The database Prosopography of neo-Babylonian women was initiated by Yoko Watai within the framework of the REFEMA project starting in 2012. Since 2016, the project is funded by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) under a Research Fellowship for Young Scientists from 2016 to 2019, and a JSPS Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research (KAKENHI) 19K13361) since 2019.  This  computerized database  is also associated with the www.achemenet.com website and the digital corpus of Babylonian texts coordinated by F. Joannès, as part of the Achemenet database. One of the main objectives of the database Prosopographies of Neo-Babylonian Women is to present the activities of Babylonian women in all their diversity and to assess their dynamism in the economic sphere of Babylonian society during the first millennium BC. Another major issue is the paleographic, philological and socio-historical analysis of the feminine personal names which were used in Babylonia during the 6th century BC and which are attested through the contemporary cuneiform documentation. This base, which was initially established with FileMaker Pro and whose enrichment is still in progress, will soon be transferred to a new software version. Completion is scheduled for 2022-2023.

CT 55 97
1     [ina u₄-mu ^mí]^da-a-kil-li-in-nu
2     [gemé šá ^IND]-pap-mu a-šú šá ^Imu-mu
3     [a ^Ix x ]-di it-ti ^Išá–^dnà-dum-qí-⸢i^?⸣
4     [lú qal]-la šá ^Ire-mut a-šú šá ^I[NP]
5     [t]a-ta-nam-ru u ina pi-[ir-ṣa-tu₄]
6     i-tab-ka-ši-ma ṭe-e[r-du la tal-tak-nu]
7     u a-na en é la taq-[bu-ú]
8     [a]p-pu ù ⸢geštu^II⸣ t[a-maḫ-ḫar]
9     [ina u₄]-mu šá ^I⸢šá^!?⸣-[^dnà-dum-qí-i(?)]
10     ⸢^mí⸣da-a-kil-li-in-nu i-tab-ka
11     ap-pu ù geštu^II im-mah-har
12     lú mu-kin-nu ^Iden-a-mu a-šú šá
13     ^Idkaskal-kur-ú a lú-sanga sip-par^ki
14     ^Imu-^damar-utu a-šú šá ^Ikal-ba-a a ^Idù-eš-dingir
15     ^Idub-numun a-šú šá ^Idutu-šeš-mu lú umbisag
16     [^I]ìr-^den a-šú šá ^Iden-gi a ^IdIM-šam-me-e
17     [zimbir]^ki iti izi u₄ 29-kam
18     [mu 8]-kam ^Ikur-raš lugal e^ki
19     [lugal kur]-⸢kur⸣

«Le jour où Aya-killīnni, la servante de […]-aḫ-iddin, fils de Šum-iddin, descendant de [……]di, aura encore été vue avec Ša-Nabû-dumqī, l’esclave de Rēmūt, fils de [……], ou bien qu’il l’aura entraînée par de fausses promesses sans qu’elle y fasse obstacle, ni qu’elle (en) parle au chef de famille (= son propriétaire), elle recevra (le châtiment) « nez et oreilles ». Le jour où Ša-Nabû-dumqī aura enlevé Aya-killīnni, il recevra (le châtiment) « nez et oreilles ». Témoins: Bêl-apla-iddin, fils de Balīḫu, descendant du Šangû-Sippar; Iddin-Marduk, fils de Kalbaia, descendant d’Eppēš-ili; Šāpik-zēri, fils de Šamaš-aḫ-iddin. Scribe: Arad-Bêl, fils de Bêl-ušallim, descendant d’Adad-šammē. [Sippar], le 29 du mois d’Abu, [de l’an 8] de Cyrus, roi de Babylone, roi des pays.

1. Localisation et datation : malgré les cassures de la fin, le texte peut être localisé assez sûrement à Sippar et fait partie des archives de l’Ebabbar. La décision de justice est en effet rendue devant des témoins qui sont bien connus par ailleurs : Bêl-apla-iddin/Balīḫu//Šangû Sippar est ērib bīti de l’Ebabbar, attesté également comme scribe du temple et devint ensuite probablement aḫu rabû du collège de l’Ebabbar (Bongenaar 1997, p. 387 et 448). Il est attesté à Sippar entre 575 et 530 (et peut-être jusqu’à 522). Iddin-Marduk/Kalbaia//Eppēš-ili est identifié par Bongenaar 1997, p. 387 comme un orfèvre de l’Ebabbar, cité comme témoin de textes produits par le temple entre Cyrus 6 et Cyrus 9. Enfin Šāpik-zēri/Šamaš-aḫ-iddin est identifié par M. Jursa (Jursa 1995, p; 85-116) et par A. Bongenaar (Bongenaar 1997, p. 428) comme un
fermier général de l’Ebabbar (ša muḫḫi sūti ša Šamaš). Sa première attestation est de la fin de l’année 7 de Cyrus. Si l’on admet que c’est en tant que responsable administratif de haut rang qu’il siège comme témoin dans le texte CT 55 97, on peut émettre l’hypothèse que le texte date de la fin du mois d’Abu de l’an 8, exactement du 28 août 531. Cette date s’accorde bien avec celle du texte Cyr. 307, qui date du 4 juillet 531.
Elle concorde aussi avec les activités du scribe Arad-Bêl/Nabû-ušallim/Adad-šammē, dont M. Sandowicz a montré récemment qu’il travaillait au service de l’Ebabbar et qu’il avait rédigé un nombre important de textes de nature judiciaire produits par le temple (Sandowicz 2019, p. 66 et note 144). On peut même établir qu’Arad-Bêl était à Babylone à la fin du mois ii de l’an 8 de Cyrus (fin mai 531), d’après Cyr. 301, qu’il a ensuite exercé son activité à Sippar en juillet-août (Cyr. 307, CT 55 97), avant de repartir à Babylone à la fin du mois de septembre (Cyr. 318), puis de revenir à Sippar, où il est attesté en mars 530 (Camb. 412, Cyr. 328).

2. Nature du texte. Bien que rédigé sous l’autorité de hauts responsables de l’Ebabbar, le texte CT 55 97, comme Cyr. 307, traite d’une affaire privée. Il interdit à Aya-killīnni (sur ce nom, cf. Hackl 2013, p. 151) de continuer à fréquenter un dénommé Ša-Nabû-dumqī. Les deux protagonistes ne sont pas attestés par ailleurs et la question se pose de leur statut social. À la différence de Ṭābat-Issar de Cyr. 307, Ayakillīnni
n’est probablement pas la fille du personnage cité à la l. 2, […]-aḫ-iddin/Šum-iddin, descendant de…]-di (peut-être lú man-di-di, mais ce nom d’ancêtre n’est pas attesté à Sippar). Comme on le verra, le châtiment dont elle est menacée s’applique à quelqu’un qui est déjà esclave. Il paraît donc plus logique de restituer [gemé šá] que [dumu-mí-su šá], au début de cette ligne. La seconde personne mise en cause, Ša-
Nabû-dumqī (peut-être une variante du plus courant «Ša-Nabû-damqā») ne peut, de même, pas être le fils de Rēmūt, (l. 4) et la copie permet de lire assez clairement: [lú qal]-la. Il s’agit donc d’une relation entre
deux esclaves, qui appartiennent à des propriétaires différents, et qui sont soupçonnés par ces derniers de préparer une fuite commune. Comme dans le cas de Cyr. 307, c’est l’Ebabbar qui statue sur cette affaire, sans que le temple ait eu a priori de relation avec les personnes impliquées et cette situation confirme l’opinion de M. Sandowicz (Sandowicz 2019, p. 70 : « the juridiction of the body headed by the high priest of Sippar extended over people who were not members of the temple household and included cases that did not concern temple property or cultic issues »). On remarque enfin qu’à la différence de Cyr. 307, où seule Ṭābat-Issar était menacée de recevoir la marque d’esclavage, ici les deux contrevenants sont également susceptibles d’être punis : Aya-killīnni, si elle continue volontairement de fréquenter Ša-Nabû-dumqī ou se laisse séduire et entraîner à son insu, et sans l’autorisation de son maître, et Ša-Nabû-dumqī, s’il enlève purement et simplement sa partenaire. Comme il est peu probable qu’il ait pu convoler avec elle chez son propre maître, Rēmūt, sans que celui-ci risque d’être accusé de vol d’esclave par le propriétaire d’Ayakillīnni,
on peut supposer que les deux propriétaires craignaient une fuite pure et simple des deux esclaves, mais ne tenaient pas à s’accuser mutuellement de leur disparition. Ils ont donc fait appel aux autorités de
l’Ebabbar pour rendre une décision préventive.

3. Le châtiment. Si les deux esclaves commettent le délit dont on les soupçonne, un châtiment leur sera appliqué, qui est présenté de façon assez elliptique: appu u uznē maḫāru, mot à mot : « recevoir le nez et les deux oreilles » (l. 8: [a]p-pu ù ⸢geštuII⸣ t[a-maḫ-ḫar]; l. 11 ap-pu ù geštuII im-mah-har). Dans cette dernière mention, il ne s’agit pas d’un inaccompli IV,1 mais d’une graphie fautive pour i-maḫ-ḫar. L’emploi du passif supposerait que le nez et les oreilles soient le sujet du verbe, et celui-ci devrait alors être au pluriel ; de plus, la formule dans son ensemble n’aurait pas grand sens. Le texte n’est pas exempt par ailleurs de graphies irrégulières : à la l. 5, par exemple, on attendrait tattanamru au lieu de tatanamru. On envisage évidemment que les deux fautifs « reçoivent » un châtiment, et celui-ci est exprimé de façon elliptique mais vraisemblable comme une mutilation : il faut donc sous entendre le verbe nakāsu dans l’exposé de la punition. Ce châtiment est d’ailleurs en partie conforme à ce que prévoit le § 282 du Code d’Hammurabi : « Si un esclave a dit à son propriétaire “tu n’es pas mon propriétaire”, son propriétaire prouvera qu’il s’agit bien de son esclave et lui coupera l’oreille ». La jurisprudence du 1er millénaire a ajouté le nez, peut-être sous l’influence de la législation médio-assyrienne qui prévoit de couper nez et oreilles aux esclaves receleurs des biens volés à leur maître (cf. CAD U, p. 282 b pour les différents cas de mutilation des oreilles et du nez). Comme dans le texte Cyr. 307 qui réaffirmait les droits du père de famille sur sa fille, ceux du propriétaire sur son esclave, quel qu’en soit le genre, restaient strictement rappelés en Babylonie durant le « long sixième siècle », en s’appuyant sur la législation hammurabienne. On ne sait cependant pas si ce fut suffisant pour contrecarrer les projets d’Aya killīnni et de Ša-Nabû-damqī.

Bibliographie
BONGENAAR, A.C.V.M.
1997 The Neo-Babylonian Ebabbar Temple at Sippar: Its Administration and its Prosopography, PIHANS 80, Leiden-Istanbul.
HACKL, J.
2013 «Frau Weintraube, Frau Heuschrecke und Frau Gut – Untersuchungen zu den babylonischen Namen von Sklavinnen in neubabylonischer und persischer Zeit», WZKM 103, p. 121-187.
JURSA, M.
1995 Die Landwirtschaft in Sippar in neubabylonischer Zeit. AfO Beiheft 25. Wien.
SANDOWICZ, M.
2019 Neo-Babylonian Dispute Documents in the British Museum, Dubsar 11, Münster.

Attached below is the final report (in PDF) of the REFEMA program (January 2015) for the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS). With contributions (in English or Japanese) of: Laura Cousin, Francis Joannès, Josué Justel, Brigitte Lion, Fumi Karahashi, Bertrand Lafont, Eiko Matsushima, Cécile Michel, Gauthier Tolini, Ichiro Nakata, Yoko Watai, Masamichi Yamada

REPORT.pdf

 Masamichi Yamada

(REFEMA 4th Workshop: June 26–27, 2014, Tokyo)

ABSTRACT

In a number of Akkadian legal texts from Emar and Ekalte, a woman is designated as ‘Man and Woman,’ i.e., “male and female” or “female and male,” as well as “male” or “son.” This paper extracts some general patterns and basic features of the designation, obligations and inheritance of such women by examining the relevant fifteen texts. In these texts, the designee is usually a daughter of a male family head who has no son. She is to inherit the family estate in place of a son, and her relatives are forbidden to lay claim on it. She owes the same obligations as the (eldest) son to take care of her parents and, after the death of her father, to invoke the family gods and ancestral spirits. Probably she is also given the right to transfer inherited property to another if necessary. Although if her father adopts a son as her husband, the latter can take over the status as heir, her substantial initiative in the family seems to be preserved. The existence of the status of ‘Man and Woman’ indicates that the continuation of one’s own birth descendants had priority over the principle of male centeredness in the society.

I. Introduction

In the Akkadian texts from Emar and Ekalte in its vicinity, we find two kinds of women given both genders. Some are designated as ‘Father and Mother,’ and others as what I shall call ‘Man and Woman.’ In this presentation I treat the latter type of women. In the term ‘Man and Woman,’ I include the designations “male and female” (once “son and daughter”) or “female and male,” as well as also simply “male” or “son.” Since a daughter’s being designated as son is known in the Nuzi texts, the comparable cases in Emar have attracted the attention of several scholars, and recently J. J. Justel and B. Lion have published special studies on the ‘Man and Woman.’ Although many points have already been pointed out by them, I hope that I can show a few new aspects of this issue.

II. Attestation

We have fifteen relevant texts in total, thirteen from Emar and two from Ekalte. Of these, nine are texts of the Syrian type, including the two from Ekalte, and six are of the Syro-Hittite type from Emar. The handout lists them by provenance and tablet type.

III. Designation

The ‘Man and Woman’ is designated variously in the texts, with several kinds of introductory formula, in nominal or verbal sentences. I have shown samples of the expressions and arranged basic data in the handout. In List 1, however, we can recognize some systematic features. Firstly, the terms for ‘Man and Woman’ are different according to the tablet type or, more accurately, the scribal tradition: the Syrian type uses “female and male,” while the Syro-Hittite type has “male and female.” Note also that the use of DUMU/māru is restricted to the latter type. Secondly, several formulas are used. In Emar, although the designation is most commonly expressed in verbal sentences, the verbs are different: in the Syrian type we see šakānu, but epēšu in the Syro-Hittite type. These two points show the contrast between the two contemporary scribal traditions in Emar. Thirdly, as for the texts of the Syrian type, in Ekalte nominal sentences are used, while verbal sentences are used in Emar, as noted above. This reflects a diachronic change within the same scribal tradition.

In these texts, the person who designates a woman as ‘Man and Woman’ is a male family head. To this point we will return later. In general, the designator is a man who has no son for heir, as is explicitly stated in AuOr 5-T 13, and the designee is usually his daughter or daughters. In two cases we see a sister is designated, probably because the designator has no child (and maybe no brother either). In three texts, RE 23 and Sem. 46-T 2 as well as Emar VI 184, the women are established as the contingent heirs in case the existing sons designated heirs should die without offspring. The only exception to the substitutive nature of ‘Man and Woman’ is seen in RA 77-T 1, where a daughter is designated, although her brothers are alive at home. On the other hand, in ASJ 13-T 30, the designator prescribes that if Iddi-ramu, most probably his lost son, later turns up, he will be the heir instead of the designated daughters. This shows that the designation of ‘Man and Woman’ could be tentative.

The designation of ‘Man and Woman’ is made in the presence of other people to be valid. This is particularly the case in the Syrian-type texts, in which the ^lú.mešaḫḫū, ‘Brothers,’ of the designator are frequently summoned for this legal matter, and witnesses are listed at the end of the texts. Here, it is worth noting that in all the Syrian-type Emar texts but one, those ^lú.mešaḫḫū are summoned and/or the king of Emar is referred to as the first witness, whereas in the Ekalte texts, the ^lú.mešaḫḫū are summond, but no king of Ekalte appears as a witness. Although we have only two ‘Man and Woman’ Ekalte texts, the same pattern can be observed in documents that designate ‘Father and Mother.’

The need to summon the ^lú.mešaḫḫū is understandable, as this term is known to denote one’s relatives in a broad sense. Most probably, since they were potential claimants to the designator’s estate, their agreement on his decision was required. The involvement of the king is also important, since the royal authority would have forced potential claimants to accept the decision of the designator. However, we find that Sem. 46-T 2 was made in the presence of the ^lú.meššībūtu, not the ^lú.mešaḫḫū, and the king is not referred to. How can we explain this?

In this respect, we need to look at the diachronic change in the political regime in the land of Aštata. In both Ekalte and Emar, we can recognize two official authorities, i.e., urban and royal. As I discussed elsewhere, in the period of the Ekalte texts, the urban authority was dominant in Ekalte. In Emar after the Hittite conquest, in the early phase both authorities were balanced or the urban authority was still dominant. However, from the reign of Zu-Aštarti on, the royal authority evidently became dominant. Taking account of this historical framework, I think, the ^lú.meššībūtu of Sem. 46-T 2 denotes the city elders representing the urban authority, since the scribe of this text is Alal-abu, who belonged to the urban authority in the early phase of the Emar texts. If this is correct, we may think that in the early phase, when an official authority intervened in family affairs, it was the urban, not royal, authority. This means that in Emar an official authority was always involved in the designation of ‘Man and Woman.’ Then, what about the Ekalte texts’ lack of reference to any official authority? It seems to me that in Ekalte official intervention had not yet occurred in such a family affair.

The situation is different for the texts of the Syro-Hittite type in Emar. We see no summoning of ^lú.mešaḫḫū here, and two royal documents of Carchemish, RE 85 and Emar VI 31, lack a witness list. Although TS 74 lacks one too, it has a sealer list. Were these documents enough to force the designator’s relatives to accept the legal decision? The answer must be positive. Probably, the fact that a Syro-Hittite-type document was drawn up was decisive enough for the Emarites, since it reflected the authority of the Hittites, the conquerors of the city.

