hanšû Å¡aâ¦1
1) bÄ«t AbunÄya (or, AdnÄya): one hears of this estate in the famous case of high treason committed against King Nebuchadnezzar ii in his eleventh regnal year.2 The AbunÄya family seems to have lost this land already before the reign of Nebuchadnezzar ii. The history recounted in this text tells us that this hanšû was taken from the traitor of the RÄÅ¡-ummÄni family and returned to the Ezida temple to which it had previously belonged. It was then given to an individual of the Å igûa clan.
1b) Nabû-remÄni//AbunÄya (or, AdnÄya): an individual of the Å a-á¹ÄbtiÅ¡u clan (and his uncle) sold a part of this hanšû estate to the Kidin-Sîn clan in the early Neo-Babylonian period (VS 5 140; date lost).
2) bÄ«t Apkallu: this property is recorded between the reigns of Å amaÅ¡-Å¡umu-ukÄ«n and Nabonidus (ca. 664â548 bce). The first attestation of this hanšû dates to Å Å¡u 04 at the occasion of an inheritance division in the Aqar-Nabû family (OECT 12 A 83). This text probably entered the archive of the Ea-ilÅ«tu-bani family retroactively when a member acquired the land. It is found in their possession between circa Nbk 21+ (ybc 9194) and Nbk 40 (ybc 9189). At one point a share of this hanšû was held by the IlÄ«-bÄnis (a clan related to the Ea-ilÅ«tu-bani through marriage) as can be seen from text BM 96263 (Nbn 08). Note that most documents dealing with this property do not use the term hanšû (e.g. TuM 2/3 151, tcl 12 56, oect 12 A 180).
3) bÄ«t AÅ¡gandu (or, Å ukandu): this property occurs for the first time in an inheritance division of the Ilia family in the reign of Nabonidus (BM 94587, Nbn 13, note that here the term hanšû is not used). Various texts record the subsequent management of this land by the family (e.g. BM 95042, hsm 1904.4.23).3 The Ilias acquired an additional share from the NappÄhu family in Dar 06 (BM 95042).
4) bÄ«t Atkuppu: this hanšû is mentioned once in Nbk 11 (tcl 12 30). The text records the sale of three larger plots in this hanšû unit by the NannÄhus to a clan whose name is unfortunately not preserved. Members of the Atkuppu family feature as neighbours of two of the sold plots.
5) bÄ«t BÄbÄya: this hanšû estate is only mentioned once in a cultivation contract from the GallÄbu family archive (BM 96291, Nbn 12). Note that the scribe comes from the BabÄya clan, suggesting that this clan kept an interest in their eponymous land.
6) bÄ«t mÄr BÄâiru: land in this unit is bought by the RÄâi-alpis from an individual without family name in Dar 12 (BM 26510). The completion of payment was still due a year and a half later (BM 94540, Dar 14). The land might have been sold together with various other pieces of property to an unknown buyer in Dar 20 (BM 26576 = AHxv no. 192).
7) bīt Banê-ša-ilia: in BM 93001 (Kan 07) two plots of land in this hanšû are exchanged between relatives of the Banê-ša-ilia clan.
7b) Å umÄ//Banê-Å¡a-ilia: this estate is mentioned once in a cultivation contract arranged within the Banê-Å¡a-ilia family (BM 27854, Kan 19).
8) Nabû-Å¡umu-iÅ¡kun//BÄrû: a share in this hanšû was bought by the Adad-nÄá¹£irs from the Barû clan sometimes before Nbk 14 (BM 26392). This field probably came into the possession of the Atkuppu family upon marrying a daughter of the Adad-nÄá¹£ir family.4
9) bÄ«t Basia: in Nbn 09 a woman from the Basia family donated her dowry field in this hanšû to her son who was a descendant of the same clan (BM 21975). At least one of the gardens in this hanšû was used as dowry property for a woman of the á¹¢illÄya family who was married to Å addinnu//BÄliyaâu. The Basia family, however, still owned certain rights to the land, and members occasionally appear as co-owners or creditors in imittu texts. While the BÄliyaâus seem to have had their own interest in this area (BM 28912, Dar 20), various texts bear witness to the fact that the dowry field of the á¹¢illÄyas came under management of the BÄliyaâu family after marriage (e.g. BM 28961, Cam 07; BM 28952, Dar 10?; and BM 96337, Dar 27). Ownership of this hanšû unit was obviously complex with as many as three clans holding rights to it simultaneously: Basia, BÄliyaâu, and á¹¢illÄya (e.g. BM 96389, date lost).
