“Six oxen, among them two cows; an irrigator, Amêl-Adadi; two tenders of an ox-watering machine, his nephews; three watering-machines for oxen; a female servant who tended the machines; half a _GAN_ of land for corn-growing; to Gimillu and Ilushu-banî. They shall make the yield of the field according to the average (?). They shall cause the corn to grow and measure it out to Amat-Shamash, daughter of Marduk-mushallim. In the time of harvest they shall measure out the corn to Amat-Shamash.” In spite of several obscurities due to uncertain readings, which render the translation doubtful in places, this must be regarded as a good example of the kind.(501) (M477) There are fewer data from the Assyrian period, but the frequent loans, _ana pûḫi_, without any interest, at seed-time or harvest, may be due to this relation between landlord and tenant.(502) (M478) The best example is to be found in the time of Cyrus,(503) where a certain Shulâ proposes to take the fields of Shamash, in the district of Birili, in the county of Sippara. It was sixty _GUR_ of corn-land. The temple was to find him twelve oxen, eight laborers (literally irrigators), three iron ploughs, four harrows (or hoes), and five measures of seed-corn, which also included food for the laborers and fodder for the oxen. At the end of the year he was to hand over three hundred _GUR_ of corn as the temple share. Another good example from the time of Artaxerxes I.(504) relates to the assignment of two trained irrigation-oxen and seven _GUR_ of corn for seed by a member of the Murashû firm to three brothers, who undertake to pay seventy-five _GUR_ of corn _per annum_ for three years. It does not appear that they hired the land as well. Here the hirer returns more than ten times his loan as yearly rent. (M479) The usual method of hiring land was on shares. The Code contemplates that this would be for a proportion fixed by contract, either one-half or one-third of the produce going to the owner, in the case of a field or irrigated meadow and two-thirds in the case of a garden.(505) The difference was due to the fact that in the former case the owner furnished the land only, possibly with its water-supply; in the latter case he also furnished the plants. In the contemporary contracts we have but few cases where the crop is shared. In these cases the owner and tenant share equally.(506) The tenant was also to erect a _manaḫtu_, or “dwelling.” It was needful that he should reside on the property to take care of the crop. This was stipulated for and the clause added that he should hand over the dwelling to the landlord. For such dwellings compare the “cottage in the wilderness” of Isaiah 1. 8.