The role of women in the domestic economy
of the neo-Babylonian period
Francis JOANNÈS
Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne University
UMR 7041-ArScAn (CNRS)
PLAN
1. Women and production
a) A collective mode of management
b) Everyday production
2. What degree of autonomy?
a) Autonomy or delegation of management?
b) Internal household hierarchy
3. An economy of single-women?
a) Accidental marginalisation: widows
b) Professional marginalisation: prostitutes and female innkeepers
Assessing women’s role in the economy of private households during the neo-Babylonian period
amounts to attempting a reconstruction of the mechanisms which governed neo-Babylonian society. The
condition of women during this period has already been treated, but the economic situation of women
should be investigated according to other criteria and according to other answers than those habitually put
forward, where we usually depart from contracts in which women feature in order to analyse their
situation. In this way, we quickly become confined to reconstructing dowries, their uses (loans, purchase
of slaves), their transmission, and women’s rights on family assets as well as the way women can operate
as vectors for their transmission.
For the 1st millennium, this historiographical aspect was mainly treated by M. Roth, partially by
K. Abraham, H. Baker, C. Waerzeggers and C. Wunsch, and by B. Lesko and E. Specht in two general
studies1. Other assessments are melted in syntheses more general in scope such as M. Dandamaiev’s work
on slaves.
Of course, we should not make sources say more than what they attest to, and here we typically
find ourselves taking an ‘oblique’ approach since what interests us (the part women played in household
economic activities) is not documented as such. We more or less know the legal status which governed
asset transmissions at the time of marriages, inheritance, donations. But it seems there was no particular
reason for the activities specific to women, and especially the manner in which women controlled these
activities, to warrant a written record in the private domestic economy. Archeologically, it is also very
difficult to recognise or identify the spheres of women’s activities. One must therefore assemble the
meagre clues available for this period, based on questions which give these clues meaning. There are two
fundamental questions:
1) what were women’s activities in the house, that is to say, what part did they play in the
οἰκονοµία “household management”?
1
See the “neo-Babylonian bibliography” in the bibliography collection gathered for the “REFEMA” project. The
transcriptions of texts presented here in translation are available in an online annex on the project’s dedicated
website.
1
2) what kind of autonomy did women enjoy in the management of household resources? This
autonomy existed in relation to the husband, to the in-law family, and finally in relation to society,
locally. We only find very rare examples showing for certain that women took charge of responsibilities
left to them by their husbands because of illness2.
3) are there women who fully manage their household? And up to what degree of independence
may they go within their contemporary society?
It is certain that the “house” is a privileged space in which women’s activities take place and it is
rare, in an urban family’s daily life, to find a woman going outside alone. Even activities such as fetching
water or going to market areas probably meant that women left the house in a group because the street
was not without danger for a woman alone. An atypical but revealing text reports an incident said to have
occurred in the middle of the street in Babylon under Nabonidus’ reign: two witnesses swear under oath
that:
“(qu'ils ont vu) le 14 Nisan (de l'an 11), un individu retenir de force une femme et la contraindre
à entrer dans une maison située dans la ruelle du fils de Zannā, à côté de la maison de Nabû-uballiṭ fils de
Bēl-šar-uṣur, qu'ils ont entendu les cris de protestation de la femme et de la jeune esclave qui
l'accompagnait, et que c'est bien de force qu'elle a été emmenée dans cette maison”3.
1. Women and production
The case of Tappašar
We can begin our investigation with the very enlightening dossier gathered by H. Baker in
Nappāḫū, p. 000, with texts 35-40. These dealt with resolving relations between Iddin-Nabû and the
widow of his adoptive father, Tappašar wife of Gimillu. According to H. Baker’s plausible
reconstruction, Gimillu was physically diminished a short time before his death, which led Iddin-Nabû to
take over his financial affairs and estate, and to use as residence, for himself and for the couple GimilluTappašar, a house pledged against a loan of money. After the death of Gimillu, a first payment is
exchanged between Iddin-Nabû and Tappašar following which they remain living in the same house, but
each in a different wing. In this regard, Tappašar swears an oath that she would only take for her private
use a specific number of household objects and furniture (text n°33). A second document (n°34 = VS 6
246) lists what is undoubtedly the totality of the household furniture: this text thus constitutes a form of
post-mortem inventory and is particularly interesting as it is one of the rare cases where we find the entire
household furniture and daily objects listed4.
Yet, when comparing the two lists, the furniture left at the disposal of Tappašar and the overall
inventory, we see that the widow only keeps for herself furniture for which she will have personal use, at
the exclusion of everything that can be used for preparing food, other than a brazier. The most logical
conclusion is that she was not taking care of this preparation and possibly, one or more of Iddin-Nabû’s
servants5 took care of preparing food for the whole household.
2
Baker, Nappāḫu p. 32
Jursa 2000, p. 498-499 (BM 64153 = Bertin 1446).
4
We will see below that dowry inventories are selective and do not necessarily list all the household furniture.
5
It is almost excluded that it would be Iddin-Nabû’s wife, Ina-Esagil-ramat, because she came from a social rank
which allowed her to not undertake certain tasks.
3
2
Summary table of objects and furniture available in the house of Gimillu
(the furniture kept by Tappašar is in bold):
AKKADIAN
eršu ša musukkannu
šupal šēpe
eršu ša giškìm
arannu ša giškìm
mušāḫḫinu ša 0,0.3 (= 18 litres)
mušāḫḫinu ša talammu (= between 6 and 10 litres ?)
Kasu
Mukarrīšu
baṭû
dug ha-aṣ!-ba-tu ……
Namzītu
Kankannu
ḫuttu
namḫāru
na4-har + na4 narkabu
Kussu
Littu
šāšitu (3 kg!)
ENGLISH
bed
footstool
bed
coffer
brazier
brazier
drinking cup
oil-vessel
tray
pitcher (for beer)
fermenting vat
pot stand
jar / storage vessel
sort of crater
complete grinding stone
chair
stool
lantern
MATERIAL
QUANTITY
wood
wood
wood
wood
bronze
bronze
bronze
bronze
bronze
clay
clay
wood
clay
clay
stone
wood
wood
iron
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
20
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
1
We thus find a coherent set listed for the preparation and consumption of cereal-based foods, of
meat and vegetables (millstone, brazier(s), oil-vessel, bowl) and of alcoholic beverages (fermenting vat,
crater, pitcher, drinking cup). We also note that the preparation of the household food is very probably
taken care of collectively, by one or several individuals.
During the Seleucid period6 still, a husband’s donation to his spouse comprises the items and
furniture pieces she will need (YOS 20 n°20, ll. 10-12), but inversely to the previous case, he leaves at
her disposal three essential items with which to prepare food:
giš-šub-ba é du-ú-du zabar mu-kar-riš zabar u na4-har-har mu-meš
“la prébende, la maison, la marmite-dūdu de bronze7, l'huilier-mukarrišu de bronze et les (deux) meules (…)”
a) A collective mode of management
It is undoubtedly on this aspect of collective domestic-production that we should focus. When
gathering and analysing textual data which documents the family in Babylonia, precedence is usually
given to its nuclear shape, that is, to consider that the household’s basic unit is made of the husband, his
wife, and their children. Clearly, we must enlarge and modify this basis, to take into account that there
often are one or several servile female domestics who work under the orders of the “lady of the house”.