10) bÄ«t BÄlÄya: a garden in this hanšû was held as a pledge for a debt of silver by the GallÄbu family in Nbn 10 (BM 96239). Unfortunately, the family name of the debtor is lost. The KudurrÄnu family might also have owned a piece of land in this unit as early as Nbn 13 (BM 22064, term hanšû not used), if indeed it concerns the same plot mentioned in BM 22012 (Nbk iv 01, term hanšû used).
11) bÄ«t BÄliyaâu: this estate is mentioned in BM 28904, dated Nbk 33. It is thought to mark the arrival of the BÄliyaâu family in the Borsippa milieu.5 The text records how the BÄliyaâu clan receives lands in the hanšû [PN] Å¡a Kidin-Sîn from a fellow baker clan. While the designation of hanšû is not (yet) attached to this newly created property, called only bÄ«t BÄliyaâu, the text does seem to refer to it as âthis hanšûâ (ll. 1â2: 11 ha.la.
12) bÄ«t Bibbê: this unit is mentioned in TuM 2/3 137 (Camb 02). The owner is from the IlÄ«-bÄni family. The family name Bibbê is only attested three times in the corpus and is found more often as a personal name of Chaldean individuals like for example the royal magnate called Bibêa, son of DakÅ«ru, in the Hofkalender of King Nebuchadnezzar ii.6
13) bÄ«t Bitahhi: BM 26504//BM 26481 (Cam [x]) documents the exchange of fields between two relatives of the RÄâi-alpi clan. A plot in the hanšû Å¡a RÄâi-sisê and some additional silver were exchanged against a larger plot in the hanšû Å¡a bÄ«t Bitahhi. While the family name Bitahhi is only attested twice in the Borsippa corpus, there is prosopographical evidence suggesting that it was an alternative spelling for the somewhat better-known family name of Barihi.
14) KÄá¹£ir//Ädu-Äá¹ir: a plot in this unit was reclaimed by a member of the homonymous clan through the exchange of a field with the IÅ¡pÄru family in BM 17599 (Npl 09). Note that the Ädu-Äá¹ir clan still held neighbouring plots.
15) bÄ«t Esagil: in Nbk 39 a plot in this hanšû was owned by the BÄbÄyas (VS 3 24). This text records the payment of an amount of dates for the services to the âcanal inspectorâ (gugallu) of Borsippa. The fact that this document belongs to the Atkuppu archive suggests that this family had a stake in this land as well. That this hanšû refers to the Esagil temple and not to a family is suggested by the absence of a Personenkeil.
16) bÄ«t Esagil-mansum: this unit is found in two documents recording a transfer of property within the homonymous family. In BM 29379 (Cam 07) a woman donates a garden in bÄ«t Esagil-mansum to her son. In BM 28902 (Dar 01) two individuals from the same family exchange date palm gardens (parts of the ancestral patrimony, bÄ«t abiÅ¡u). A share of this estate came into the possession of the Ea-ilÅ«tu-bani family, in whose archive it is found in Nbk iii 00 (yos 17 8).7 Between Dar 09 and Dar 26, a plot in this hanšû (probably as part of the dowry of the á¹¢illÄya family, see hanšû bÄ«t Basia above) was held by the Basia, BÄliyaâu, and á¹¢illÄya families (e.g. VS 3 104, 09; BM 28984, Dar 14; BM 29432, Dar 21; BM 28989, Dar 26; and BM 96186, Dar x).
17) bÄ«t GallÄbu: parts of this estate were already lost to the ancestral family during or even before the reign of King Nebuchadnezzar ii when it was controlled by the Ea-ilÅ«tu-banis (ybc 9158). After being divided and partly sold to the Iddin-Papsukkal family, a member of the GallÄbu clan was able to reclaim some of his ancestral land during the reign of Nabonidus (BM 96351). This land was subsequently sold off to the Mannu-gÄrûšus (BM 29401). According to R. Zadok, the Ilia family also owned a share of land in this hanšû unit.8
18) tamirtu humamÄtu: land in this hanšû was sold by a member of the GallÄbu family to the Mudammiq-Marduk family. However, in BM 96267 (Nbn 06) this transaction was successfully contested and reclaimed by a brother of the seller.
