710
of the texts, which often confuses genders, is not misleading). The
husband could “hate and drive away” his wife (AT 92), and the
wife, in turn, could “hate and leave” her husband (AT 94). As stated
in AT 92, if the husband divorced his wife without grounds, she
would have to leave taking with her both bride-price and dowry.
But if he had good grounds (lit., “should she pull at his nose”),^40 then
she would have to leave taking only the dowry, the bride-price being
returned to the husband.5.1.5 Marriage in Alalakh could be polygamous. This is shown by
a provision attested in all four marriage contracts that places restric-
tions on the husband marrying another wife (in the case of AT 91,
a third one), presumably meant to safeguard the status of the wife
for whom the contract is drawn up. The provision states that he
can only marry again if she fails (or they both fail, in AT 91) to
give birth (“umma ul ulid). In AT 93 and AT 94, a period of seven
years is stipulated before the husband can take a second wife.
AT 92 and AT 94 include a provision concerning the inheritance
of the son born to the wife in question. It declares that even if the
second wife gives birth earlier, the son of the first wife will retain
the status of first-born.5.2 Children
A father could not only disregard the rule of primogeniture (AT 92
and 94 above);^41 according to AT 87, he could determine the sta-
tus of each of the free members of a household, including the order
(arbitrary or not) of succession of the children. Apart from the chil-
dren, the text also mentions the mother and the “elder daughter-in-
law of the household,” all of them under the authority of the father.
His position as head of household also gave him the capacity to
transfer his own status (e.g., as a maryannu) to his children.
As for the duties of a son towards his father, only one text, the
adoption document AT 16, stipulates that as long as the father lives,
the son “must support him” (ittanabbal“u).(^40) For this expression, see Malul, Legal Symbolism, 111ff.
(^41) See Mendelsohn, “On the Preferential Status...”
WESTBROOK_f17–692-717 8/27/03 12:29 PM Page 710