¹ Essays on Oriental Laws of Succession (Studia et Documenta ad Iura Orientis Antiqui Pertinentia, Vol. IX, ed. David, M., Kraus, F. R., and Pestman, P. W.; Leiden, 1969), 2Google Scholar.

² References to legal studies on this subject may be found in Kraus’ essay ibid., 1–57. Skaist, A. in his review article of Essays on Oriental Laws of Succession (JAOS 95 (1975), 245)Google Scholar, calls attention to the need to differentiate succession to an office or post by a son from succession to private or family property. The Sippar material confirms his view. I shall here deal only with the inheritance rights to family property. But for some details on kinship and succession to office see my Ancient Sippar, A Demographic Study of an Old Babylonian City, (1894–1595 B.C.) (Publications de l'Institut historique et archéologique néerlandais de Stamboul, Vol. XXXVI; 1975), 157 fGoogle Scholar.

³ (Pelican, 1971), 16.

⁴ A married woman might own property to which her husband had no claim; she might purchase a field from her spouse or from some other person on her own (CT 6 47bGoogle Scholar; BE 6/1 50Google Scholar; CT 8 38b)Google Scholar. A widow might receive a share of her deceased husband's estate. In BE 6/1 88Google Scholar, a man sells a house which had been his share of the patrimony on its division with his two brothers and his mother. Two brothers share, at their mother's death, her share. (HA.LA) which consisted of a house, a field, and a slavegirl (CT 8 4a)Google Scholar. Daughters who were not members of a special class inherited only small shares of the estate (CT 8 13cGoogle Scholar; YOS 12 400)Google Scholar.

⁵ On the “patrilateral kindred0 see Fox, R., Kinship and Marriage, 170Google Scholar. Bayliss, M. in her article, “The Cult of Dead Kin in Assyria and Babylonia” (Iraq 35 (1973), 121)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, observes that “it must be emphasized that there is absolutely no evidence of the cult being observed for ascendents further back than grandparents among private persons”. She found evidence “of a funerary cult of very limited extent”. Though the Sippar texts yield no data on the duties of the kindred to the dead in connection with inheritance rights, the results presented here dovetail with her conclusions.

⁶ In contrast to the property divisions of Southern Babylonia where the shares of all the heirs are enumerated in a single document, in Sippar the share of each heir was usually recorded on separate tablets. In most cases all the records of a given family are not extant. But see CT 2 4Google Scholar, Meissner, , BAP 103 and 104Google Scholar, for the equal shares inherited by three brothers. The Sippar divisions usually state that the patrimony is shared equally (mithariš izuzzū) or that the heirs receive full shares (zīzū gamrū). Note Meissner, , BAP 107Google Scholar, wherein the equal shares of three brothers are recorded, and CT 45 33, for that of two brothersGoogle Scholar.

⁷ CT 43 92Google Scholar; 16f. ap-lu-tum ṣe-he-er-tum ù ra-bi-tum -na UD.KIB.NUN^KIù-ul i-ba-aš-ši. Here the younger sister is assured that she will be compensated for the property of which she was illegally deprived, for the preferential rights of the eldest heir is not followed in Sippar. The sisters involved here are undoubtedly nad¯tu's of Šamaš, who in accordance with the laws of Hammurapi (§180) receive a full share of the paternal estate.

⁸ Adjustments to achieve this are sometimes explicitly noted in the texts. In VAS 8 53: 9Google Scholar, a man who inherits with his six brothers is given thirty shekels as compensation for his house (niplāt bītīšu). In VAS 9 144: 5f.Google Scholar, a wooden object of some kind is received as compensation for a portion of a house (I GIŠ KA.x.x kīma 5 GÍN [x] ša É apāli). The size of the field was not necessarily the determining factor as to whether an estate was to be shared jointly or divided equally. Although there are a goodly number of examples of property being owned jointly to judge from the sale by brothers (CT 8 47aGoogle Scholar; CT 2 37Google Scholar; CT 4 16a)Google Scholar, by sisters (CT 8 25b)Google Scholar, by sisters and brothers (CT 8 15b)Google Scholar and by mothers, sons, and daughters (BE 6/1 8Google Scholar; and CT 47 17/17a)Google Scholar, nevertheless in the vast majority of sale contracts, the sale is transacted by one person. It should be noted that there are few examples of the redemption of real estate by members of a family after it has been sold (CT 2 13Google Scholar; CT 45 3Google Scholar; and CT 45 62)Google Scholar.

⁹ The Onomasticon of Old Babylonian Sippar replete with kinship and socio-economic data is being prepared for publication.

¹⁰ The term emu meaning both “father-in-law” (BE 6/1 84: 42)Google Scholar, and “son-in-law” (Friedrich, , BA 5 503 No. 33: 14)Google Scholar, also occurs. The second meaning is apparently less common for the text adds “husband of his daughter (mu-ti DUMU.SAL.A.NI-šu)”. The term emētu, probably meaning ”daughter-in-law”, occurs once in VAS 9 172: 22Google Scholar.

¹¹ In PBS 8/2 195: 16 (Immerum)Google Scholar. Sons of one Ahi-ummišu are mentioned in Goetze, A.JCS 11 1957) 16 No. 1 rev. 8 (Apil-Sin)Google Scholar; CT 4 11b:23 (Samsu-iluna 5)Google Scholar; and TCL 1 132: 14 (Samsu-iluna 10)Google Scholar.

¹² For the socio-economic status of the family of Amat-Mamu, see my article in Orientalia 38 (1969), 134–138Google Scholar.

¹³ Similar merisms or combinations of phrases indicating the kinship range of those included in the kindred group are found in other Old Babylonian texts. In a Larsa letter, TCL 17 19Google Scholar, the merism is expressed as “if anyone from amongst my brothers (ahhēja) or from amongst the sons of my father's brothers (mārī ahhī abīja) brings a claim”. In Szlechter Tablettes, MAH 15954: 10, perhaps a Diyala text, the potential claimants are the brothers (ahhū) and the nišūtum of the adoptive mother. If the term ahhū in both these texts includes “nephews” we may have here examples of the same kinship range for kindred as occurs in Sippar, i.e., up to the first patrilineal cousin range. Of course this suggestion cannot be proven. Note also the Kish text, TCL 1 157Google Scholar, which enumerates “her children, her brothers and her kimtu (family)”.

Of relevance to our discussion is the idiom found in Sippar kinūnšu belû “his brazier has become extinguished”. This quite clearly is used metaphorically of a man who dies without a male son.

In Friedrich, , BA 5 503 No. 33:4Google Scholar, where unfortunately the reverse is destroyed and the copy of the obverse difficult to read, a man adopts his daughter's husband for he has no sons. In BE 6/2 123Google Scholar, the estate of a man “whose brazier is extinguished” is inherited by his brother and his nephews, the sons of another brother who had predeceased him. For additional and telling comments on this idiom see M. Bayliss, op. cit., 120.

¹⁴ On its distinctive features see especially my article in JESHO 6 (1963), 121–157Google Scholar. It is noteworthy that frequently three generations of women, all of patrilineal descent, entered the cloister. This further reinforces the importance of the impartitive thrust of the nadītu institution. The many occurrences of nadītu's adopting a related younger nadītu, usually her niece, should also be noted in this connection.

¹⁵ E.g. VAS 9 130/131Google Scholar; and TCL 1 98/99Google Scholar.

¹⁶ For references to these lawsuits see Orientalia NS 30 (1961), 163–169Google Scholar. For a cloister record of nadītu litigations, see CT 8 26aGoogle Scholar.