Even in non-urban families, or families belonging to social categories unable to own a slave or slaves, the
household unites several family nuclei operating as one, and based on vertical relations (grandparents/parents/children) or horizontal relations (brothers and sisters).
The “domestic transition”
This hypothesis of a fundamentally collective mode of operating within the house finds
confirmation it seems to me, in the data provided by marriage contracts listing dowries. Following M.
6
The text is dated year 41 of the Seleucid period, 270 BC.
dūdu is understood in the dictionaries as a “kettle”. It can be placed on a naḫmaṣu, understood as a “support” (CAD
N1 140), but it is more akin to an apparatus used to move the (hot?) kettle, as per the basic meaning of ḫamāṣu “to
tear away”.
7
3
Roth’s enlightening analysis, 1989/1990, we note that young wives may be accompanied in wealthy
families by one or more female domestics, often specifically given to them by a member of their family
of origin such as the mother, maternal and paternal grand-mother, or an aunt. According to M. Roth, this
is to facilitate the “domestic transition”, to keep the young bride linked to her original human
environment, so that she is not “absorbed” by a new family structure in which her mother-in-law and/or
sisters-in-law are in a position of strength. Clearly, this would also be a way to build a work-force capable
of responding to all the house needs, ensuring that not everything rests on a wife’s sole charge. We must
also imagine that there were certainly many variations of these situations, from a group made of a bride
accompanied by one female servant only, up to a group of women (in the most collective forms of
households) made of the wives of the various male members of the family, of their sisters, and each of
their female servants, this whole falling under the authority and management of the mother of the family.
De facto, the traditional urban society operates on the basis of concentric circles starting from the
immediate family, then relatives and neighbours, according to a similar structure so well illustrated by
traditional Mediterranean societies8. On this basis, we can therefore better understand how property
goods may be claimed by the family community broadly defined and referred to as the kimtu, nešūtu,
sallatu9.
The composition of dowries
The second point worthy of note is that for dowries in general we only see listed what may be of
interest to the husband or the in-law family. These dowries, as M. Roth shows, clearly fall within three
categories:
a) items of inheritance: agricultural land, house, slaves
b) prestige-possessions: luxury clothing, jewellery and precious metal, furniture sets
c) specific domestic-life items
but some assets have an intermediate function: thus, domestic slaves are at once an item of inheritance
and a domestic help in the house. As M. Roth10 notes, a husband can convert a slave into money, or most
often, money into a slave, she indeed notes11 that the additional donations of slaves made to the bride by
the mother, maternal grand-mother, paternal aunt, paternal grand-mother, always consist of a female
slave12. Precious metal is at once a prestige-possession and an item of inheritance, while naturally some
prestige-possessions are used in everyday life (furniture in semi-precious wood).
But, with the exception of the ‘post-mortem inventory’ mentioned above, dowries’ furniture
inventories should not be taken as exact reflections of all furniture items in the house. In the case of
furniture, we shall note the fact that as well as furniture made of semi-precious wood, there certainly were
also furniture made of palm-tree wood and reeds but never cited, just as mats, chests, cots, baskets which
were very much part of the contemporary Mesopotamian environment13.
Apprenticeship contracts
Other information is provided by the apprenticeship contracts we find in neo-Babylonian
documents, and they often concern slaves (but not exclusively). The latest study on this point is that of J.
Hakl in JURSA 2005, p. 700sq. Hackl lists 34 apprenticeship contracts between the reign of Kandalānu
and the Seleucid period. Based on the distribution this study provides14, we can propose a list based on
another sorting principle, distinguishing between:
8
For example in neighbours’ circles, in the semi-urban societies of Southern Italy in medieval and modern times
(“vicinato”).
9
This point has been analysed in detail in Y. Watai’s doctoral thesis, p. 000-000.
10
Roth 199o, p. 13.
11
Roth 199o, p. 15, and specifically developed with regard to the sex-linked dowry, p. 36.
12
“these slaves are part of a female-to-female donation, (…) and are specifically intended to facilitate the wife's
adjustment to her new home and circumstances”.
13
See as early as 1978 with N. Postgate’s article in Archéologie de l'Iraq, p. 000.
14
Hackl 2005, p. 705-707.
4
– Professions related to specialised craftsmanship (barber, jeweller, builder, carpenter-engraver, smith,
potter, leather-worker, reed-worker and mat-weaver), 11 occurrences in all;
– Professions related to food craftsmanship (cook/baker and flour manufacturer): 8 occurrences;
– Professions related to textile craftsmanship (launderer, manufacturer of lamḫuššu-garments, weaver,
weaver of multi-coloured textiles, sack-maker): 7 occurrences;
– Professions not related to craftsmanship (rat-catcher, actor/dancer, singer): 3 occurrences;
– unspecified (or broken): 5 occurrences.
Apart from this last sub-category, we notice that professions linked to food preparation and
textile manufacture add up to a little more than half. They include seven cooks/bakers, two weavers and
two launderers. In all cases, the apprentices are men, and 6 out of the 7 apprentice-cook are slaves, while
for textile related apprenticeships, the apprentices seem to be freemen.
We can therefore ask ourselves if they are slaves to whom a skill is taught so that they will run a
shop autonomously or if rather, this is the optimisation of the internal economic organisation of a ‘large’
urban-household? It would appear that from a certain social level, the “lady of the house” frees herself
from tasks she directly took care of or in collaboration with others, or which she managed, to then hand
these over to a specialised technician. If the technical aspects, perhaps even mercantile, probably weighed
more for the treatment of fabrics, we wonder if the employment of a specialised cook was not also a
question of prestige. However we must admit that the documentation is not very explicit on this point. We
note nonetheless that when a technical specialisation occurs, it leads to the use of a man. It is also not
excluded that some of these specialists (in particular cooks/bakers) maintain a shop attached to, or
inserted in the house’s structure to which they are affiliated15.
This kind of subcontracting is only encountered at this level of specialisation, in upper urban
families and we can guess that in this case the lady of the house will attain other activities. The next line
of inquiry should be: does this situation afford her increased personal autonomy. But we evidently have
very little information regarding leisure or social activities16.
We will therefore note C. Waerzeggers’ pertinent remarks concerning washing activities:
“It is generally assumed that families of means owned a small number of domestic slaves who worked in the
household as nannies, kitchen maids, servants, cooks, house-keepers etc. We would be inclined to add ‘washermen,
or -women’ to this list.”17
In summary, from the professions represented and based on dowry lists also, we see two major
sectors appearing where women domestic activities operate: the preparation of food and the confection of
fabrics for clothing. But—and this point is particularly important to underline—these activities are not
individualised, they involve working in a group according to a collective mode of operation and
occupation of specific spaces in the house. If female autonomy exists in the exercise of these tasks, it is a
collective autonomy and this will not preclude the presence of an internal hierarchy between the different
women of the house, a hierarchy which could be quite marked.
b) Everyday production
Food and clothing are two identifiable sectors. We will present them henceforth. The first sector
is tied to certain forms of occupying domestic space, in particular areas where it is possible to cook: P.
