Previously, I had written about the unique matrilineal family system in ancient Kerala. One of the significant consequences of this system was the legal framework surrounding inheritance. Under Kerala’s matrilineal system, the joint family house, called tharawad തറവാട്, owned all properties, with inheritance passing down from one generation to the next through the female members born to the family. The patriarch of the family was called karanavan കാരണവൻ. He had the right to manage the properties, but he could not sell, bequeath, or otherwise alienate any property without the approval of all his family members.¹
Distinct from this family property was self-acquired property of any family member, be it male or female, acquired through a gift, as wages, or in a bequest. Such self-acquired property belonged to the acquirer absolutely.² Men and women could equally hold self-acquired property in their own name. At the death of the acquirer, all their self-acquisitions devolved to the joint family property, absent a gift during their lifetime or bequest in a will upon death.
Such a system was quite different from the legal framework associated with ancient patrilineal systems that existed in neighboring regions of Kerala. In such patrilineal systems, typically, only the males had right to own and dispose of any property. The predominant mode of inheritance in such patrilineal systems was primogeniture, with the property passing exclusively to the eldest male in the family.³ The women of the family had no right to hold any property: an unmarried woman relied on her father and brothers; a married woman on her husband and sons; and a widow relied on her sons or her husband’s brothers to support her.⁴ Besides, in such a system, there was no distinction between the family property and self-acquired property; the latter automatically merged with the family property when acquired.
Where did Kerala’s strange legal framework originate? To answer that, we must go back in time and space to ancient Egypt, which had a system quite like Kerala’s, judging from analysis of an ancient legal document dating to the reign of Pharaoh Ramesses XI (ca. 1106–1077 BCE). This document, called “Adoption Papyrus (P. Ashmolean Museum 1945.96)” is currently preserved in Ashmolean Museum in Oxford. It was first translated into English by Alan Gardiner in a paper titled “Adoption Extraordinary,” published in the twenty-sixth volume of The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology in 1940.⁵
The Egyptian document is in two sections, dated seventeen years apart: in the first section, dated on the day Ramesses XI ascended the throne (ca. 1107 BCE), a man named Nebnefer bequests some property to his wife Nenefer; in the second section, Nenefer appoints her heirs, to whom she bequests her property. I will describe the analysis of each passage in this document (translated according to Gardiner’s 1940 paper) through various commentator’ patrilineal lens, the resultant problems they raise, and a counter-analysis through Kerala’s matrilineal framework, which captures the family system and inheritance laws suggested by the ancient Egyptian document accurately down to the smallest detail.
Nebnefer, my husband, made a writing for me, the musician of Seth, Nenefer, and made me a child⁶ of his, and wrote down unto me all he possessed having no son or daughter apart from myself. [He said] “All profit that I have made with her, I will bequeath it to Nenefer, my wife”
Gardiner assumes in the above passage that “all he possessed” and “all the profits that I made with her” refers to Nebnefer’s unqualified “entire property.” Professor de Zulueta, who provides a commentary in Gardiner’s paper, questions this assumption. He rightly points out that the words “all the profits that I have made with her” “suggest a limitation,” but dismisses his thoughts by referring to the previous phrase “all he possessed” as justifying its interpretation of “the entire property.”⁷ On the other hand, Kerala’s matrilineal laws provide better clarity: Nebnefer’s property that is being bequeathed to Nenefer is his self-acquired property. It is this limitation that is meant by the phrase “all he possessed,” and “all the profits that I made with her.”⁸
“and if (any of my own brothers or sisters arise to confront her at my death tomorrow or thereafter and say “Let my brother’s share be given (to me) — ”
Gardiner believes that this statement reflects Nebnefer’s foresight “that a claim on the part of one of his brothers and sisters might seek to deprive the childless lady of some part of his estate,” coloring the transaction with unnecessary speculations about the character of Nebnefer’s siblings. Besides, at the time of this bequest, it is not known whether Nenefer will have a child in the future, so this conjecture is presumptuous. Now however, under Kerala’s matrilineal framework, any self-acquired property that is not bequeathed away devolves to the family property, i.e., to Nebnefer’s own brothers or sisters. Thus, rather than showcasing any foresight about the family’s designs on his property, Nebnefer’s rationale actually serves to expressly negate any claim they may have on Nebnefer’s self-acquired property.
