Last updated 10th July 2024: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 12 February 2016
Cuneiform sources, of different periods and places, contain a wealth of information concerning the activities of the merchant (tamkarum). Especially noteworthy is the Old-Babylonian material, which has recently been the subject of a detailed monograph. No less important is the Old-Assyrian material from the trading centre of Kaniš, discovered in ever-growing quantities in the course of excavations which continue up to the present. All these are private documents, both legal and non-legal, giving a varied and detailed picture.
When one turns to the various collections of legal rules, the results are rather disappointing. The only significant block of provisions is that in the Code of Hammurabi, commencing in the damaged part of the stele (sections U and V), and continuing in sections 100–107. They all concern, one way or another, trading operations; they purport to regulate the relations between a person who supplies capital or goods (the tamkarum), and his agent, acting on his behalf, going abroad to buy and to sell. One characteristic feature stands out at once: as a rule, though not necessarily always, the law merchant concerns itself with activities abroad, beyond the borders of the city-state. This general impression is confirmed also by such provisions as that of CH 32 (merchant ransoming prisoner of war), and CH 281/282 (purchase abroad of slave).
1 Leemans, W. F., Foreign Trade in the Old-Babylonian Period, 1960.Google Scholar
2 See Goetze, A., Kleinasien (2nd ed. 1957) 64–81Google Scholar, and now mainly Garelli, P., Les Assyriens en Cappadoce (1963), especially part III, 233–317.Google Scholar Only a small part of the tablets has been published so far. The most important publication of texts is still that of Eisser, G. and Lewy, J., Die altassyrischen Rechtsurkunden vom Kültepe (1930–1935).Google Scholar
3 From the western Mediterranean, and of a later period, one may mention agreements between Carthage and the Etruscans (Aristoteles, Politics 3. 10f., p. 1280a), also between Carthage and Rome (Polybius 3.22.4ff.).
4 All the documents in this series were published by J. Nougayrol, in PRU IV. See the survey given by Korošec, V., (1960) 66 Revue hittite et asianique, 65–79Google Scholar; Liverani, M., Storia di Ugarit (1962)Google Scholar, passim.
5 PRU IV, pp. 103ff. Two parallel versions of the edict are RS 17.146 and 18.03 (ibid. 105). On RS 17.130 see also Gordon, C. H., (1958) 17 Journal of Near Eastern Studies, 28–31Google Scholar; Korošec, loc. cit., 70, 73; Liverani, op. cit. 81f.
6 See Nougayrol, PRU IV, p. 102. In RS 17.316 (PRU IV, p. 190), four merchants from Ura are described as tamkaru ša šamši—”merchants of My Sun” (“My Sun” is the usual title of the Hittite Greatking). On the location of Ura, see Liverani, pp. 81f.
7 Tabarna: another title of the Hittite Greatking.
8 RS 18.03 adds, “and wishes to dwell in Ugarit”.
9 Formally, this is an instruction to the messenger, to read (or have read) the contents aloud to the addressee: in the great majority of cases the recipient will not have himself mastered the difficult art of reading cuneiform.
10 Liverani, therefore (pp. 80, 82), is not exact in speaking of an “accordo con Niqmepa”; Garelli, p. 376, calls it a “compromis…élaborépar les souverains”.
11 A different view is adopted by Garelli, ibid., speaking of “la morte saison”. And C. H. Gordon, loc. cit. 28 asserts: “Since the people could pay only when the crops had produced ‘cash’, the season for profitable trading was more or less confined to the summer anyway.” This is not quite convincing. A thriving city like Ugarit must have had a sizeable population owning property, and not altogether dependent on seasonal fluctuations of income.
12 The suggestion of H. W. F. Saggs, (1960) 22 Iraq,203, note 15, that the restriction was in the Hittite interest, to avoid the loss of persons important to the Hittite economy, does not appear plausible. One must bear in mind the occasion of the edict, as expressed in its preamble. Little would remain of its purpose, in fact only the ban on the acquisition of land. And see Liverani, op. cit.,82, note 83.
13 Nougayrol inadvertently disregards the suffix, rendering “contre argent”; followed by Liverani (p. 82) : “contra danaro”.
