A History of Ancient Near Eastern Law

398 

6.3.2.2 During marriage, the dowry property was controlled by the

husband, except perhaps for personal items such as clothing and per-

sonal servants. Ownership of the dowry, however, at least as a fund,

remained with the wife.

6.3.2.3 Marital gifts could be assigned to the wife by her husband

during marriage, perhaps after the birth of issue (LH 150). Ownership

vested in the wife only after the death of the husband. Thus if the

wife predeceased him, the gift was void.

6.3.2.4 On the death of the husband, the wife received back her

dowry, or its value, together with the marital gift (LH 171b). LH

172 grants her an heir’s share in lieu if her husband had not assigned

her a marital gift but makes the marital gift conditional upon her

remaining in the matrimonial home and not remarrying.

6.3.2.5 On the death of the wife, her marital property is designated

her “estate” (warkatum: LH 178–79) or simply her property (VAS 18

1:14). It was inherited by her sons as primary heirs (LH 162). If she

had remarried, issue from both unions were entitled to share her

dowry (LH 173). If she predeceased her husband, he would con-

tinue to have the usufruct of the dowry, which would not be sepa-

rated from his assets. On his death, however, only issue from that

union might inherit it, not his sons by a subsequent marriage (LH

167). If the wife died childless, her husband had no rights at all to

her dowry, which returned to her father’s “house,” to the father or

his heirs—usually her brothers (LH 163–64).

6.3.2.6 The ter¢atummay be made part of the dowry (6.3.2.1), a

transformation described by the phrase “her sons are her heirs” (BE

6/1 84:43). Nonetheless, its origin with the husband was not for-

gotten. If the wife died childless, he was not obliged to return it

with the dowry. If he had not earlier received it back as dowry, he

was even entitled to deduct its value from the dowry that he returned.^112

6.3.2.7 The wife had some discretion as to the disposition of her

marital property. She could use it to provide her daughter with a

(^112) LH 163–64. On the difficulties of a possible parallel in LE 17–18, see Westbrook,
“Death.. .”
WESTBROOK_f10–360-430 8/27/03 12:26 PM Page 398