sar and 15 gín house, but this obviously was not the case. No further trace of it can be found in the chief dirge singers archive. Does this explain the presence of Di 887 in this archive? This receipt should have been broken when the sales document was drawn up. The fact that it still exists unbroken could mean that the sale never went through. This would imply that Inana-mansum lost his twelve sheqels of silver, a considerable sum. A similar situation is possibly to be found in CT 24. In this text, the price of an unbuilt plot (ki.gál) of 4 sar (144 m 2 ) is said to be ten sheqels of silver. The plot had been bought by Amat-Aja, of Šamaš, daughter of Iddin-Ea, who sold it to Ur- of Amat-Aja (see Tanret ). Upon the return of this judge from Babylon, Ur-Utu buyer (who thus redeems family property), and the ten sheqels have already been received by Ur-Utu. This receipt and promise to seal the tablet were of course kept by the prospective buyer and belonged to his archive. We do not know if the sales document was ever drawn up and sealed by Ur-Utu as it was not found so far. In his discussion of the ana šám loans, Skaist (1994: 65-67) mentions CT 6 48b (Si published as MHET II 357, states that ½ mina of silver for the purchase of a iku field See and 1994: for a transliteration and analysis of this text. Collation of the tablet showed that the name of the seller (and owner of neighbouring house) is to be read instead of ra.gab (ll. 5 and 8). See, C. 1992: and and 1994: CT 48 76: (1) 10 gín kù.babbar (2) šám 4 sar ki.gál (3) ša (8) di.kud (9) (10) 4 di.kud (11) ki - (4') (5'-8') witnesses (9'-11') date. 20

21 K. De Graef, Many a Mickle Makes a Muckle is received by Erišti-Šamaš, of Šamaš, daughther of Šilli-Adad 25. As for the second part of the contract, tablet and case differ in their formulation: CT 6 48b (tablet) MHET II 357 (case) adi iku a.šà še.gur.ta ina giš ina giš 9-13 idem inad din kù.babbar zíd.da! inaddišši issi Skaist (1994: 65-66) interprets this text as a commenda transaction because of ll. 8-9 of the tablet which he translates Until he (the recipient) purchases the field and delivers it to her,. In other words, Skaist considers the subject of the verbs and to be one and the same person, moreover a male, although both parties are clearly women 26. Apart from the fact that the subject is no doubt female, the problem for the interpretation is the identity of the subject of the verbs (T 8), inaddin inad din (C 15). If this is the recipient of the silver, Erišti-Šamaš, could be considered as a kind of interest on the silver she received. Two things can be distin- for this text, and the usual gifts consisting of meat and flour generally added to the purchase price in sales transactions when the seller is a of Šamaš. The odd point is, of course, why does a commission another one to buy a field, instead of doing it herself, especially so since this seems to be the only occurrence of such a procedure ever. On the other hand, if we accept a change of subject and interpret that until Amat- is concluded) and Erišti-Šamaš (recipient of the silver and seller) gives it to her, Erišti-Šamaš the field is Erišti-Šamaš (the seller), as long as she has not done this, she will pay the allow- sale with compensation if the transaction does not go through speedily, which would make it a very early and exceptional witness of the practice of an advance payment, dated 66 years before the advance payment document came into existence CT MHET II 357: (1) ½ ma.na kù.babbar (2) šám iku a.šà (3) ki (4) dumu.munus I nin- (7) šu ba.an. ti. The recipient, Erišti-Šamaš, daughter of Sîn-tajjar, is a well-known of Šamaš and granddaughter MHET II 170) to Si 4 (CT 21

