Slowly, over several thousand years, they usurped power. It is true that some intermingled racially, but through the imposition of the new laws over their conquered lands, they began to withdraw the rights of women. It is also true that most of the new societies imposed were slave-based economies.
The following documents from Babylon, Sumer and the Assyrians over a period of nearly 2,000 years (2300 to 428 BCE) show in detail how the new laws were written.
Until now, writing in Goddess societies was spiritual sacred script or symbolic signs used for telling people the rituals and attributes of Goddess culture. Writing was also used to keep the accounting records of the grain and other food in storage warehouses, which was distributed to the people by the Temple priestesses. These foodstuffs were apportioned evenly and fairly, feeding everyone regardless of status, or health, or age, or ability to contribute work, or gender. It was one of many ways in which the peace had been kept uninterrupted by civil unrest.
Most of the people did not read as we envision reading today. But then, people were not in need of reading to give them news, because they all lived together and spoke frequently with one another. Reading was not needed to keep the chronology of family or regional life, because the oral tradition was evolved to the extent that certain people could remember voluminous amounts of past experiences and retell any portion of them at any appropriate time to the group gathered. Reading was not needed to tell people what they may and may not do, because they shared a cultural background and there was no mystery about appropriate behavior: all that had been worked out long ago.
There were times of festivals and ecstatic dance in order to “let off steam” and release any pent-up energy that was not directed positively; therefore, there were few absolute behavioral prohibitions on the people that were difficult for them to accept or about which they had serious doubts. While the ability of most people to read and write was limited, the necessity for these skills was also rare. Some needed them and employed the services of scribes; most others did not. But when writing was used, the intent was neither to use the words against the people nor to harm any segment of the population.
However, as was true of many other aspects of life which had been assumed in the past, but which were now undergoing change during these transition times, adapting to new laws made by people other than those worshipping the Goddess was also due for change. What was probably the most difficult for Goddess cultures to accept was the fact that these laws were written by men who had no allegiance to the Goddess. This had not previously occurred within Goddess societies. Not only were the laws written by men but also were written specifically to reduce the freedoms of Goddess-worshipping women, another event that had never happened before to these people.
The law codes themselves grew out of a running battle between the invaders who were the new male-god patriarchal leaders and the Goddess worshiping peoples whose lands were being conquered. As has been mentioned before, the newcomers brought with them the idea and practice of individual personal ownership, not practiced by Goddess people. This radical new concept had already led first to the simple accumulation of goods and people (called “chattel”) at a level which passed meeting immediate need, and then to the hoarding of them, making access to these goods, animals or people available only through monetary purchase.
Unfortunately, Western women for the first time found themselves part of the chattel, without having given their previous consent. Under the ever-expanding new laws, they were now counted as the legal possession of a never-ending procession of males: father, uncles, brothers, guardians, husbands. Only if women were able to choose either never to marry, never to have sexual intercourse with men, or to devote their entire lives to the Temple were they unshackled. But for the ordinary woman, her life was perennially tied to male ownership.
Initially, these laws were secular city or regional codes of conduct. While the vast majority were with regard to regulating the behavior of men in order to avoid criminality, their secondary goal was the intent to marginalize the influence of the powerful Goddess Temple priestesses administration over what had been their territory in the recent past.
How did they intend to accomplish that task?
First, by not attacking the Temple establishment directly, which would have created great unrest and difficulty and for which they would have been openly blamed. Second, by marginalizing the scope of influence that the priestesses in the Temples could exercise on their own. Third, by segregating the holy women of the Goddess to certain public spaces and freedoms. Fourth, by separating the women of the city from the women of the Temple, creating suspicious tensions between them and therefore beginning to unravel their ancient bonds. Fifth, by denigrating one of the primary foundations of the Goddess worshipping people which was known as sacred union and turning the practice into the pejorative secular profession called prostitution. With this last turn, Goddess women lost their position of respect and reverence in the community. They were now shamed for their sexuality, for their ecstatic energy. And, most shamefully of all, they were no longer self-sovereign but subservient to their male counterpart.
For the community of men, there were also serious difficulties under the changing behavioral standards. First, they were denied normal access to women, not only for sex but also for companionship. Second, whether it was a woman for a wife or for a prostitute he was interested in, the man was now required to pay money to another man, in effect purchasing the woman, whether she was technically free or a slave. If they did not have money, they did not have women.
This brings into being the complexity of “forbidden sex” to which men appear to have been deeply susceptible, and against which the men who had money to buy and keep women fiercely legislated. This forbidden sexual behavior escalated to the point where it became a criminal offense and the focus of many ancient laws over different generations and political regimes. These laws are against men having sex with female relatives (incest), and are against sex with other men, with boys, with beasts, all making their way into the codes. Over and above forcing many ordinary men into forbidden and criminalized sexual contacts, most importantly under these systems of patriarchy, men were destined to lose their intimate contact with the great Mother, the Creatrix, Healer, Protector: They lost the context of that balancing spiritual energy of health and joy and celebration, sex and happiness. And, sadly, the world has never been the same since.
