by Eckart Frahm
Šakriušwe (was) the wife of Aššur‐taklaku; husband and wife divorced. One will not raise claim against another with respect to anything. They will not raise claim regarding her bride price. Šakriušwe will go to (the husband) of her choice, either an Anatolian or an Assyrian, and Aššur‐taklaku will marry the wife of his choice.
(Kt n/k 1414; Sever 1992b: 668; Michel, forthcoming no. 38)
Many examples deal with the divorce of an Assyrian from his Anatolian wife. This happened regularly when the Assyrian merchant decided to go back to Ashur and remained there. He thus had to first make a divorce agreement with his local wife and to make a decision about their children. The husband had to pay divorce money and he could decide to take his children with him, or to take only the boys and older girls after having paid for their upbringing and their food (Michel 2008c).
When a father died, his children inherited his goods and had to take care of their mother; if there was no child, the widow could remarry and keep her dowry. When a mother died, her children shared her dowry; if there was no descendant, the dowry was given back to the family of the deceased wife (Veenhof 2008a). The widow could also inherit from her husband if he had written a last will which gave her rights over the house and the capital:
Agua drew up his will as follows: The house in Ashur is the one of my wife. Concerning the silver, she will share it with my children. Concerning the silver, her inheritance share, she is (like) father and mother. House and silver, her inheritance, as well as everything that she (already) possesses, (will be later) the property of Šu‐Belum.
(Albayrak 2000; Michel 2000b, forthcoming no. 54)
But after her death, everything a wife inherited from her husband belonged to their eldest son, who was in charge of his parents’ funerals and the worship of his ancestors. A widow was free to remarry either an Assyrian or an Anatolian: there are several examples of Assyrian widows married to Anatolians (Kryszat 2007a; Veenhof 2008a; Michel, forthcoming).
Housewives, children, and education
In Ashur, many women lived alone, waiting for their husbands to return. The youngest wives had to live with their in‐laws, and cohabitation was not always successful (Michel 2001: no. 320, forthcoming no. 146). Other wives had to not only raise their children alone and carry out the daily work of women, but also, as the heads of their households, provide clothing and food to children and servants, repair the house, and so forth (Michel, forthcoming: chapter 3). To deal with such matters, they sent many letters to their husbands in Anatolia.
We know very little about the age of puberty, the age of marriage, or the number of children per woman, but the reconstruction of the genealogies of some well‐known Assyrian families gives us at least a vague idea of the average number of children who became adults. Taking into account that girls are not always mentioned (Michel 2015c), there might have been an average of three to six children per woman who reached adulthood. The most prosperous couples had more children than others: they earned enough to raise the children and to leave them property after their death. The children had to care for their aging parents, to pay for their burials, and to provide their spirits and dead bodies with what they needed (Michel 2008f; Veenhof 1998, 2008a, 2014a). In poor families, children could be pledged, or even sold, for a debt (see the sub‐section on slaves).
Maternity is usually not documented in private archives but was the subject of medical and magic texts. Five of the ten Old Assyrian incantations found in Kaniš were intended to help a woman in labor, to cure a newborn baby of jaundice, and to chase away the evil demoness Lamaštu, who attacked pregnant women and babies (Barjamovic 2015; Kouwenberg and Fincke 2013; Michel 1997e, 2004b; von Soden 1956). One text identifies a woman not by her name but by her profession as a midwife (šabsūtum, TC 3 219:9).
In the letters they wrote to their husbands, women revealed their anxieties about raising and educating their children (šerrum, ṣuḫrum). The merchants abroad wrote to their wives in order to get news of their progeny (Michel 1997d, forthcoming; Veenhof 2008: 106).
Children were raised in a feminine environment, since the eldest sons followed their fathers abroad. Some wealthy families could hire a wet nurse (mušēniqtum), who received a salary. When a mother died, sometimes in childbirth, her children were entrusted to family members, such as uncles or grandparents. When Aššur‐nada settled in Anatolia, he already had a son and daughters in Ashur, who were raised by their paternal grandfather, Aššur‐idi, because their mother had died quite young. Even though Aššur‐idi received a pension (tarbītum) from his son, he complained that, despite all the time and money he was dedicating to his grandchildren, they did not respect him:
I have raised your son, but he said to me: “You are not my father.” He got up and left. Also I have raised your daughters, but they said: “You are not our father.” Three days later, they got up and left to go to you, so let me know what you think.
