reported to have taken the oath in both cases when he married off
his son and daughter to another man’s daughter and son. There are
wide variations in the form of undertaking secured by the oath: the
groom says “I will marry X daughter of Y” (NG 15:4–6, 16:4–6)
or “I am your son-in-law” plus an oath not to enter the house of
another (NRVN 5 = Wilcke, “Familiengründung.. .,” 246). One
father says to the other: “May my son be your son-in-law” (NG
18:8–10), or either “May my child X marry your child Y” or “May
your child X marry my child Y.”^735.1.2.3 In the trial reports, a promise to marry was often followed
by the statement that the groom married the bride (e.g., NG 14:20–21).
It is not clear, however, what formal steps were necessary to fulfill
the betrothal contract and complete the marriage. Wedding cere-
monies and the like are not mentioned in the legal texts.^74 Some
terse reports of marriage mention a promissory oath, which could
be the betrothal oath or a fresh oath (NG 1, 2, 3; ZA53, no. 17).
There is no explicit evidence of a second stage of betrothal (“inchoate
marriage”) as in later periods, but a woman still living in her father’s
house is referred to as married (NG 169:17–25). It may be that the
bride’s entry into the groom’s house completed the marriage. Mention
of the groom entering a father-in-law’s house in NRVN 5 may indi-
cate the reverse, namely, matrilocal marriage, or may be entry merely
for the wedding ceremonies.5.1.2.4 The betrothal contract could be dissolved by marrying (or
allowing one’s child to marry) someone else (NG 18; NATN 893 =
Wilcke, “Familiengründung.. .,” 248; NRVN 5) or by withdrawing
from the contract (NG 169:17–25). If not justified, it was in breach
of contract and attracted heavy damages, analogous to those of
divorce. In NG 17, the groom’s father had to pay one mina of sil-(^73) Father of bride: NG 14:4–6; BE 3/1 8; father of groom: NG 14:15–17, 17:4–7,
22:8, 206:21'–24'; JCS16, 78, no. 43. Some of the verb forms raise grammatical
difficulties: cf. Thomsen, Sumerian.. ., §§386, 396–99, and Wilcke, “Familien-
gründung.. .,” 245, n. 46. Wilcke proposes a performative utterance (“I have indeed
married your daughter”), which works well in some cases but not at all in others
(when the speaker is not the performer) and begs the question of why different verb
forms are used. None of the solutions proposed is entirely satisfactory.
(^74) For mythological references, see Wilcke, “Familiengründung.. .,” 275–81.
202
WESTBROOK_F5_182-226 8/27/03 1:42 PM Page 202