Article contents
Hanšû Land and the Rab Hanšî
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 07 August 2014
Extract
This article aims to open up a discussion of the term hanšû as applied to land in the Neo-Babylonian period. With this in mind, a complete list of the hanšû references known to us is included, to aid any further study of the term. Hanšû is found in the following forms, 50, 50ú, 50ú.meš, 50meš, 50meš.e, 50e and 50e. meš, and is so far attested from the cities of Babylon, Borsippa, Dilbat, Hursagkalamma, Nippur and Uruk. It appears from the reign of Marduk-apla-iddina II to that of Darius.
Turning to the dictionaries, we find hanšû to be “land held in feudal tenure by 50 men”. One thinks of a parallel with the Late Babylonian bīt qašti texts, in which groups of men, known individually as bēl qašti, held land in return for military duties. Approaching hanšû with this in mind, we should look for the duties that these fifty men performed in return for their land. Further, we should look for other aspects of feudalism in Neo-Babylonian society. Yet it is exactly these which are not to be found. One is made aware of a strong temple interest in land, and the ownership of land by private individuals is also very well attested. In contrast, however, evidence for the activities of the crown in relation to land (or the army) is meagre. Royal land, the pīhat šarri, did exist, but we have gained little idea as to its extent or as to how it was exploited. Thus, if we are to argue that hanšû land was feudal land, held by fifty men who performed feudal duties, the proof must come from within the hanšû texts, as external proofs are not to be found.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The British Institute for the Study of Iraq 1983
References
1 Note also bīt sīsî “horse land”. In UCP 9, 1/2, 1, a man asked for bīt sīsî, a horse and its fittings, and in return was expected to report to Uruk at the king's command to fulfil military duties.
2 In JCS 1, 352, are two texts which are stated to be duplicates of AnOr 9, 1. Although the same 91 rab hanšī are said to appear in these three texts, the tāmirtu mentioned at the end of NBC 4848 do not appear in the other two.
3 Ebeling, E., Neubabylonische Briefe 150Google Scholar.
4 This is based on an analysis of all published sale texts for the period.
5 We have no suggestion as to the meaning here of šēpet (l. 51) or nurzu.
6 See Grayson, A. K., Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, Chronicle 24 (p. 182) and Plate XXVGoogle Scholar.
7 VAS 1 37 ii: 43–4.
- 6
- Cited by