(Larsen 2002: no. 22; Michel 2001: no. 254)
In leaving their grandfather, the children used the classical formulas for breaking an adoption contract: they refused their grandfather’s tutelage. There are very few examples of adoptions because such contracts were kept in family archives in Ashur. The adopted child, who could have been a slave, inherited from his adoptive father.
The father had legal authority over his children and the right to decide whether to marry off or consecrate his daughters. The younger children were raised by their mother, who was also in charge of their moral and religious education. Boys could go to a master in order to learn how to read and write (Michel 2008a). When they became teenagers, they followed their fathers to Anatolia and learned the basics of the trade. Girls stayed with their mother, helped her with her daily tasks, and learned how to spin and weave. They contributed to the domestic production of textiles (Michel 2006d).
Consecrated women
In several Old Assyrian families, parents consecrated their eldest daughter to a god, presumably Assur. It was a religious act of gratitude to the god for their flourishing trade and a way to confirm their social position. In fact, some of the consecrated girls belonged to the richest families of Ashur. Consecrated women (gubabtum, NIN.DINGIR) lived independently in Ashur, possibly near the temple. Their religious pursuits are almost never documented in the tablets found in Kaniš (Dercksen 2015, 53–4), but we have letters and legal texts illustrating their status and economic activities (Michel 2009c). A girl was consecrated before being old enough to get married, as we learn from a letter sent by an Assyrian woman to her husband: “(Our) young (daughter) has grown up very much; come and put her under the protection of the god Assur, and seize the foot of your god” (Michel 2001: no. 307, forthcoming no. 166). The woman succeeded in persuading her husband, since we learn that her daughter did in fact become a gubabtum. Once consecrated to the god, a woman could not get married but was economically independent. She had her own capital with which she participated in the trading activities of her family, investing in the long‐distance trade and lending money. She was the owner of the house in which she lived and, like her brothers, could inherit from her father. She was even free to travel and settle in a foreign land, where she could own a house (Michel 2009c). The letters sent by consecrated women to Anatolia show that they were involved in many important family decisions. One of them gave advice to her sister, who was traveling abroad and leaving husband and child in Ashur; she tried to save her sister’s marriage, which was in danger (Veenhof 2007a). Other categories of consecrated women, such as the qadištum, could marry, but were not allowed to have children (Michel 2006b, 2009c, forthcoming: chapter 5).
Succession
Since there was no general rule concerning inheritance, Assyrians usually wrote last wills. In these documents, they took care to protect the interests of their wives and daughters. In the case of a sudden death, the lack of a written testament was the source of many problems. According to the very few testaments recovered (most of them were kept in Ashur), and according to
the verdicts of trials dealing with inheritance, the Assyrian tradition used to give the eldest son a more important share than the share reserved for other children (Michel 1997d, forthcoming: chapter 2; Veenhof 2011a). His inheritance share often included the main house, where he had to take care of his mother if she was still alive. Another possibility was that the house was given to the widow in usufruct and was handed over to the eldest son at a later time.
Sons had to pay the debts of their fathers before sharing his goods with their consecrated sisters. The other daughters usually received their share in the form of a dowry. If a father died before marrying off his daughters, their brothers had to arrange and finance their marriages with their inheritance shares. Unlike sons, daughters were not responsible for their fathers’ debts (Michel 2003a, forthcoming).
Consecrated women were always mentioned in last wills and could be the first among the children to inherit (Hecker 2004a; 2004b; Michel 2009c). They received silver, loan contracts, servants, and sometimes an annual allocation: “My sons will pay my backers and of the silver left belonging to me, (my daughter) Ab‐šalim will first take 1/3 mina of gold, 1 mina of silver, and a maid” (Kt o/k 196c; Albayrak 2000; Michel 2000b; forthcoming no. 54).
