In the case of the great temple landowners it seems to have been the custom to supply a very large amount of the tenant's necessities. Seed-corn was frequently furnished, also corn for food for farmer and men, until the crop was gathered. The stock and farm implements were also provided by the landlord. This metayer system of leasing land probably accounts for loans without interest. It is not clear that such a system was already in vogue in early times.

In hiring a field it might be stipulated that the lessee should place a dwelling upon it,727 mana?tu ana e?lim iŠakkanu. Here the field was at a distance from the city, “beyond the upper stream.” If the crop was to be properly looked after, protected from birds, stray beasts, and robbers the farmer must live there some part of the year. There was no dwelling. The lessee was therefore called on to erect a dwelling. Probably a simple edifice sufficed. At the end of the tenancy the tenant was called on to resign this building.

There were two sorts of land. That called AB-SIN or Šeru', seems always to have paid six to eight GUR of corn per GAN. The other sort, KI-DAN, probably read kigallu, and certainly meaning land, not cultivated but to be brought into cultivation, was exceedingly variable in quality. It is set down for a rent of from three up to eighteen GUR per GAN, but some land is rented at seventy-two GUR per GAN.728

On account of the hire, some deposit was usually made, which seems to bear no direct relation to amount of rent. But while this was in many cases money—one to three shekels—a number of cases exhibit a list of quantities of food and drink. What these were it is difficult to say, as the terms are written ideographically. But joints of meat, pieces of flesh, drinks, bread and oil, seem to be intended. The [pg 278] custom is obscure. Possibly these are set down as weekly or monthly rations secured on the whole rent and to be set off against it later. That the quantities are in some sense distributive is certain, “so much each,” but whether “each person,” “each day,” “each month,” or “each year” is not stated. One plausible suggestion is that the landlord, like the votary in the Code whose brothers do not content her, let the farm to a man who covenanted to support or maintain him. The contention is strengthened by the fact that the cases known to us are all female landlords, and may actually be examples of what the Code contemplates. Having only a life interest in the property and being without capital, they could not afford to wait until harvest to receive the rent, but needed a frequent allowance for maintenance.

The lease of an estate for a term exceeding a few years was always rare. One is found on a tablet which is one of the most interesting of all those supposed to be of the First Dynasty of Babylon. The script and the language recall Assyrian types most vividly and it is full of non-Babylonian names, which suggest Hittite, or even Armenian, origin. Unfortunately, it is not dated. It might well have been found at Kala?, or Asshur, and belong to somewhat early Assyrian times, perhaps before Assyrian independence of Babylonia. Not one person named in it occurs in the other tablets of the Bu. 91-5-9 Collection—a thing which cannot be said of another of them. If this was really found with them, we can only suppose that centralization was carried to such a pitch that important legal documents, even when executed as far away as Assyria, or Mesopotamia proper, had to be sent in duplicate to the capital of Babylonia. Or was it possible that the principal party came to the capital with this document in his possession, deposited it in the temple archives there, and died, leaving no one to reclaim it.