If so, one may rather wonder why the involvement of the king of Carchemish himself in two of the texts was necessary. In this respect, it is interesting to note that the woman designated as ‘Man and Woman’ in RE 85 is a qadištu-woman. If she was a priestess, Ini-Tešub’s involvement may have been due to her religious importance. In Emar VI 31, although we see no special status for the daughters designated as “sons,” it should be noted that the text also designates as ‘Father and Mother’ another daughter, who is a ḫarimtu-woman, a term usually taken to mean prostitute or independent woman. In any case, since this woman was once cut off from her family, the authority of Šaḫurunuwa was probably required to incorporate her into it again. As for PdA 66 of Prince Ḫešmi-Tešub, unfortunately we have no clue for special status of the designated daughter in the text.

IV. Obligations

We can recognize two obligations which the women designated ‘Man and Woman’ were to perform. The first is the worship of the gods and ancestral spirits for the family after the death of the designator. As shown in List 2, this is attested relatively often, in nine texts of the fifteen. For example, in RA 77-T 1 the father states of his daughter: “She shall invoke my gods and my dead.” It is well known that this obligation was usually performed by the eldest son, who took as his share the main house, to which the family god (or gods) belonged.

In the light of this observation, the abbreviated sentence in TS 72: 10, “Šamaš-laʾi, the god of the main house,” can be understood to indicate (my daughter) “Šamaš-laʾi (shall be in charge of) the god of the main house,” as in the case of Emar VI 201. When plural daughters are designated as ‘Man and Woman,’ the one who inherits the main house will perform the obligation. So, if each nuclear family had its family cult of gods and ancestral spirits, the omission of reference to that obligation in other texts is understandable: because it was taken for granted that the main heiress was to perform it.

The second obligation to be noted is caring. The question is, who is to be cared for. As already pointed out by K. R. Veenhof, the act of ‘caring’ is expressed differently in the texts from Emar (and Ekalte): abālu Gtn is used in the Syrian type, whereas palāḫu is used in the Syro-Hittite type, with only a few exceptions. As shown in List 2, this obligation of ‘Man and Woman’ is attested relatively rarely, in a total of six texts. But in RA 77-T 1, the father orders his sons to take care of the designated daughter, calling her also their “mother” (ll. 12, 15, 17, 24). Actually, she is treated more like a woman designated as ‘Father and Mother,’ who is usually the designator’s wife. This leads us to think that as far as this obligation is concerned, the daughter in RA 77-T 1 is exceptional. Her designation as ‘Man and Woman’ was probably due to her age and the above obligation of worship. In other words, she is to be regarded as a mixture of both types of women given both genders.

In the above six texts, the persons to be cared for are parents, mother, or sister. Except for the first case, the women to be cared for are all designated as ‘Father and Mother.’ Thus, we may recognize here female predominance, and correlation with the designation of ‘Father and Mother.’ What do these features tell us? Did a ‘Man and Woman’ usually take care only of her mother? To clarify this point, it is necessary to examine other legal texts concerning caring for comparison.

Let us look firstly at seventeen adoption contracts of the ‘normal’ type, that is, in which the positions of the father and son before the adoption seem to have been equal, that is, neither subordinate nor dominant. Among these, TS 72 and AuOr 5-T 14 also concern ‘Man and Woman.’ In these, whom is the adopted son to care for? They are his adoptive parents or the like in twelve texts, his adoptive father in three texts, and his adoptive mother in two texts. Note that the last two texts are written by the adoptive mother, who is most probably a widow. Thus, these ‘normal’ adoption contracts show that the adopted son usually takes care of his adoptive parents, or, more accurately, of the adoptive parent or parents still alive at that time.

When looking at other non ‘Man and Woman’ texts in which it is a woman who owes an obligation of caring for a family member, we find only a woman as its object: her mother in three texts and her sister in one text. But there is one case where a female slave is assigned to take care of her master and his wife, with the provision that she will be released after their deaths. In three other texts, it is prescribed that if a man who has the obligation of caring should die, a woman will undertake it as his substitute. In one text we find his sister will take care of his parents, and in two texts, the wife of a debtor will do the same for the creditor and his wife. Here, we may note two points. Firstly, when a woman has this obligation, its object is usually a female member of the family, particularly her mother. But secondly, it is also possible for her to take care of also a male in some circumstances.

In view of the above observations, how should we think about the object of caring by a ‘Man and Woman’? Is it care of mother or sister only, or of both her parents? In other words, is it gender-oriented as women taking care of women, or not because she is a woman substituting for a son? In my opinion, the latter is preferable. Note that the designator has no son and apparently needs caring by someone, and that she, the substitute for a son, can perform this obligation. As seen above, the references to her mother or sister as its object are restricted to the texts in which those women are designated as ‘Father and Mother.’ It seems to me that it is due only to this other matter that the object of the caring is specified. Then, why are both parents referred to in BLMJE 3? Here, it should be noted that the designator was the adoptive father of the designees. Probably, because he was not their natural father, the reference to him was required.

Based on these considerations, I would conclude that it was usually taken for granted that the ‘Man and Woman’ would take care of the designator and his wife, so the obligation did not need to be always stated explicitly.

V. Inheritance

Although the notion of ‘all one’s estate’ is expressed variously in the texts from Emar and Ekalte, the basic expression seems to be bītu mimmû, “house (and) possessions.” This phrase, as well as its abbreviations, and the term used in PdA 66, ḪA.LA/zittu, “(inheritance) share,” are explicitly stated as the inheritance of the ‘Man and Woman’ in seven texts in total, as indicated in List 2.

Among the remaining eight texts, although the case of TS 72 is not clear, in the other seven texts also, it seems evident that they will inherit all the estate of the designator. Let us take RE 15 as an example here. In this text, Irʾib-^dIM designates his wife as ‘Father and Mother’ and gives her all his estate. At the same time, he designates his two daughters as ‘Man and Woman.’ Then he states that if these daughters should die without offspring, his wife shall give (the estate) to an offspring of his own father. Now, what will happen if the daughters without offspring are still alive at the time of her death? It seems self-evident that they will inherit all the estate.

Here, it may be noted that there are three other texts, Emar VI 32, 128 and 213, in which it is prescribed that a daughter will inherit all the estate of her parent, although she is not called ‘Man and Woman.’ Why not? Let us note that here the parent who gives the estate is the mother, and she is referred to as the “wife of PN,” most probably his widow. This suggests that only a male family head had the right to designate a woman as ‘Man and Woman.’ Ordinary widows probably did not have this right.

Now let us turn to another aspect of inheritance. Although usually the woman designated as ‘Man and Woman’ is unmarried, several texts deal with her marriage. If the father adopts a son as her husband during his lifetime, does this affect her status as heiress?

In Emar VI 31 and RA 77-T 2 the answer is negative. For example, in the former text, although the father designates his two daughters as “sons,” and marries one of them to his adopted son, he prescribes that (only) those two daughters will inherit all his estate. TS 72 is problematic, however. Here, the adopted son is assigned the task of caring for his adoptive parents, while, as seen above, it seems that the designated daughter will undertake the obligation of worship. Although it is written that the father’s estate will be inherited by the sons born to this couple in the future, it is not clear who inherits it immediately after the death of the father. Since they both have obligations, one may speculate that both husband and wife will inherit it. AuOr 5-T 14 provides still another pattern. In this text, the father assigns all his estate to his adopted son, the husband of his daughter, changing his previous decision in AuOr 5-T 13 that she was the ‘Man and Woman’ who would inherit it.

Thus, we find three possible patterns of inheritance by a ‘Man and Woman’ who has been married to an adopted son. First, she inherits; second, they both inherit; third, he inherits. How are they to be evaluated? For this purpose, let us consult the patterns found in other texts of ‘normal’ adoption, with marriage between the adopted son and a daughter of the adoptive father. When checking the seven relevant texts, one sees that inheritance by the adopted son is normal in these cases; inheritance by daughter only is not attested at all, and inheritance by both is found only once. Therefore, it can be said that inheritance by daughter only is peculiar to the ‘Man and Woman.’ However, one cannot conclude that this was normal for this type of women. Let us note that many of them were unmarried at the time of designation, and their fathers no doubt expected to adopt sons as their husbands later. AuOr 5-T 14 provides a case where a father succeeded in doing so, and changed the inheritance provision to inheritance by the adopted son, which was normal in the ‘normal’ adoption with marriage.

In view of the above, although we do have cases where a daughter alone inherits, I am inclined to think that the fathers usually made the designation with the hope he could later adopt a husband for her who would inherit the estate. In other words, the designation of ‘Man and Woman’ could be usually a tentative measure, as is clear in ASJ 13-T 30.

Here, one may raise several questions. Firstly, if the designation of ‘Man and Woman’ was tentative, why was it necessary at all? I think, it was a precaution against claims to the designator’s estate by his relatives; since without that designation, they might demand that he marry off his daughter so that they might inherit it. Secondly, if the daughter did marry an adopted son, who would have the substantial initiative in the family after the death of the father: the adopted son as his legal heir, or the daughter as his natural offspring? Although it is difficult to clarify this point, the latter case may have been general in reality, as is today in Japan.

In any case, if the father dies without adopting a son as the husband of his ‘Man and Woman’ daughter, she is no doubt established as the sole heiress to his estate. She holds the initiative in her family. Such a woman holding the initiative is occasionally attested in Emar, as shown in the handout. It is interesting to note here that all of them are referred to as “daughter of PN” or by her own PN, but never as “wife of PN.” In view of their independent, socio-economic activities, it seems likely that they are women once designated as ‘Man and Woman.’ Here, it is interesting to note that those activities include the sale of the father’s house, as in Emar VI 113. Also noteworthy are Emar VI 124 and TS 28, which deal with their remarriage, for these texts provide possible, though not definite, support for the substantial initiative of ‘Man and Woman,’ especially if the first marriage of those women was to an adopted son during the lifetime of their fathers.

Finally, the estate which the ‘Man and Woman’ inherits from the designator is, of course, in principle to be inherited by the sons she bears, as is explicitly stated in TS 72.

VI. Closing Remarks

Generally speaking, the woman designated as ‘Man and Woman’ is a daughter of a man who has no son for heir, i.e., a substitute. Although she is expected to be the heiress and family head, the designation may usually have been tentative. Probably it was done as a precaution against claims to the designator’s estate by his relatives. But once that status is established, she has the same rights and obligations as a son. In this sense, we may recognize here gender conversion, as Lion argued. However, does this mean that she abandons her own female work, such as weaving and food preparation? This does not seem likely. If so, it may be better to regard the phenomenon as gender addition, as the full terms for ‘Man and Woman’ suggest. Unfortunately, however, we have few texts from Emar and Ekalte that shed light on women’s domestic activities.

The existence of the status of ‘Man and Woman’ indicates that the continuation of one’s own birth descendants had priority over the social principle of male centeredness, though being greatly restricted by it, as seen in its substitutive nature. As noted above, a major reason would have been the obsession that the estate be kept within the family. However, at the fundamental level, there seems to have been another motivation for the choice of his daughter. It was maintenance of the designator’s own family cult, again as pointed out by Lion. It is easy to speculate that he fears that, if he designates his brother as heir, the brother might neglect to worship his spirit properly. Probably, the only ones he could be certain would be loyal to him were his own blood offspring, in this case, his female offspring. 

< Handout >

I. Introduction

1. The legal texts from Emar (ca. 1275–1175 B.C.)     Syrian type and Syro-Hittite type

from Ekalte (ca. 1400–1325 B.C.)[1]                Syrian type only

2. ‘Man and Woman’ (= M&W): “male and female” or “female and male” (also “male,” “son”)

cf. ‘Father and Mother’ (= F&M); also daughter as “son” in Nuzi

II. Attestation

1. Emar texts

a) Syrian type (S): BLMJE 3: 22; RA 77-T 1 (= ASJ 13-T 25): 7; 2 (= ASJ 13-T 26): 10; RE 15: 11; 23: 14; Sem. 46-T 2: 19; also Emar VI 184: 17′ (NITA-ma ka-lu-šu^!-[nu])

b) Syro-Hittite type (H): AuOr 5-T 13: 5; PdA 66: 5 (“son and daughter”); RE 85: 14; also Emar VI 31: 9; TS 72: 3; 74: 2

2. Ekalte texts: Ekalte II 65: 15; ASJ 13-T 30: 15

III. Designation

RA 77-T 1 (S): ¹ iš-tu UD-mi an-ni-im ^2 mzi-ik-ri-^dKUR DUMU ib-ni-^dKUR ³ i-na bu-ul-ṭì-šu ⁴ LÚ.MEŠ. AḪ.ḪÁ-šu ú-še-ši-ib ⁵ ki-ia-am iq-bi a-nu-um-ma ^6 mfú-na-ra DUMU.MÍ-ia ⁷ a-na MÍ ù NITA aš-⸢ku⸣-un-ši

RE 85 (H): ¹ a-na p[a-ni ^m]i-ni-^dU-u[b] … ^5 mzu-aš-tar-[ti] ⁶ DUMU ^m[…] ⁷ ši-im-[ti É-šu] ⁸ ù [DUMU.M]Í-šu ⁹ i-ši-⸢im⸣ ¹⁰ a-kán-na iq-⸢bi⸣ ¹¹ um-ma-a a-nu-um-ma ^12 fa-ḫa-am-ma-du₄ ¹³ DUMU.MÍ-ia NU.GIG ¹⁴ a-na NITA ù MÍ e-te-pu-us-⸢si⸣-mi

PdA 66 (H): ¹ a-na pa-ni ḫi-iš-mi-^dIM-ub DUMU LUGAL [Ø] ² [^mq]í-bi-^dKUR DUMU du-ú-da DUMU ia-si-⸢na^?⸣-li ³ [ri-i]k-sa ša É-šu ir-ku-uš ⁴ [a-kán-n]a iq-bi ma-a a-nu-ma ⁵ [^fd30-k]i-mi DUMU.MÍ-ia a-na DUMU.NITA ù MÍ-ti ⁶ [e–pu-u]š-ši

Ekalte II 65 (S): ^1 mdIM-EN DUMU zu-an-na ² i-na bu-ul-ṭú-ti-šu ³ LÚ.MEŠ.aḫ-ḫe-šu ú-še-ri-ib-ma ⁴ ši-im-ti É-šu ù ⁵ DUMU.MÍ-^mia-ak-mu um-mi-šu ⁶ i-ši-im ki-am iq-bi ⁷ um-ma šu-ú-ma ⁸ a-nu-um-ma … ^14 fum-mi-na- aḫ-mi-il₅ a-ḫa-ti-ia ¹⁵ MÍ ù NITA ši-i-ma

List 1. Legal Form of Designation of the ‘Man and Woman’

Abbreviations: d(s). = designator’s daughter(s), C = riksu-contract (riksa rakāsu), O = other type, St. = statement (qabû only), T = testament (šīmti bīti (etc.) šiāmu), W1 = the first witness (king/prince), * = F&M doc.

Kings/princes of Carchemish and Emar: CR2 = Šaḫurunuwa, CR3 = Ini-Tešub (son of CR2), CR3x = Hešmi-Tešub (ditto, prince); ER3a = Zū-Aštarti, ER3b = Pilsu-Dagan (brother of ER3a), ER4 = Elli (son of ER3b), ER4x = Yaṣi-Dagan (ditto, prince)

1a. Emar texts: Syrian type

 1b. Emar texts: Syro-Hittite type

 2. Ekalte Texts (Syrian type)

 1. Formula

a) Contrasts between the two types: the term (general) and the verb (Emar)

b) Shift in the Syrian type: nominal sentence (Ekalte) → verbal sentence (Emar)

2. Designator: man (family head); see V.1 below

3. Designee (M&W): the designator’s daughter(s)

・In the absence of a male offspring as heir, she is the substitute.

e.g., “I (Aḫu-ṭab) have no son. (So) I have made Alnašuw[a], my daughter, as male and female” (AuOr 5-T 13: 4–6).

“If Abu-Dagan, my son, should die and have no offspring, now I have established my daughters as female and male” (Sem. 46-T 2: 16–20).

cf. (var.) sister (RE 23, Ekalte II 65): probably no child (or brother?)

special case: daughter, though sons are present (RA 77-T 1); see IV.2 below

・ASJ 13-T 30: at present the son is lost, so designation of the M&Ws is tentative.

4. Attendee(s) and witnesses (esp. W1): for approval

a) Syrian type: ^lú.mešaḫḫū and/or the royal authority (Emar) vs. ^lú.mešaḫḫū only (Ekalte)

・^lú.mešaḫḫū (‘Brothers’) = relatives of the designator: potential claimants to the estate

・The royal authority: one of the two official authorities in the land of Aštata[2]

cf.               Ekalte                            Emar (early)                    Emar (ER3a on)

urban dominant  →  balanced or urban dominant  →  royal dominant

＊ ^lú.meššībūtu (Sem. 46-T 2) = “the (city) elders” (cf. the urban scribe Alal-abu)

＊ Lack of official authority in the two Ekalte texts

∴Official intervention: Ø (Ekalte) → urban authority → royal authority (Emar)

b) Syro-Hittite type: Ø or the royal authority of Carchemish

・Reflecting the authority of the conquerors

・The royal authority (esp. king) of Carchemish:

qadištu by CR3 (RE 85), ḫarimtu = F&M by CR2 (Emar VI 31), ? by CR3x (PdA 66)

IV. Obligations

List 2. Obligations and Inheritance of the ‘Man and Woman’

Abbreviations (additional): Ca. = caring, f. = M&W’s father, Inh. = inheritance, m. = M&W’s mother, Wo. = worship of the gods and ancestral spirits, @ = given all the estate of the designator

1a. Emar texts: Syrian type

 1b. Emar texts: Syro-Hittite type

 2. Ekalte Texts (Syrian type)

 1. Worship of the gods and ancestral spirits

・Relatively often: 8+1 texts

e.g., DINGIR.MEŠ-ya u mētēya lū tunabbi, “She shall invoke my gods and my dead” (RA 77-T 1: 8)[3]

・Obligation of the eldest son (main heir)

e.g., DINGIR-lì É GAL É GAL ḪA.LA ^mPN DUMU-ia GAL, “The god (belongs to [lit. of]) the main house. The main house is the share of Ḫinna-^dIM, my eldest son” (TS 42: 13).