19) Ahu-ÄreÅ¡//HurÅ¡anÄya: this estate is mentioned in BM 87239 (Nbk 11). In this text a member of the Nabû-Å¡emê family sells two kur of land stretching over this hanšû and the hanšû Å¡aNabû-Äá¹ir//PurattÄya for the staggering amount of seventy-two minas of silver to the PahhÄru family. The HurÅ¡anÄya family is attested only once in the corpus (BM 28826).
20) bÄ«t Huá¹£Äbu: in the earliest documentation of this unit the land is (temporarily) held by Banê-Å¡a-ilia as collateral for a debt of silver due from a member of the Huá¹£Äbu family (TuM 2/3 106, Nbk 15). Another dossier documents the acquisition of a garden in this hanšû by the RÄâi-alpis. The first text shows that a member of the Adad-ibni clan bought part of this land from the Mubannû clan, which had previously bought it from the Asalluhi-mansums (before Cam 06, VS 5 48). This share was then sold to a member of the Atkuppu family (BM 85239 and BM 26623, Dar 03). In a document dated one year later it is, however, revealed that the Atkuppu acted only as a proxy for the actual buyer from the RÄâi-alpi family (BM 82619). Documentation for this land continues until Dar 18 (e.g. BM 82713, BM 94716, and BM 102022).
21) Iddin-Amurru: the earliest secured attestation of this hanšû comes from BM 26487 (Nbk 22). RÄmÅ«t-Gula//RÄâi-alpi requests his son-in-law from the fMaqartu family to assign property to his wife. He assigns to her the ownership of a house and a garden on the nÄr-Mihir in the hanšû Å¡a Iddin-dx. While the reading of the name is unsure, this is one of the few hanšûs in Borsippa named after an individual without a family name. Contrary to, for example, Uruk where Iddin-Amurru can denote an ancestral name, in Borsippa it is only attested as a personal name. That it should be interpreted as such in this case also is suggested by the lack of the term âhouseâ or âfamilyâ (bÄ«t). Moreover, in Dar 00 Nabû-mukÄ«n-zÄri//RÄâi-alpi showed further interest in this (hanšû) area and exchanged three slaves with the AllÄnu family for a garden in the vicinity of the nÄr-Mihir in the Iddin-Amurru area (BM 94546, hanšû not mentioned).
22) bÄ«t Iddin-Papsukkal: according to oect 12 AB 241 (Cyr 06), a man from the Aqar-Nabû family and his wife from the Huá¹£Äbu family sold four plots in this hanšû to the
22b) Saggillu//Iddin-Papsukkal: this hanšû is attested in BM 26493 (ca. Nbk 08). The Raksu family sold the land to an individual of the Adad-nÄá¹£ir clan. The buyer already owned a neighbouring plot. This text probably belongs to the Atkuppu archive and it is likely that this field entered into their possession through the marriage alliance with the Adad-nÄá¹£ir family.
23) bÄ«t (Ea-)ilÅ«tu-bani: this hanšû is mentioned in two cultivation related contracts (nbc 8362, AmM 02 and BM 94780, Nbn 13) involving ZÄru-BÄbili//Ea-ilÅ«tu-bani and his son, respectively. Some parts of this hanšû were presumably lost to the ancestral family at an earlier phase because in Nbk 18 the IlÄ«-bÄni family (linked to the Ea-ilÅ«tu-banis by marriage) bought a plot in this hanšû from the DamÄqu family (TuM 2/3 15).