After the death of a mother, her children normally inherited her dowry and goods, but some widows preferred to write their last wills in order to divide their property as they wished. Lamassatum, the wife of Elamma, left silver cups and toggle pins, several silver loan contracts, textiles, slaves, and slave‐girls. All of her belongings were entrusted to her representatives and sent to Ashur where “my daughter, the consecrated girl, and my sons will act in accordance with the testamentary dispositions applying to them” (Kt 91/k 421; Veenhof 2011a). A dozen documents concern the burial and succession of Ištar‐lamassi, first the widow of the Assyrian Kunilum, with whom she had three children, and then the widow of the Anatolian Lulu. She wrote her last will in order to split her property between her two sons and her daughter, who even received a seal, which was usually reserved for the eldest son:
(Of ) the 57 shekels of silver that are available, Ilia will receive 37 shekels, Ilabrat‐bani will receive 20 shekels, (and) they will send to my daughter, the gubabtum, 2 ¼ shekels of gold and 7 ½ shekels of silver and a seal.
(Kt 91/k 453; Veenhof 2008a: 103, 106).
After both brothers died soon after their mother’s death, a great deal of money was spent for the burial of Ištar‐lamassi’s second husband and for her two sons’ burials. The daughter, Šimat‐Ištar, was the only child left and inherited the rest of the fortune.
Elderly people and ancestors
Care of the elderly was the responsibility of the family, primarily of the sons, which may explain why some merchants went back to Ashur to take care of their aging parents and to bury them (Veenhof 1998, 2014). Children inherited from their father and had to take care of their mother; sometimes, she could stay in the family house even if the building had to be sold (Michel, forthcoming no. 51‐52). In an adoption contract dated to the later period, Level Ib, the parents adopted an adult slave: he could inherit against the promise to respect his adoptive parents, to take care of them, and to later bury them and perform the cult of the dead (Veenhof 1982c).
When a member of the family died, the family organized and paid for the funeral. The body was buried in a grave (quburum) during a ceremony (bikītum), and there was a period of mourning (Michel 2008f; Veenhof 2008a). It was believed that after their death, ancestors lived on as spirits (eṭemmū). They dwelled in the Underworld with all the other ancestors of the family and could appear to their descendants as ghosts in their dreams. Altogether, the living members of the family honored the ancestors and maintained relationships with them by means of prayers and offerings. To make this obligation easier to fulfill, deceased family members were buried under the floor of the house. Because of this tradition, it was very difficult for descendants to sell the family house (Michel 2008f; 2009b).
In Kaniš’s lower town, the cist graves that were dug under the houses of level Ib disturbed the rooms from level II. Some of the graves contained ceramics, various objects, and jewels (Emre 2008; Üstündaǧ 2014). Some graves of wealthy Old Assyrian merchants were also excavated in Ashur. They contained very valuable funerary offerings: bronze vessels and weapons, jewelry made of gold and precious stones, cylinder seals, as well as figurines and golden leaves that were used in the afterlife rituals (Haller 1954; Hockmann 2010).
The eldest son, who inherited the family house, was in charge of the rituals performed for the deceased family members. But if he was in Anatolia for trade purposes, and his sisters or wife lived in his house in Ashur, a problem arose: because they could not perform the cult of the dead, they received warnings from the spirits and were exposed to the anger of the ghosts, who were furious that their heirs had abandoned them. In a letter sent to their brother and uncle, two women complained that they were being treated poorly by demons and spirits of the dead: “Here Belatum is ill because of the silver of the ikribū‐votive offerings. We are mistreated by demons and spirits of the dead” (Michel 2001: no. 323). The women were eager to see their husbands and brothers retire and come back to Ashur (Michel 2008f, forthcoming: chapter 5).
Economy and Daily Life
The written documentation from the Old Assyrian period focuses on the Assyrian trade between Ashur and Kaniš. Merchants from Ashur brought tin, which had been imported from the east, and textiles, locally produced or acquired from Babylonians, on a six‐week journey to Kaniš, and sold them there. On the way back, they brought gold and silver to Ashur.