^mPN DUMU-ia GAL DINGIR-lì É-ti GAL, “^dIM-qarrad is my eldest son. The god (belongs to) the main house,” indicating “^dIM-qarrad, my eldest son, (shall be in charge of) the god of the main house” (Emar VI 201: 50f. [H]).

cf. ^fPN DINGIR-lì É-ti GAL (TS 72: 10)

・Lack of the reference in M&W texts: because it was self-evident (cf. V.1)?

2. Caring: for the mother or parents?

・Vb.: abālu Gtn (Syrian type) vs. palāḫu G (Syro-Hittite type)

・Relatively rare: 5+1 texts

cf. (var.) M&W cared by the brothers as their “mother” (RA 77-T 1): cf. F&M

・Object: parents (1 text), mother = F&M (3+1 texts), sister = F&M (1 text)

note (1) female predominance; (2) correlation with F&M

♢ Comparison 1. Caring by ‘normally’ adopted sons:[4] for (living) adoptive parent(s)

＊ parents (10+2 texts): AuOr 5-T 14; PdA 67; RE 25, 28, 30, 41!, 87; TS 46!, 72; ZA 90-T 7; also Emar VI 69 (); RAI 47-T 1

＊ father (3 texts): Emar VI 5, Iraq 54-T 1, TS 73

＊ mother (2 texts): TS 48 (), 75! ()

♢ Comparison 2. Caring by other women: for woman

＊ woman (4 texts): mother (Emar VI 32 [], 176; TS 69), sister (TS 77 [])

cf. man and woman (1 text): master and his wife by his female slave (RE 27)

cf. parents (TS 42 [as the substitute of brother]), creditor and his wife (Emar VI 16 [of husband], TS 40 [of brother])

Q: Caring by M&W: Is it gender-oriented (as a woman), or not (as the substitute of a son)?

A.: The latter is preferable. No ref. to the designator was necessary, because it was self-evident.

＊ The designator having no son needs caring for, and she can do this!

＊ The ref. to the mother or sister is due to the topic of F&M in the documents.

＊ In BLMJE 3, since the daughters were adopted by the designator, a ref. to him is required.

V. Inheritance

1. Object: all the estate

・Direct references: 4+3 texts

e.g.,       The designator has given: É-ya gabba mimmûya, “my ’house’ (and) all the possessions” (AuOr 5-T 13: 7f.); É-ya mimmûya ḪA.LA-ya mala abuya iddinam-mi, “my ‘house’ (and) possessions, i.e., my share as much as my father gave me” (RE 85: 16–19).

・Indirect references: 7 texts

e.g.,       The designator has given his wife (F&M): É.ḪÁ A.ŠÀ.ḪÁ-ya būši bašīti, “my houses, fields (and) goods” (RE 15: 7f.). If the two daughters (M&Ws) die without offspring, the wife shall give (the estate) to anyone who takes care of her among the offspring of the designator’s father (ll. 15–18).

♢ Comparison 3. Other texts in which all the estate is given to a daughter (≠ M&W)

＊ by ^fPN wife of PN: Emar VI 32, 128, 213 (all )

∴Designator of M&W: man (family head) only

2. Actual position of M&W

a) When the designator adopts a son as her husband

(1) sole heiress: Emar VI 31 (on one of the two M&Ws), RA 77-T 2

(2) co-heiress with her husband: TS 72?

(3) husband replacing the M&W as the sole heir: (AuOr 5-T 13 →) AuOr 5-T 14

Baṣṣu, the adopted son and the husband of Alnašuwa, shall take care of his adoptive parents. If he does, after their deaths, “whatever ‘house’ (and) everything (mim-ma^!) of Aḫu-ṭab will remain with Baṣṣu” (ll. 11–13).

♢ Comparison 4. Other texts of ‘normal’ adoption + marriage with a daughter (≠ M&W)

＊ pattern (2): TS 75 only

＊ pattern (3): RAI 47-T 1; RE 25; TS 46, 73; ZA 90-T 7; also Emar VI 69

∴Pattern (1) is peculiar to M&W, but pattern (3) may usually have been desired.

→ designation of M&W could be a tentative measure (cf. ASJ 13-T 30 [III.3]).

＊ to avoid claims to the estate by the designator’s relatives

＊ substantial initiative: adopted son as legal heir or M&W as natural daughter?

b) When the designator dies without marrying her

∴Sole heiress and the family head

・The socio-economic activities of the women referred to as ‘daughter of PN’ (= M&W?)

e.g.,       TS 80: two women (2 DUMU.MÍ ^mPN) divide the house of their father.

                     Emar VI 113: a woman (^fPN DUMU.MÍ PN) sells the house of her father.

Emar VI 124: a qadištu-woman (^fPN DUMU.MÍ ^mPN) (re)marries a man.

cf.         TS 28: a woman (^fPN only) divorces her husband as a result of (re)marriage.

3. Future inheritance: by the sons whom the M&W will bear (e.g., esp. TS 72)

VI. Closing Remarks

1. ‘Man and Woman’ = daughter as the substitute for a son (heir)

・Tentative nature: for the precaution against claims to the estate by the designator’s relatives

・Gender conversion: the same rights and obligations as son

or gender addition: cf. female works in the domestic sphere

2. Male centeredness vs. family centeredness

・Priority of the latter, though being greatly restricted by the former

・Maintenance of one’s own family cult

Abbreviations: Texts from Emar and Ekalte

ASJ 13-T = A. Tsukimoto, ASJ 13 (1991), 275–333; AuOr 5-T = D. Arnaud, AuOr 5 (1987), 211–241; BLMJE = J. Westenholz, CM 13 (2000); Ekalte II = W. Mayer, WVDOG 102 (2001); Emar VI = D. Arnaud, Recherches au pays d’Aštata: Emar VI.1–4 (Paris, 1985–87); Iraq 54-T = S. Dalley & B. Teissier, Iraq 54 (1992), 83–111, Pls. X–XIV; PdA = F. M. Fales, Prima dell’alfabeto (Venice, 1989); RA 77-T = J. Huehnergard, RA 77 (1983), 11–43; RAI 47-T = W. W. Hallo, in CRRAI 47 (Helsinki, 2002), 203–216; RE = G. Beckman, HANE/M II (1996); Sem. 46-T = D. Arnaud, Semitica 46 (1996), 7–16, Pl. 1.; TS = idem, AuOrS 1 (1991); ZA 90-T = M. P. Streck, ZA 90 (2000), 263–280, Pl. I.

Bibliography

Beckman, G. 1996: “Family Values on the Middle Euphrates in the Thirteenth Century B.C.E.,” in: M. Chavalas (ed.), Emar: The History, Religion and Culture of a Syrian Town in the Late Bronze Age, Bethesda, 57–79.

Ben-Barak, Z. 1988: “The Legal Status of the Daughter as Heir in Nuzi and Emar,” in: M. Heltzer & E. Lipiński (eds), Society and Economy in the Eastern Mediterranean (c. 1500–1000 BC) (OLA 23), 87–97.

— 2006: Inheritance by Daughters in Israel and the Ancient Near East: A Social, Legal and Ideological Revolution, Jaffa.

Grosz, K. 1987: “Daughters Adopted as Sons at Nuzi and Emar,” in: J.-M. Durand (ed.), La femme dans le Proche-Orient antique (= CRRAI 33), Paris, 81–86.

Justel, J. J. 2008: La posición jurídica de la mujer en Siria durante el Bronce Final. Estudio de las estrategias familiares y de la mujer como sujeto y objeto de derecho, Zaragoza.

— forthcoming: “Women and Family in the Legal Documentation of Emar: With Additional Support
from Other Late Bronze Age Syrian Archives.”

Lion, B. 2009: “Sexe et genre (1):
Des filles devenant fils dans les contrats de Nuzi et d’Emar,” in: F. Briquel-Chatonnet et al. (eds.), Femmes, cultures et sociétés
dans les civilisations méditerranéennes et proche-orientales de l’Antiquité (Topoi Suppl. 10), 9–25.

Paradise, J. S. 1980: “A Daughter and Her Father’s Property at Nuzi,” JCS 32, 189–207.

— 1987: “Daughters as ‘Sons’ at Nuzi,” in: D. I. Owen & M. A. Morrison (eds.), General Studies and Excavations at Nuzi 9/1 (SCCNH 2), Winona Lake, Ind., 203–213.

Veenhof, K. R. 1998 “Old Assyrian and Ancient Anatolian Evidence for the Care of the Elderly,” in: M. Stol & S. P. Vleeming (eds.), The Care of the Elderly in the Ancient Near East (SHCANE 14), Leiden, 119–160.

Werner, P. 2004: Tall Munbāqa – Ekalte III. Die Glyptik (WVDOG 108), Saarbrücken.

Yamada, M. 2003: “More Ekalte Texts?” Bulletin of the Society for Near Eastern Studies in Japan (= BSNESJ) 46/2, 180–196 (in Japanese with English summary; see https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/browse/jorient).

— 2008: “Disinheritance in the Emar Texts: Notes on Its Symbolic Acts,” BSNESJ 51/1, 181–197 (in Japanese with English summary).

— 2012: “The Contracts of Caring by amīlūtus in Emar: In Comparison with Slaves, Adopted Sons and Creditors,” BSNESJ 55/1, 2–21 (in Japanese with English summary).

— 2013: “The Chronology of the Emar Texts Reassessed,” Orient: Reports of the Society for Near Eastern Studies in Japan 48, 125–156.

— 2014: “The Royal and Urban Authorities in Emar: A Diachronic Analysis of Their Relations,” al-Rāfidān 35, 73–108.

— forthcoming: “On Ekalte II 25,” BSNESJ 57 (in Japanese).

**************************

[1] Dating of these two text corpuses follows Yamada 2013 and Werner 2004: 23f., respectively. I suggest taking Sem. 46-T 2 as an Emar text (2008: 191 n. 1), and ASJ 13-T 30 as an Ekalte text (2003: 188–190).

un article de Brigitte Lion, “La notion de genre en assyriologie”, paru en 2007 dans Problèmes du genre en Grèce ancienne, textes édités par Violaine Sebillote Cucher et Nathalie Ernoult, Histoire ancienne et médiévale 90, Publications de la Sorbonne, Paris.

Lion_2007 Genre & assyriologie

Women and Patrimony:
Constitution, conservation and inheritance of family assets

  Femmes et Patrimoine:
Constitution, conservation et transmission des biens familiaux

女性と財産相続：家族の財産形成・保持・相続 

26-27 May 2014

TOKYO (Japon)

PROGRAM

Chuo University, Tokyo
Building 2, Floor 4, Meeting Room 2 (多摩キャンパス２号館４階会議室２)

Monday 26^th May

12h00 – 14h00         Lunch (Building 1 教職員食堂)

14h00 – 14h10         Opening Address
14h10 – 14h40         B. Lion, Women and Reak Estate Property in Nuzi
14h40 – 15h10         M. Yamada, The Women Designated ‘Man and Woman’ in Emar and Ekalte
15h10 – 15h40         Discussion

15h40 – 16h00         Coffee Break

16h00 – 16h30         C. Michel, Women and Real Estate in the Old Assyrian Texts
16h30 – 17h00         I. Nakata, Nadītum-Women in the Documents of Inheritance Published in MHET II
17h00 – 17h30         Discussion

17h30 – 19h30         Buffet (Building 2, Floor 4, Meeting Room 1)

Tuesday 27^th May

10h00 – 10h30         E. Matsushima, Women in Elamite Royal Inscriptions: An Introduction
10h30 – 11h00         F. Joannès, Threats on the women’s Dowries during the Neo-Babylonian Period
11h00 – 11h30         Discussion

11h30 – 12h00    Coffee Break

12h00 – 12h30         L. Cousin, Transfer of Patrimony in the Šangu-Ninurta Archive
12h30 – 13h00         Y. Watai, Activities of Neo-Babylonian Women: An Analysis of their Active and Passive Aspects
13h00 – 13h30         Discussion

 13h30 – 15h30 Lunch (Building 1 教職員食堂)

15h30 – 16h00         B. Lafont, Sources, Control and Transmission of Women’s Property in the Ur III Period
15h30 – 16h00         F. Karahashi, Female Household Personnel in the ED Lagash E₂-MI₂
16h00 – 16h30         Discussion
16h30 – 17h30         Business Meeting + Coffee

18h00 –         Dinner

Contact à Paris: laura.cousin2(at)wanadoo.fr
Contact in Tokyo: wataiyoko(at)gmail.com

The economic role of  women in the public sphere in Mesopotamia:
from the workshop to the marketplace (2)

Le rôle économique des femmes dans l’espace public en Mésopotamie:
de l’atelier au marché (2)

公共の場における女性の経済的役割：職人工房から市場まで (2)

3-5 septembre 2013

CARQUEIRANNE (Var)

PROGRAMME

Tuesday 3^rd September

10h30 – 10h40        Welcome address (F. Karahashi, F. Joannès, V. Sébillotte)

10h40 – 11h00        F. Karahashi, Felt-makers, Doorkeepers, and Cantors in the ED Lagash Texts

11h00 – 11h20         B. Lafont, New data on women at work in the Ur III archives of Garšana and

                                   Irisagrig

11h20                                                        Coffee Break

11h40 – 12h00         C. Michel, Women in Financial Operations According to the Old Assyrian Texts

12h00 – 12h20         I. Nakata, Activities of nadītu’s in the Economy of the City of Sippar

12h20 – 12h40         Discussion on data of the  III^rd et II^nd millenniums

12h45                                                         Lunch

15h00 – 15h20         M. Yamada, On amīltūtu in Emar

15h20 – 15h40         B. Lion, Palace Servants in the Kingdom of Arraphe

15h40                                                        Coffee Break

16h00 – 16h20        F. Joannès, Women and Palace during the neo-assyrian Period

16h20 – 16h45         Discussion on data of the  II^nd et I^st millenniums

16h45 – 17h15         B. Lion, Compte-rendu du Workshop ‘Gender, Methodology and Assyriology’

                                   organisé par S. Svärd et A. Garcia -Ventura à la RAI 59 (Gand, 07-2013)

17h15 – 17h30         V. Sébillotte, Travaux concernant l’histoire des femmes dans l’Antiquité

[À 20h30, conférence publique de C. Michel: «Femmes de marchands au début du II^e millénaire av. J.-C.: femmes au foyer et femmes d’affaires»]

Wednesday 4^th September

10h30 – 10h50        E. Matsushima, Women who played the role of interceder Part 2 :

                                   hīrtu and kallātu as titles of wife

10h50 – 11h10         L. Cousin, Neo-babylonian Women: Bibliographical Tools

11h10 – 11h30         Y. Watai, Women in the Neo-babylonian Period

11h30                                                            Coffee Break

11h45 – 12h05         Discussion on data of the  I^st millennium

12h15 – 12h45          V. Sébillotte, Éléments de discussion et de conclusion du workshop.

                                   General discussion on the REFEMA project, its next workshop (Tokyo spring 2014),

                                   its blog, and on the international scheduled colloqium (Nanterre, 5-7 Novembre 2014):

                                   The Role of Women in Work and Society / Travail et société : la part du féminin.

12h45                                                            Lunch

Contact à Paris: laura.cousin2(at)wanadoo.fr
Contact in Tokyo: wataiyoko(at)gmail.com
Contact à Carqueiranne: evelyne.noguera(at)carqueiranne.fr

Ichiro NAKATA (Chuo University, Tokyo)
REFEMA Workshop, 2013[1]

932 Old Babylonian real estate texts from Sippar housed in the British Museum were published in transliteration by Luc Dekiere in his Old Babylonian Real Estate Documents from Sippar in the British Museum, Mesopotamian History and Environment, Texts, Vol. II (hereafter, MHET II), Ghent, 1994-1997 in six parts.[2] The texts published in MHET II/1-4 are arranged in chronological order, while those texts whose date is lost or not recorded have been published in MHET II/5. According to Dekiere, 179 texts (64%) of the 279 texts that are published in MHET II/5 could be dated relatively, and additional 28 texts (19%) with a broken year name or unknown year name could be dated after cleaning and collation.[3] The texts published in MHET II/6, on the other hand, are from the “Series” 1902-10-11 in the British Museum and are also arranged chronologically from Sabium to Ammi-Ṣaduqa.

A glance at the catalogues attached to Parts 1-6 of MHET II shows that the field lease contracts are the most numerous, followed by the field sales contracts, as shown in Chart I.[4] The only exception is the case of real estate texts dated to pre-Hammurabi period published in MHET II/1. Here, we find only 4 field lease contracts, as opposed to 35 field sales contracts according to my count. The ratio of the numbers of the two types of texts in MHET II/1 (4 vs. 35) is more or less in agreement with the corresponding ratio of the number of the field lease contracts (6 texts) vis-à-vis that of field sales contracts (40 texts) from pre-Hammurabi Sippar that were available to R. Harris at the time of the publication of her Ancient Sippar: A Demographic Study of an Old-Babylonian City (1894-1595 B.C.), Istanbul, 1975.[5]

In the field lease contracts and the field sales contracts published in MHET II/1-6, the majority of the lessors in the former except in MHET II/4 and II/6 and the majority of the purchasers in the latter except in MHET II/5 and 6 are women, as the figures in the bracket in Chart I show. Those women are quite likely to have been nadītum-women of Šamaš who lived in the “cloister (gagûm)” in Sippar even when they are not so specified.

Chart I 　Numbers of Field Lease and Field Sale Contracts

Note: The figure in the bracket shows the number of the texts in which a woman leases or purchases a field (a.šà).

In this paper, I would like to examine those field lease contracts with a nadītum-woman as lessor, as published in MHET II/1-6.