These new contracts written on clay tablets, all have laws regarding the buying and selling of slaves, men and women. They have laws for emancipating slaves, by adopting them as servants, and by doing so, making them freemen or women.
Law Codes of Mesopotamia – 2300 to 428 BCE
After the section of laws relating to buying and selling merchandise, there are laws for labor and one for the manufacture of a special product.
Still under labor contracts in 488 BCE, “One coat of mail, insignium of power which will protect, is to be made by the woman Mupagalagagitum, daughter of Qaurikhiya, for Shamash-iddin, son of Rimut. She will deliver in the month of Shebat one coat of mail which is to be made and which will protect.” This contract is fascinating for several different reasons, not the least of which is the extraordinary name of the woman who is the coat-of-mail maker! The second is the phrase “insignium of power which will protect.” This contract indicates that the woman was also a priestess, known for her powerful compact with the Goddess, so much so that by her work and by the signs she inscribed into the armor, she had the power to give protection from the harmful effects of the enemy. This was the basis of real power given through the intervention of the Great Goddess and why She is referred to as the Protector. The woman hired will be the conduit of the Goddess on earth. It is a fact, then, that women were working in metal. But the construction of the garment is only part of the contract: it is the protective nature of it that is stressed twice. And for this, the magical powers of the Goddess are required. The date of delivery is clear, but the price has been
lost.
All the contracts for loans are made between men but at extraordinarily high interest rates which vary from 11.3% in 611 BCE and going to 20% in 550 BCE. This tells us that times were getting more difficult, and that it was harder and more expensive to borrow. As one might expect, a power of attorney is given between men only.
The contracts for marriage beginning c. 2200 BCE vary. The slave bride through marriage gained her freedom. However, if she said she wanted to divorce her husband, “they shall strangle her and cast her into the river.” In 591 BCE there is an example of marriage by purchase. In c. 549 BCE another marriage contract has a dowry attached. The father of the virgin bride gives money and the “outfit for a house” to the husband. Instead of the full bride price in cash, the father offers a slave to make up the balance. However, in the event of a divorce by the husband, the entire dowry was the property of the wife assuring a means of support for the woman.
Divorce in c. 552 BCE: If a man divorced a free woman, in addition to returning her dowry, he must give her ten times that which would have been given to a slave woman. In addition, the man agreed to provide food, drink, goods, sesame and salt to the wife and children. If she returns to her home, she is still entitled to support by him.
Inheritance in this set of laws is passed to sons, without mention of daughters.65
Advice of an Akkadian Father to his Son, c. 2200 BCE
After two paragraphs on civil behavior, this is what he says:
“Do not honor a slave girl in your house, she should not rule your bedroom like a wife, do not give yourself over to slave girls … Let this be said among your people: the household which a slave girl rules, she disrupts. Do not marry a prostitute, whose husbands are legion, an Ishtar-woman who is dedicated to a god(dess), a Kulmashitu-woman … When you have trouble, she will not support you, when you have a dispute she will be a mocker. There is no reverence or submissiveness in her. Even if she is powerful in the household, get rid of her, for she pricks up her ears for the footsteps of another.”65
The Akkadians conquered and then assimilated, but preferably not with the women of the Goddess, who are suspect because they cannot be controlled by these men and are not submissive or subservient to them. The reference to the prostitute is probably also a Temple woman, because at this time the religious practice of the Temple had not been suppressed. “Ishtar – woman” is a follower of the Goddess Ishtar and one who probably would not consider marriage under those conditions anyway. Indeed, these women do not sound as though they are suited to “domestication” by the Akkadian men, even if they have conquered their region. This document is fascinating because it is such a perfect insight into the slowness of social change matched against the tenacity of ancient beliefs and women’s practices.
The Code of Hammurabi c. 1780 BCE Babylon
Called by many scholars one of the most important early law codes, this document is available in complete form as a public domain transcript at the Womens’ History Sourcebook on the Internet. Because it is lengthy, only those sections impacting women will be included here. These new codes are written by men at a time when Goddess cultures were living side-by-side, at least regionally, with the newcomers. Babylon was still a major Goddess center of Mesopotamia, and many of her population still accepted only the Goddess norms.
Hammurabi had taken over the secular government of Babylon but was still very cognizant that the Great Goddess is still a major force. He makes no apologies about entreating Her accord, even as he went about changing the circumstances under which he envisions Her women would live henceforth. Actually, and interestingly, Hammurabi is much more blatant about his wishes for the blessings of the Goddess at the end of his new secular law code than his is at its outset, perhaps because he realizes the enormity of what he proposes. This most remarkable transition times document is one which clearly spells out the struggle between the Goddess cultures and this new warrior king. The Code of Hammurabi is one of the few found complete from this time. Not until the Hebrew Old Testament writings is there a more comprehensive code for personal behavior.