Miglus thus records18 three types of apparatus, present either in the internal courtyard, or in an adjoining
room: an oven, a tannour, and a hearth located on the very floor. The second sector is more difficult to
15
See Y. Watai’s doctoral thesis, p. 000.
Eventually, popular literature (in particular satirical literature: see a text published by A. Cavigneaux on “the
Rake's progress”) which can give some clues.
17
WAERZEGGERS 2006, p. 95.
18
MIGLUS 1999, p. 197-198 and Table 32.
16
5
localise, but it is not impossible that certain rooms P. Miglus calls “Gegenzimmer”, which are large areas
opening directly onto the courtyard by one or several entrances reserved for this type of activity19.
The house, the very sphere of neo-Babylonian women’s economic activities, is in fact not a static
space. As C. Castel remarks (Castel 1992, p. 98):
“Il est très vraisemblable finalement que le «temps de la vie quotidienne et la succession des situations selon les
heures de la journée, (aient) modelé les lieux de la maison (néo-assyrienne et néo-babylonienne), les affectant de
fonctions successives, au gré des circonstances, tandis que la destination de certaines pièces rest(ait) constante», selon
le même principe que celui que l'on retrouve dans certaines maisons contemporaines. Les déplacements quotidiens ou
la fixation temporaire d'une activité en un lieu précis de l'habitation pourrait s'expliquer notamment par la chaleur, le
froid, l'ombre, la lumière. (…) La maison paraît avoir été vécue comme un ensemble organique multifonctionnel.”
Food Production
As generally illustrated by the items cited in dowry lists, food production is first to do with the
preparation of bread and of the alcohol of fermented dates 20 . It is interesting to note that this
specialisation in the preparation of beer made of dates is a woman’s activity and texts concerning taverns
confirm this. The women who manage them indeed also prepare beer made of dates. However, the letter
YOS 21 151 by Šum-ukīn to Ea-ušallim shows that the preparation of superior quality beer, beer made of
barley, is more of a male activity21.
The other activity, more predictable, is milling and preparing food whose base is cereals.
Curiously, while we find mentions of mills only in old-Babylonian dowry texts, we only rarely find them
in the 1st millennium. There is probably no change of technology, but a transformation of the market
which meant that the access to mill-stones became more common. Excavations have not unearthed
sufficient evidence to ascertain their presence as a basic item of domestic activity22.
We otherwise remark that this female specialisation only holds for the private sphere. We know
that in neo-Babylonian temples the role of women in the process of skilled-production was restricted23.
C. Waerzeggers’ recent study confirms this with regard to people in charge of milling grain to prepare
food offerings24:
“(…) we find slaves, free persons from little known families, as well as members from the established baker
clans in the milling houses. Despite these liberal rules of access, women played no part whatsoever in these activities,
indicating that gender restrictions on temple access were severe.”
To prepare oven-cooked bread loaves, an oven (tinūru) - a tannour-type oven - was most often
used, and identified on the open-roof spaces of several neo-Babylonian houses25. These ovens were also
used to prepare concoctions simmered in bronze pots and in clay recipients (texts do not mention these).
A grill of various types (kišukku, naṭilu) was also used and placed on the oven. The mention of a
brazier/stove (kinūnu) used as a radiator and as a portable oven is not attested in this type of documents
for the neo-Babylonian period. The work of women is therefore to mill or to crush grain, then to
19
In particular see MIGLUS 1999 p. 198.
For convenience, we will here keep the term “beer”, which does not very well fit the description of this fermented
drink, but the scholarly tradition is in the habit of using it.
21
Hackl, Jankovic, Jursa 2010, p. 216 n. 28:3-10 “(…) Fais macérer les 10 kurru ((= 1800 l.) de dattes pour faire de
la bière claire (pīṣu); on a fourni pour cela 30 jarres-dannu; s'il y a manque de cruches-haṣbātu, donne des dattes à
Nabû-taqbi-līšir, pour qu'il les entrepose en ville et se charge de les faire macérer. (Mais) commence à faire macérer
tout ce qu'il y a en plus (des 10 kurru) et fournis les dattes et l'épice-kasu”.
22
Castel 1993, p. 84.
23
JOANNES 19oo (Femmes des grands organismes)
24
WAERZEGGERS 2010, p. 234. On the participation of women, in general, to cultic activities, very restricted in the 1st
millennium, see ibid. p. 49-51.
25
See however Castel 1993’s reference, p. 95: “(…) les aménagements liés au feu ne sont pas nécessairement
installés dans les espaces à l'air libre. (…) Les “cuisines” sont aussi bien de grands espaces que de petits, quelle que
soit la taille des maisons”.
20
6
transform it in diverse preparations and to cook it, possibly with an accompaniment of meat and
vegetables, boiled or grilled. As for beer, it was a matter of preparing the date-base mix to be fermented
then to filter it and stock the content in jars ready for consumption. A part of this beer could be
commercialised.
All this is documented in contemporary epistolary literature:
CT 22 n. 40 (letter from Ardi-Bēl to his spouse Epirtu)
ll. 6-10 ……lìb-bu-ú-a il-ṣi ki-i te-re-’e en-na dìb-bi x x [ o o o ] kaš bi-šu-’u-a 1 ma-na kù-babbar bi in-ni-i
“ …mon coeur s'est réjoui de te savoir enceinte. Maintenant, l'affaire [………], ma bière de mauvaise qualité, vendsla, s'il te plaît, pour 1 mine d'argent” (Jursa’s interpretation p. 222)
JURSA 2010 p. 223 mentions the slave couple Nabû-utēr and Mīṣatu, owned by Egibi, who
brewed, sold beer, and generated several dozens of silver in profit in one year, and handed it to their
owner.
Nbn 815, ll. 15-21
“2 mines 15 sicles d'argent comptabilisés depuis le mois d'Ulūlu de l'an 13 (de Nabonide), (plus) 16 sicles d'argent
précédent, argent qui s'ajoute lui-même aux 1/3 de mine 4 sicles d'argent précédents de Nabû-utīri et sa femme
Mīṣatu; 50 jarres de bière de bonne qualité de l'an 13. Total: 2 mines 55(!) sicles 1/2 d'argent et 50 jarres de bière de
bonne qualité, se trouvent chez Nabû-utīri, sans compter les jarres vides et le mobilier.”