1. The acreage of the field for leasing

There are two types of field lease contracts: one with an indication of the specific acreage of the field for leasing and one without (cf. a.šà mala maṣû[6] or a.šà mala qāssu ikaššadu[7]).

When the acreage is indicated, a field for leasing is 2 iku (approximately 0.72 ha) or larger with a few exceptions.[8] One popular size of fields for leasing on the lower end of this scale is 3 iku (for example, 15 field lease contracts[9] with a nadītum– woman as lessor in MHET II/2 alone). 6 iku is another popular size of fields for leasing (14 contracts[10] again in MHET II/2 alone). However, the 18 iku (=1 bùr) or more is not rare among the sizes of fields leased on the higher end of the scale (3 field leasing contracts for 18 iku and 1 for 19 iku of field in MHET II/2[11]).

2. The minimum acreage needed for a nadītum-woman to subsist

In order to evaluate this data properly, it is necessary to know the minimum acreage of field required for the subsistence of an average individual.

J. Oates assumes that 6 ha (about 16.7 iku) of land constitute the minimum necessary to support an average family of 6 persons under conditions of plough agriculture on the basis of alternate fallow[12]. This means that the minimum acreage for one person to live on was 1 ha (about 2.8 iku), and, according to J. Oates, this is supported by the minimum allotment of a field of 1 bùr (18 iku, approximately 6.48 ha) to an ālik ilkim, a holder of ilkum-obligation and his family at the time of Hammurabi[13].

E. Stone and D.I. Owen compare the higher level of support (720 sìla or 540 KWE) per year for a male adopter by a male adoptee in OB adoption contracts from Nippur with the figure of 536 kg wheat equivalent (KWE) per year that C. Clark and M. Haswell calculated as the average subsistence level in Iraq during the 1950s.[14] 536 KWE would be equivalent to about 713 liters of barley.[15]

M. Stol made a survey of annual allowances for people “as long as they live” and came up with figures of 2 liters of barley per day or 720 liters per year per person.[16] Since he posits that the expected yield of barley from a field of 1 iku is 400 liters,[17] the subsistence level in terms of acreage of field for a person under conditions of plough agriculture on the basis of alternate fallow system would be about 3.6 iku (720 litres÷400 liters [the expected yield per iku per year]×2[18]) or approximately 1.3 ha.

Now, if we suppose that a nadītum-woman lives by herself[19] and solely on the rent(s) coming from the fields that she has, she must have at least a total of 5.4 iku (approximately 1.9ha) of fields under cultivation in any given year. A total of 5.4 iku of fields would theoretically produce an annual yield of 2160 liters of barley at the harvest time. Even under the less favorable “1/3 contract” she would then receive a rent of 720 liters of barley that would be enough to guarantee her subsistence. In the alternate fallow system, this would mean that she must have, at least, a total of 10.8 iku (5.4 iku x 2) of fields in two or more irrigation districts.

It is interesting to note in this connection that, in a late Old Babylonian text from Sippar-Amnānum,[20] 9 out of 10 bā’irum-soldiers are allotted a total of 12 iku of fields each as subsistence allotments (ṣibtum-fields) in two to four different irrigation districts (a.gàr’s/ugārū).[21] The bā’irum –soldiers appearing in this text could probably support themselves and their family of two or three persons with the yield from these ṣibtum-fields, even if they had to give a part of the yield to the landlord (the state in this case).

3. The rent of the field

The rent is paid in kind at the time of harvest and, according to my count, is fixed to a third of the yield in 33 (25.6%) of the 129 field lease contracts with a woman as lessor[22]published in MHET II/2 and 3. However, we find rents much more favorable to the landowner such as 50% of the yield in 12 field lease contracts (9.3%)[23] and 75% of the yield in 22 field lease contracts (17%)[24] published in MHET II/2 and 3; in the other cases, however, the rent varies[25]. We find such a low rates as 15% (MHET II/2, 198), but we also find such high rates as 87.5% (MHET II/3, 351) and 87.9% (MHET II/2, 280)[26].

Furthermore, tenants are required to give, in addition, one or two bán’s of flour (1 bán =about 10 liters) and a piece of meat to the landlady of the field (ipaqqissi) on the occasions of three to six festivals of Šamaš in a year. The rent, on the other hand, is usually required to be measured (ì.ág.e) at the gate of the cloister (gagûm) but in one instance (MHET II/2, 192) at the temple of Šamaš.[27]

4. Timing for concluding a field lease contract

Normally a lease contract of a field is for one year. However, one field lease contract (MHET II/2, 166), for example, is made for two years, while three (MHET II/2, 142, 148 and 156) are for three years.[28]

Perusing 40 leasing contracts in MHET II dated to the reigns of Hammurabi and Samsuiluna that contain not only a year name but also a month name, I have found all the month names except Month VII (September/ October) and Month X (December/January). However, 25 (62.5%)[29] of the 40 leasing contracts for the current season of cultivation are concluded during the period from Month I (March/April) to Month III (May/June), namely between the beginning of the annual inundation of the Euphrates River and its inundation peak. The rest of the leasing contracts are concluded in Month IV (MHET II/2, 289 and 306), Month V (MHET II/2, 174), VI (MHET II/2, 291 and II/5, 610), VIII (MHET II/2, 237, 253 and MHET II/3, 382), IX (MHET II/2, 235), XI (MHET II/2, 208, 231 and MHET II/3, 368) or XII (MHET II/2, 185, 223 and 249). The leasing contracts concluded in Months IV-VI may have been written rather late for the season, while those of Months VIII-XII may have been written early for the coming agricultural season.

5. Lessees of the field lease contracts

Here I would like to refer to R. Harris’ remark[30], because my prosopographical data and analysis of it is not yet sufficient.

 “The occupation of the lessee is not specified before the time of Ammi-ditana, but the occupations mentioned from this period onward indicate that those renting fields are often affluent individuals, who did so as investments. Fields are rented by such well-to-do people as a sanga of the Gula temple, scribes, a diviner, a judge, a general, a rabiānu official, the abi ṣābi officials , barbers, and the overseer of the barbers, a shepherd and a gardener. Among the perhaps less affluent lessees are a house-builder, fisherman, and Suteans.”

6. Some prominent (nadītum-)women in the field lease contracts

There are twenty-two women who appear as lessor in three or more field lease contracts published in MHET II/1-6. Six of them are not clearly stated as nadītum (lukur), but it is quite likely that they too were nadītum- women. What follows are the names of twenty-two women and their textual references together with the date of each field lease contract in abbreviation[31] as well as the acreage and the location of the field leased.

• Amat-kallātim (nadītum), daughter of Šamaš -ilum: MHET II/2, 192 (H18, a field of 6 iku/ZA HA x num), 228 (H28, 12 iku/ša-Nuhanim), 247 (H32: 12 iku/ša-Nahanim), II/5, 730 (-, 3 iku/-)
• Amat- Šamaš (nadītum), daughter of Mašum: MHET II/2, 288 (H40, 2 iku/-), 229 (H27, a field of 2 iku/Pahuṣum), 235 (H29, 2 iku/ Pahuṣum)
• Amat- Šamaš (nadītum), daughter of Sîn-iddinam: MHET II/2, 150 (H09, 9 iku/ Iplahi), 151 (H09, 9 iku/Iplahi), II/5, 737 (-, 9 iku/-)
• Amat- Šamaš, daughter of Warad- Šamaš: MHET II/3, 366 (Si02, 1 iku/Lugal.sag.ila), 376 (Si03, 3 iku/ša-Našuriš), 391 (Si05, 3 iku/ Pahuṣum)
• Aya-tallik (nadītum), daughter of Ahulap-Šamaš: MHET II/5, 688 (H?, 3 iku/a.gàr GAL), 694 (H?, 3 iku/a.gàr gu.la), 830 (-, 9 iku/a.gàr GAL)
• Bēlessunu (nadītum), daughter of Kazatum: MHET II/2, 296 (H41, 3 iku/Balala), 304 (H42, 3 iku/Balala), 309 (H43, 3 iku/Tawirātum), MHET II/3, 360 (Si02, 3 iku/Balala), MHET II/5, 759 (H?, 3 iku/Balala), 793 (H?, 5 1/2 iku/Nadiātum; 3 iku/Balala), 797 (H?, 4 1/2 iku/-)
• Eli-erēssa (nadītum), daughter of Akiyatum: MHET II/2, 220 (H26, 5 iku/Ṭābum), 284 (H40, 5 iku 30 sar/Ṭābum), II/5, 801 (-, 5 iku/ Ṭābum), 809 (-, 5 iku/Ṭābum), 812 (-, 5 iku+20 sar/Ṭābum)
• Eli-erēssa (nadītum), daughter of Sîn-abušu: MHET II/3, 346 (Si01, mala maṣû/ Ebirtum), 381 (Si03, 4 iku/ birīt nārim), 382 (Si03, 6 iku/Saškum), 403 (Si09, 4 iku/biīt nārim), 655 (-, 1 iku/birīt nārim)
• Erišti(nin-ti)-Aya, daughter of Nabī-ilišu: MHET II/2, 178 (H15, 6 iku/Huba) : 196 (H17, 6 iku/erased), 201 (H18, 6 iku/Huba), 270 (H38, mala maṣû/a.gàr gal), 272 (H38, mala maṣû/-), 285 (H40, 4 iku/Huba), 305 (H42, 50 sar/-)[32], II/5, 751 (-, 3 iku/ša-Sîn), 756 (H?, 5 iku/a.gàr gu.la), 761 (H?, 3 iku/Huba), 783 (-, 40 sar/ -), 806 (-, mala maṣû/-), 820 (-, 6 iku/Huba)
• Erišti-Aya, daughter of Bununum: MHET II/5, 722 (-, 5 iku/a.gàr gu.la), 728 (-, 5 iku/-), 767 (-, 1 iku+/a.gàr GAL), 782 (-, -/-)
• Ḫuššutum (nadītum), daughter of Sîn-puṭram: MHET II/1, 113 (Sm06, 10 iku/Pahuṣum), II/2, 160 (H11, 18 iku/Pahuṣum), 187 (H16, 3 iku/ša- Našuriš), 249 (H32, 4 iku +/ša-Ninkarrak), II/5, 610 (H20?, 18 iku/Pahuṣum), 824 (-, -/Pahuṣum)
• Ḫuzālatum nadītum), daughter of Sumuraḫ: MHET II/2, 179 (H15, 6 iku/Saškum), 193 (H17, 4 iku/Nagûm), 207 (H22, 6 iku/Saškum), 237? (H30, 4 iku/birit nārim), 260 (H35, 6 iku/ša-Amkanum), 261? (H35, 4 iku/Nagûm), 283 (H40, 4 iku/Nagûm), 287? (H40, mala maṣû/ Saškum), 295 (H41, 4 iku/Haṣārum), II/3, 428 (Si15, 4 iku/-), II/5, 749 (H?, 6 iku/ Saškum), 762 (-, mala mas:û/Saškum), 779 (-, 6 iku/ Saškum), 796 (-, 6 iku/a.gàr gu.la), 800 (-, 6 iku/Saškum), 813 (-, 4 iku/Ebirtum), 827 (-, 3 iku+/Biīt nārim)
• Ina-libbi-eršet (nadītum), daughter of Warad-ilišu: MHET II/4, 506 (Aṣ04, 7 iku/a.gàr 0.1.3 iku.e), 514 (Aṣ08, 6 iku/še.gi6), 555 (Aṣ17+b, x iku/Bu[ … ]), II/5, 736 (-, -, -)
• Kuzābatum, daughter of Nūr-Šamaš: [419] (Si11, 6 iku/Haganum), 719 (-, 6 iku/Haganum), 780 (-, 6 iku/Haganum)
• Lamassi (nadītum), daughter of Iddin-Sîn: MHET II/2, 139(?)[33] (H01, x+2 iku/Gula), 262 (H35, mala maṣû/ gu.la), II/3, 351 (Si01, 3 iku/ a.gàr Gula), 362 (Si02, 30 sar/-), 363 (Si02, mala mas:û/-), 371 (Si03, 1/2 šu.ši/-), 373 (Si03, 1 iku/-), 375 (Si09, 3 iku/a.gàr gu.la), 513 (Si01, 3 iku/a.gàr Gula)
• Mannatum (nadītum), daughter of Yassi-El: MHET II/2, 175 (H14, 18 iku/a.gàr Martu), 208 (H22, mala mas:û/-), II/5, 583 (H?, 8 iku/?), 715 (H?, -/a.gàr Martu)
• Masmaratum (nadītum), daughter of Ahušina: MHET II/2, 148 (H7, mala maṣû/Mahana), 174 (H14, 6 iku/Mahana), 177 (H15, mala maṣû/Mahana), 185 (H15, 6 iku/Mahana), II/3, 429? (Si15, 7 iku/-), II/5, 712 (-, 6 iku/Mahana), 741 (-, 6 iku/Mahana), 771 (-, ?-/Mahana), 804 (-, 3 iku/Piti[…]), 807 (-, 7 iku/Saškum), 811 (-, 6 iku/)
• Narāmtum, daughter of Šamaš-tillassu: MHET II/2, 219 (H26, mala mas:û/-), 254 (H33, 3 iku/Šalim-bēlī), II/5, 687 (Sm03, mala mas:û/Huba)
• Ruttum (nadītum), daughter of Hammurabi: MHET II/2, 204 (H21, 12 iku/a.gàr Sumuqan [^dGIR]), 209 (H24, 14 iku/Gizanum), 212  (H24, a.šà umaškanum mala mas:û/gú ud.kib.nun(ki) (only in the case)), II/3, 441 (case) (Si25?, 18 iku/ Appaya)
• Ruttum (nadītum), daughter of Iṣi-Qatar[34]: MHET II/2, 273 (H38, 19 iku/Pahuṣum), 274 (H38, 6 iku/ša-Amkanum), 302 (H42, 12 iku/Lugal.sag.íla), 306 (H42, 18 iku/Pahuṣum), 312 (H43, 9 iku/erased), II/3, 368 (Si2, 19 iku/ Pahuṣum), 397 (Si6, 15 iku/Gizanum), 443(Si26, 18 iku/Pa[huṣum]), II/5, 612 (H?, 18 iku/^dAppaya), 744 (Si?, 15 iku/ Gizanum), 772 (H?, ? iku/Bura)
• Šāt-Aya (nadītum), daughter of Ikūn-pî appearing:
  • as sole lessor: MHET II/2, 278 (H40, 7 iku/Buša), 279 (H40, 3 iku/-), 289 (H40, 3 iku/Buša)[35], II/5, 644 (H?, 3 iku?/Buša)
  • as co-lessor with Geme-Aya[36], another nadītum-woman and daughter of Nūr-ilišu[37]: 280 (H40, 7 iku/Buša). (Šāt -Aya and Geme-Aya in MHET II/2, 213, 259, 265, 269, 271, 291, 293, 310 are not included here, because it is not certain that they are identical with the two women in MHET II/2, 280.)
• Šî-Lamassi, daughter of Enlil-Malik: MHET II/3, 406 (Si07, 9iku/Ašlatum), 399 (Si06, 9 iku/Ašlatum), 411 (Si08, 9iku/Ašlatum)

Of these twenty-two prominent (nadītum)–women only five appear in Harris’ “Biographical Notes on the nadītum-women of Sippar”, JCS 16, 1962, 1-12, namely Amat-Šamaš, daughter of Sîn-iddinam, Ḫuššutum, daughter of Sîn-puṭram, Ina-libbi-eršet, daughter of Warad-ilišu, Mannatum, daughter of Yassi-El and Narāmtum, daughter of Šamaš -tillassu.[38]

Most of the names of the twenty-two prominent (nadītum-)women listed above were culled, thought not exclusively, from British Museum’s collection with the register number Bu 91-5-9, an overwhelming part of which is said to have come from Tell ed-Der (G. Kalla, ZA 89, 1999, p. 222). They are Amat-kallātum (nadītum), daughter of Šamaš-ilum, Amat-Šamaš (nadītum), daughter of Mašum, Amat-Šamaš (nadītum), daughter of Sîn-iddinam, Amat-Šamaš, daughter of Warad-Šamaš, Bēlessunu (nadītum), daughter of Kazatum (MHET II/ 2, 309 is from Bu 94-1-5), Eli-erēssa (nadītum), daughter of Akiyatum, Eli-erēssa (nadītum), daughter of Sîn-abušu, Erišti-Aya, daughter of Nabī-ilišu, Erišti-Aya, daughter of Bununum, Huššutum (nadītum), daughter of Sîn-puṭram (MHET II/ 2, 160 and MHET II/5, 610 are from Bu 94-1-5), Huzālatum (nadītum), daughter of Sumurah, Ina-libbi-eršet (nadītum), daughter of Warad-ilišu, Kuzābatum, daughter of Nūr-ilišu (MHET II/5, 780 is from Bu 81-5-9), Lamassi, daughter of Iddin-Sîn, Mannatum (nadītum), daughter of Yassi-El, Masmaratum (nadītum), daughter of Ahušina, Ruttum (nadītum), daughter of Īṣi-Qatar (MHET II/2, 302 II/3, 368, II/5, 612 are from Bu 94-1-15), and Šî-Lamassi, daughter of Enlil-Malik. Only Šāt -Aya (nadītum), daughter of Ikūn-pî is culled from the texts in AH 82-9-18 which are said to have come from Abu Ḥabba (G. Kalla, ZA 89, 1999, 219).  The rest of the names are culled from Bu 89-10-14 (Aya-tallik [nadītum], daughter of Ahulap-Šamaš and Narāmtum, daughter of Šamaš-tillassu) or Bu 92-5-16, 92-7-9, 94-1-15 (Ruttum [nadītum], daughter of Hammurabi) that contain tablets from Abu Ḥabba as well as Tell ed-Der.

Why did many of the records of contract of nadītum-women involving field leasing apparently come from Tell de-Der (Sippar-Amnanum) and not from Abu Ḥabba where the cloister (gagûm) is supposed to have been located? G. Kalla suggests that these records of contract were kept not in respective nadītum- women’s houses in the cloister (gagûm) but in the houses of their fathers, brothers or uncles[39]. This is yet to be proved, but the suggestion is worth taking seriously.