One of the reasons this Code remains is that it was inscribed on a Black Stone monument, eight feet high, erected in a public space. This indicates it was to be read out loud on proclaimed occasions and then followed accordingly. Most of the population, female or male, could not themselves decipher the inscriptions.
Some say the stone simply put in detailed, codified form the laws of the city of Babylon, which had been in practice for an unspecified time. Another view is that the monumental task of engraving these laws on such a large stone indicates that they were not being universally followed, that the penalties (death and dismemberment of fingers, lips, ears, etc.) needed to be “published” because they were more severe than previously meted out and, most critically, that they were in direct confrontation with the laws of the Great Goddess Ishtar, whom Hammurabi acknowledges as retaining power.
It is toward the end of his opening statement that the king declares that he is “who let the name of Ishtar of Ninevah remain in E-mish-mish.” In other words, Hammurabi did not disturb the Great Sumerian Goddess, nor confront Her powers directly. Rather, he established many new rules by which Her people must live or answer to him and his courts, presided over by “elders.” It does not state whether these are men or women or a combination of both.
The significance of this Code is that it was recopied by subsequent occupants of the Middle and Near East for 1,500 years, bringing its influence to current era. It was known and its principles/penalties utilized through the subsequent writing of Persian, Greek, Roman, Hebrew, and Islamic laws.
There are two hundred and eighty-two individual laws with their penalties written on all sides of the Black Stone. However, in the numbering system, the number thirteen is omitted. Some scholars, including the translator of the document used here, note that “there is no 13th law in the code, 13 being considered an unlucky and evil number.” This demonization of the number 13 is actually a much later invention. At the time this law code was created, the number thirteen was a Goddess number, indicating the number of months in the Lunar calendar and corresponding to the women’s regular periods of bleeding, all still sacred and powerful. Much more likely is yet another reason there is no Law #13: If there were a number thirteen in his code of laws, and those words were against ancient Goddess practices currently enjoyed by Her people, Hammurabi would be directly challenging the Goddess and Her people to rebellion, insurrection, dissension, disobeyance. Everything attributed to him in both the opening and closing statements indicate that Hammurabi did not want to do that, nor did he wish to bring down upon himself the wrath of the Goddess Ishtar directly, for fear She would retaliate against him, meaning that a large part of him still believed in Her power.
Because Thirteen is a primary Moon number, belonging to the Goddess, what law made by a man could occupy that number without offending the Great Goddess, and Her people who were, after all, still at least half of the population of the city? Would it not be wiser, therefore, and more conducive of keeping the peace to omit the offending number altogether?
Seventy-one of the two hundred and eighty-two laws relate to women. Most of this code focuses on the governance of males. Only approximately 25% of the code is directed toward managing the behavior of women, their ability to inherit, their behavior in marriage, the prices to be paid for them and who gets the use of what.
Tavern keepers who, amazingly enough, are all women, Temple women (priestesses), “devoteds” (holy women), and “prostitutes” who were undoubtedly also Temple women, are the only exceptions to the ownership by men of women at this time in Babylon. Significantly, this means that although the Temple women were now also called prostitutes, all the women devoted to the Great Goddess Ishtar were still under Her protection from secular law. One can imagine that their lives might have been getting stressful, even threatened, yet still the Goddess retained enough power to keep them safe, and permitted them to continue
Her service and worship.
Temple women, who controlled the grain storehouses and the ingredients for bread, were prohibited from entering a tavern, and the female tavern owners, those who control the flow of barley beer, were under constant scrutiny for sedition and conspiracy! These two segments of the population, the beer and bread women, must have been viewed as having intrinsic power, which if combined by joining forces, would have been threatening to the Hammurabi establishment. The king’s power over the Temple is only administrative. Interestingly, women are still acting in the capacities of judges, elders, witnesses and scribes throughout the extensive legal system.
Here is a selection of Hammurabi’s Codes of Laws specifically dealing with women and using the archaic translation from the source without modification:
#108 If a tavern keeper (feminine) does not accept corn according to gross weight in payment of drink, but takes money, and the price of the drink is less than that of the corn, she shall be convicted and thrown into the water (drowned).
#109 If the conspirators meet in the house of a tavern-keeper, and these conspirators are not captured and delivered to the court, the tavern-keeper (a woman) shall be put to death.
#110 If a “sister of a god” (goddess temple woman) open a tavern, or enter a tavern to drink, then shall this woman be burned to death.
#127 If any one “point the finger” (slander) at a “sister of god” (goddess woman) or the wife of any one, and can not prove it, this man shall be taken before the judges and his brow shall be marked (branded).
#128 If a man take a woman to wife, but have no intercourse with her, this woman is no wife to him (annulment).
Daughters of the Inquisition Page 13