2,480-year-old papyrus reveals rights of women during the Old Kingdom .

Ancient Egyptians took their legal rights seriously - and when it came to drawing up marriage documents, women knew how to get their way.
An 8-foot long (2.4 metres) contract, currently hanging at the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, reveals just how far their nuptial agreements went.
The 2,480-year-old legal document is written in demotic script and was created to make sure that if a marriage didn't work, the wife wouldn't want for food or money.


Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk... m.html#ixzz3jmBjbbQt
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

See how far back it started, they weren't kidding around, however no news on an actual wedding ceremony

Document written in demotic script and is currently on display in Chicago
It describes how the woman who drew up agreement would receive '1.2 pieces of silver and 36 bags of grain every year for the rest of her life'
Women in ancient Egyptian society had the same legal rights as men

I wonder if the women remarries, ex hubby still had to dish out the dough ?? and how long would they have to stay together a day?? a week?? did the judges used common sense when awarding property or was it strictly by the books.

Ps If I seem exceptionally active on ATS today that's because there is a monster typhoon raging outside my windows. :

a reply to: Spider879

Egypt had its women leaders as well as men (who can forget Cleopatra). It probably wasn't until the rise of Christianity and other male-dominated religions that many women began to feel the scourge of male control. Later, whenever a woman would gain knowledge and interact with the male authorities of her area, the Witch card could be dealt. Remember, in the "modern" era, women didn't even get to own property or vote until quite recently. Woman were "given" the vote in the U.S. in 1920, for example, a hop skip and a grandmother in time.

Hail the old world equality, viva la difference, and viva women!

Just goes to show that "There is nothing new under the sun". I still don't understand why anyone feels that they should be entitled to anything once the marriage is over.

originally posted by: Aleister
a reply to: Spider879

Egypt had its women leaders as well as men (who can forget Cleopatra). It probably wasn't until the rise of Christianity and other male-dominated religions that many women began to feel the scourge of male control. Later, whenever a woman would gain knowledge and interact with the male authorities of her area, the Witch card could be dealt. Remember, in the "modern" era, women didn't even get to own property or vote until quite recently. Woman were "given" the vote in the U.S. in 1920, for example, a hop skip and a grandmother in time.

Hail the old world equality, viva la difference, and viva women!

I think the Greeks and Romans had a similar outlook on women's rights as pre-women's Lib era Western societies, which is a shame as they were the ones credited for democracy or a Republican form of gov't but yeah the Abrahamic religions had this thing about women.

originally posted by: RealTruthSeeker
Just goes to show that "There is nothing new under the sun". I still don't understand why anyone feels that they should be entitled to anything once the marriage is over.

Because a domestic partnership often entails one person moving forward financially while the other supports with the rest of the responsibilities. If that partnership ends, the first person benefits from a lengthy period of building a career while the second person is left to start from scratch with presumably less marketable skills.

originally posted by: RealTruthSeeker
I still don't understand why anyone feels that they should be entitled to anything once the marriage is over.

Because it's a messy business complicated by people building and attaining things as a couple, including children. And fair or not, it's harder for women to walk away from children than it is for men.

originally posted by: RealTruthSeeker
Just goes to show that "There is nothing new under the sun". I still don't understand why anyone feels that they should be entitled to anything once the marriage is over.

Well I can see if they build a life together raised kids and things like that how that would be fair, after all a woman would have a harder time starting over especially if she past her prime than a man would..but that 8ft prenup though..

a reply to: RealTruthSeeker

I'd guess this woman was probably born to a family of greater wealth and status than most and was married off in the prime of her life to someone who could guarantee a similar or better life (financially) than the one she was born into. 10 years and 4 children later she wouldn't be quite the catch she once was. Her chances of getting remarried to a partner of equal or greater stature is now greatly reduced. Basically she took a risk marrying the first man and required some sort of guarantee that her life wouldn't be left in ruin if the husband decided things weren't working out.

There's a concept to consider with all pre-numps.
What she had before the marriage.
I wonder if the scholars who translated this has any clue what rank/position the female held before being betrothed?

a reply to: Aleister
Hiya Aleister,

Straight away, I've only read part of history that I find awesomely interesting so I could be failing to see the whole picture, but I'm not sure I'd agree with you fully.