If women generally control these culinary preparations, how do they get access to raw food
products26 ? Neo-Babylonian letters show that some women receive or give instructions to pick and
redistribute meat or the yield of harvests:
NBB 149 (instructions for Belit on how to operate the distribution of the house’s harvest of dates and
barley):
NBB 151 letter to a woman mentioning a delivery of barley
Lettre de Nabû-zēr-ušabši27 à Šikkū, mon épouse. Puissent Bēl et Nabû prononcer le bien-être physique et moral
de mon épouse! Ça va bien pour moi, et ça va bien pour Bēl-iddin. Vois: j'ai écrit à Iddin-Marduk, fils d'Iqīšaia: il va
te donner 10 gur d'orge. Ne néglige rien de ce qui concerne la maison! Je suis abattu: prie les dieux en ma faveur! Et
qu'une nouvelle de toi m'arrive rapidement par n'importe quel messager!
WAERZEGGERS 2001 n. 18 mentions the creation of a business company based on silver and empty jars to
make and sell beer of dates, where revenues are used to feed the family and the personnel of Bēl-iddin’s
household.
ll. 14-15 (…) l'épouse de Bêl-iddin et ses filles tireront leur nourriture de l'association commerciale; les domestiques
de la maison de Bêl-iddin travailleront au service de l'association commerciale et tireront leur nourriture de
l'association commerciale
dam Iden-mu u dumu-mí-šú-meš ninda-há ina kaskalII ik-ka-lu!(RI) lú un-meš é šá Iden-mu na-áš-par-tu4 šá
kaskalII-šú-nu il-la-ku ninda-há ina kaskalII ik-ka-lu!(RI)
On this topic, the information we can extract from these texts remains rather meagre as a whole.
The question of storing spaces and their management in the domestic sphere should constitute the subject
26
A very interesting mention is found in a text published by C. Wunsch (BA 2 n. 17): a woman, Gagaia, buys bread
there, “at the door of the bakers’ house” (1 qa ninda-há šá ká é lú mu-meš) and beer “at the door of the brewers’
house” (1 qa kaš-sag šá ká é lú lunga-meš). We could interpret this as a reference to shops where these products are
sold, but the general context and these parallel-mentions rather orient us towards the temple’s prebends and
workshops’ system.
27
See Wunsch, Iddin-Marduk, n. 93. Same individuals?
7
of further studies. Similarly, water access is practically undocumented: who draws water and where? Is it
an activity for which only specific individuals are responsible?28 In fact, only archaeology enables us to
identify jars on supports which must have been used for the household’s daily water needs: for drinking,
but also for food preparation and for ablutions. In addition, as C. Castel remarks29: “L'absence totale de
citerne, la rareté des adductions d'eau et des puits conduit à penser, dans la plupart des cas, que le
ravitaillement en eau se faisait “à la main”, au cours d'eau le plus proche, ce qui ne laisse pas d'étonner
quand on songe au raffinement de certains aménagements.”
Textile production
The second craft is related to textile, and involves a whole series of operations beginning from
the preparation of wool, to spinning and weaving. However there are practically no mentions of the
instruments used for this activity: spindles, looms, weights are not mentioned30, while household textile
production is written about on several occasions:
The letter NBB 226, between two women, concerns wool (to be treated?):
Lettre de Qutnānu à Inṣabtu, ma soeur. Puissent Bēl et Nabû décréter santé et bien-être de ma soeur! Vois: je t'ai
envoyé mon garant avec 4 mines de laine. Tu la mesureras et [… reste cassé…]
The sari’am and the karballatu 31 are the items of production the most susceptible to be
distributed or sold outside of the household. The sari’am is evidently an outer garment worn outside, and
could likely have been opened (a type of kaftan) or closed (a type of djellaba or dichdacha). The data
gathered in JURSA 2010 shows that private business companies distribute the textile produced by families.
In this case, the economic activity of women in the household goes beyond simple family needs and
touches on the sphere of business economy.
We will thus note in JURSA 2010, p. 221:
“In NBC 6189 from the Ṣāhit-ginê B archive, one reads of a female worker's spinning duties which are
supervised by the wife of one of the archive's chief protagonists, Ninurta-ahu-uṣur. This must refer to work for the
family's trading business which was done by women weaving and spinning from their home. Since the temple
archives also refer to women weaving and spinning in their homes, one can assume that this was a typical
arrangement rather than an exceptional one.”
We also find gulēnu-garments32. Widows looked after by the temple of Šamaš at Sippar must
weave three of them per year, according to text Dar. 4333, ll. 2'-8':
(…) au 1er du mois de Tašrītu de l'an 2, à l'exclusion des 19 membres d'équipe, [ils ont été remis(?)] à Šamašiddin; aucune des femmes [= les veuves] n'aura le droit de résider auprès d'un mār banî, ni de donner fils ou fille en
adoption à un mār banî. Parmi elles, Idintu, Mistaia et Bazītu devront donner chaque année 3 habits-gulēnu, en tâche
assignée (iškaru) à Šamaš, réalisée par leurs propres soins; elles n'auront pas le droit de s'installer dans une autre ville
(…)
The garments mentioned in dowries are either everyday clothes (in quantities that can be
substantial: up to 20), or luxury clothing. Text TBER n. 00, nonetheless mentions a túg kirku ša ina bīti
maḫṣu “a roll of fabric which was woven in the home”.
28
Biblical texts are more explicit on this matter: see the story of the Jacob’s marriage in Harran.
Castel 1992, p. 83.
30
See L. Quillien’s master 2 dissertation. Tamaris wood is mentioned to manufacture looms.
31
See JURSA 2010, p. 221: “The karballatu cap is a headgear typically worn by soldiers”, and with regard to FLP 667
(note 1273): “In this case, 240 caps are bought, or manufactured, for one mina of silver”.
32
CDA 96a: an over-garment.
33
collations by M. Roth in RA 82 p. 136 note 17.
29
8
Fibers other than wool are seldom documented in private contexts: it is nonetheless possible that
linen spinning and weaving did exist34, but it remains impossible to know if this crafts activity only
served for private needs or also served for sanctuaries.
Similarly, the treatment and storing of garments have left few traces in written documents35. A
promissory note in the archive of Egibi (Nbn 340) stipulates that in exchange of 30 shekels of silver as
loan for a month, the debtor Nabû-aḫḫē-iddin will make available his servant Šalmu-dīninni, a washerwoman (pu-ṣa-’i-i-tu4). The contract does not provide for an interest payment and the work of the washerwoman is estimated to be worth 1/2 silver-shekel per month, that is 6 shekels per year.
Finally, if we understand that what constitutes rations for daily maintenance (epru, piššatu,
lubuštu) comes from domestic crafts, and therefore passes through women’s hands, we could consider
that oil fabrication also falls within their competence: sesame oil is extracted (boiled and not pressed) and
used for personal care, applied directly36 or used to make a kind of soap. It was enough to mix oil and
clay to the cinders of soda plants (salicornia and soda) which grow easily on saline grounds37.
