A History of Ancient Near Eastern Law

544 

6.2.3 A father could dispose of his property by testament. Three

different introductory formulas are found: (a) the objective style,

already found in the Old Assyrian period (PN “ìmti bìti“u i“ìm, “PN

has settled his estate by testament”: OBT 105:3–5); (b) the personal

formula, known also from Nuzi and in MAL O 1 (PN 1 “imti anaPN 2

i“ìm, “PN 1 has settled upon PN 2 by testament.. .”); (c) the will of

the testator (PN 1 ina migrat ramini“u “imtiPN 2 i“ìm, “PN 1 of his own

free will has settled upon PN 2 by testament.. .”: OBT 2037:1–4).

From the variety of legal forms it may be concluded that the act

consisted less in settling the fate of property than of persons, allowing

the testator to designate one or more heirs.^90 The Assyrian testament

would thus be analogous to gifts inter vivos, being limited to a few

items of property assigned to a few persons, with a codicil dividing

the rest of the estate in equal parts among the heirs.^91 The documents

of practice confirm the rule applied in MAL whereby the eldest takes

a double share (OBT 2037). At the same time, co-heirs prefer to

remain undivided after the father’s death, both in MAL (B 2–5) and

in practice. Two documents, KAJ 8 and 10, are of interest in this

regard. They concern the same persons, with an interval of twenty-

two years. The second records the division of the family estate, by

common consent. The first is apparently a gift mortis causaby which

the father excludes the peculium(sikiltu)^92 of one of his sons from the

heritable estate and threatens any son who contests this gift with dis-

inheritance. It would appear that the family of the de cuiusremained

undivided for twenty-two years. Indivision can extend over several

generations for land and functions as joint ownership.^93

6.2.4 Daughters sometimes inherited on an equal basis with their

brothers (OBT 105:8–10) or were the object of special provisions

(OBT 2037).^94 They received land, furniture, household utensils, and

slaves. Immovable property was reserved for the woman’s sons, fail-

ing which it passed to her brothers (OBT 2037:39–42). A wife did

not inherit from her husband but could receive a gift from him, in

(^90) Wilcke, “Testamente.. .,” 198–99.
(^91) Ibid., 201.
(^92) On the meaning of sikiltu, see ibid., 200, 222, and Durand, Review of
D. Arnaud, 51.
(^93) Koschaker, Neue keilschriftliche.. ., 40.
(^94) Wilcke, “Testamente.. .,” 224–26.
WESTBROOK_f13–521-563 8/27/03 12:27 PM Page 544