590 A SKETCH OF BABYLONIAN SOCIETY. 



into the two principal classes, management by the owner and farming 

 on lease. I premise that this refers only to the property-holding 

 classes. The agricultural laborers, tbat is, the real x>roducers, were 

 either slaves or peasants, who in their village community had gradu- 

 ally come to a certain condition of servitude, either to the temple or to 

 the State or to the nobles. We have, then, to distinguish between the 

 property-holding classes and the agricultural laborers. Xaturally, a 

 large number of modifications of condition arose which bridged over 

 the transactions. But, in the rough, for the time which extends from 

 the ascendancy of Assyria over Babylon to the downfall of the former 

 power, that is, from 900 B. 0. to about 600 B. C, one may assume as 

 the greatest difference between the two neighboring States — a differ- 

 ence which was also characteristic of the different relation of power — 

 the existence in Assyria of a free peasant class, in distinction to the 

 existence in Babylonia of an unfree peasant class. 



Tbat the development of Assyria from a political point of view was 

 much influenced by its social constitution is to be assumed as a matter 

 of course. If, now, we can logically represent this development, we 

 shall be able to judge of the social background, concerning which little 

 documentary evidence remains. The test will be if the little furnished 

 by the inscriptions agrees with the conception previously gained by us. 



Now, it is quite easy to trace how the Assyrian kings gradually 

 formed for themselves a military force suitable for rapid movements, 

 and how the latter, originally, indeed, consisting of natives, became 

 more and more a. mercenary force recruited from the free lances of all 

 Asia Minor. It is, moreover, clear from the history of Assur from the 

 time of Asurnacirpal on, that the internal tranquillity was greater or 

 less in proportion to the exhibition of power with regard to outside 

 countries. This is explained by the fact that, so long as the surround- 

 ing peoples could be forced to pay tribute, the standing army was 

 maintained by this tribute, but when from any cause tribute was less 

 freely given, the public burden fell more and more heavily upon the 

 producing classes. When, under the kings of the eighth century, the 

 north and east became less productive because of the pressing forward 

 of Aryan tribes, circumstances must have come to such a pass that a 

 complete revolution resulted, which brought Tiglath-Pileser III, and 

 after him, Salmanassar IV, to the throne. Since this revolution took 

 place in opposition to the ruling dynasty, and since neither king gave 

 himself any trouble to establish his legitimacy by artificial pedigrees 

 showing relationship to ancient legendary dynasties, it is probably 

 to be assumed that they effected their usurpation in the face of 

 the hitherto ruling classes of the military and priests by the help of 

 a third factor. This, then, will also explain the fact that after the 

 counter revolution of Sargon, he and his successors seized upon the 

 old broken threads and relied chiefly upon the soldiery and priesthood. 

 If y then, we inquire concerning this third factor, the only answer is that 