References to daily life are usually rare in the documents. Nevertheless, the many private letters from Kaniš do provide some data about topics such as textile production, several other crafts and occupations, and the markets and shops where people could buy the food that they needed daily. Some letters are quite emotive (Larsen 2001). Assyrian‐owned houses and furniture are mentioned as well and have been found in the excavations that have been undertaken in Kaniš’s lower town. Several documents allude to religious practices and Assyrian gods.
Family enterprises and other trade networks
As mentioned above, the long‐distance trade was to a large extent a family affair. Each family member had specific tasks to perform within the trade system. The family enterprises, based in Ashur, had representatives in several Anatolian trading posts. Family ties formed the basis of many professional relationships (Dercksen 1996: 90–161; Ichisar 1981; Larsen 1982a, 2002, 2010; Michel 1991, 2005).
That business relationships were derived from family affiliation is also reflected in the vocabulary: the “house,” bētum, could refer to the enterprise, the “father,” abum, was the boss, the “brother,” aḫum, was a partner, and younger members of the family, ṣūḫārū, were employees (Hertel 2015; Veenhof 2014a). Often, the father, who was at the head of the family enterprise, lived in Ashur and did not travel to Anatolia. He was the one who made important decisions on behalf of the family enterprise. He gathered capital to buy tin, textiles, and donkeys, and he organized the caravans and shared the profits earned; his eldest son, usually settled in Kaniš, managed the Anatolian branch of the family enterprise. He received the deliveries of merchandise that arrived from Ashur and organized its sale in Kaniš or entrusted it to agents responsible for its sale in other trading posts within the Anatolian plateau. The other sons helped with selling tin and textiles in Anatolia, transporting the goods between the main Anatolian localities, or traveling between Ashur and Kaniš with the caravans. Some of them represented the family enterprise in other Anatolian centers, where they settled more or less permanently (Michel 1991: 140–2, 2001: 359–418). Wives and daughters living in Ashur participated in the family trade by weaving high‐quality textiles for long‐distance trade. Often left alone in Ashur, they represented the interests of their male relatives and were also involved in some financial operations (Michel, forthcoming: chapter 5).
I
n Kaniš, after one or two generations, mixed marriages between Assyrians and Anatolians increased. These marriages joined Anatolians to Assyrian families, thus enlarging the network of professional relationships (Michel 2010a; Veenhof 1982a). After the death of the father (and boss) in Ashur, an uncle or the eldest son could take over the management of the family enterprise. But the uncle or son in question could also decide to start his own enterprise with a new organization (Larsen 2007). The Old Assyrian archives, which predominantly document two generations of families from the point of view of the family members settled in Kaniš, reveal that brothers sometimes had few business contacts; this is the case with the sons of Issu‐arik (whose archives were excavated in 1994; Larsen 2010), and with Elamma and Ali‐aḫum, the sons of Iddin‐Suen, whose archives were unearthed in 1991 and 1993 (studied by K. R. Veenhof and C. Michel).
An Assyrian’s social position and reputation was determined by the wealth of his family enterprise, even though the capital was clearly owned individually (Larsen 2007). This also applies to married couples, with husband and wife managing their own finances (Michel 2006d, forthcoming chapter 4). The extended family served as a network of professional relationships in which property and responsibility were strictly individualized; there was no common fund. This explains, for example, why there were loan contracts with interest between members of the same family.
Families could interact with other kinds of networks created to engage in long‐distance trade: an example is the system of joint‐stock partnerships in which several investors could put their capital together in order to finance commerce that was carried out by an agent for a dozen years or longer (Dercksen 1999; Larsen 1977, 2007; Michel 2001, 2005; Veenhof 1997a, 1999a). Junior members of the family could belong to a family enterprise headed by their fathers and, at the same time, to a joint‐stock partnership under the authority of investors who had no family ties with them. The line between family ties and commercial networks is often hard to draw, which makes it difficult to understand what exactly was hidden behind the well‐attested expression bēt abini “the house of our father” (Hertel 2015; Larsen 2007; Veenhof 2014a).