23b) Illûa//(Ea-)ilūtu-bani: this estate was kept largely within the Ea-ilūtu-bani family from the reign of Šamaš-šumu-ukīn until at least the reign of Cyrus. The first period of documentation is characterised by a series of sales of smaller shares between relatives (e.g. ybc 11426, Ššu 12; and oect 12 A 131, Ššu 12). The land was kept by Puhhuru//Ea-ilūtu-bani until the reign of King Nabopolassar.9 In Npl 16 Puhhuru divided this property among his sons (TuM 2/3 5) who successfully passed it down to his grandson and great-grandson (e.g. TuM 2/3 195, Nbk 01; TuM 2/3 135, Ner 03; 94780, Nbn 13; and BM 94692, Cyr 06). This dossier has been discussed extensively in the past.10
23c) NÄdin-ahi//(Ea-)ilÅ«tu-bani: evidence on this hanšû came into existence when the Ea-ilÅ«tu-bani family sold various plots to the Iddin-Papsukkal family around the 660s bce (TuM 2/3 17, tcl 12 9, and TuM 2/3 11). It was sold to an individual member of the NappÄhu clan only a short time later (TuM 2/3 12, Å Å¡u 10). The land eventually ended up in the possession of the GallÄbus. It was only sometime during the reign of King Nebuchadnezzar ii, some fifty years later, that the Ea-ilÅ«tu-bani family regained this property (OECT 12 A 163).
23d) Suppê-BÄl//(Ea-)ilÅ«tu-bani: in Å Å¡u 12 Puhhuru//Ea-ilÅ«tu-bani exchanged parts of this hanšû for a plot in the hanšû Å¡a bÄ«t PahhÄru owned by the Å¡Äpiru of the brewers from the Ilia family (TuM 2/3 23//mah 16232).11 Puhhuru already owned a neighbouring field and it has been stressed previously that this transaction was part
24) bÄ«t IÅ¡Å¡akku: a garden in this hanšû was kept as pledge by the KudurrÄnu family for a debt of silver against the IÅ¡Å¡akkus in Dar 27 (BM 29007). The land was at that time held by members of the IÅ¡Å¡akku and the Purkullu families.
25) bÄ«t Kidin-Sîn: an orchard located here was part of the property transferred by Nabû-mukÄ«n-zÄri//RÄâi-alpi to his grandson and subsequently claimed by his own son, RÄmÅ«t-Nabû (e.g. BM 26514, Dar 05 and BM 26492//BE 8 108, Dar 06). The land was held undivided with a member of the Kidin-Sîn clan.
25b) Nabû-Å¡umu-lÄ«Å¡ir (or, -ukÄ«n)//Kidin-Sîn: this hanšû is mentioned first in a complicated division of dowry property in Cam 07 (BM 94697). In this document Nabû-Å¡umu-uá¹£ur//Kidin-Sîn grants a garden in this unit to his daughter and her husband (Gimillu//Kidin-Sîn) as a dowry. It is not exactly clear why, but a member of the BÄliyaâu also receives a share in this hanšû. One year later, Gimillu sells part of his land to Nabû-mukÄ«n-zÄri//RÄâi-alpi (BM 82656). The presence of a royal scribe (á¹upÅ¡ar Å¡arri) suggests that this sale was not completely voluntary. The transaction dragged on for another year when a re-confirmation of the sale was written (BM 82654). It seems, however, that Gimillu still owned some land in this hanšû (this time not belonging to his wifeâs dowry), which he later sold to the same buyer in Dar 02 (eah 212).
25c) [PN]//Kidin-Sîn: this is the estate where members of the BÄliyaâu family received land from the Kidin-Sîns in Nbk 33, see hanšû Å¡a bÄ«t BÄliyaâu (above). It might be identical to the hanšû discussed before (25b).
26) bÄ«t Kudurru u bÄ«tfLeâitu: the dossier from the Ilia (A) family dealing with these units has been discussed elsewhere.13 The four sons of Å ulÄ//Ilia inherited land in this area in the reign of Nabonidus. The eldest brother sold part of this property to his siblings who initially kept it undivided (e.g. BM 102289, Nbn 12; BM 26532, Nbn 13; and BM 17657, Nbn 13). The rest of the documentation concerns the management of this land by especially one of the three brothers, Marduk-Å¡umu-ibni (e.g. BM 17641//VS 3, 196, Cam 02; BM 25718, Dar 02; BM 102012, Dar 08; and BM 102307, Dar 15). It is interesting to note that this unit is only explicitly called a hanšû once (BM 25718). The land is usually said to be located in the eblu (meaning unsure) Å¡a bÄ«t Kudurru u bÄ«tfLeâitu.
27) bīt Kurgarrê: based on parallel attestation this hanšû name has been restored previously by R. Zadok.14 The first attestation of this estate comes from the marriage
28) bÄ«t LahÄÅ¡u: this hanšû is mentioned only once in Nbk 11 (tcl 12 30) as a neighbouring estate of the hanšû Å¡a bÄ«t Atkuppu (see above).