Table of attested female craftsmanship activities (private and professional context)
ACTIVITY
weaver išparu
launderer puṣayu
washer-man/-woman ašlāku
cook nuḫatimmu
perfumer muraqqu
brewer sirāšu
innkeeper/beer merchant sābû
butcher ṭābiḫu
grinder ṭē’inu
MALE
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
oil-presser ṣāḫitu
gardner/arboriculturist
nukarribu
doctor asū
poultry-keeper usandu
basket-maker atkuppu
mat-weaver paqqu
musician/singer naru
mid-wife
yes
yes
FEMALE
yes (išpartu)
yes (pūṣa’ītu)
no
no (Mari only)
yes (muraqqītu in the palace of Babylon)
no (not after Nuzi, sirāšītu)
oui sābītum (but not domestic)
no
yes (ṭē’intu/ṭē’ittu or ararratu but not attested as such!)
mí-meš ša qēme i-ṭe4-en-na-a’ Bongenaar Ebabbar p. 113
no (1 attestation nA ṣaḫittu)
no (1 attestation OB nukarribatu)
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
–
no (1 attestation OB mí a-zu)
no
no
no
no (nartu)
yes (šabsūtu: NBC 4787 cf. JURSA 2005 p. 632 and note 3346)
Are there women specialist-professions?
JURSA 2010 p. 727-728 considers that a large part of production was externalised and monetised
in the neo-Babylonian period, including everyday life products. There is a strong work-specialisation
which enabled skilled-workers to live from their production, and which functioned according to a
34
L. Quillien in his master 2’s dissertation thus mentions one(!) example of flax cultivated by private individuals.
This archive was studied by WAERZEGGERS 20oo
36
Sesame oil: an oil used for hair regrowth as it nourishes hair follicles and provides a suitable environment for it. It
contains linoleic acid (scientific name), who fights against dermatological diseases such as eczema, follicular
keratinization, and acts as sunscreen for the skin.
37
Forbes 1965 (Studies in Ancient Technologies tome III), p. 186: “In Mesopotamia, however, some kind of soap was
manufactured, certainly as early as the Ur III Period, when the Sumerians boiled oil and alkali together”.
35
9
“reciprocal exchange” system. This conclusion is drawn from the professional launderers’ dossier studied
by C. Waerzeggers38.
There still are a number of tasks fulfilled by women in the domestic sphere. But the further we
move away from the urban scape, the slimmer evidence becomes as regards to this specific female-labour
aspect. Often, we must proceed by analogy, based on the documentation of large temples, and we should
probably include in the women’s tasks category certain activities related to agricultural production or
assimilated ones: we do not find women working in fields as such, but the temple of the god Šamaš at
Sippar for example, employs a few women for the keeping or the acquisition of its poultry used for food
offerings39.
The richer the family, the more it uses specialised personnel. In this case, we have seen that
there is a migration of technical skills from the female sphere to the male sphere: large households have a
cook, specialists in various crafts who are house-based, and they probably have recourse to written
records for the management of their resources. In more complex cases, as for Egibi of Babylon’s family,
the family can be spread over several houses, and even over several towns. Thus the Egibi’s were present
in Babylon, but also in Borsippa and at Kiš, and their personnel it would seem circulated between three
urban centres.
Also, for families from the highest classes, we should envisage the possibility of specialised
female and male servants used for personal care needs, if we consider that the “divine court” of temples
could replicate not only the royal court, but also certain wealthy households: A. George40 mentions the
“Daughters of the Ezida” and the “Daughters of the Esagil”, who serve as hairdressers (ṣepirtu), and we
can imagine there are one or several barbers in this type of households.
The text YOS 6 5, dated 26-xii of Nabonidus’ inaugural year, in fact reports that Šum-ukīn, the
Farmer General of the Eanna of Uruk, acquired a slave-barber (lú qal-la lú šu-i) for 58 shekels of silver,
from a certain Nabû-mukīn-apli .
There are other women who perform specialised activities: as BE 8/1 47 and 000 (= ZAWADZKI
2010) demonstrate, wet-nurses contracts41 exist.
The text NBC 4787 from Uruk, cited in JURSA 2010 p. 632 and note 3346 is a rare text which
documents the economic aspect of childbirth:
ll. 5' (…) 0,0.3 zú-lum-ma a-na a-la-du šá míina-é-an-na-al-si-iš 0,0.1 zú-lum-ma egir-ú-tu ina igi mígu-gu-ú-a 0,1
munu4 0,1.2 še-bar la-bi-ri 4-tú a-na mí šab-su-tú
18 litres de dattes pour l'accouchement de Ina-Eanna-alsiš, 16 litres de dattes, fourniture supplémentaire, à la
disposition de Gugūa, 36 litres de malt, 48 litres d'orge des réserves, 1/4 de sicle d'argent pour la sage-femme…
BE 8 47 (cf. San Nicolo 1935 p. 22)
Urki-šarrat, fille de Nabû-nakuttu-alsi, allaitera en tant que nourrice la fille d'Ardiya, fils de Gimillu,
descendant d'Eppeš-ili, jusqu'à son sevrage. Chaque mois, Ardiya donnera à Nabû-nakuttu-alsi 1/3 de sicle d'argent.
Urki-šarrat n'aura pas le droit d'abandonner la fille d 'Ardiya; elle n'aura pas le droit d'aller dans un autre lieu jusqu'à
la fin du mois d'Ululu de l'an 6; Urki-šarrat allaitera la fille d'Ardiya à partir du 1er Tašrītu de l'an 5, [………] à la fin
du mois d'Ulûlu de l'an 6, Ardiya donnera à Nabû-nakuttu-alsi x sicles d'argent, valeur d'un habit (túg-kur-ra).
(3 témoins, 1 scribe. Babylone, le 28 Ulûlu de l'an 5 de Nabonide, roi de Babylone.
Fait en présence d'Equbuta, épouse de Nabû-nakuttu-alsi, mère d'Urki-šarrat. Courant jusqu'au Ier Nisannu ,
Nabû-nakuttu-alsi a reçu 2 sicles d'argent des mains d'Ardiya.
38
WAERZEGGERS 2006: RA 100, p. 83-96.
For a great majority of men however: see the cases of Bābāia, Ḫimmītu, Inbāia, Nādāia, Suddirtu, Šikkû mentioned
in JANKOVIC 2004.
40
George 2000 p. 295 “Presumably position of such goddesses in the divine courts was analogous with the situation
of young unmarried daughters in a human household”.
41
For royal nurses, see Evetts, Inscriptions, App. n. 2 = Graziani, n. 8: 6 gur še-bar šá míar-ti-im mu-še-ni-iq-tu4 šá
mí
it-ta-aḫ-šá-aḫ dumu-mí lugal (Xerxes inaugural year).
39
10
Two explanations are possible: the most probable is that we are dealing with a family of simple
private individuals where the daughter (-mother?)42 has just given birth. She is able to breastfeed the
daughter (unnamed) of Ardiya/Gimillu/Eppeš-ili during one year, but the transaction is concluded with
her parents and it is they who will receive her wage (the first six months of which will be made in one
payment). The other explanation is that this is the result of a relationship between Ardiya and the
daughter of a couple (of servile-status?): Ardiya recognises the child as his own, but legally recognises
the mother only as a nurse, and pays her in this quality (see CH 6 170 on recognising the children of
slaves).