Babylonian law was pretty nutty sometimes. Father could give away daughters or send them to religious duties or whatever they felt like really. That's around 1700BC though I guess. Is also some laws around 2400BC that talk about crushing mouths with burnt bricks for saying the wrong thing to a man. I can't tell you what that thing is, that part of the text is missing. :/

Just seems that kind of thing has always been around somewhere.

originally posted by: Cuervo

originally posted by: RealTruthSeeker
Just goes to show that "There is nothing new under the sun". I still don't understand why anyone feels that they should be entitled to anything once the marriage is over.

Because a domestic partnership often entails one person moving forward financially while the other supports with the rest of the responsibilities. If that partnership ends, the first person benefits from a lengthy period of building a career while the second person is left to start from scratch with presumably less marketable skills.

Yep! I worked, made more money, took care of my child - while my at the time husband worked a low paying job. At the time I didn't mind. I had the health insurance and dental care for the family. I minded when we divorced and he decided to go back to school and work an even lower paying job- paying me about $50 child support every OTHER week. Then when he graduated, he ended up making twice as much as me and fought tooth and nail on raising that child support. I wish I had sued him. He eventually gave me a little more child support...but stopped when he got a really big raise and tried to hide it. I should have gone through the county, I was being nice though. My loss.

I guess when women said, "Not tonight, it's my pyramid", they meant it!

2,500 years and we haven't changed.

Wonder what the next 2,500 years will bring.

originally posted by: Aleister
a reply to: Spider879

Egypt had its women leaders as well as men (who can forget Cleopatra). It probably wasn't until the rise of Christianity and other male-dominated religions that many women began to feel the scourge of male control. Later, whenever a woman would gain knowledge and interact with the male authorities of her area, the Witch card could be dealt. Remember, in the "modern" era, women didn't even get to own property or vote until quite recently. Woman were "given" the vote in the U.S. in 1920, for example, a hop skip and a grandmother in time.

Hail the old world equality, viva la difference, and viva women!

you left out things like the ancient greeks killed their female children at birth. women were a necessary evil, to create more men, who the ancient greeks viewed as the pinnacle of beauty. they were a pederastic society.

and the ancient hindus, who killed and still kill their female children at birth because male children are preferred due to the high dowry the families of the bride have to pay to the groom's family. and the groom's family may kill the new daughter in law if she displeases them

and the ancient chinese who killed and still kill their female children at birth, referring to them as maggots in the rice, because the society insisted that only a male child could be their aging parents social security net.

oh yeah the ancient religions were all so nice to women. lol

originally posted by: Pinke
a reply to: Aleister
... I can't tell you what that thing is, that part of the text is missing. :/

Peter Peter pumpkin eater?

a reply to: Spider879

I believe that the Greeks and Romans treated their women quite different as far as I have read. Roman women couldn't go shopping without a note pinned to her clothes from her husband giving permission.And Greek women couldn't leave the house or own property. I could be wrong on this,but I read about it years ago.

originally posted by: Dimithae
a reply to: Spider879

I believe that the Greeks and Romans treated their women quite different as far as I have read. Roman women couldn't go shopping without a note pinned to her clothes from her husband giving permission.And Greek women couldn't leave the house or own property. I could be wrong on this,but I read about it years ago.

Yes that's what I was saying, that before the era of women's liberation movement the attitude for women was more inline with the Greek and Romans, incidentally this was not true for tribes and nations of Northern Europe whose attitudes towards women was the same as much of Africa before the conversion to Abrahamic beliefs to both.

Marriage happens when you love somebody so much that you're willing to bet half of your stuff that you'll never break up. So says a happy bachelor.

a reply to: skunkape23

Lol. I guess that's a fair summary.

a reply to: Spider879

They way Egyptians treated and respected women is one of the reasons I was so fascinated with the culture even in elementary school.

They seemed to have it all, for the times and technology.

-Alee

a reply to: Spider879

It should be noted that women in the pre-Columbian Americas weren't overly discriminated against. At least not to my knowledge.