29) bÄ«t mÄr LÄsimu: a garden here is sold by the LÄsimu clan to Å addinnu//BÄliyaâu in Dar 10 (BM 96289). While the term hanšû is not used in this text, it can be restored from the imittu text BM 96299 (Dar 22). Å addinnu only completed his payment in Dar 20 when the remainder was given to the LÄsimu family (BM 29113). There are thus far only two individuals attested with the family name LÄsimu in the Borsippa corpus.
30) bÄ«t Mubannû: a field belonging to the dowry of fNanÄya-bulliá¹iÅ¡//Mubannû, wife of Nabû-mukÄ«n-zÄri//RÄâi-alpi, was located in this hanšû. It is only attested in a short period between Dar 05 and Dar 09. In Dar 05 the couple assigned this plot first to their daughter fInbÄ (BM 101980//BM 82607) and then to their grandson Lâbâši-Marduk (BM 26514). This transaction was later cancelled to the benefit of their son RÄmÅ«t-Nabû (BM 26492//BE 8 108 Dar 06). This land is mentioned once more when RÄmÅ«t-Nabû used it as a pledge for 5/6 minas of silver in Dar 09 (BM 82728).
31) Nabû-mutakkil(?): this unit is mentioned in a very fragmented text in Cyr 06 (VS 5 36). It probably belonged to the Ilia (A) family.
32) bÄ«t NaggÄru: land in this hanšû was held as a pledge by the GallÄbu family for a debt of barley, dates, and silver drawn against a member of the MaṣṣÄr-abulli family in Nbn 15 (BM 85641). According to the imittu text BM 96315 (Dar 18) Å addinnu//BÄliyaâu owned a garden here as well. He also obtained ownership of another field here in return for the old-age care of a member of the KÄá¹£ir clan (BM 25630//BM 25653, Dar 20).
32b) Nummuru//NaggÄru: three members of the NaggÄru family sold this unit, apparently in its entirety, to the Ilia family in Å Å¡u 04 (RA 10 no. 46) for only 5 shekels of silver. It should be noted, however, that no dimensions are given.
33) bÄ«t apil NappÄhu: land in this unit was used as dowry property of fAhattu//Arad-Ea who married into the RÄâi-alpi clan in Dar 01 (BM 82609 = Roth 1989 no. 22). The management of this plot (still held with some other members of the Arad-Ea family, according to BM 26707 and BM 26561//BM 94879) is recorded until Dar 29 (BM 26335). This property was, however, temporarily pledged to the Ea-imbi family in Babylon around Dar 19 (BM 26624//BM 102002 and BM 94685).
34) bÄ«t NikkÄya: this hanšû is mentioned as neighbouring estates of the hanšû Å¡a bÄ«t Atkuppu in Nbk 11 (tcl 12 30) (see above).
35) bÄ«t PahhÄru: land in this unit was originally bought from the DamÄqu family by the Å¡Äpiru of brewers of the Ilia family. The latter then exchanged it in Å Å¡u 12 against a plot in hanšû Suppê-BÄl//(Ea-)ilÅ«tu-bani (see above).
36) mÄr Pa-ni-a-su-Å¡u-du(?): this land was part of the dowry of fAhattu//Arad-Ea who married into the RÄâi-alpi clan around Dar 01 (BM 82609 = Roth 1989 no. 22). The reading of this name is unsure.
37) Nabû-Äá¹ir//PurattÄya: see hanšû Å¡a Ahu-ÄreÅ¡//HurÅ¡anÄya above.
38) Rabî: this hanšû is mentioned once in an imittu text from the IlÄ«-bÄni archive.16
39) bÄ«t RÄâi-alpi: this hanšû is documented through numerous transfers of property within the RÄâi-alpi family between Nbn 00 and Dar 29. It is first attested in Nbn 00 when an individual from the ArkÄt-ilÄni-damqÄ family bought land from fAmat-Ningal//RÄâi-alpi as proxy for Nabû-mukÄ«n-zÄri//RÄâi-alpi (BM 25627). A year later Nabû-mukÄ«n-zÄri made use of another proxy to buy a different plot of land here from his relatives (BM 26636 and BM 109871). The presence of a royal scribe at the latter transaction suggests an involuntary sale, perhaps as a result of indebtedness. A final transaction is found in BM 26571 (= AHxv no. 147, Nbn 08), which records the exchange of two days of the oxherdâs prebend against a field in this hanšû. This hanšû seems to have been kept firmly in the family until Dar 29 (BM 86442).