<ajouter les contrats de C. Wunsch n°19-21>
In summary, the part played by women in the domestic economy appears to be fundamental as it
involves transforming a number of basic raw material into consumable goods, and ensuring the wellbeing of the house’s inhabitants, themselves more or less numerous. Depending on the social level and
the size of the family, tasks are relegated to a greater or lesser degree, completed by domestics or even
specialised slaves, thereby affording free-time to the lady of the house. But generally, we should imagine
the internal life of the house as that of a collective, and the structure of an isolated household is certainly
not, in this case, the image which best portrays the reality of women’s economic role.
2. What degree of autonomy?
a) Autonomy or delegation of management
Autonomous management? The case of Re’indu
Some women’s activity extends beyond this production’s narrow frame. They take charge, in
part, of receiving products and managing stocks. Sometimes they even manage regular payments, as
illustrated by the small dossier of Re’indu’s “archives”, where a woman gives orders for transfers and
sales under the reign of Xerxes. The archive’s general outline remains very difficult to grasp and it is
probable that several payments made or received by Re’indu are to be understood as prebend
management. But the fact remains that in this case, a woman is clearly involved in the movements of
precious metal themselves corresponding to payments.
VS 6 192
VS 6 303
VS 6 315
VS 6 317
VS 6 313
VS 4 202
VS 3 204
VS 4 193
VS 6 142
VS 6 191
VS 6 311
A 182
4927
4973
4982
4995
4996
4997
4998
5016
5017
5043
5048
OECT 12
798
854
862
863
860
793
790
574
597
797
859
f
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
Re’indu/Bazûzu ?
Re’indu/Bazûzu ?
f
Re’indu/Bazûzu ?
f
Re’indu/Bazûzu ?
f
Re’indu/Bazûzu ?
f
Re’indu/Bazûzu ?
f
Re’indu/Bazûzu ?
f
Re’indu/Bazûzu ?
f
Re’indu/Bazûzu ?
f
Re’indu/Bazûzu ?
f
Re’indu/Bazûzu ?
f
Re’indu/Bazûzu ?
f
Borsippa
?
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
Xerxes 01
Dar I 24
NR 01 (= Xerxes)
Nd
22-ii-Xerxes 2
The women in the text group of Nabû-ēṭir
We also note the particular situation of certain women shown in the dossiers of food-product
allocations, such as the one gathered by R. Zadok concerning Nabû-ēṭir43. It is a set of short notes, whose
provenance is presumably Borsippa, and records food supplies, bread and meat essentially, for private
42
43
See Stol, CM 14 p. 182, who understands this maybe a young widow.
ZADOK 2006 (“The Text Group of Nabû-eṭer” AfO 51 (2005-2006), pp.147-197).
11
individuals. Even if the context is most probably cultic, this dossier does not belong to the administration
of the Ezida as such, as C. Waerzeggers44 notes. We are probably within the sphere of private circuits of
food redistribution, food served or simply prepared as offering(s) to the gods and which primarily
concerns the temple’s prebend-owners.
We therefore see that next to a quasi-commercial cycle for meat, presented by C. Waerzeggers
for Borsippa (<reference>), there is another which deals with the redistribution and private exchanges,
and in which women intervene as beneficiaries or even as directors. We may suppose that some of them
are mentioned because they own prebends by name, prebends which provide food revenues. But it is not
excluded that women’s interventions reveal a form of right of say over the acquisition of food products
for the family community.
During the years 26 and 27 of Darius Ist, we see certain names reoccurring regularly: Amtiya,
Mullissu-iddin, Balāṭ-napišti(?),Mullissu-silim, Bānītu-ittiya. Some simply, and only, receive flour, bread
or meat45. Others (and often the same) transfer them themselves or via an intermediary whom they
instruct in writing or orally. Text 13 (BM 29309) records, very interestingly, the delivery on Nabû-eṭir’s
orders of a ṣibtu-bread by Bêl-eṭir to Mullissu-iddin in place of 22 shekels of wool.
We note in particular the non-negligible place that Amtiya holds as director46. This enables us to
link the letter CT 22 221 (same museum reference number) to this dossier, in which Amtiya tells Bēl-ēṭir
how to prepare food:
NBB 221:
Lettre d'Amtiya à Bēl-eṭir. Maintenant, lorsque tu l'auras sous la main, la viande qui est à ta disposition, ouvre47la et place-la dans du sel. Et si tu ne l'as pas sous la main à partir du 9ème jour, donne-la viande à Naṣir: que ce soit lui
qui (l')ouvre. Vois: c'est par l'intermédiaire d'Itti-Nabû-gūzu que je t'ai écrit.
But in the majority of cases, if the lady of the house is entitled to participate in the management,
it is most often following instructions from her husband. We find this illustrated in BIN 1 28 from
Uruk(?), a letter from Innin-eṭerat to Nabû-šum-ukīn, “her lord”. She informs him of the state of the
agricultural estate, and of the financial operations she is undertaking as per his instructions:
(ll. 26sq.) “ (…) à propos de ce que tu m'as écrit en ces termes: “J'ai laissé 5 sicles 1/2 d'argent dans la maison; il
y a aussi 1 sicle (de) [……]ia et 1/2 sicle (de) Nadin, fils de Nabû-zēr-ukīn, plus 3 sicles moins 1/4 d'argent, soit un
total de 10 sicles d'argent [que ……]… j'ai déposé” (…) 2 paires de chaussures et 2 bourses en cuir-parūtu de
………, voici que je les ai données en cadeau”
Legal autonomy?
Women’s legal autonomy in marriage is a study in itself, but it is certainly related to economic
autonomy. A question arises when a couple is formed: we know since M. Roth’s studies, that a spouse
has very little initiative in the conclusion of a marriage. After it, she is inserted in a family group, more or
less large, and organised along its own hierarchy (see below). Most often, she only exits a marriage
following the husband’s death. There are however a few rare cases of marriage dissolution, which were
analysed by C. Wunsch48: one following a broken promise of marriage (Wunsch BA 2 p. 40 n. 9), the
other is a real case of divorce (Wunsch BA 2 p. 32sq. n. 8).
We also find another aspect of a woman’s domestic autonomy in interventions concerning asset
management, especially dowry possessions. The most common situation is that of the male head of a
family, who takes charge of these possessions when a young bride enters the family: it could be her
44
WAERZEGGERS 2010, p. 000.
n. 54 (BM 29310), 148 (BM 96490), 149 (BM 29570), 150 (BM 29267).
46
Number 93 (BM 96543) is dated month i of year 27 of Darius 1st mentions Andiya, daughter of Ḫiptaia, but he is
not certain that it should all correspond to one person, since the name Amtiya/Andiya is very common.
47
šu-pal-li-ka (l. 6) and lu-šu-pal-li-ka (l. 14) are understood to be the 2nd person imperative of and a 3rd person
precative, singular, of napalkû in the 3rd stem, when we would expect là šupalkî and lišpalki.