14 In J. Nougayrol, PRU III. See there also the detailed discussion by G. Boyer (pp. 293ff.).
15 kaspum ša mandattiśu. The exact import of maddattum is not certain; von Soden, W., Akkadisches Handwörterbuch, 572Google Scholar, does not offer a rendering which would be well suited to our context. The noun is derived from the verb nadanu—”to give”. While this is vague, it seems to imply that something was given to the merchant by his principals or backers. Compare the expresion tamkarum ša mandati—”a merchant entrusted with funds” (?), in RS 17.146, lines 4, 28 (PRU IV, p. 155). See further, Liverani, 85.
16 See Laws of Eshnunna, sec./24; CH 117/; Middle Assyrian Laws, Tablet C, secs. 2, 3.
17 For a similar view see Korošec, loc. cit.,70. For a case of redemption of inhabitants of Ugarit from the hands of foreigners, see RS 16.191 + 272, published by Ch. Virolleaud, PRU II, pp. 18ff. See my remarks in (1960) 10 Vetus Testamentum 83ff.
18 The suggestion of Liverani (p. 83) that but for a provision of this kind a king might be “responsabile dei debiti contratti dai suoi sudditi con mercanti stranieri” is not convincing.
19 PRU IV, pp. 154ff. Comparable texts are RS 17.230 (ibid. pp. 153f.), 18.115 (pp. 158ff.) and the small fragment 18.19 (p. 160). The provisions of 17.230 are general, not restricted to merchants; the contents of RS 18.19 cannot be made out.
20 qarradu: a title of the Hittite kings, and of the kings of Carkemiš; see PRU IV, p. 262.
21 Literally “they (indefinite subject) have killed”.
22 See preceding footnote.
23 Line omitted by inadvertence of the scribe.
24 Literally, “alter”. Verbs meaning “to change, alter” are in Semitic languages used in the sense of “to break an undertaking”; see the remarks of Rabinowitz, J. J. (1954) 3 Eretz Israel 134 (Hebrew).Google Scholar
25 Omissions in the second part of the text are probably due to the negligence and haste of the scribe. See n. 23, and also the omission, in clause IV, of the oath concerning the missing property.
26 Contrast, e.g., RS 19.68 (PRU IV, pp. 284ff.), an agreement between the kings of Ugarit and Amurru. Both are equal subjects: mamitam ina berišunu itepšunim— “they made oath between them”.
27 The translation of this amount into terms of shekels, the current unit of weight, is uncertain. In Babylonia there were 60 shekels to the mina, for Ugarit a mina of 50 shekels seems likely, but in Hatti it had only 40! See, generally, de Vaux, R., Ancient Israel, Its Life and Institutions (1961) 203ffGoogle Scholar; on Hittite weights, see Otten, H., (1954/1956) 17 Archiv für Orientforschung, 128–31.Google Scholar There is no way of knowing for sure which of the various “minas” is the one indicated in the document discussed.
28 Stiffer provisions are laid down in RS 17.230. For the dead a compensation of “threefold (the value of) a man” has to be paid; however, since no amount is given, one cannot know how this relates to the 3 minas of RS 17.146. The situation is clearer concerning the missing goods: there is to be triple compensation in case the killer is apprehended, payment of simplum in case he has not been seen. Compare further Hittite Laws, sec. 5.
29 PRU IV, pp. 169ff.; another text dealing with the same affair, and only slightly different in formulation, is 17.42 (ibid. pp. 171 f.) Compare also RS 17.145 (pp. 172f.). Poorly preserved are 17.229 (p. 106), 17.299 (p. 182), 17.369B+x+17.69 (pp. 283f.).
30 We might perhaps see more clearly if the sum of 180 shekels could be expressed in terms of minas. But on this see n. 27, above.
31 We are not helped by the other texts. In RS 17.145 a payment of 1200 shekels is agreed upon (sic!), after the murder of several (how many?) merchants; in RS 17.229 the amount payable is 1 talent (3000 shekels?), but again one does not know the number of victims. The other texts, too fragmentary, yield no information.
32 PRU IV, p. 179.
33 Nougayrol “bassin”. On reading and rendering of the word in question, see Chicago Assyrian Dictionary (CAD) vol. A/i, p. 329b.
34 Cf., e.g., RS 17.396 (PRU IV, pp. 127f.), 17.129 (pp. 166ff), showing the king of Ugarit personally subject to the jurisdiction of Initešub. Carkemiš was under the rule of a Hittite dynasty, descended from Šuppiluliuma (1380–1346). On the superiority of the king of Carkemiš, see Liverani, 112, 118; Korošec, 74ff.
