2. Pél. XXI.1 This is a marriage contract and seems to contain either two separate oaths or one which is the development of the other. The first oath was taken in the name of the king (mu lugal). The substance of the oath being placed between mu lugal and nam-erim-am, and forming a direct assertion ending with ni-in-dug (so and so, he has said).2 There are no witnesses. The second is sworn in the name of the king (mu-lugal pad-da), but not, as Pélagaud thinks, in the name of the goddess Ninmarki, also because here Ninmarki-ka is a personal name. The sentence runs: Mud. Ninmar(ki)-ka-ge mu-lugal pad-da dug-ga-na ba-ni-gin-na-šu, the mu here stands before a personal name, not the name of a goddess. Notice šu at the end of the sentence which confirms that.

3. Myhr. I (Pl. 1, No. 1). A slave is brought into court to be reminded of the punishment due to a runaway. The fact is made impressive by the use of the phrase mu-lugal, which, with the direct statement constituting the substance of the threat and the phrase ni-in-dug (see p. 44) may indicate that an oath was taken. The presence of witnesses and dating of the document would seem to confirm this.

4. Myhr. II (Pl. 2, No. 2). A law-suit about a disputed office. An oath is taken by the name of the king ([m]u lugal-bi in-na-pad), before witnesses.

5. Myhr. VI (Pl. 6, No. 13). A promise to pay at a stated time a loan or investment. Oath by the name of the king (mu-lugal in-pad). Witnesses are present, but are not named as such. They have the word igi, "before" immediately before them.

6. ITT 932*. A law-suit in which a complaint is addressed to the grand-vizir in the name of the king and is examined by the assessor and is repeated before judges. There is no mention of an oath nor does the phrase ni-in-dug with a direct statement occur, but one of the interested persons is presented in the name of the king (mu-lugal). It is very doubtful whether an oath was here taken.

1 See Babyloniaca III 2, p. 114, note 1 for place of publication.

2 See also Myhr. I (Pl. 1, No. 1), &c. But here no oath is expressed. The form mu lugal with a direct assertion may be considered a substitute for the regular oath formula.

7. ITT 1008*. A document of purchase in which an oath. is taken by the king (mu-lugal in-[na-pad-da]) in the presence of witnesses. A second oath is referred to but the text is badly perserved.

8. ITT 3470. This is a commercial transaction in which an oath is sworn by the name of the king (mu lugal-bi in-pad) before witnesses.

9. ITT 3523. Another case of seizure, as ITT 3516, but here the oath is taken by calling upon the name of the king ([m]u-lugal in-na-pad-da). The tablet is badly broken.

10. ITT 3529. This is a gift document, the oath in which is sworn by the name of the king (mu lugal-bi in-pad). The complaint is made in court but no witnesses appear as far as we can make out from the broken tablet.

11. ITT 3532. A document dealing with a disputed purchase. The oath is taken by invoking the name of the king (mu lugal-bi in-pad) before witnesses.

12. ITT 3538. A business transaction concerning real estate. There is a reference to an oath which, as it seems, was formerly taken (nam-erim-am), and then the transaction is sworn to by the name of the king (mu lugal in-pad-da).

13. ZA XXV, 1-2, Sprechsaal, "Some Sumerian Contracts" by S. Langdon, p. 205 ff., No. 1 B. 6. The purchase of a female slave. The transaction is ratified by an oath taken by the name of the king (mu lugal-bi in-pad) in the presence of certain named persons who are undoubtedly the witnesses. There is a promise directly connected with the oath, namely, galu galu nu gi-gi-da, "man shall not bring suit against man" a formula found here for the first time on tablets belonging to this early period, but very common during the Hammurabi dynasty. The interesting Semitic word bukānu, under its Sumerian form gistag, occurs in Obv. 1. 6 which is used so often in contracts of the Hammurabi dynasty, and may very well mean, as Langdon suggests, "dye" or "stamp", although it was not confined to slave-sales especially during the Hammurabi dynasty, as it is oftenest used in transactions pertaining to the produce of the field.

14. ZA XXV, 1-2, p. 209, No. 2. Bodleian Inser. Sum. A 18. A fragmentary document of a settled commercial dispute in which the oath is taken by invoking the name of the king (mu lugal-bi in-pad) in the presence of witnesses.

15. Gen. Dréh. 5541. A transaction concerning a barley loan in which an oath is taken before witnesses in which the name of the king is invoked (mu lugal-bi in-pad).

Reign of Ibi-Sin.

1. Gen. Dréh. 5539. A dispute about cows which is settled, and an oath by the name of the king is taken (mu lugal-bi inpad) before witnesses.

2. Gen. Dréh. 5540. A loan negotiated in presence of witnesses by taking an oath by the name of the king (mu lugalbi in-pad).

Tablets undated or whose dates are uncertain or broken off.

1. Pél. XIX (Pl. VII)§. A law-suit concerning the planting of a park. The condition of transaction is introduced by the phrase mu lugal, but no more direct evidence of an oath appears. The end of the tablet is broken. It is doubtful whether an oath was taken.