48
<Reference>
45
12
father-in-law, her brother-in-law, or naturally her husband. C. Waerzeggers has demonstrated that these
administrators have complete authority in using dowry assets and there are cases where they have
squandered them49. We also observe that the wealthier the spouse, the higher degree of autonomy, and
numerous studies have shown a situation where a woman herself manages her own dowry assets or
together with members of her family of origin: the better known case is that of Ina-Esagil-ramat, wife of
Iddin-Nabu/Nappāḫu. We note in particular the presence of female slaves called mulugu, a category who,
M. Roth50 has shown, can be used by the husband (in particular as a debt pledge), but these women and
their eventual descendants remain the property of the wife as per her dowry entitlement.
We will not fully treat the use of the dowry here, because this topic closely touches on problems
of inheritance transmission, and theey concern another branch of research. What is primarily under
consideration here is to determine the place of women in the household economy, and the degrees of
autonomy from which women benefit. It appears rather clearly that if a married woman keeps the
property of her dowry rights, and if she is protected by the law in this domain, she only rarely uses this
right: when real estate is involved, it is most often managed by the male part of the family and the
revenue the estate generates is used to look after the family: see the mention of the Edinburgh trial n. 69
“Bel-apla-iddin pourra prendre auprès d'Etellitu son épouse le coût de sa nourriture et de son habillement,
à concurrence du montant de sa dot”2 .
b) The household’s internal hierarchy
When we try and picture the household, we find that an internal female hierarchy exists which,
in certain respects, reproduces the household’s male hierarchy. Letter CT 22 6 [BM 31121 = S+ 76-1117, 848] illustrates this situation rather well: it is a letter sent by Itti-Marduk-balāṭu, a descendant of
Egibi, who writes under his diminutive Iddinaia, to his family51. The main addressee is his mother,
Qudāšu; then he addresses himself specifically to his parents-in-law, Iddin-Marduk and Ina-Esagil-rāmat,
(but not to his wife Nuptaia!). He then asks about the health of a number of people, including his sons and
daughters. We get the impression that this family group is located in a space, which if it is not unique is at
least shared by many participants.
The household’s wives
According to the family’s social level, and depending on its size, the mother of the family may
be helped by her daughter or daughters, or by her daughter-in-law or daughters-in-law, then by a woman
managing a number of domestics whose status is servile, more or less young: in general they are called
the “little-ones” (qallatu). But there are also more technical stages, comprising nurses, cooks and personal
attendants. We must of course assume that mixed systems existed, associating girls and in-laws in the
family and domestic slave-girls. Part of their activity was also spent producing garments.
But the internal female hierarchy can be even more complex: we begin here with the remarks
developed by K. Abraham52 concerning young wives whose father is absent at the time of the marriage:
they are either orphaned girls, or “fatherless girls”, who are very often found children, taken in and
adopted by women from wealthy families:
“The difference between the orphaned and the father-less brides can be traced interestingly enough to the time
long before they were married, when they were taken in as babies or small children. (…) We can see that orphaned
girls were formally adopted, then served (palāḫu) their adoptive parent(s), but were free to go, once the latter
has/have died. On the other hand, foundling girls were taken in by well-to-do Babylonian women or by the temple,
but without being formally adopted. They were to remain with their foster parents in order to serve (palāḫu) them.
49
On the man’s use of a woman’s dowry, see C. WAERZEGGERS , AfO 46/47 p. 183-200.
M. Roth 1989/90 p. 15-17; see confirmation by Baker 2004 p. 73.
51
Itti-Marduk-balāṭu is journeying in the country of pa-ni-ra-ga-na (uncertain reading), most probably in Iran from
what we know of his travels: see G. Tolini’s thesis, chapter 000. From G. Tolini (private communication), the
toponym is probably to be read a!-sa!-ra-ga-na and would be to relate to Asurukanu in Media where we indeed find
Itti-Marduk-balāṭu in the month vi bis of Cyrus’ year 2, from text Cyr. 58.
52
ABRAHAM 2006 p. 210-211.
50
13
They could have left their foster parents on the condition that they were to be married to a half-free person (…) or
that they were to enter another household as half-free”.
Female slaves and dependents
The internal structure of these families is normally linked to the urban environment, but we
know that each family of notables had the use of agricultural lands close to the city, lands which they
make families of slaves or dependents work. It is therefore probable that sometimes the labour force or
the competence of these servile men and women farmers or dependents are also mobilised for the
management of the city house (when transporting the harvest or spinning wool for example).
In the present state of our knowledge, the family group boundaries around which women
exercise an authority related to specialized tasks given to them remain blurry. We have seen that the
family group is presumably composed of several family nuclei, and also of domestics whose status is
servile, all more or less managed in common. Slaves are at the bottom of the family hierarchy, and there
probably is a distinction to draw between them: between the men and women who are the property of the
family as a whole, with no special reference, and between the men and women who are more specifically
linked to one individual or to a couple in the family group. The group of domestic slaves is globally
termed nišê bīti. A possible sub-category could be for female slaves who have had children with one
member of the family, as ancillary relationships existed and for a member of the family being widowed
did not necessarily result in remarrying. But the children born out of these unions were not necessarily
recognised by the father as heirs and retained their inferior status.
In wealthier families, we must also take into account types of associations based on a form of
dependence, or even clientelism. That is to say that the members of the household are not linked to the
family because they are blood related nor because they are slaves, but because of a voluntary dependence
which makes them this family’s client(s). It is perhaps what is basically meant by the expression the
“houses of the mār banî” in which persons in precarious situations “enter”53. We are not aiming here to
settle the difficult question of what these mār banî houses are, but it is possible that linking certain
persons to the “house of a mār banî”, an issue sometimes contentious, is in fact a mention alluding to the
existence of similar households and to the clientele system resulting from it. If this is the case, the
guarantee clauses in slave sales dealing with not belonging to the status of royal slave (arad-šarrūṭu),
oblates (širki-ilūtu), serfs (šušānūtu), military personnel tenure (bīt sīsi, bīt narkabti) or royal domain
tenure (bīt kussi), would also apply to the state of “clientele” (mār banûtu).
In conclusion, we find a complex hierarchy of women statuses within urban households, which
very probably directs the type of activity assigned to each of the women of the house, from young female
slaves to the lady of the house. This hierarchy maybe summed up according to the following table, in a
descending order, and where we would still need to adjust the distribution according to age and actual
qualifications, but these elements remain unknown the majority of the time.
Legal Status
free
Role in the family
lady of the house (bēlet bīti)
wife of sons in the house
rightful daughter (not yet married)
daughter (orphaned) adopted (not yet married)
53
See the discussion on this institution in Roth 1988, 1989, and CTMMA III, p. 214 note 3. see M. T. Roth, 1988
Women in Transition and the bīt mār bāni. Revue d'Assyriologie 82:131-138. and 1989 “A Case of contested Status
In DUMU-E2-DUB-BA-A : Studies in Honor of A. K. Sjöberg”, edited by D. L. M. T. R. H. Behrens, pp. 481-489,
Philadelphia.> See Weisberg n. 38, where a slave is freed on the occasion of his marriage and becomes a client (a
tablet of mār bani is written for him), but it is arranged that he will later become, with his children, a zakû of Ištar in
Uruk. Thus would this amounts to saying that the couple ardu (slave) / ša bît mār bani (client) in a private house
corresponds to the couple širku (oblat) / zakû (client of the temple) in the sanctuary?