7. Comments on some individual nadītum-women

(1) We note that eight of these（nadītum-）women leased more than two fields as lessor on separate lease contracts in the same year[40] (Chart II).
Thus, Ḫuzālatum, daughter of Sumuraḫ, leased a field of 6 iku to Narām-ilišu (MHET II/2, 260) and another field of 4 iku to Šamaš-muballiṭ (MHE II/2, 261) in Hammurabi’s 35^th year. She again leased a field of 4 iku to Sîn-iqīšam (MHET II/2, 283) and a field of mala maṣû to Elmēšum (MHET II/2, 287) in Hammurabi’s 40^th year. MHET II/ 2, 261 and MHET II/2, 287 do not give the patronym of Ḫuzālatum, but it is possible that Ḫuzālatum referred to in both of these texts is the same nadītum- woman as in the other two texts. Furthermore, Ḫuzālatum had at least a total of four fields for leasing in four different irrigation districts (a.gàr/ugārum), namely ša-Amkānim (MHET II/ 2, 260), Saškum (MHE II/2, 179, 207 and 287), and Nagûm (MHE II/2, 193, 261 and 283) and Ḫaṣārru (MHET II/2, 295) and additional field in the “land between the canals” (MHET II/2, 237) during the period of Hammurabi’s 15^th to 41^st year.

Chart II

(2) Three different nadītum-women, called Ruttum are attested in our texts. Of them, Ruttum, daughter of Hammurabi[41] appears at least in four field lease contracts. In Hammurabi’s 24^th year, Ruttum, daughter of Hammurabi leased 14 iku of field in the irrigation district of Gizanum to Wardum[42], son of Šamaš-rabi (MHET II/2, 209), while leasing another field on the bank of Sippar (or Euphrates?) as well as a threshing site (mala maṣû) to Nirāḫ-bāni in the same year (MHET II/2, 212). She had four fields in four different irrigation districts, namely ^dGIR (Sumuqan) (MHET II/2, 204), Gizanum (MHET II/2, 209), the bank of Sippar (gú ud.kib.nun.ki, MHET II/2, 212 [case]) and near the canal Appaya (MHET II/3, 441) during the period from Hammurabi 21^st year to Samsuiluna 25^th year(?).

(3) However, the most prominent is Ruttum, daughter of Īṣi-Qatar. She appears at least in 11 field lease contracts. This Ruttum also leased a field of 19 iku in the irrigation district of Paḫuṣum to Akšak-iddinam and 6 iku of field in the irrigation district of ša-Amkanim to Ibni-Martu both in Hammurabi’s 38^th year. Four years later (Hammurabi’s 42^nd year), she leased a field of 12 iku in the irrigation district of Lugal-sagila to Ilšu-bani, head of the merchants (PA dam.gar.meš) and a field of 18 iku in the irrigation district of Pahuṣum to Šamaš-tappê on two separate contracts. Ruttum, daughter of Īṣi -Qatar, is noted to have owned large tracts of field (18~19 iku) in the irrigation districts of Paḫuṣum (MHET II/2, 273, 306, II/3, 368 and 443) and near the canal Appaya (MHET II/5, 612).

(4) The last nadītum-woman I would like to comment on is Šāt-Aya. She concluded two separate field lease contracts with Damiq-Marduk (MHET II/2, 278 [7 iku]) and Aham-nirši (MHET II/2, 289 [3 iku]) respectively as sole lessor and another as co-lessor with Geme-Aya (280 [7 iku]) in Hammurabi’s 40^th year with the same tenant, Damiq-Marduk. The field of 3 iku (MHET II/2, 289) and the fields of 7 iku each (MHET II/2, 278 and 280) are located in the same irrigation district (a.gàr Buša). If the acreage of two fields of 7 iku each in a.gàr Buša are indeed two different tracts of field in the same irrigation district, it means that Damiq- Marduk rented out three different fields, all of which were in the same irrigation district (a.gàr Buša), on three separate lease contracts in the same year from the same nadītum-woman except in MHET II/2, 280 where she appears as co-lessor with Geme-Aya. In some of the field lease contracts, more than one person are mentioned as lessees, but it is exceptional that a field lease contract mentions more than one lessor. The relationship of the two nadītum-women is not known.
The strangest thing with MHET II/2, 278 and 280 is the difference in the amount of rent for the fields of the same acreage (7 iku) in the same irrigation district. In MHET II/2, 278 it is stated that the rent is 2 gur (about 600 liters) of barley, while MHET II/2, 280 states that the rent is 8 gur (about 2400 liters) of barley, four times more than that of MHET II/2, 278, although the lessee, the date of the contract, and the terms of lease (“He rented out a field for cultivation at the time of opening of an irrigation ditch [eqlam ana errešūtim ina piti atappim ušēṣi]”) are the same. At the moment, I have no explanation for this difference.

Summation

Among the types of the Old Babylonian real estate texts from Sippar published in MHET II/1-6 that of the field lease contracts with a (nadītum-)woman as lessor is by far the most numerous. Of the total of 972 texts 276 belong to this type according to my count. On the basis of the examination of these texts the following observations are made.

            1. The two popular sizes of the fields for leasing are 3 iku and 6 iku, as far as MHET II/2 is concerned, although 18 iku or 19 iku are found in four contracts.

            2. The rent is fixed to one third of the yield in about 22% of the 108 field lease contracts dated to the reigns of Hammurabi and Samsuiluna, but in the other contracts the rent varies greatly. However, it may be noted that in about 28% of the contracts the rent is set higher to 50 to 75% of the yield.

            3. If a nadītum-woman has no income other than rent which is paid in kind and if 720 liters of barley is needed for a person to subsist for a year, as posited by M. Stol, she must have at least 5.4 iku of field under cultivation in any given year on the basis of the yield rate of 400 liters per iku. This would mean that in the alternate fallow system she must have, at least, a total of 10.8 iku (5.4 iku×2 ) of fields in two or more irrigation districts (See the observation No. 7 below).

            4. Normally a lease contract of a field is for one year. Based on the 40 lease contracts in MHET II/2-3 dated to the reigns of Hammurabi and Samsuiluna that contain not only a year name but also a month name, 62.5% (25 field lease contracts) of them are concluded during the period from Month I (March/ April) to Month III (May/June), and the remaining contracts are concluded rather late for the agricultural season in Months IV to VI or early presumably for the coming agricultural season in Months VIII to XII.

            5. Many of the lessees seem to be rather affluent individuals, as noted by R. Harris, Ancient Sippar, Leiden, 1975, p. 223.

            6. There are twenty-two nadītum-women who appear as lessor in three or more field lease contracts published in MHET II/1-6. Strangely only five of them appear in R. Harris’ “Biographical Notes on the nadītum women of Sippar” JCS 16, 1962, pp. 1-12.

            7. The nadītum-women are suspected to have had two or more fields for leasing in different irrigation districts or locations over a period of time, as the cases of Amat-kallātuim(?), Amat-Šamaš (d. of Warad-Šamaš), Aya-tallik(?), Bēlessunu, Eli-erēssa (d. of Sîn-abušu), Erišti-Aya (d. of Nabīi-ilišu), Erišti-Aya (d. of Bununum)(?), Ḫuššutum, Ḫuzālatum, Ina-libbi-eršt, Narāmtum, Ruttum (d. of Hammurabi), Ruttum (d. of Īṣi-Qatar) suggest. This pattern of ownership of fields must have been related with the alternate fallow system that was practiced in ancient Babylonia (See, however, our Excursus below).

            Šāt -Aya, on the other hand, is known to have owned independently or with another nadītum-woman at least three presumably different fields within the same irrigation district of a.gàr Buša and concluded three separate field lease contracts in Hammurabi’s 40th year regarding these fields. It is not known at the moment whether Šāt -Aya had a field or more elsewhere.

An Excursus
Irrigation Districts (a.gàr/ugārum) and the Alternate Fallow System

So far in my discussion I have assumed that the cereal cultivation system in Sippar area was under the alternate fallow system.[43] The fact that fields of a number of (nadītum-)woman were located in two or more irrigation districts, as we have just seen, can be better understood with the alternate fallow system in mind.

I also noted above that in a text from Sippar-Amnānum dated to Ammi-ditana’s year 34 (MHET II/6, 894), 9 out of 10 bā’irum-soldiers were allotted a total of 12 iku of fields each as subsistence allotments (ṣibtu-fields) located in two to four different irrigation districts. It would be easier to allot a total of 12 iku of ṣibtum-fields to each bā’irum-soldier in one batch in one or another irrigation district, but the fact is that the 12 iku of ṣibtum-fields allotted to each soldier were located in two to four different irrigation districts. The practice of alternate fallow must have been one of the reasons that necessitated such a way of allotting ṣibtum-fields,[44] because the alternate fallow system was practiced with an irrigation district as a unit. If one’s ṣibtum-field or fields are found only in one irrigation district, one would have to be idle and thus without harvest in the year following the harvest.

Let me quote Article 58 of the Code of Hammurabi (CH).

If, after the small cattle come up from the irrigation district (ugārum) when the pennants announcing the termination of pasturing have been wound around the main city-gate, the shepherd releases small cattle (ṣēnum) into a field and allows the small cattle to graze in the field—the shepherd shall guard the field in which he allowed them to graze and at the harvest he shall measure and deliver to the owner of the field 60 gur’s (=about 18.000 liters) of barley per 1 bùr (18 iku=about 6.48 ha)[45].

CH 58 and the preceding CH 57 have to be read in connection with the practice of allowing small cattle (sheep and goats) to graze young shoots of barley of 45-60 days old in the field.[46] In the case of CH 58, the shepherd allows his herd to graze “illegally” in a field of one particular field-owner. However, CH 58 seems to indicate that the practice to allow a herd to graze in a barley field or fields is done by the irrigation district (a.gàr/ugārum) as a unit. In other words, fields in this irrigation district are all sown with none in fallow. In my view, CH 53-54 also seem to suggest that farmers who have their fields in the same irrigation district, i.e. members of the irrigation district (mārū ugārim), cultivate their respective fields in the same cycle of cultivation and fallow.

However, some of our field lease contracts pose questions on our assumption. For example, three lease contracts were concluded for two (MHET II/2, 166) or three years (MHET II/2, 142, and 148). Does it follow that the lessees of these contracts cultivated the fields for two or three years continuously possibly because of the poor conditions of the fields they rented?[47]

There are other field lease contracts that pose a more serious question on our assumption of the alternate fallow system. Let us take up seven lease contracts of fields, all located in the irrigation district of Buša, and dated to various regnal years of Hammurabi: MHET II/2, 227 (Ha 27), 265 (Ha 37), 271 (Ha 38-I), 278 (Ha 40), 280 (Ha 40), 289 (Ha 40-IV), 291 (Ha 40-VI). (The Arabic figure in brackets indicates year, while the Roman numeral indicates month.) Of these seven lease contracts, five are dated to Hammurabi’s even regnal years, but two to odd regnal years. If the alternate fallow system was practiced in Sippar, the irrigation district of Buša should have been in cultivation only in even regnal years. However, MHET II/2, 227 and 265 are dated to Hammurabi’s odd regnal years. These contracts might have been written early for the coming year (i.e. Hammurabi’s even year) toward the end of the passing year (for examples, in Month XI or Month XII). However, the possibility cannot be excluded that the two field lease contracts (MHET II/2, 278 and 280) that are dated to Hammurabi’s even regnal years might have been written early for the coming year. So the question must remain unsolved.

Again, there are four lease contracts involving the irrigation district of Mahana, namely MHET II/2, 148 (H 7), 174 (H14-V), 177 (H15) and 185 (H15-XII). One of them is dated to Month V of Hammurabi’s 14^th year, thus indicating that the irrigation district of Mahana was sown in Hammurabi’s even years, but the remaining 3 lease contracts involving the irrigation district of Mahana are dated to Hammurabi’s odd years. Thus, these 4 lease contracts do not seem to support the idea that the irrigation district constitutes a unit for the alternate fallow system. However, one lease contract (MHET II/2, 185) is dated to Ha 15-XII. This would mean that MHET II/2, 185 was written early toward the end of the passing year for the agricultural work in the coming year, namely Ha 16. Similarly, the remaining two lease contracts (MHET II/2, 148 and 177) may theoretically also have been written early for Hammurabi’s regnal years 8 and 16 respectively. In that case these 4 lease contracts do not necessarily refute our idea that an irrigation district constituted a unit for the alternate fallow system. To sum up, our data regarding a.gàr/ugārum (irrigation district) do not support nor refute the idea that it was a unit for the alternate fallow system. Unfortunately, I have to let this matter rest unsolved at this point.

The economic role of  women in the public sphere in Mesopotamia:
from the workshop to the marketplace (1)

Le rôle économique des femmes dans l’espace public en Mésopotamie:
de l’atelier au marché (1)

公共の場における女性の経済的役割：職人工房から市場まで (1)

June 2013 24 & 25

at Chuo University (Tokyo, Japan)

PROGRAMME

Monday 24^th June

12h45 – 13h00    Welcome address (F. Karahashi)

13h00 – 13h30    F. Joannès, Women at work in Babylonian temples during the First Millenium B.C.

13h30 – 14h00    E. Matsushima, Women who played the role of interceder

14h00 – 14h30 Coffee Break

14h30 – 15h00    G. Tolini, Femmes, apprentissage, voyage

15h00 – 15h30    L. Cousin, The female perfume-makers in the Neo-Assyrian & Neo-Babylonian documentations

15h30 – 16h00    Y. Watai, Project of a Prospographical Study of Neo-Babylonian Women (2)

16h00 – 16h30    Discussion (First Millennium)

17h00 – 19h00 Buffet

 Tuesday 25^th June

10h00 – 10h30    J. Justel, The Active Role of Nuzi Women in Loan Contracts

10h30 – 11h00    M. Yamada, “Because She is a Daughter of Emar”

11h00 – 11h30    Discussion (Nuzi & Emar)

11h30 – 12h00 Coffee Break

12h00 – 12h30    C. Michel, Assyrian Women’s Contribution to International Trade with Anatolia

12h30 – 13h00    I. Nakata, A Preliminary Report on nadītu’s in the Old Babylonian Sippar Documents

13h00 – 13h30    Discussion (Second Millennium) 

13h30 – 15h30 Lunch

15h30 – 16h00    B. Lafont, Women at work and economic life during the Ur III period 

15h30 – 16h00    F. Karahashi, šu-í «barber» and šu-í-munus «female barber» in the Early Dynastic Lagash Texts

16h00 – 16h30    Discussion (Third Millennium)

16h30 – 17h00    General Discussion + Coffee

18h00 – Dinner

Contact in Paris: laura.cousin2(at)wanadoo.fr

Contact in Tokyo: wataiyoko(at)gmail.com

Second and third REFEMA workshops, Tokyo (June 2013) and Carqueiranne (September 2013)

Bertrand Lafont (CNRS, Nanterre)

As a huge part of the Ur III documentation concerns the administrative management of state-dependent laborers and the calculation of what was allotted to them, we have of course much more information on women at work in the public sphere and outside their family than inside (cf. previous workshop).

1. MEN AND WOMEN AT WORK

We will start with a brief general “status questionis” on our subject, before having a look at some new evidence on results generated by the recently published archives of Garšana and Irisagrig.

In the written documents concerning the management of state-dependent laborers sustained through the so-called “ration system”, men and women were very often recorded together: thousands of texts record a joint administrative management of guruš and geme₂ side by side (in many administrative Ur III texts we can find for example accounts for n geme₂ guruš u₄ 1-šè, “n female and male work-days” counted together). It seems therefore that women contributed in the same way as men to the economic life managed by the state and we can emphasize right away that phenomenon of mixed management of human resources.

Nevertheless, in this regard, we must challenge the usual view according to which men worked for the primary productive sector of the economy (outdoors in the fields and in animal husbandry), while women were mainly occupied in the secondary productive sector (indoor processing activities to produce flour, oil, clothing, etc.)[1]. This gender dimension of labor division does not precisely fit our documentation, as we find in the following:

• male weavers (guruš-uš-bar) next to female weavers (geme₂-uš-bar), as in the tablet Legrain, UET 3, 1449
• male millers working alongside female millers (Watson, BCT 2, 49)
• or, on the contrary, many women involved in agricultural activities (passim).

In fact, it seems that we can divide the economic contribution of the female part of the working population between two kinds of activities:

• Outdoor activities: agriculture, hauling boats, making and carrying bricks, construction projects,  production and food processing. In these activities women contributed in the same way as men for the same kinds of collective work. They were employed in a large number of jobs, sometimes in unexpected sectors, as for example these female workers (geme₂) “having built the house of Amar-Suen” (é ^damar-^dsuen-ka dù-a, Sauren, NYPL 138). Perhaps these activities had something to do with the corvée-duty: according to P. Steinkeller[2], only heads of families owed such a service to the state but it is clear that women, needing more salaries and rations, were also involved in the same collective projects.
• Indoor activities: in this case, the professional specialization of women was most often indicated and three of these were more specifically their own domain: weaving (geme₂-uš-bar), milling flour (geme₂-kikken₂), and extracting oil (geme₂-ì-sur).

Concerning these indoor processing activities, as has been thouroughly studied (thanks to the works of Waetzoldt[3], Maekawa[4], Grégoire[5], Englund[6], and others), the real feature that was quite unique to this time is that some of them were clearly organized on an industrial scale. All around the country, some large factories employing female workers were operated especially for producing garments, flour and oil. And it is even possible that in or around the major cities of the kingdom, some individual “industrial” centers combining these various activities did exist:

• At Ur, female weavers, oil pressers and millers were allotted all together as can be seen in the tablet Legrain, UET 3, 1504, viii 28-29: níg-ba geme₂-uš-bar geme₂-ì-sur ù geme₂-kikken₂, “allotments for female weavers, oil pressers and millers”.
• At Garšana they built a unique triple complex, in the form of a “brewery-kitchen-mill building”: é-lunga é-kikken₂ ù é-muhaldim (index CUSAS 4, passim).
• And at the same place they built another double complex in the form of a “textile mill and craftsmen’s building”: é-uš-bar ù é-gašam-e-ne (index CUSAS 4, passim)[7].