22 Akkadica 137 (2016) From early on in the reign of Ammi-ditana, a new practice is documented in the Sippar texts. A person wanting to buy a piece of real estate could pay in instalments and only when the last part of the price was paid, the sales document would be drawn up. For each prepayment the prospective buyer received a receipt and when several payments were made, the previous ones would be recorded on the next receipt. It is always stated on these receipts that they are payments either for the acquisition of some real estate or part of its price. The full price, however, is never mentioned (except on BDHP 29, stating the last instalment), and it is not clear why the total price on these documents is lacking, especially as a part of the texts explicitly refer to the remainder of the agreed sum amount specified by contract (CAD R riksu 7c) which is to be paid upon drawing up the sales document. It seems clear, or at least logical, that a price was agreed upon, after which prepayments could start, but if this was not put in writing, what guarantee did the prospective buyer have that the seller(s) would not ask for more and more? The basic reason for the practice of advance payments no doubt was that, for some reason, the buyer could or would not pay the full price immediately, but that (s)he did not want someone else from buying it. As the buyer would have a claim on the property but no ownership rights until the procedure within a short timespan, especially as the silver or barley invested did not yield any profit as long as the whole procedure was not completed. Some texts specify a timespan in which the sales document is to be drawn up and the remainder of the agreed price is to be paid, which is always very short: from two to ten days. In most texts, however, the term is not specified. For some dossiers, consisting of several subsequent prepayments, it is possible to deduce how long the timespan between two instalments was: one month between the first and second instalment for the field in the iku.e irrigation district (see Chain 1) irrigation district (see Chain 2). Remarkably, prepayments could be made in silver or in barley, or both. This reality is hidden from us by the formulation of the sales contracts for real estate which always state that the price was paid in silver. This means that, in the case of mixed prepayments (or ones only in barley?) the scribe had to calculate the value in silver in order to see if the full price was reached. What is most striking, however, is the fact that twenty-eight advances on real estate sales are preserved, whereas, logically, if the sale went through, the sellers would need to break the receipts they gave to the buyers for every prepayment although this is only specified in one text. How did so many of them survive? Does this mean that they represent sales that never went through? This would be surprising and in such cases we would expect the buyers to take legal measures in order to recuperate their silver or barley. With their receipts they would have no trouble winning these trials and receiving either the real estate or their 22

23 K. De Graef, Many a Mickle Makes a Muckle money back in which case their receipts would also have to be broken or at least discarded. An analogy with the much more numerous loan documents which were kept long past their date of validity comes to mind but for this, other explanations, such as the proximity of a royal edict ( ) have been proposed (see 2000). Such an explanation would not be adequate here. The fact that none of the twenty-eight advance documents preserved can be related to an actual sales contract, tends to strengthen the case for sales not gone through, especially since the largest number of them come from a single archive of which a large number of texts were retrieved. 23

24 Akkadica 137 (2016) TEXTS Publ.: BDHP 29* 27 Mus. nr.: BM íb!.tag 4! 4. ša GIŠ GUD? SÌ?? dumu.munus dingir- lik 9. dumu.meš 10. ù?? 11. dumu Rev 12. ugula dam.gàr.meš di.kud 15. dumu 17. igi dingir- dumu 21. igi dumu ma! -an 22. igi 23. iti du 6.kù u 4 UE 24. mu lugal 25. ad!.gi 4.a gu.la 4 Seals Seal 1: seal 3: seal 4: figures and framed legend: (1) ma likli Obv Up Mg 1-2 and LeE top 1-2 Obv Lo Mg 3 figures and legend in between: Obv Lo Mg 4 and LoE left figures and framed legend: (1) Rev Up Mg 1 27 Tablets collated in the British Museum (2015) by the author are marked with an asterisk. 24

25 K. De Graef, Many a Mickle Makes a Muckle seal 6: ni Rev Up Mg 2 and LoE right figures and illegible legend in between Rev Up Mg 3 Rev Lo Mg 4 Rev Lo Mg 5 ni a- LeE Lo 3 (1) 1 ½ mina silver, (2) remainder of 6 mana silver, (3) the price of 19,44 ha of field (4) belonging to of Šamaš, (6) daughter of Ilšu-ibni, (7) Ilšu-ibni, (12) have received. (13-22) witnesses (23-26) date. 2. Publ.: YOS Mus. nr.: YBC 5477 Obv 1. 8 gín kù.babbar 2. šám a.šà ù é 3. ki nin 4. dumu.munus dingir 6. ù SIG dumu <šu ba.an.ti.meš> a.šà ù é Rev ša? 15. dumu 16. igi ni 17. igi iš 8 dumu 4 am lugal.e 8.a 25

26 Akkadica 137 (2016) Seals Seal 3: ni LeE top 1 LeE top 2 figures and framed legend: (1) dingir- ù LoE x2, RiE top and Obv under text (1) 8 sheqels of silver (2) to buy a field and a house (3) from Erišti-Šamaš, of Šamaš, (4) ceived>. (7) The day the sales document (8) of the field and house (9) shall be drawn up, (10) their sealed document (11) they must break, (12) except for the earlier sealed document (13) of ½? Publ.: MHET 496* Mus. nr.: BM Obv 1. 5 gín kù.babbar 2. šám iku a.šà 3. a.gàr i ta 5. iš 8. dumu.munus dingir- ugula gidru i na u 4.2.kam Rev 12. kišib 13. a.gàr a a kù.babbar 17. igi a 18. igi ir 19. igi -dingir 4 am 26