The Babylonian World - Historia Antigua

— Michael Jursa —
cereal farming always remained the principal agricultural activity; date gardening in
the vicinity of urban centres, while still important and yielding high returns, was
only of secondary importance overall. These differences are one of several indications
suggesting an economic dichotomy between northern Babylonia and the central and
southern parts of the country. 4 Another important distinction is that between the
agricultural landscape in close vicinity of the cities and that in more remote parts of
the country. Land use around the cities was always much more intensive and geared
towards supplying the urban centres and less towards subsistence agriculture for the
benefit of the rural population. It can be shown, for instance, that the immediate
hinterland of Babylon was characterised by very intensive market gardening.
The single most important land owners were the institutions. The majority of the
temples’ holdings – far better attested than royal land – were concentrated around
their home cities, but in the case of the two best-known temples, the Ebabbar in
northern Sippar and the Eanna in southern Uruk, it can be demonstrated that numerous
estates were, in fact, situated at a considerable distance from the urban centre. The
Ebabbar, for instance, owned fields and gardens in the vicinity of Borsippa and Dilbat,
south of Babylon. The cultivation of temple estates was achieved partly by the temples’
own dependants, ploughmen and gardeners, who were, in all likelihood, unfree serfs
(Akkadian sˇirku). However, their number was always insufficient for the agricultural
needs of the temples. Therefore, at all times, the land that had to be rented out to
share croppers, free gardeners and other contractors exceeded the part of the temple
domain that was under direct management. Not infrequently, large-scale leasing and
sub-leasing took place. In this way, private entrepreneurs took part in the cultivation
of institutional land. The so-called rent farmers were contractors undertaking the
management of significant parts of the temple estates (or even of the entire holdings
of a temple) against the payment of a predetermined rent. Initially, these men, who
first appear late during the reign of Nebuchadrezzar II, in the first half of the sixth
century, were royal protégées, later, during the rule of the Achaemenids, they could
also originate in the temple households themselves. In theory, such entrepreneurs
were supposed to be supplied with the necessary means for cultivating the land entrusted
to them by the temples, but in practice they always had to invest at least
part of their private means (which therefore had to be considerable) as well. The
temples (and thus, indirectly, the crown) expected from such contractors not only a
simplification of the bureaucratic tasks of supervising cultivation and the payment
of rents and dues, but also the availability of outside capital. The entrepreneurs, of
course, hoped to make a profit beyond the fixed rent that was expected of them.
As far as we can tell from the not over-abundant sources, royal estates and holdings
of members of the king’s family and of high officials were managed along the same
lines as lands of the temples, which could not really be considered as totally independent
since their resources could always be drawn upon by the royal administration when
necessary. In addition to direct management and farming out, royal land could be
exploited in a third way, for instance by apportioning it to royal dependants who,
in return, owed the state labour or military service and/or tax payments. Frequently,
such estates were granted to various collectives, sometimes of a certain professional
background, but more frequently of common, usually non-Babylonian, origin. The
land-for-service scheme was the easiest way by which the royal administration could
integrate outsiders into Babylonian society. 5 Such settlements of non-Babylonians
226