Behold, I have made the bequest to Rennefer, my wife, this day before Huiriumu my sister.⁹
The presence of Nebnefer’s sister as a witness surprised Gardiner, as for he states, “The procedure [of adoption as heir] … consisted… simply in making a verbal declaration in front of witnesses. Nebnefer took the precaution, however, of arranging for a sister of his own to be among the witnesses.” The assumption that Huirumi’s presence is merely a precaution and not a necessity is not questioned by any later critics. However, under the matrilineal framework, her presence is required as representative of the family’s rights, her express approval preventing any future questions about the validity of the bequest later.
Declaration made by the stable-master Nebnefer and his wife the musician of Seth of Spermeru Rennefer, to wit: — We purchased the female slave Dinihetiri and she gave birth to these three children, one male and two female, in all three.
The joint declaration by Nebnefer and Nenefer is in the second section of the document, dated seventeen years later than the first. Gardiner is surprised that the father of the slave children is not mentioned; he presumes that the father of the slave children is Nebnefer.¹⁰ However, under Kerala’s matrilineal system, the father is irrelevant; hence his absence in the document means nothing.
And I took them and nourished them and brought them up, and I have reached this day with them without their doing evil towards me, but they dealt well with me, I having no son or daughter except them.
After the previous joint declaration, the voice suddenly shifts from the plural “we” to the singular “I,” leading to divergence of interpretations among later scholars as to whose words follow. Gardiner and a majority of other scholars believe that the text following the combined declaration is by Nenefer, and her declaration occurs after Nebnefer’s death; on the other hand, Cruz-Uribe believes that Nebnefer is very much alive at the time of the second section, and the text is his voice. Because the text is in the first-person feminine pronoun, indicating that the voice is of a woman, I will accept the majority view that the voice is Nenefer’s.
And the stable-master Padiu entered my house and took Taamenniut their elder sister to wife, he being related to me and being my younger brother. And I accepted him for her and he is with her at this day.
Under the assumption that the family system is patrilineal, there are no objections to Padiu taking his sister’s daughter as his wife. However, Taamenniut is not technically Nenefer’s birth daughter, and nothing in the document suggests that she has been adopted as yet. On the other hand, if the family setup were matrilineal as in Kerala, Nenefer’s brother may marry and adopt his wife into the family, a practice called kudiveppu കുടിവെപ്പ് in Kerala (see my previous article). Under this practice, the couple’s children belong to the father’s house.
Now behold, I have made her a freewoman of the land of Pharaoh, and if she bear either son or daughter, they shall be freemen of the land of Pharaoh in exactly the same way, they being with the stable-master Padiu, this younger brother of mine. And the children shall be with their elder sister in the house of Padiu, this stable-master, this younger brother of mine.
Commentators gloss over this passage, probably considering it as self-evident from a patrilineal lens. Tammenniut is emancipated because she must be freed from her servile birth. She is of course in her husband’s house; what is there to say? However, this passage provides a different perspective from a matrilineal viewpoint. Because adoption by marriage, kudiveppu, is valid only among equals, Padiu’s marriage with Taamenniut necessitates that she be emancipated. The passage then clarifies that she is adopted into Padiu’s house and her children will be free and belong to his house, as per Kerala’s kudiveppu rules; that Taamenniut’s younger siblings will live with their elder sister in Padiu’s house, as befits a freehold matrilineal family. In other words, the sentences about Padiu’s house are words of actual adoption, explaining how Dinihetiri’s three children became members of Padiu’s and Nenefer’s family, clarifying, what, according to Professor de Zulueta is the “most difficult point in the papyrus.”
today I make him [Padiu] a son of mine exactly like them.
There is no reason for Nenefer to make Padiu her son under the patrilineal analysis. Gardiner believes that Nenefer did so because she wished to bequeath him an equal share of her property. But she could very well have done that without making him her son. There is a simpler explanation according to Kerala’s matrilineal framework: Dinihetiri’s three children were adopted into Padiu’s house, i.e., family, which is also Nenefer’s. They automatically became the family’s heirs by virtue of the adoption. However, there is confusion as to whether their heirship stemmed from Nenefer or was equal to hers because Padiu was her brother of her own generation, yet their position previously was akin to Nenefer’s children. Appointing Padiu as her son cleared the confusion, placing him, his wife Taamenniut, and her siblings as Nenefer’s heirs in the next generation rather than her equals in her own generation.
And if I have fields in the country, or if I have any property in the world, or if I have merchandise, these shall be divided among my four children, Padiu being one of them.
