(M472) A rather different grant was made by Nebuchadrezzar I. to Ritti-Marduk for his services against Elam. This faithful vassal had been governor of a district on the borders of Elam, but the privileges of his country had been much curtailed by a neighboring King of Namar. They were now restored and apparently augmented. They were, that the King of Namar had no right of entry, could not levy taxes on horses, oxen, or sheep, nor take dues from gardens and date-plantations; could not make bridges nor open roads. The Babylonians, or men of Nippur, who came to live there were not to be impressed for the Babylonian army. Further, the towns of the district were freed from dues to the Babylonian governors.(496) Marduk-nâdin-aḫi in his first year remitted some obligations on an unknown estate.(497) (M473) Of another kind are the monuments recording the actual endowments of temples by certain kings. A very fine example is the stone enclosed in a clay coffer referring to the endowments of the temple of Shamash at Sippara. It records the restorations made by Simmash-shiḫu, É-ulmash-shâ-kin-shum, Nabû-aplu-iddina, and Nabopolassar at wide intervals. There are, however, no lands concerned.(498) (M474) A very archaic tablet in the E. A. Hoffman Collection, the General Theological Seminary, New York City, published in the _Journal of the American Oriental Society_,(499) which seems to be older than the celebrated Blau monuments and which Professor G. A. Barton would date about 5500 B.C., deals directly with a presentation of land to a temple. In it the area of the land is given in _GAN_ and the sides in figures only, probably denoting the lengths in _U_. Being written in very archaic, semi-picture writing, and some of the signs not yet being identified with certainty, it will not do to build much upon it. All the sides but one appear to be thirty-six thousand and fifty, that one being thirty-six thousand, while the full area is three thousand and five _GAN_. This gives the _GAR_ as roughly = fifteen _U_. (M475) Land was let under a variety of systems of tenure. The metayer system was one of the most common and persistent. The use of this term is justified by the similarity of actual cases to what is known to prevail in Italy, under this name. It is a co-operative system. The landlord not only allows his land to be cultivated for a consideration, but finds the means to meet expenses. He provides bullocks, tools, seed, and many other things, according to the usage of the locality. (M476) In the Code of Ḥammurabi we have proof of the existence of the system. A man finds(500) his tenant tools, oxen, and harness, but hires him to reside on the field and do the work. Actual examples are rare among the contemporary contracts. But Amat-Shamash, a votary, let out,