2. Myhr. Pl. 7 Nr. 13. A very much broken legal transaction which contains an oath by invoking the name of the king ([mu] [l]u-gal in-pad).

3. ITT 931*. A law-suit concerning a man's right to take a concubine in case of the barrenness of his wife. The text is very poorly preserved but it seems that the wife claims that an oath in the name of the king should not be taken (mu lugal ba-ra-mu-enim-enim) that her place be taken by a concubine. Witnesses are present among whom is a woman. The husband's name is Ur-Lama, perhaps the patesi whom we have already met.

4. ITT 960*. This is a very interesting document. It deals with arrangements for a marriage. It seems that the consent. of the parents must be procured in case of this marriage, and even the opposition of the mother would be sufficient to defeat the case. Face 1. 12 has ki-mu-lugal-pad-da-ka ni-dur-ša "the place where an oath is taken by the name of the king"1 shows us that there must have been at this time such a place legally designated, although I have not been able to find anything more definite till we come to the Hammurabi dynasty

1 Cf. p. 40 No. 6.

where we find such place commonly designated, e. g. at the šurrinnu, etc. A direct statement comes between mu-lugal and in-na-ni-dug-ga (so and so, she said) and an oath is taken (nam-erim-am) by the father of the bride and the young people are given the right of marriage. Witnesses, an assessor, and three judges are present.

Among the many historical inscriptions belonging to the period previous to the Hammurabi dynasty and which is classed as Sumerian, I have found only one which contains an oath. It is a treaty which was transliterated and translated some years ago by Thureau-Dangin in Les Inscriptions de Sumer et d'Accad, and in 1909 was published, transliterated and translated by the same author in conjunction with L. Heuzey in Restitution Matérielle de la Stèle des Vautours. E-an-na-tum king of Lagash (c. 2900 B. C.) made a treaty with the people of Gishu; E-an-na-tum swore to the people (nam-e-na-ta-tar, "by that which [šušgal] I swore to them"), and they swore to him (nam-mu-na-tar-ra2, "they swore"). The oath is quite elaborate. The king invokes the šuš-gal ("net")3 of Enlil (Bel), of the goddess Ninharsag, of Enki (Ea), of Enzu (Sin), of Babbar (Šamas), and of Ninki; and the people call upon the name of the same deities. The oath was taken in the camp of the god Nin-gir-su (a-ša[g]a. Ningir-zu-ka) the son of Enlil. The same object by which the oath is sworn, namely the šuš-gal, will slay the person who proves to be a perjurer.

In the foregoing study every instance of an oath in the literary remains of the Sumerians has been recorded and commented upon wherever necessary. The study, therefore,

1 See p. 42, n. 3..

2 The following are variations of the same formula which are found in this inscription: nam-e-ta-tar-ra, "by which they swore"; nam-ni mani-tar-ra, "by whom they swore"; also, the phrase occurs: mu-pad-da, "whose name was pronounced".

3 Symbolically used. Cf. Hab. 1, 16: "Therefore he (the Chaldean) sacrificeth unto his net, and burneth incense unto his seine".

4 Here zid...

It is noteworthy that if we admit that in the oath by En-lil his son Ningir-su is included, then the number of those invoked would be seven, the holy number of swearing.

covers that period of history from the earliest times to the First Babylonian or the Hammurabi dynasty.

During this period commercial literature has shown a progressive development in the method of oath-taking. In transactions of the earliest periods no oath is recorded. This was due, it seems, more to the stage of legal development than to any lack of religious feeling connected with a legal promise. Legal precautions developed a legal form in which we see an external expression of the religious thought always underlying the idea of the oath. During the Pre-Ur-Ninan period (the tablets of which come from Tello) we meet with a fairly stereotyped legal form of transaction, as such contract as RTC 12-15 show. Yet no oath was taken. An advance in form at least is, however, evident. Witnesses are present, and the very word for witness, as we have seen above, shows the religious idea underlying this innovation in formula. In the Ur-Ninan period (the tablets of which come from Tello and Susa) there is still no expression of an oath, at least in contract literature, but the stereotyped legal form is still present, witnesses are recorded. There is an interesting reference in one document which indicates a tendency which later ripened, I mean the ritual act of giving the hand at the conclusion of a transaction (see page 35). The transaction is also referred to as having been ratified in a temple. When we reach the dynasty of Ur (the tablets of which come from Tello and Dréhem) we find not only the same stereotyped legal form but, in addition, the direct expression of an oath. This takes two forms; first, where a simple oath is sworn: and secondly, where an oath is taken by invoking the name of the king. Here also the oath was sometimes taken in a specific place.

The only historical inscription representing the whole Sumerian period which contains an oath belongs to the dynasty of Ur-Nina, and the reign of Eannatum king of Lagash c. 2900 B. C. Here we see the oath in a form which is not found in any commercial literature of the Sumerian period, but which is common in both historical and commercial inscriptions of later times. A treaty is made, the chief ritual of which is the taking of an oath by both interested parties. The oath is made by invoking the susgal of definitely named deities, and was taken in the camp or temple of Nin-gir-su. And what is still more interesting, a conditional malediction

VOL XXXIII. Part I.

4