Therefore, these main “industrial” factories employing women were weaving mills (é-uš-bar), places for pressing oil (é-ì-sur-sur), mills producing various flours (é‑kikken₂), kitchens (é‑muhaldim), and breweries (é-lunga). The following chart offers a summary.

The work of women in large textile factories (é-uš-bar) was intensively analyzed by Waetzoldt 40 years ago (UNT, p. 91-108) and that study remains the reference synthesis on this subject. As an illustration, let us consider a tablet kept in the British Musem (Maekawa, ASJ 20, 1998, 108 n°7). This enormous accounting text calculates the amount of barley distributed to personnel working in the various public weaving mills in the province of Lagash in the year Šulgi 48.

As analyzed by A. Uchitel[8], this text makes a clear distinction between 1) those receiving monthly rations because they were supposed to work only part-time in the workshop (note that some of them were receiving more than the usual average rations), and 2) those receiving yearly grain rations, likely as they did not belong to families holding allotment plots. In total, the text records more than 10,000 individuals working in the weaving mills of the province of Lagash in Šulgi 48. Almost ⅔ of them were female weavers but men, children and elders were also categorized, divided according to the quota of rations they received (from 100 liters to 10 liters per person and per month). Once again, these are amazing numbers.

And for an example of a mill producing flour and employing female workers, let us have a look at another text from the British Museum (King, CT 3, pl. 19-20, BM 18344). This is a comprehensive list of various workers receiving grain rations, and it can be completed based on other several similar large accounts from Girsu. The text provides a good example of how a millhouse was organized.

This “great millhouse” (é-kikken₂ gu-la) of Girsu seems to have employed 658 people in total. Two thirds of them were female millers, counted with their children. But some others were employed as weavers and oil pressers. Those in 1), 2) and 3) represent the workers in charge of producing flour. But the text also records people belonging to the regular staff in charge of maintenance and supervision of the mill, especially craft workers, boat towers, gardeners and specialists in boat constructions: most of them were male, recorded in 4), 5) and 6). We see therefore that, besides female millers who constituted the core of the workshop, a variety of craftsmen supported their activity.

But who were these state-dependents women working in outdoor activities or in these various mills? And what do we know about them or about their origin?

2. STATE DEPENDENT WOMEN

To explore this question, let us start with an important royal inscription of king Šu-Suen, after his victorious military campaign against Šimanum in the Zagros mountains (Frayne, RIME 3/2.1.4.3, 129’-145’). It is said there that:

« The king blinded the young men of those cities, whom he had overtaken. And the women of those cities, whom he had overtaken, he offered as a present to the weaving mills ».

As we can see, after this military campaign, male and female prisoners were separated. And whereas the male captives were blinded (probably to avoid any revolt without losing such a labor force), the female ones were not mutilated, but sent off to some textile mills of the inner kingdom. It is therefore clear that the labor force of Neo-Sumerian textile mills consisted in part of prisoners of war, a situation that is not without parallel, as for example at Mari in Old Babylonian time with its « ergasterions » (nepârâtum), that were large prison-workshops where mass productions were organized[9].

In brief, from all the documentation it appears that women working in these Ur III factories included:

• war-captives (nam-ra-ak)[10],
• purchased or indebted slaves (geme₂ // arad₂)
• donated personnel (a-ru-a)[11],
• women of the impoverished classes and outcasts of society.

Yet these categories of women certainly did not represent the entire workforce inside the state-run workshops. They would have been an insufficient number to meet the economic needs of the state. In all likelihood, many of the female workers employed in the mills were simply state-dependants, working part-time or full-time for rations and salaries, like their male counterparts.

M. Van de Mieroop[12] calculated that more than 13,000 female weavers were active at a single time in the workshops of Ur. Such a huge number is consistent with a text from Ur (Legrain, UET 3, 1504), where wool is distributed to female workers involved in the factories of that city for a total of 8,542 kg of wool. Waetzoldt calculated that at the rate of 1 mina of wool per capita (likely according to parallels), more than 17,000 female workers could have been concerned, employed as weavers, millers and oil pressers. In the same way Waetzoldt also calculated (UNT, p. 99) that, at Lagaš/Girsu, 15,000 personnel were employed in the weaving industries of the province.

Among them, 6,466 female weavers are explicitly recorded in two Girsu administrative texts dated to the year Amar-Suen 1 (Sigrist, SAT 1, 279 // Hussey, HSS 4, 3). These two tablets inform us that, among the three main urban centers of the province of Lagaš (Girsu, Kinunir and Gu-abba), the greatest weaving mills were situated in the third one, Gu-abba.

In total, thousands of women were therefore involved in every province of the kingdom and this must reflect a significant part of the population. However, it remains impossible to assess what percentage of the total female population was thus employed in these state-run workshops, or to estimate the importance of their contribution to the global economy, even if it may have been substantial. And it is also difficult to differentiate groups of women in terms of social hierarchy.

In several studies (and in a forthcoming article on “Corvée Labor in Ur III Times”)[13], P. Steinkeller has considered that two categories of workers must be distinguished in Ur III society: those belonging to the eren₂ class, who received royal land and rations in exchange for part-time service, and those who were semi-free workers (ùg-ÍL, geme₂), working all year round as unskilled laborers in exchange for rations. In all likelihood, men and women belonging to both of these categories were employed in the mills.

As for the unskilled workers, it is interesting to find (but not so frequently) in administrative texts some mentions of female menials (geme₂ ùg-ÍL) parallel to male ùg-ÍL. Sometimes their occupations are given: geme₂ ùg-ÍL mar-tu “menial Amorite women”, geme₂ ùg-ÍL amar-e gub-ba, “menial women on duty for the calves”, geme₂ ùg-ÍL é-gu₄-niga-ka “menial women of the house of fattened cattle”.

Another point can be observed: I. J. Gelb noticed[14] that, in many Ur III administrative texts, women are recorded alone with their children, without any accompanying man. He called these lists of rations for women and their children the “geme₂-dumu texts”, and he asked: “where are the husbands?”. We must confess that, 40 years later, this important question remains unanswered. We know almost nothing about the family life of these thousands of geme₂ employed in these large weaving and milling factories and working there with their children. Were there dormitories or barracks for them around the factories? Or did they return home every evening to their families and villages nearby? We have no information regarding these questions. But we can consider that, depending on the status of these women, individual situations probably varied: prisoners and slaves were probably confined to barracks, while “free” workers had their own home and family life independently, and came to work every day with their younger children. In any case, general conditions in these factories were harsh and restrictive, as we can see by the need of porters/keepers (ì-du₈) to control inputs and outputs, and the frequent mention of fugitives (zàh) that were pursued (the text Legrain, UET 3, 1018 records up to 134 of these geme₂-zàh!), or dead (úš) people on many occasions.

3. MANAGEMENT OF WOMEN AT WORK

For the management of full-year working women, the best and most frequently mentioned example is the one given by the tablet studied some twenty years ago by Robert Englund in his article “Hard Work” (see note 6). Instead of commenting for the umpteenth time on the content of this text, let us consider a parallel document from Umma: Genouillac, TCL 5, 5670. On the same model, it is a balance account written by a man named Ur-Šara, the foreman of a mill.

Over a period of one year, the state allocated to Ur-Šara various amounts of grain and a team of 36 female workers. This was his “debit” (meaning that “this was owed to the state”). The credit column describes all the work performed by these 36 female workers during the year: two thirds of their time was spent producing flour. Yet it is interesting to observe that the remainder of their time was occupied in agricultural work, in weaving, in loading and unloading boats, in producing earthworks, and so on. One sixth of the time was counted as days off (that is 5 days per month, 2 months per year). Finally, all of this was converted in the final balance into equivalents of workdays and of produced flour. Compared to what was expected, there was a deficit, to be reimbursed by these women in the following year.

Here, we can observe that these women were employed full-time, all year long in the mill. But it is noteworthy that they could easily be assigned to occupations besides producing flour, to suit the needs of the economic organization.

We just saw above that, in total, these female workers were counted in the thousands for each province. Consequently, with the Ur III accounting system and its “workdays” equivalencies, some summary administrative texts finally calculated women workforce in tens of thousands of female “workdays” (geme₂ u₄ 1-šè). Below is a chart that shows the greatest numbers of workdays of female workers that can be found in Ur III texts. And one will not be surprised to see, once again, that milling and textile production are principally concerned.

How were these women paid? As it is well known, the “ration system” with its amounts of barley, oil and wool issued to dependents, was a hallmark of early Mesopotamian history and is especially well documented in the Ur III period: it is mainly because of such rations that we have such a huge written documentation. In this system, women were paid distinctly less than men, a phenomenon already attested in earlier periods (Ebla, Lagaš II): while the guruš received an average of 60 liters of grain per month, women usually received only 30 to 50 liters.

But as we just saw, only some people worked full time for the state and we can imagine that many of these women were married or related to members of the eren₂ class: they belonged to families that held plots of subsistence land and they could have stayed at home or worked only part-time in public factories. And as a matter of fact, we do find texts in which women could, like men, be “hired” (hun-gá) for some periods of time (an example of a text with geme₂ hun-gá, “hired women”, is Ozaki-Sigrist, BPOA 1, 564), and many texts record real “salaries for women” (á geme₂) instead of rations.

A last observation will be made about positions of authority that these women could hold in such a context of “public” work. It is not infrequent to find forewomen at the head of teams of workers, as for example in the text Waetzoldt-Yıldız, MVN 16, 727, 11-12. Sometimes women could hold high administrative positions, at the same level as men and could seal tablets, as shown by several seal impressions and the attested title of munus-dub-sar (as in Forde, Nebraska 45). And this situation can now be best observed in the archive of Garšana, where the management of the estate which was located there was greatly between the hands of women.

4. NEW DATA FROM GARŠANA AND IRISAGRIG

This leads us finally to the two large new archives that have recently been recovered, gathered, studied and published by David Owen: those of Garšana (published 6 years ago)[15] and those of Irisagrig (just published in Nisaba 15)[16]. In spite of their lack of archaeological context, these archival texts give unique insights into the culture of Sumer in the late 3^rd millenium. And they provide, for our REFEMA topic, unprecedented data on the role of women in the Neo-Sumerian economy and society.

Let us illustrate here this new wealth of information with a few brief examples. First, from the Garšana archive: this archive not only offers 1500 additional common Ur III administrative texts but it also provides the unique records of a huge and hitherto unknown private household: during the reigns of Šu-Suen and Ibbi-Suen, this household was the estate of a general (šagina) and physician (a-zu), named Šu-Kabta, and his wife, a princess named Simat Ištaran who was a sister of king Šu-Suen. This archive highlights espacially the role of women, both as heads of the household and in the capacity of supervisors, administrators (some of them have seals), and laborers in many sectors of the estate. And if one takes the point of view of the labor force available or used in this household, it is interesting to see that, in the all archive, working women topped in numbers working men. Finally, thanks to the new evidence of Garšana, we can see that women in Ur III society had more authority and influence than may have been previously recognized and sheds light on a hitherto undocumented aspect of society in the Ur III period.

After Šu-Kabta’s death, his wife, princess Simat-Ištaran, inherited and actively managed the Garšana estate herself. From that time on, several women of the household began to play an important role. As an illustration, let us consider the case of a woman named Aštaqqar who ended up managing the all textile industry at Garšana as supervisor of the weavers (ugula-uš-bar, a function usually occupied by men). She had her own seals, as shown below, with which she sealed tens of tablets (seals drawn by R. Mayr, CUSAS 3, p. 431).

Various other women also supervised construction gangs consisting of both men and women : such positions were until now unattested within the existing Ur III records[17].

As observed in my previous paper for the first REFEMA workshop at Nanterre, a quick look at the occupations attested in the household headed by Šu-Kabta and Simat-Ištaran presents at first the usual list for women : oil pressers, grain millers, or weavers. But it is noteworthy that these women were in fact often performing tasks far from their primary specialty. Consider for example the women who are qualified as weavers (geme₂-uš-bar). Even if they were surely mainly employed in the textile mill (é-uš-bar) of Garšana, we can also see them in many other occupations; they are thus employed for :

– Harvesting (CUSAS 3, 262 : 19-22) :

• 18 geme₂ sag-dub 1 geme₂ á-⅔ geme₂-uš-bar-me-éš (…) u₄ 105-šè (…) še gur₁₀-gur₁₀-dè zàr tab-ba-dè ù geš ra-ra-dè a-šà Ṣe-ru-um gub-ba
  « 18 full-time female weavers (and) 1 female weaver at ⅔ wages for 105 days (…) employed at the Ṣerum field to harvest barley, stack (its) sheaves (for drying) and flail (them) »

– Demolishing a house (CUSAS 3, 273 : 1-6) :

• 6 guruš ašgab 8 guruš lú-azlag₂ 24 geme₂-uš-bar u₄ 1-šè al-tar é A-bí-a-ti gul-dè gub-ba
  « 6 leather workers, 8 fullers (and) 24 female weavers employed for 1 day of construction to demolish the house of Abiati »

– Transporting crops of barley (CUSAS 3, 290 : 1-4)

• 16 ⅓ geme₂-uš-bar u₄ 10-šè še Ù-dag-ga^ki-ta GAR-ša-an-na^ki-šè de₆-a
  « 16 ⅓ female weavers for 10 days having brought barley from Udaga to Garšana »

– Lamenting after the death of their master Šu-Kabta (and they are paid for that, CUSAS 3, 252 : 1-7 et 257 : 1-6)

• 97 geme₂ sag-dub 15 geme₂ á-⅓-ta geme₂-uš-bar-me-éš [n] geme₂ [u₄] 9 ½-šè [gaba] sìg-dè gub-[ba u₄ Šu]-kab-tá ba-úš-a
  « 97 full-time female weavers (and) 15 female weavers at ⅓ wages (and) [n] female spinner(s) employed for 9 ½ [days] to beat (their) [breasts when] Šu-Kabta died »

As we can see, these specialized women were finally employed for many tasks far beyonf their basic specialty and mostly at the same level as men.

But at Garšana, one point is particularly striking: the involvement of women in the construction works sector. This has been recently and extensively studied by W. Heimpel[18] who has gathered especially more than 200 tablets that are the daily records of an ambitious construction project during the three last years of the life of Šu-Kabta, at the end of the reign of Šu-Suen. It seems that this construction has mainly concerned the building of a “ringwall”, of several factories and of private residences. In this context, it appears that women of the household were primarily involved in these construction work and did, for example, almost all the carrying of bricks (such a task was hitherto unattested elsewhere). Note the scheme in the last lines of many of these texts that list female brick carriers by name in groups headed by a foreman or a forewoman (table borrowed from W. Heimpel [19]).

These texts, sometimes having more than 100 lines, give at the end the number of carried bricks, the distance over which they were carried, the work standard in the form of numbers of carried bricks that earned a day’s wage, the amount of the wage, the total of barley required for pay, and the name of the overseer. As an illustration, consider one of these tablets : Owen, CUSAS 3, 352.

Only women were concerned in these texts. Yet finally, what can be learned from the Garšana archive as a whole is the involvement of the women of the estate in all kinds of works: they were employed in the same way as men and even more than them, and these texts show how great was the flexibility in the organization of their work, regulated by bureaucratic authorities. This observation perhaps addresses the question of the supposed scarcity of labor in the Ur III period (an idea put forward by Piotr Steinkeller[20]). We can even ask about the existence of a kind of “labor market”  because of so many people mentioned in this archive as having been “hired” (hun-gá).

But a new archive adds now to this picture: the Irisagrig archive recently published by David Owen in two new volumes of the series Nisaba (volume 15/1 and 15/2)[21]. The 1,200 tablets published and studied there represent another example of a unique archive, this time from a major city of the Ur III kingdom: Irisagrig, not far from Nippur[22], known to have been the seat of a governorship. These texts are part of a large, official archive (probably of the provincial governor, named Ur-mes), and concern the affairs of various officials, mainly during the reign of Šu-Suen.

The identification and recovery of this large body of new data add a significant dimension to our understanding of the historic, religious, political, and socio-economic dynamics of the Ur III state. Like the Garšana texts, they add especially to the picture we can sketch for the role played by women in Ur III society. The number of named women in this archive is substantial and includes many newly attested (mostly Akkadian) female personal names, newly documented princesses, and wives of prominent officials, along with women in positions that are rarely, if ever, attested in other sources.

A more comprehensive study of the data will surely come in the near future. But we can have a quick look at these occupations, which include:

– “Usual” female occupations in the documents of Irisagrig:

• geme₂-àr-ra / geme₂-kikken₂, “millers”
• geme₂-uš-bar, “weavers”
• geme₂-kar-kíd, “single women, prostitutes” (?)

– “Unusual” female occupations in the documents of Irisagrig (references to the texts in the indices of Nisaba 15/1):

• geme₂-azlag₂ (usually male lú-azlag₂, “fuller, washerman”)
• munus-a-zu (usually male a-zu, “physician”)
• munus-dub-sar  (usually male dub-sar, “scribe”)
• munus-gudu₄ (usually male gudu₄, “purification priest”)
• geme₂-ì-du₈, munus-ì-du₈ (usually male ì-du₈, “doorkeeper”)
• geme₂-muhaldim, munus-muhaldim (usually male muhaldim, “cooker”)
• geme₂-nar, munus-nar (usually male nar, “singer, musician”)
• qadištum (written ^munusqá-dì-iš-tum)  nu-gig/qadištu, “midwife?”, was only attested until now in the recently published new parts of the Ur-Namma Code[23]

Such an amazing list surely deserves further study. But in the frame of this short paper, we will just examine, to conclude, an emerging Irisagrig batch of tablets that provides new data on the role of a new prominent woman at the head of a large household: this woman was named Ninsaga and was the daughter of the governor (ensi₂) of Irisagrig, Ur-mes. She was at the head of a large estate in that city. Three texts deserve attention: the first (Owen, Nisaba 15, 953), is a complete inventory, on twelve columns, of hundreds of named male and female slaves (arad₂ and geme₂) belonging to the household of Ninsaga in year Ibbi-Sîn 3. Each of them received monthly between 10 and 75 liters of barley rations. At the end, we find recorded: 74 guruš, 48 geme₂, 47 dumu-nita₂, 56 dumu-munus (122 adults, 103 children, that is 225 men and women). All these dependents of this private household are clearly characterized as “slaves” (geme₂-arad₂) of Ninsaga.