39b) Nabû-zÄru-ibni/Nabû-aplu-iddin/RÄâi-alpi: an orchard in this unit was sold in Nbn 04 by Nabû-uÅ¡ebÅ¡i//RÄâi-alpi (perhaps the grandson of the individual who gave his name to this hanšû) to fṬabÄtu//fMaqartu (RÄâi-alpi from her motherâs side) in order to pay off a long-standing debt to the Ezida temple (BE 8 44//BM 94562). The fact that it was written in the presence of the royal scribe suggests that there was pressure from higher-up. According to the quittance text BM 26687//BM 26656, fṬabÄtu paid the full price to Nabû-uÅ¡ebÅ¡i in Nbn 05. However, a few years later disagreement arose over the exact boundaries of the field. Unfortunately, from the document that records its settlement it is not entirely clear who the real owner was in Nbn 10 (BM 26648). It only tells us that the land was jointly bought by Nabû-mukÄ«n-zÄri//RÄâi-alpi and fṬabÄtu.
40) bÄ«t RÄâi-sisê: a plot in this hanšû was exchanged by a member of the Ädu-Äá¹ir family against land in the hanšû Å¡a KÄá¹£ir//Ädu-Äá¹ir owned by the IÅ¡parus in Npl 09 (BM 17599). During the reign of King Nabonidus the Å agimmu family sold a share to the Huá¹£Äbus (BE 8 43). This transaction was later cancelled and the land was bought by another individual whose name is lost (BM 26474). During the reign of King Cambyses shares in this hanšû came under control of the RÄâi-alpi family. BM 26504//BM 26481 (Cam [x]) records the exchange of two fields within the RÄâi-alpi clan: a field in the hanšû Å¡a RÄâi-sisê was exchanged for one in the hanšû Å¡a bÄ«t Bitahhi. The land was later sold to the Å arrahus, a family related to the RÄâi-alpi family by marriage.
41) bÄ«t RÄ«Å¡Äya: this hanšû is attested as a dowry field in BM 29375 ([Ach?] 04), a document that records the division of dowry gifts among three generations of the ArdÅ«tu family. Given that one of the daughters married into the RÄâi-alpi family, it is likely that this land followed her into the new conjugal household.
42) bÄ«t á¹¢illÄya: land in this hanšû is attested in the BÄliyaâu archive between Dar 09 (BM 96309) and Dar 18 (VS 3 119). It is very likely that the á¹¢illÄya clan held this land until it married one of its daughters to the Å addinnu//BÄliyaâu, sometime during the reign of King Cambyses, and used it as dowry property.
43) Ša-Nabû-šū: a field in this hanšû was bought by the Egibis from Babylon in Nbn 08, perhaps from the Arad-Ea family.17
44) bÄ«t ṬÄbihu: Å addinnu//BÄliyaâu bought a date grove in this estate in Dar 20 from the IbnÄya family (VS 5 92). It is interesting to see that members of the IbnÄya family, who traditionally performed the function of the prebendary butcher of Nabû, also held land in the hanšû of the butcher (á¹Äbihu).
The list of hanšû land is in alphabetic order, following the family or professional name when units are identified by PN//FN. The references to most of these hanšû units can be found in Zadok 2006.
Weidner 1956: 1â5.
Zadok 2006: 440.
See Abraham [forthcoming].
Waerzeggers 2010: 207â208.
Beaulieu 2013a: 34.
Joannès 1989: 326.
Zadok 2006: 431.
Note that in most texts the term hanšû is not used. See, for example, TuM 2/3 133, Kan 04 and TuM 2/3 134, Npl 07.
Joannès 1989: 65f. and Nielsen 2011: 91f.
See Joannès 1989: 174 for an edition of this text. Corrections can be found in Nielsen 2011: 92+310.
Joannès 1989: 66â67.
Jursa et al. 2010: 368â371.
Zadok 2006: 442.
BM 82609 = Roth 1989 no. 22.
See Joannès 1989: 87 and 269.
Wunsch 2000: no. 116.