Like the rations for men, those for women vary by type of work, but women’s
rations were distinctly lower than those of men. So-called land allotments – fields to
be harvested – were mainly or exclusively given to men (Prentice 2010 : 73 – 80 ).
Women are also a theme in the so-called “Instructions of Shuruppak,” first written
down around 2600 BCbut probably older and orally transmitted. An “old, intelligent,
wise man” named Shuruppak communicates his thoughts and ideas to his son in the
form of instructions. On women, marriage, family, and household he says (Alster 2005 :
56 – 203 ) the son should not choose a wife during a festival, or one who has a fortune;
the wife should not be weak; marriage is positive because a married man is well cared
for; family is supportive, an older brother is like a father, an older sister like a mother
but a son should also be supportive of his mother and older sister; mother’s words are
like those of a god to be respected by the son; a son will speak for his family (“house”),
a daughter for her women’s quarters. On behavior vis-à-vis young married women the
father admonishes sons not to laugh with or sit next to them. Sexual intercourse with
a slave girl or prostitute has negative connotations. Buying a slave girl from the palace
is not advisable, instead the son should bring one from the mountains. It is difficult
to judge what is intended as humorous or ironic. From the end of the Early Dynastic
period, there is evidence that lower status women were harshly punished if they spoke
to higher-ranking men in public (Frayne 2008 : 273 : 111. 14 – 19 ) Although I think that
the misogynist school texts may be the scribblings of adolescent boys, they may also
have written down what they heard when men were among themselves. In view of the
respect sons owed mothers and other women of their class, it seems unlikely they
would say such misogynist things at home or even in public when women were present.
According to Early Dynastic documents, marriage was monogamous even in royal
families. Marriage between cousins is attested in the inscription of Bara’irnun, wife of
Gishakidu, king of Umma, the only royal woman whose genealogy is known; she was
the daughter, granddaughter, and daughter-in-law of kings of Umma. That women at
some time practiced polyandry is based on a “reform” edict by Uruinimgina, however
translations vary. For example, Wilcke ( 2003 ) “it was so that women of former times
took two husbands each. Today’s women have dropped that crime”; Frayne ( 2008 ),
the opposite, “as for women of former times – a man (could) take two of them; but
for women of today – indemnity payments (for debts?) have been removed (and the
practice has been abolished).” There is no evidence for polyandry but according to
later sources female household slaves could be concubines and become secondary
wives when the first wife remained childless and a slave woman gave birth to her
master’s child.
Social inequity must have been severe because Enmetena and Uruinimgina issued
edicts enabling families to reunite. Causes of separation were corvéelabor and enslave-
ment or imprisonment, often of children, because of debt. The Sumerian technical
term for “freedom, liberation” literally means “to return to the mother” (ama gi 4 ),
perhaps indicating that mothers were not enslaved or imprisoned for debts but
functioned at least as interim head of the family. Uruinimgina also proclaimed a
general amnesty to establish justice regardless of rank or status and explicitly stated he
would not deliver orphans and widows to the powerful. The king further discontinued
the practice of payments for divorces and apparently marriages to high officials, and
also abolished taxes and fees for funerals, divorces and marriages. If costly, most people
may not have been formally married, divorced, or buried.
–– Julia M. Asher-Greve ––