One year before (Ibbi-Suen 2) another text (Owen, Nisaba 15, 797) shows that a general (šagina) had taken away 50 slaves who had been removed from this household of Ninsaga, probably to bring them to the king, since these slaves are characterized as being assigned to the throne (arad₂-geme₂ nam-^gešgu-za). And it is interesting to find again this same information exactly quoted in another text (Owen, Nisaba 15, 1038), which summarized other withdrawals made over Ninsaga’s household staff.

Finally, it appears that, if 51 slaves were left (si-ì-tum) in the household of Ninsaga after the “removal” carried out by the military officer, the large census that we mentioned at the beginning shows that, one year after (in Ibbi-Suen 3), the staff of the household had increased to 122 slaves.

What we see in the end and for the first time with this small batch of tablets, is the great number of dependents, men and women, that could be found in a private household and how these dependents could be added or removed from the household to be posted elsewhere, according to the will of administrative authorities. And this could maybe makes us reconsider what could have been the exact status of these slaves and dependents in these “private” households during the Ur III period.

PROVISIONAL CONCLUSIONS

Some provisional main points can be summarized:

During the Ur III period, women were not confined to the spheres of family, marriage and household: they were employed along with men in all kinds of indoor or outdoor work and activities.

Milling, weaving and pressing oil were essentially state-run activities, organized on an “industrial” scale and performed by state-dependent women working in large production units to meet the huge needs of the State for its “ration allotment” system. Weavers, millers and oil pressers were often associated. Their installations, perhaps aggregated in unique places, seem to have been managed under the direct supervision of the royal power.

We should beware of ​​a depreciating vision according to which only poverty or enslavement could explain and justify the work of women. Texts show the same intensive use of male and female workers belonging to various categories of the society in the all kingdom.

The pressure put by the state administration and its strong will of control observable through the texts should probably be analyzed in the context of a scarcity of labor during the Ur III period, an idea previously suggested by P. Steinkeller.

Finally, one major gap characterizes our documentation: there is absolutely no information in any of our texts regarding the potential participation of women in market activities. Is it simply because, in this area, written documents were usually unnecessary or outside the administrative sphere?

Eiko Matsushima

REFEMA 3^rd workshop (September 4, 2013, Carqueiranne)

1.     Introduction

In my recent paper, read during the REFEMA Second Workshop on the 24th of June 2013 at Chuo University, Tokyo, I talked about women who played the role of interceder between her husband and other people. The main source of my idea was a number of references to the goddess, who was seen to ask her husband for the benevolence for the king (and/or his family) during the “Divine Marriage Ceremony” in first century Babylonia and Assyria.

It seems significant that the spouse of a divine couple sometimes gave important suggestions to her husband and that the people expected her to be an interceder on their behalf. As well, in the Gilgamesh Epic, the standard version tablet VII shows Uta-Napishti’s wife (marhītu) giving advice to her husband that made him change his mind and enabled Gilgamesh to find the plant of life. Thus, in the religious or mythic sphere, women sometimes played a significant role as adviser to their husbands as well as interceders.

Though this feature is found exclusively in religious and mythic texts, we may perhaps infer some actual roles of women in human societies in Mesopotamia, especially in high society. Looking at some famous royal women in the first millennium Assyrian court, we discover a few queens whose deeds or memories are recorded in written materials. While the documents give no information as to a complete picture of their activities, the following was observed:

In Assyria, from the ninth to the seventh century BCE, eleven names of principal wives (MÍ.É.GAL/ MÍ/KUR=sēgallu) appear in the available records.[1] The women are indicated at times using the title ummi šarri (MÍ.AMA.MAN or AMA.LUGAL), “Queen Mother,” which is always accompanied by the name of the woman’s son, i.e. the actual king, as well as kallātu, which is always accompanied by the name of the father of her husband. For example, Sammuramat, wife of Šamši-Adad V (823-811 BCE) and mother of Adad-nerari III (810-783), is called kallāt Šulmanu-šarru (Shalmaneser: 858-824 BCE), Naquia/Zakutu, wife of Sennacherib (704-681 BCE) and mother of Esarhaddon (681-669 BCE) used the titles sēgallu, ummi šarri and kallātu (MÍ.É.GI₄.A) Šarru-ukin. In both cases, the women obtained and maintained power as mother of the king.

We know only a few queens depicted with their husband. In the well-known garden scene on the bas-reliefs from the North Palace of Nineveh, Libbali-šarrat, the principal wife of Ashurbanipal can be found sitting in front of the king as his partner. It is worthy of note that she behaves here as spouse, not as mother. A letter written by a sister of Ashurbanipal, Libbali-šarrat also describes her: “You are a daughter-in-law (kallātu), the lady of the house of Assurbanipal, the crown prince of Esarhaddon.”[2]

Given the available evidence, I observed in my last paper that the system of the household has much to do with women’s status in first millennium Mesopotamia. One keyword was kallātu, which is used not only by Neo-Assyrian queens but also by some goddesses as one of their important epithets. Goddesses use also hīrtu as their title. It seems that a woman’s efficiency to her husband depends on her position as hīrtu as well as kallātu. In the present paper, I try to collect references to both hīrtu and kallātu and build on the earlier research.

2.     Observations

Looking at the two of the main titles of the goddesses, hīrtu and kallātu, it is important to first define their meaning. These Akkadian words are explained in the Chicago Assyrian Dictionaries as follows:

hīrtu : wife of equal status with the husband […] In speaking of the wives of gods, hīrtu is preferred to aššatu/altu (CAD H: 200a-201b).

kallātu: daughter-in-law, wife of a son living in his father’s household, bride, sister-in-law […] The word denotes a young woman who was acquired by the master of a household as a wife for his son living in this household (CAD K: 79a-82b).

Let us list these titles with the names of the goddesses. I am going to underline some key words by color pens as hīrtu, kallātu, etc.

Aja

1)     As hīrtu

Aja hīrtu narāmta-ka
“Aja, your beloved first wife”  BMS 10:23 and duplis., see Ebeling Handerhebung 50:126 (N/I 343a)

ana Aja hīrtu narāmti-šú   BBR No.1-20:104 and 107

[              hī]rtum ina bīt majjāli liqbi-ka
“May [Aja your spo]use say to you in the bedchamber, [“Be appeased”]
Lambert, BWL 138:200 (last line of a long hymn to Šamaš: a manuscript has an Ashurbanipal colophone.

2)     As kallātu

Gilgameš Epic, tabl.III
[š]ī ai idūr-ka ^dAja kallāt lihassis-ka[3]
“May she not fear you, may Aya the Bride remind you”  (III 56)
šī ai id[ūr-ka ^dAja kallāt lihassis-ka]
“May she not fear[ you, may Aya the Bride remind you”]  (III 74)
šī ai <i>dūr-ka ^dAja kallāt lihassis-ka]
“May she not fear you, may Aya the Bride remind you”]  (III 86)

(In the texts from Sippar or mentioning Sippar, we find the followings)
PN ana DN kallātim ana kisalluhhi iddin
“She dedicated (the girl) PN to Aja, the wife, to serve as court sweeper  VAS 8 55:12 (OB)
Šamaš u Aja ka-al-la-tum … liballiţuka  CT 6 27a :4,  wr. É.GI₄.A  YOS 2 64 :4(both OB letters)
ana … Aja kallātim bēltija  CT 32 xi 12 and 32 (NB, Cruc. Mon. Maništušu)
Aja kallātim rabītum narāmmat Šamaš  VAB 4 232 ii 13 (Nbn),

(in other inscris.)
Aja kallātum bēltum rabītum    Syria 32 17 iv 25 (Jahdunlim)
^dAja kallāt ina sissikti(TÚG.SÍG)^meš -šú ebbeti pāni(IGI)-ka likpur
mūšab Šamaš bēlu rabû u Aja kallātim narāmti-šu   CT 34 28 i 58
Aja kallātu rabîti ašibat bīt majjāli kajjanāmma panû-ka lišnamir ūmišam damiqta-a liqbi-ku
“Aja, the great bride (=daughter in law) who stays in the bedroom and constantly brighten your face, may she say you favorite (words) for me!”
VAB 4, 258 ii 19-20 (Nabonidus)
[^dAja lip]šur É.GI₄.A GAL-tum  Iraq 31 176:13 (lipšur-lit)

As for Aja, she is always called only as kallātu, and has no attribution to this title: not kallātu of someone or some temple, but simple kallātu or kallātum rabītum. I wonder if the English translation of this term “daughter-in-law” is convenient or not.

Tašmētu

1)     As hīrtu

 [^dTašmē]tu bēltu rabîtu hīrtu narāmta-ka şabitat abbūti ina mahri-ka ina majjāl taknê ūmišam naparkâ literriš-ka balāţi
“Tašmētu the great Lady, your beloved spouse, who intercedes (for me) [daily] before you in the sweet bed, who never ceases asking you to protect my life.”
H. Hunger, Babylonische und assyrische Kolophone (AOAT 2, Neukirchen-Vlyn, 1968) No. 338

Tašmetum hiīrat Nabium ina pān Nabium hā‘iri-šá lemutta-šú littasqir
“May Tašmētu, the spouse of Nabû, speak unfavourably of him in the presence of her husband Nabû”
SAA XII no.97 (=NARGE 37:ND 6207) 11’-r.1,
also SAA XII no.96 (=Iraq 19 135:ND 5550), r 4-5.

(Tašmētum) [ša]nukkat É.ŠÁR.RA bīt kiššūti AN [x x x m]uşalli-tu hīrat Nabû narāmti ^d[  ]
“Princesse of Ešarra, temple of the universe … she who beseeches, wige of Nabû, the beloved of …”  SAA III no.6 5-6 (=KAR 122)
hiīrti-i narāmte atti …
“You are my beloved wife … ”   ibid. 15

2)     As kallātu

Tašmētu kallāt Marduk   Biggs Šaziga 76:21 (SB inc.)

Tašmētu kalātum rabītu   Šurpu II 156

Tašmētum kalāt É. SAG.ÍLA   Streck Asb. 286 r. 14

3)     As hīrtu and kallātu

Tašmētum kallāt[u rabītú] ina pān Nabû hā’i[ri-šá] amat-su lū tu[lammin] šimtu la ţābtú lu [tašim-šú] lā ţūb libbi lā ţūb [šīri lutaqbi]
“May Tašmētum, [great] daughter-in-law, vi[lify] him before Nabû, her spouse, may [she decree] an unpleasant fate for him and [grant] him neither peace of mind nor [body].
SAA XII no.95 (= Iraq 19 133：ND 5463) r.2-5.(NAleg.)

Tašmētum hīrat]šarhi Mu’ati apil Tutu kalāt [É. S]AG.ÍLA
“chosen wife of proud Mu’ati (i.e., Nabû), the first-born son of Tutu (Marduk), the daughter-in-law of Esagila  BMS 33:7, see Ebeling Handerhebung 124, cf. Craig ABRT 1 31 r.16)

Tašmētum kalāt É. [SAG.ÍL] hīrat mār bēl ilī  KAR 362:1 (hymn to Tašmētu)

We find in CTN IV (=D.J. Wiseman and J. Black, Literary Texts from the Temple of Nabû, Oxford 1996) no. 168 the following phrases.

(Tašmētu) kallāt É.SAG.ÍL É tašilati narāmti É.ZI.DA hīrat Nabû paqíd kiššati bēl gimri  (ii 42-43)
Tašmētum (iii 25 ……. ) ana Nabû hā’iri-ki māru reštî šá É.SAG.GÍL abbūti şab-ti lišme siqria (iii 28-29)
Tašmētum bēlet hi-[     (iv 19)   ]…. ana Nabû hame‘ri-ki bēlu ašarēdu reštî šá É.SAG.GÍL abbūti şab-ti qi-bi ba-ni-tí^? liš-me (iv 22-24)
(Nanaja) ana Nabû hā’ir-ki abbūti şabti  (iv 49)

also Nanâja

ana Nanaja….. hīrat DN ….. narāmti (var. narāmat) rubûti-šu
“For Nanaja, …. the spouse of DN, beloved by DN’s royal majesty”  Borger, Esarh. 77 § 49:3

ana Nanaja…..hiīrat ^dMuzibsâ…narāmti rubûti-šu
“For Nanaja, …. the eminent spouse of the god Muzibsâ ….beloved of his majesty ….
RIMB 2, B.6.31.17, 3

^dNanaja …..jâti ^mAN.ŠÁR-ŠEŠ.SUM.NA…. ina mahar ^dAG hā’iri-ki tizqar banīti balāţ ūmī rūqūti šebē littūtu ţūbi šīri u hu-ud lìb-bi ši-i-mi ši-ma-ti
“Nanaja ….. I am Esarhaddon, the prince who reveres you….. before the god Nabû, your husband, speak well of me, determine as my fate a long life, fullness of old age, good health and happiness’  …  ibid., 16-18

kallat É. SAG.ÍL … hirāt Mū’ati narāmti Bēl AD!-[šú]
“The daughter-in-law of Esagil …[…], the spouse of Mūati, the beloved of Bēl [his] father
SAA III no.4 (= ABRT 1 54) ii 2’-3’ (hymn to Nanâ), cf.  also SBH p. 129 No.84:14f.

[é.g]i₄.a dumu.sag.^dUraš.a [gašan.z]i.da gašan.ka.téš,a,sì.ga.ke_x [gašan.g]u.la gašan.mu ^dNa.na.a: kal-lat mārtu rēštītu ša Ni[nurta] rubāt rēštītu Tašmētu x [x] rubāt rabītu bēltu ^dMIN (=Nanâ)
SBH p.65 r.13 and dupl.

Zarpanītu

 1)    As hīrtu

(Zarpanītu) hīrtu narāmti Marduk  KAR 58 r.25, also ibid. 32,

2)     As kallātu

[^dPap.nu]n.an.ki é.gi₄.a engur.ra:[ Zarpanīt]u kallāt apsî Weissbach Misc. No. 13:39 f. cf. SBH p. 129 No. 84:6f.

kallāt ^dEN.AN.KI … hīrat bēl ilī  A.419:1 (unpubl. Asuur text in Istanbul)  (CAD K.82a)

zi nidlam.a.ni nin Nibru^ki.ke_x  é.gi₄.a.gal  en.^dNu.nam.nir. ke_x : nīš hīrtika šarrat Nippuri kallātu rabītu ša bēli Nunamnir
“By the life of your wife, queen of Nippur, great daughter-in-law of the lord Enlil   LKA 77 iv 16 (inc.)

3)     As hīrtu and kallātu

kabtat šarrat dannat hamma[t h]īrat ilat bēlat … narāmti ^dTU.TU
“She(=Zarpanītu) is noble, queen, bride, mistress, (ruing) first wife, goddess and lady
ZA 4 248:13 (=Craig, ABRT 1 31:16) = SAA III no. 2 r.16-17

Zarpanītu… bēltum rabītum(GAL)^tum hīrat ^dEN.BI.LU.LU kallāt ^dNU.D [ÍM.MUD]
“The great lady, the spouse of Enbilulu, the daughter-in-law of Nudimmud”
Craig, ABRT I 31 r.22= SAA III no. 2 r.22
cf. (Zarpanītu)… bēltum rabītum(GAL)^tunarāmti ^dAMAR.UD …] ibid. r. 25

Also

Zarpanītu ina urši bīt hammūti lemutta-šu litasqar
“May Zarpanītu pronounce evil (words) against him in the bedroom where (Marduk lives) as master (of the family)!”
K. 2411=J. A. Craig, ABRT I 76-79, col. I 28’)

Mulissu

1)    As hīrtu

 “Mulissu šarrat Ešarra hīrat Aššur banīt ilāni rabûti ša Sîn-ahhê-eriba šar Aššur ūmišam amāt damiqti-šu ina muhhi Aššur liššakin šaptu-ša
Mulissu, the queen of Ešarra, spouse of Aššur, creatress of great gods, who daily pronounce favorite words on the behalf of Sennacherib before Aššur.”
K. 2411=J. A. Craig, ABRT I 76-79, col. II 10-12)

^dNIN.LÍL hī-ti nammadi ^dAššur   cf. hīrtu narāmta-šú  Wiseman, Treaties 417
“Mulissu, the beloved spouse of Ashur”
AKA 62 iv 35, Tigl. I

mahar Ninlil … hīrtu narāmti Aššur
“Before Ninlil, the beloved wife of Assur”
Streck Asb 82 x 27

Ninlil šarrat hīrtu narāmti ^dEN.LÍL  BE 8 150:5 (NB leg.)

We never find, for now, an example of title kallātu used by Mulissu/Ninlil. 

Gula

1) As hīrtu

hīrat rašbat (said of Gula)  LKA 18:12 and 5

2)     As kallātu

Ninurta … Gula kallāt É.ŠÁR.RA  BBSt. No. 6 ii 39 (Nbk. I) cf. MDP 2 p. 113 ii 13

[nin.É,šu].me.[ša₄] kù.mah.ke_x é.gi₄.a ^dEn.líl.lá.ke_x ág,gá ^dU.u_x(GIŠGAL).lu.ke_x : bēl[et É].ŠU.ME.[ŠA₄ el]let şīrtu kallāt Enlil narāmtu Ninurta
“Pure ladyof the Ešumeša, exalted daughter-in-law of Enlil, beloves (wife) of Ninurta  KAR 73 r.5f and dups

cf. ^dNun.gal.la … é.gi₄.a.ni  Nungal, his (Enlil’s) daughter-in-law  PBS 1/2 104:12

mušītu kallātú kuttumtu //kallātú kuttumtu Gula
“Gula the night, the veiled daughter-in-law (is) Gula (because no one may look upon her even from afar)  KAR 94:6 and dulp.(comm. to Maqlu I 2), see AfO 12 240 no. 26,
cf.  mušītu kallāt Anim   KAR 38:13 and r. 23 (inc.).