14
daughter of a slave and of the man of the house (recognised)
dependent
servile
daughter (found child) adopted
dependent woman (client of the mār banî)
personal slave
daughter of a slave and of the man of the house (not recognised)
family slave
3. An economy of single-women?
a) Accidental marginalisation: widows
We may begin with M. Roth’s remark54:
“(…) women first married between the ages of fourteen and twenty and men between the ages of twenty-six and
thirty-two. This decade or more age difference between spouses suggests that many women, surviving childbirth,
would outlive their husbands, producing a relatively young widowed female population, still fertile and capable of
reproduction”.
As well as noting the possibility that there may be a high number of widows, this remark also
suggests that the inequality of autonomy was reinforced by the age difference, upon a woman’s first
marriage: a 17 to 18 year-old young bride was not in a position to impose her wishes to a thirty year-old
husband, and even less so to his mother, probably in her fifties. Yet, as M. Roth notes, the number of
single-parent families headed by widows was probably quite high. We must consider the family
entourage: the role of the family-community is precisely to help taking charge of those members whose
family nucleus has suffered a loss. Even in the case of young widows with children, we would then only
have very few cases of really isolated women.
However a woman finding herself widowed and childless could be reintegrated into her family
of origin. As M. Roth notes55: “the death of a husband, then, would not necessarily make a woman legally
and economically independent if there was a prior jural authority to reassert control”.
Generally for women, becoming a widow seems to have led to a fragile and vulnerable time: we
note for example the case of Zunnaia, a widow remarried and whose father-in-law refuses that her son
from a first marriage becomes heir in the second marriage56. Similarly, the marriage text Nbk 101 (= Roth
n.4) was analysed by G. van Driel57 as containing a compensation for the mother (a widow) of a young
married woman, the young bride’s husband had given the mother a slave and the sum of one and a half
mina of silver as compensation. This does not constitute “the purchase” of the wife as such but constitutes
the all-inclusive support for the needs of this woman’s mother, for whom the bride represented the main
and primary source of financial support:
ll. 4-9: “Ḫammaia l'a écouté favorablement, et elle lui a donné comme épouse sa fille La-tubāšinni. Et Dagililāni, de son plein gré, a donné à Ḫammaia, en échange (kūm) de sa fille La-tubāšinni, l'esclave Ana-muḫḫī-bēl-amur
qui avait été acheté pour 1/2 mine d'argent, plus 1 mine 1/2 d'argent avec lui.”
b) Professional marginalisation: prostitutes and women inkeepers
54
Roth 1993 p. 4. This assessment is however tempered by G. van Driel, Care of Elderly p. 173, who observes: “M.
T. Roth's estimates of the age of the partners in the “Mediterranean marriage” are no more than acceptable intelligent
guesses. We can speculate with confidence that few people could expect to reach the age of forty even if they had
passed the ten year boundary.”
55
Roth 1993 p. 22.
56
transcription and translation is more recent in MMA III n. 102.
57
Care of the Elderly in the Ancient Near East, p. 188
15
The justification for a female presence at the head of taverns, which is not exclusive, can find its
first explanation in the fact that these places constitute a substitute to the private house, where one can
drink and eat, and whose production is first considered a woman’s production.
<à compléter>
Provisional Conclusion
At the end of this investigation, a certain number of facts emerge rather clearly: neo-Babylonian
society in its urban composition, the only one really well documented by administrative texts, is
structured along a collective family-model. The distribution of tasks between men and women according
to competence—more or less presumed—shows that women take charge of everyday care (washing,
food, clothing) and take care of young children and the aged. But few of these women do so alone or on
an individual basis: whether through the net of family relations or through a woman’s domestic status,
women constitute a group sufficiently numerous and structured to respond to needs. Within this group a
hierarchy exists, more or less marked, which assigns a strict place to each woman. At the head, the lady
of the house (bēlet bīti) enjoys sufficient importance to benefit from specific donations allowed by certain
legal transactions58. It seems that she also enjoys a form of management delegation power when the male
head of the house is absent, as illustrated by private correspondence.
The higher a family’s social status, the more numerous the female group is likely to be, but also
diverse, with some domestics taking charge of very specific activities. Female slaves have a double
status: they participate in the domestic production, and can also be placed in other families as debt
pledges. While this situation is not restricted to women, nor is it always the result of a voluntary decision,
it does generally enable a wealthy family to enjoy additional income.
We also observe that certain tasks are taken care of by a technician, who is generally a man: this
is typically the case for cooks/bakers (nuḫatimmu) in large houses. It is not impossible that part of the
domestic production was externalised, either by means of a shop adjacent to a large house (but nothing
indicates that they were managed by women), or shops in the market, in particular for certain garments.
In this regard, a debate particularly worthy of interest should be pursued, regarding the degree of
the family-economy’s insertion in the general process of production and commercialisation in place in 1st
millennium Babylonia. If we follow the conclusions of JURSA 2010, we are within an urban society very
much inserted in the market economy and likely to produce, within the family, goods which are next sold
(or exchanged?) outside. This vision presupposes an important monetisation of exchanges (even if money
in metal does not exist as such), the solid activity of private business companies (visible through the ana
ḫarrāni contracts), and work specialisation were already very advanced. We would therefore seem to be
within a type of urban society particularly active and diversified (which, after all, corresponds rather well
to the traditional view of 1st millennium Babylonia...).
On the other hand, the very traditional aspect of the frame within which family production is
exercised and for which women are responsible (food and textile crafts) corresponds rather well to what
texts document, if we admit that using external specialised craftsmen is mostly a question of social status.
However the old-Assyrian example of merchant families involved in the process of general textile
production shows that the two aspects are not incompatible.
Furthermore, we must pay attention to the data marriage contracts provide in particular, and the
dowry inventories reflected in situations which are often atypical59 and sometimes reveal the vulnerable
socio-economic situation of the families concerned. We therefore cannot deduce, a priori, that there is a
case of systematic inferiority of spouses in neo-Babylonian society.
58
See Y. Watai’s thesis, for the hypothesis that during house sales the lady of the house it seems, is granted a sort of
virtual property right on the house because of her permanent presence in that space, and this leads to the gift of a
garment: see CAD B 191b lubāri/túg-há ša bēlet bīti.
59
Presentation by C. Wunsch of Al-Yaḫūdu texts, at the Berlin Conference on Babylon in 2009.
16
Finally, after this initial examination of the part played by women in the domestic economy,
other avenues for investigation appear, but the conclusions are often provisional and require a series of
specific cases studies, oriented in this direction.
17