542
to rebut any claims as to the origin of the jewelry. If the deceased
had no male heirs, his widow could claim it (MAL A 26:101–2).6.1.2 A married woman’s property consisted of her dowry (“erku),
personal possessions (MAL A 29:13–15: mimma “a i“tu bèt abi“a naßßu-
tuni, “everything she brought from her father’s house”) and items
which her father-in-law gave her upon marriage. They were all
reserved for her children, unless her husband took them away from
her,^84 in which case the husband could assign all or part of the
dowry to his own sons. According to MAL, a married woman could
not dispose freely of her property; at most, she had a usufruct dur-
ing her lifetime. The documents of practice, on the other hand, show
that she could, for example, lend silver under a pledge agreement
whereby she acquired ownership of the pledge on default (Verfallspfand:
KAJ 168). It is very likely that this loan was financed from the wife’s
own property.6.1.3 A husband who divorced his wife could make her leave
“empty-handed” (ràqùte“a tußßa: MAL A 37 in fin.), that is, without
divorce money, but he doubtless had to restore her dowry and per-
sonal possessions.^85 The two extant marriage contracts from this
period, however, mention contractual divorce payments in an equal
amount for either spouse (5 minas of refined silver in KAJ 7; ½
mina of silver in TIM 4 45).6.2 Inheritance
6.2.1 In intestate succession, the heirs are ranked in the following
order: son of deceased, then his undivided brothers (MAL A 25).
Indivision seems to be the most usual state of affairs. Thus, MAL
A 25 provides that the undivided brothers of the deceased will inherit
the dumàqù jewellery of his childless widow.^86 In MAL B 2 and 3,(^84) Following Postgate for the translation of the form ipùag“i(Review of
G. Cardascia.. ., 388): “If her husband takes it away from her” (= her dowry); like-
wise Saporetti, Leggi.. ., 56 and n. 41; see also the differing translations of Cardascia,
Lois.. ., 160 (“[il] la chasse”); Borger, “Gesetze.. .,” 85 (“sie ihr wegnehmen will”);
Roth, Law Collections.. ., 164 and 193, n. 21 (“[he] intends to take control of her”).
(^85) In this sense, Cardascia, Lois.. ., 192.
(^86) According to ibid., 153, if the brothers of the deceased had divided, they no
longer had any reason to take precedence over the widow.
WESTBROOK_f13–521-563 8/27/03 12:27 PM Page 542