 (Nininsina/Gula) é.gi₄.a  en.^dNu.nam.nir.ra : kallāt bēli Nunamnir  BA 5 644 No. 11:5f.

3)    As hīrtu and kallātu

mārāku kallāku hīrāku u abrakkāku   Or. NS 36 120:65 (Gula hymn)

Šarrat-Nippuri

hīrtu bēltu na-ram-tu (var. na-ra-am-tum) ^dNIN.ZÍL.LÁ kallāt ^dNIN.UGU.BÀN.DA be-let Eridu “(Ištar), first wife and lady, beloved of DN, daughter-in-law of Ea, lady of Eridu
AfK I 26 r.i 32 (hymn to Šarrat-Nippuri);

Other goddesses

ana hīrti-šu elletim
“to his (Ea’s) pure spouse”   VAS 1 32 i.9

??

hīrtum šinnatka
“the spouse, your (Anu’s) equal ”  TCL 6 51:20) (cf. above??)

Ishtar

šūsumat hīr[tu] rabītu šitruhtu Ištar
the proud Ishtar, the first wife, is beautiful   BBR No. 61:7 (incipit of a hymn)

Nikkal

^dNIN.GAL hīrtú nāramta-ka epšēt[i!-ia x x x x x x x x ]
“May Nikkal, your beloved spouse, [ look upon] my deeds [ with favour].
SAA XII no.90 (=Bauer Asb pl.21) r.4 (Asb recovers a stolen village for Sin).

MUL.MAR.GÍD.DA mārat Anim rabītu kallāt É.KUR
“Ursa major, great daughter of Anu, daughter –in-law of the Ekur  STT 73:77

Bau

^dBa’u kallātum  ZA 45 204 iii 5 (Bogh. rit.)l

Ereškigal

hīrti narāmti  SAA III np.32 r.18

said of humans : CAD H 200 : (only OB and lit.)

However:

Anti’kus LUGAL.KUR.KUR …Astarkanikku hīrat-su šarrat
“ Antiochus, the emperor…Statonike, his consort, the queen”   5R 66 No. 2 ii 27.

^míTašmētum-šarrat MÍ.É.GAL hīrtu narāmti-ia
“Tašmētu-šarrat, the queen, my beloved wife” ARRIM 4 32:15 (inscription on a lion from the doorway of Room LXV of the South-West palace of Kuyunjik (by Sennacherib):

3.     Instead of a conclusion

Instead of a conclusion, I will offer up some observations.

1)      The title kallātu is generally used with an attribution: either the name of the father of a woman’s husband, or the shrine name of her “father-in-law.” However, as in the case of Aja where we always find kallātu, and not kallātu of someone or some temple. This seems to put into question whether the English translation of the term “daughter-in-law” is in fact accurate.

2)      A lot of goddesses use hīrtu as one of their main titles. The term is understood as “the first wife who has equal status with the husband,” and is sometimes followed by narāmtu as hīrtu narāmtu “beloved wife.” With this qualification, the woman is able to give significant suggestions to her husband or intercede with him on behalf of her devotees.

Given the information available, it seems that the status of women in Mesopotamia depended mainly on the system of the household. Once she got and kept a position as “the first wife” and “kallātu” by marriage, she could make use of her efficiencies in her family. In the religious sphere, we can see this wherein the goddesses, who had the title of hīrtu and/or kallātu were effective in swaying their husband’s opinions, and playing their role of interceder. Perhaps, then, in the human world, a parallel phenomenon could be seen. Unfortunately, no references have been uncovered to substantiate the supposition.

However, in our REFEMA project, a lot of studies about the economic roles and activities of women have been presented, and will be presented during the next two workshops. One day in the very near future, then, we may be able to complete each other’s studies and gain a new view about the status of women in ancient Mesopotamia.

Eiko Matsushima

REFEMA 2^nd workshop (June 22, 2013, Tokyo)

1.     Introduction

Today, I would like to talk about one aspect of the roles of women in ancient Mesopotamia, one that I am in fact very interested in.

I recently had occasion to review my previous study on the divine marriage ceremonies in Mesopotamia, which looked specifically at the Assyro-Babylonian world.[1] There exist several sources of written materials on the ceremonies and from them we can understand that the ceremonies were significant religious events. The leading figures of the ceremonies were the main god of a big city (or a country) and his spouse, for example Marduk, the chief god of Babylon and his spouse Zarpanītu, or Nabû, who had a big temple in the city of Kalhu in Assyria, and his spouse Tašmētu, etc. The king and the royal family took care of the ceremony, preparing the furnishings, sacrifices, and banquets. We do not know if the ceremony was held annually or on other occasions, but the fact that there are several mentions on it indicates that it was not a rare event. Many discussions have developed on the subject and some important publications have been generated.[2] I will not talk about the details of the rite, as it is discussed elsewhere, but rather investigate the fact that the goddess, the “bride” of the wedding ceremony, played an important role.

During the ceremony, the goddess stayed for couple of days in a “bedroom” with her husband. Some of the available documents explain that in the course of her stay on the wedding bed, the bride asked her husband for benevolence toward the king (and/or his family).[3] That is to say, she played an intermediary role between the human king and her divine husband, the great god of the country. As a matter of fact, in first century Assyria and Babylonia, the ritual was realized with divine statues, which were identified with the gods themselves understood to live in the temple, thus in a very symbolic way. Given the information, it seems significant that the spouse of the divine couple gives some important suggestions to her husband, and additionally the people expected her to be an interceder on their behalf. I infer from this that similar incidents might occur in human society.

By collecting some examples of “women who intercede” in Mesopotamian society from the written materials, I will analyze them in order to investigate whether my inference is sufficiently reasonable or not.

2.1        Examples of the intercession of the goddesses during the wedding ceremony

Looking first at the goddesses in divine marriage ceremonies in first century Assyria and Babylonia, we can find among the documents mentions of the followings:

1)     Tašmētu to Nabû

 [Tašmē]tu bēltu rabîtu hīrtu narāmta-ka şabitat abbūti ina mahri-ka ina majjāl taknê ūmišam naparkâ literriš-ka balāţi
“Tašmētu the great Lady, your beloved spouse, who intercedes (for me) [daily] before you in the sweet bed, who never ceases asking you to protect my life.”
H. Hunger, Babylonische und assyrische Kolophone (AOAT 2, Neukirchen-Vlyn, 1968) no.338

2)     Zarpanītu to Marduk

Zarpanītu ina urši bīt hammūti lemutta-šu litasqar
“May Zarpanītu pronounce evil (words) against him in the bedroom where (Marduk lives) as master (of the family)!”
K. 2411 (=J. A. Craig, ABRT I 76-79) col. I 28’

3)     Mulissu to Aššur

Mulissu šarrat Ešarra hīrat Aššur banīt ilāni rabûti ša Sîn-ahhê-eriba šar Aššur ūmišam amāt damiqti-šu ina muhhi Aššur liššakin šaptu-ša
“Mulissu, the queen of Ešarra, spouse of Aššur, creator(ess) of great gods, who daily pronounce favorable words on behalf of Sennacherib, king of Assyria, before Aššur.”
K. 2411 (=J. A. Craig, ABRT I 76-79), col. II 10-12[4]

4)    Aja to Šamaš

 a. [              hí]rtum ina bīt majjāli liqbi-ka
“May[Aya your spo]use say to you in the bedchamber, [“Be appeased”] ”
Lambert, BWL 138:200 (last line of a long hymn to Šamaš: a manuscript has an Ashurbanipal colophone.

b. Aja kallātu rabîti ašibat bīt majjāli kajjanāmma panû-ka lišnamir ūmišam damiqta-a liqbi-ku
“Aja, the great bride (/daughter in law) who stays in the bedroom and constantly brightens your face, may she say you favorite (words) for me!”
VAB 4, 258 ii 20 (Nabonidus)

We see here that Tašmētu intercedes with Nabû, Zarpanītu with Marduk, and Aya with Šamaš, etc, on behalf of each goddesse’s royal devotee. Thus, the goddesses play an intermediary role between a human, generally the king (and/or his family), and the great god of the country.

The intercession of goddesses, as well some gods, between great gods and human beings has already been discussed extensively.[5] Some try to find a common aspect in the role the of goddesses I mentioned here, with the role of the famous goddess Ištar. I am not convinced in this view, since Ištar, from the third to the first millennium, has retained a major position with overwhelming power in the pantheon. She protects the king by her own will, and even if she intercedes for the king, she is standing before the chief gods of the pantheon or before the supreme divine council, that is to say, in a public place.

Other goddesses do not act so publicly. Tašmētu, for example, intercedes with her husband in her bedroom, a very private space. The wedding bed, though entirely private, was the place of her intercession, and so the place of her activities. In Assyro-Babylonian divine marriage rites of the first millennium, gods such as Nabû, Marduk, Šamaš, etc. were the main heroes, whereas the goddess were ranked second, as merely the spouse of a great god. However, the goddess played a significant role in the private sphere.

In examples given here, the main title of the goddesses is either hīrtu (=spouse: 1) 3) 4)) or kallātu (=bride or daughter-in-law: 5)). In example 2), Zarpanītu is depicted to as ina urši bīt hammūti “in [the] bed of the family master’s house”. These Akkadian words are explained in the Chicago Assyrian Dictionaries (here abbreviated as CAD) as follows:

hīrtu : wife of equal status with the husband. […] In speaking of the wives of gods, hīrtu is preferred to aššatu/altu (CAD H: 200a-201b).

kallātu: daughter-in-law, wife of a son living in his father’s household, bride, sister-in-law […]The word denotes a young woman who was acquired by the master of a household as a wife for his son living in this household (CAD K: 79a-82b).

hammūtu: a status of head of the family (CAD H 69b-70a).

Using these explications, we can understand that each of these goddesses was considered to be the (main) wife in a big and divine household. Her status might not be exactly equal to that of her husband, but she had her own firm position in the household. Her status was appreciated to a certain degree in the household as well as in the society.

Ancient Mesopotamia, especially in the post-Sumer period, was a male-dominated world. The possibilities for women were limited both in society as well as in the family. However, as the second-ranking person, she was efficient in her private area, especially in the bedroom. A goddess, who was the first wife of a chief god, could offer suggestions to her husband and act as an intermediary between a god and a human being. In particular, she could request of the great god, her husband, much benevolence for the king, his land, and his people.

From this feature which can be seen in the religious sphere, we may imagine the actual roles of women in the mortal societies of Mesopotamia, especially upper classes in the society.

2.2 An episode in the Gilgamesh Epic: standard version, tablet XI.

I would like to add here one more example of a woman who got her husband to change his mind. In the Gilgamesh Epic, the hero, being shocked by the death of his friend Enkidu, went on a long journey in order to meet Uta-Napishti who had survived the Flood and remained alive in a distant place. When he finally found Uta-Napishti, Gilgamesh asked him how to obtain eternal life. However, failing to pass a test (he could not stay awake for six nights and seven days), Uta-Napishti tried to make him go back to his natal city. However, Uta-Napishti’s wife (marhītu), feeling pity for Gilgamesh asked her husband to help once more that unhappy young man. Following her intervention, Uta-Napishti decided to disclose a secret to Gilgamesh: a plant of life that can be found in the bottom of Apsu, i.e. the deep underground water (tab. XI 273 ff.). Gilgameš then went on to find the plant and take it back with him to his city, Uruk. As you well know, however, he lost it just before his arrival due to his own inattention.

 The central point of importance for this episode is that Uta-Napishti suddenly and easily changed his mind, just after his wife criticized his initial decision.

3.   Royal women in Sargonic Assyria

During the long history of Mesopotamia, there were some women whose activities are recorded in written materials. Recent studies on palace women in the Neo-Assyrian period have given us a new view of women in the royal court including queens.[6] For instance, eleven names of principal wives (MÍ.É.GAL/ MÍ/KUR=sēgallu) from the ninth to the seventh century BCE are known, including Sammuramat and Naquia/Zakutu as the most well known. Let us take a brief look at them.

Sammuramat was the wife of Šamši-Adad V (823-811 BCE) and mother of Adad-nerari III (810-783). We know of four public monuments on which the name Sammuramat is clearly inscribed: two statues found in the Nabû Temple at Kalhu, a boundary stone erected in southeastern Turkey, and a large limestone stele placed among the monuments at Assur. On the top of the limestone stele, a text is engraved in which she is called kallāt Šulmanu-šarru, “daughter-in-law” of Shalmaneser (858-824 BCE).[7] All of these four monuments date during the reign of Adad-nerari III.[8] The inscription on the boundary stone explains that Sammuramat accompanied her son on a military campaign, and documents indicate that she was an important and powerful person in the Assyrian government, at least during the reign of Adad-nerari III. It is highly probable that she acted as regent for her son at the beginning of his reign. However, we know almost nothing about her position and power during the reign of her husband. Perhaps she was already appreciated as kallātu of the father of Šamši-Adad V.

In later times myths and legends around her were invented, and Greek and Roman writers composed stories in which classical Semiramis was the heroine.

Another famous royal woman, Naquia/Zakutu, became a wife of Sennacherib (704-681 BCE), probably while he was still the crown prince. Nothing is known about her until 683 BCE when her son Esarhaddon was nominated as crown prince. It is well known that Esarhaddon was the youngest son of Sennacherib, and that there was a serious succession conflict before and after the death of Sennacherib between Esarhaddon and his brothers; we also know that Sennacherib was murdered by one or several of his sons certainly because of that conflict. It seems that during his reign, another palace lady, Tašmetum-šarrat, was the first queen whereas Naquia was just one of other wives.[9] Since the coronation of Esarhaddon (681-669 BCE), however, she became the ummi šarri (MÍ.AMA.MAN or AMA.LUGAL), “Queen Mother,” and was sometimes present in public places, especially during religious activities. The fact that some high-ranked officials sent letters directly to her indicates that she maintained great power and efficiency in the royal court, but we do not know exactly what kind of power she had. Her titles were sēgallu, ummi šarri as we have just seen above, and kallātu (MÍ.É.GI₄.A) Šarru-ukin.[10] Naquia/Zakutu was an extraordinary queen, and a unique woman in the long history of Mesopotamia. S. C. Melville has suggested that it was Esarhaddon’s own idea to bring her to power. When Esarhaddon died, she forced all Assyrian high officials to take an oath of loyalty, the so-called Zakutu treaty (ABL 1239 + JCS 39, 189), on behalf of her grandson Ashurbanipal (668-631 BCE), the youngest among his brothers, on his coronation. A woman intervening thus in political affairs using her own name and will was a unique and unparalleled event.

In the cases of both Sammuramat and Naquia, the women obtained and maintained power as the mothers of kings, acting always as “Queen Mother.” One bronze relief shows Naquia depicted with his son Esarhaddon. Indeed, in analyzing her role we see her essentially as a mother loyal to her son, making her able to take advantage of her position.

Libbali-šarrat, the principal wife of Ashurbanipal, on the other hand, is a queen depicted with her husband in a bas-relief, and it is her position as wife and not mother that is of central importance. In the well-known garden scene from the North Palace Nineveh, she is seated facing the king who is reclining on a coach: both are drinking, beer or wine, in order to celebrate the victory over the Elamites. The depicted banquet certainly took place in the queen’s residence, thus in a private domain in the royal palace. In the depiction she is present as a partner of the king, even if the king is above her in the royal family’s hierarchy. It is worthy of notice that she behaves in the image as a spouse, not as a mother. In a letter written some years ago by a sister of Ashurbanipal, Šerua-eţerat, Libbali-šarrat is described: “You are a daughter-in-law (kallātu), the lady of the house of Assurbanipal, the crown prince of Esarhaddon.”[11]

4.   Temporary observations

Having thus seen some examples of the attributes of women in high classes, from goddesses to royal ladies in first millennium Mesopotamia, we can observe that in religious spheres, goddesses were expected to play the role of interceder with her divine husband on behalf of her devotees. This act always took place in a private space. We understand also that her efficiency depends on her position as hirtu and kallātu. In one legendry epic, Uta-Napishti’s wife –marhītu–got him to change his mind. Thus, in the religious or mythic domain, women could play an important role as adviser to her husband as well as interceder on behalf of her devotees.

Then we looked at examples of famous royal women in the Assyrian court of the first millennium: queens whose deeds or memories are recorded. From the available documents and other materials, we cannot construct a complete image of their activities, and cannot understand all of their roles in society. Nevertheless, we have seen that the system of the household has much to do with their status. We found one keyword: kallātu. This Akkadian term is, as we have seen above, understood as “a young woman who was acquired by the master of a household as a wife for his son living in this household.” So, I will turn to an analysis of the meaning(s) and function(s) of kallātu, in order to discern some further aspects of women’s role in the family as well as in the society of Mesopotamia.

Workshop n° 1 (Nanterre, novembre 2012): Femmes et économie en Mésopotamie antique: le cadre domestique

Workshop n° 2 (Tokyo, juin 2013): Le rôle économique des femmes dans l’espace public en Mésopotamie: de l’atelier au marché (1)

Workshop n° 3 (Carqueiranne, septembre 2013): Le rôle économique des femmes dans l’espace public en Mésopotamie: de l’atelier au marché (2)

Workshop n° 4 (Tokyo, mai 2014): Femmes et Patrimoine: Constitution, conservation et transmission des biens familiaux

Colloque final (Nanterre, novembre 2014): Travail et société: la part du féminin