Under the patrilineal analysis, that Nenefer is Nebnefer’s heir as per the first section makes no legal difference to her heirs’ status, so that the first section is redundant and unnecessary.¹¹ Yet, again here, Kerala’s matrilineal system clarifies the confusion. Nenefer bequeathed her self-acquired property, which included the bequest from Nebnefer in the first section; therefore, the first section was required to be included in the later bequest.¹²
And as for these matters of which I have spoken, they are entrusted in their entirety to Padiu, this son of mine.
There is no rationale given by Gardiner or any other commentator for Nenefer making Padiu her executor. However, under Kerala’s matrilineal system, his status as executor suggests his approval as representative of Nenefer’s family to her bequest of her self-acquired property. In other words, his position as executor serves the same purpose as Nebnefer’s sister’s witness to Nebnefer’s bequest in the first section.
Thus, analysis of the Adoption Papyrus under Kerala’s matrilineal inheritance framework shows that every detail in the legal document was significant, carrying legal weight.¹³ The Adoption Papyrus in Egypt may thus be a very early example of the legal structure that existed in Kerala. It is simply amazing that Kerala carried pharaonic Egypt’s ancient legal framework in more or less unchanged form well into the twentieth century CE, showing not only its robustness in a different milieu, but also its sense of timeless justice.
Notes
[1] Lewis Moore, 1905, Malabar Law and Custom, 3rd ed., 147 (Madras: Higginbotham & Co.). Any alienation made by the karanavan is invalid unless made with the assent of the junior members of the family. In the case of gift or sales, express assent of the family is required.
[2] See Moore, Malabar Law and Custom, 174.
[3] In an alternate patrilineal system, the property passed by inheritance in equal proportions to all the male sons.
[4] For example, in ancient England, where primogeniture was the law, a woman was required to give up all rights in any property she owned to her husband upon marriage. This law was changed in 1870 by the Married Women’s Property Act.
[5] Alan Gardiner, 1940, “Adoption Extraordinary,” The Journal of Egyptian Archeology, vol. 26: 23–29. A later translation and reinterpretation by Professor Eugene Cruz-Uribe appeared in the seventy-fourth volume of the same journal in 1988. Eugene Cruz-Uribe, 1988, “A New Look at the Adoption Papyrus,” The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, vol. 74: 220–23. This reinterpretation was criticized in later papers by other scholars. See, e.g., Nico van Blerk, 2020, “The Contribution of Papyrus Ashmolean Museum 1945.96 (Adoption Papyrus) to our Understanding of the Ancient Egyptian “Testamentary Disposition” and Succession Law,” Journal for Semitics, vol. 29: 1–20, https://doi.org/10.25159/2663-6573/7445.
[6] The word used in the document is sheriw (https://thesaurus-linguae-aegyptiae.de/lemma/156680) corresponding to Malayalam cheriya ചെറിയ “junior”. The meaning here is likely “heir” rather than “child,” according to all commentators.
[7] All commentators agree that Egyptian women had the right to own property with the right to devise such property by will. But they assume, without explicitly stating so, that the ancient Egyptian family was patrilineal.
[8] Under matrilineal laws, Nebnefer cannot possess any part of his family’s property.
[9] Nenefer’s name is spelled differently here because the sound represented by the letter [n] in one spelling and [r] in the other was likely [l]. In Malayalam, her name would be nallaval നല്ലവൾ.
[10] Gardiner states, “Who the father was is not stated, but possibly an Egyptian reader would have taken it for granted, without being told, that the father was none other than Nebnefer himself.” Cruz-Uribe presumes that the father is Nebnefer, without any justification.
[11] Indeed, Professor de Zulueta confesses that he cannot understand the reason for the two separate sections and does not see any “strict legal logic” that connects them. On the other hand, according to Cruz-Uribe’s view, Padiu and Dinihetri’s three children are now Nebnefer’s heirs, and Nenefer’s claim on Nebnefer’s property per the first section complicates the matter so that “no transfer of that property could legally be made without her consent.” Thus, per Cruz-Uribe’s analysis, the first section justifies the need for the second section. Other scholars reach this conclusion by another route. For example, Blerk (2020) concludes that Nebnefer has already died at the time of documenting the facts of the second section, thereby necessitating the first section, which documents Nebnefer’s bequest to Nenefer, adding his property to that of hers.
[12] Family property cannot be divided thus into four pieces; thus, the bequest is of Nenefer’s self-acquired property.
[13] Currently accepted analysis of the Adoption Papyrus, with its Eurocentric patrilineal bent, suggests scribal errors, redundant verbiage, irrelevant facts, confusing narrations, and conflicting ideas in the document.
