Here is an early precedent for the Handmaid's Tale in Nuzi, northeastern Iraq, in which a barren Hurrian wife provides an enslaved woman to her husband to bear children to him. Cyrus H. Gordon's commentary explains:
"Nuzu marriage contracts may go so far as to oblige the wife who fails to bear children to provide her husband with a handmaid who will bear them: for example, "If Gilimninu (the bride) will not bear children, Gilimninu shall take a woman of N/Lullu-land (whence the choicest slaves were obtained) as a wife for Shennima (the bridegroom)."

Gordon further says, "This enables us to grasp the viewpoint of Sarah, who says to Abraham: "The Lord has kept me from bearing. Go in, I pray, unto my handmaid (Hagar)! Perhaps I shall be built from her." (Gen. 16:2)." From Gordon, "Biblical Customs and the Nuzu." [The Biblical Archaeologist, Vol. 3, No. 1 (Feb 1940), pp. 1-12. (This excellent article is online, just search for the title.)

Gordon's comment about "the choicest slaves" bears interrogation. The "land of the Lullu" was a region preyed upon by slave raiders from more powerful, or militarized countries. Who were the Lullubi? "Bronze Age tribes of Hurrian and Semitic origin who existed and disappeared [guess why and how?] during the 3rd millennium BC, from a region known as Lulubum, now the Sharazor plain of the Zagros Mountains of modern-day Sulaymaniyah Governorate, Iraq. ... Frayne (1990) identified their city Lulubuna or Luluban with the region's modern town of Halabja."

This cuneiform tablet shows that the biblical account of Sarah and Hagar was not a one-off, but customary in a slavery society. In fact the same pattern occurs in Genesis 35: 5: "And the sons of Bilhah, Rachel's handmaid; Dan, and Naphtali: 26 And the sons of Zilpah, Leah's handmaid: Gad, and Asher: these are the sons of Jacob, which were born to him in Padanaram."

Gordon again: "After Hagar had borne Ishmael, Sarah was blessed with a son, Isaac. Resentful of Hagar and with misgivings that Ishmael's presence might be detrimental to Isaac's future, Sarah tells Abraham: "Drive out this hand- maid and her son, for the son of this handmaid shall not inherit along with my son, Isaac." (Gen. 21:10).

[This relates to what I've been saying about Women Divided in patriarchy, specifically the class division, which is typically in slavery also an ethnic division. Another major division in patrilineal / patrilocal societies is that of sisters against wives, and mothers-in-law (who came in as wives versus new wives). A third division occurs in polygyny, of wives versus co-wives, with first wife dominating the others because of her seniority (and often her class position, because women of wealth and rank were not given in marriage as second or third wives. However secure their rank was as first wives, however, younger co-wives could gain their husband's favor and compete with the older wife in significant ways. The Islamic rule that husbands must give equal sexual attention to co-wives was meant to address this unhappy situation, but did not displace the power relations of polygyny in private.[

Gordon goes on to explain how Nuzi law addressed the inevitable conflict between wives and enslaved concubines: "Under these circumstances the Nuzu wife was expressly forbidden to expel the handmaid's offspring: for example, 'Gilimninu shall not send the (handmaid's) offspring away' (H V 67:22). Doubtless Sarah was not acting within her rights, for a divine dispensation is required to permit the unwilling Abraham to comply:

"And the thing was quite bad in the eyes of Abraham on account of his son (Ishmael). But God said to Abraham: 'Let it not be bad in thine eyes because of the lad and thy handmaid. (In) all that Sarah saith to thee hearken unto her voice, for in Isaac shall seed be called for thee."' (Gen. 21:11-12)

The arrangement was for the benefit of men and their patriline. However, the men didn't get along either, even relatives: "Students of the Nuzu Tablets are well acquainted with the wretched lack of fraternal love among Hilbishuh's sons whose nameswere Kurpazah,Tupkitilla and Matteshup.In one of the documents (N 331) Kurpazah hails Mattesh up to court on a charge of having committed assault and battery on Kurpazah's wife.

"In another, there is the record of the scandal in which Matteshup swears in court that Kurpazah stole eight sheep from the groves in Tupkitilla's inheritanceportion. As if it were not enough for one brother to rob another's estate, a third brother must play the informer! Tablet N 204, ironically enough, was labelled "a document of brotherhood."

"Brotherhood"is here one of the technical terms used by the Nuzians to get aroundthe law against selling land. In other words, the sale of a birthright is here kept within the law by being quite obviously disguised as an adoption into brotherhood, even though the parties are already brothers by birth.

"However complicated and perverse this may seem, it is nevertheless true. The main part of the text reads as follows:"On the day they divide the grove (that lies) on the road of the town of Lumti . . . (there follow the dimensions and the exact location), Tupkitilla shall give it to Kurpazah as his inheritance share. And Kurpazah has taken three sheep to Tupkitilla in exchange for his inheritance share."

"It is hard to imagine that any reason other than dire lack of food induced Tupkitilla to sell his patrimonyfor three sheep. But just as Kurpazah exploited Tupkitilla's hunger, so did Jacob take advantage of the famished Esau: 'And Jacob said: "Sell me thy birthright now!" And Esau said: "What with me about to die (of hunger), what good is the birthright to me?: And Jacob said: 'Swear to me now!' And he swore to him and sold his birthright to Jacob. And Jacob gave Esau bread and a mess of lentils and (Esau) ate and drank." (Gen. 25:31-34).

[Brotherhood! there are societies where this behavior would be unthinkable; but the desire to accummulate wealth corrupts, and not only in this region or time.]

Oh my, there's more (you can skip this part, but it eventually gets around to the status of women, and the teraphim, or "household gods", which archaeology demonstrates were actually goddesses):

"Jacob's dealings with Laban have been particularly illuminated by the Nuzu records.One tablet (G 51) is so important that we translate all of it except the names of the seven witnesses at the end:

The adoption tablet of Nashwi son of Arshenni. He adopted Wullu son of Puhishenni. As long as Nashwi lives, Wullu shall give (him) food and cloth- ing. When Nashwi dies, Wullu shall be the heir. Should Nashwi beget a son, (the latter) shall divide equally with Wullu but (only) Nashwi's son shall take Nashwi's gods. But if there be no son of Nashwi's, then Wullu shall take Nashwi's gods. And (Nashwi) has given his daughter Nuhuya as wife to Wullu. And if Wullu takes another wife, he forfeits Nashwi's land and buildings. Whoever breaks the contract shall pay one mina of silver, one mina of gold.

To bring out the more clearly the bearing of this text on the Hebrew episode, we summarize the tablet, substituting"Laban"for "Nashwi",and "Jacob"for "Wullu": "Laban", who has no son of his own, adopts "Jacob"and makes him heir. If "Laban" should beget a son in the future, that son and "Jacob" are to share the inheritance, but only the begotten son is to take "Laban's"gods.

"If "Laban"does not beget a son, then alone may "Jacob" take "Laban's" gods (compare N 89:10-12). As a condition, "Jacob" is to marry "Laban's" daughter. "Jacob" is forbidden to marry any other woman under the penalty of forfeiting "Laban's" property.

"Let us now examine the Biblical account to see if and to what extent it coincides with the tablet. There is no indication that Laban had sons when Jacob first appears on the scene (Gen. 29). Laban's sons were apparently born between that time and twenty years later (Gen. 31:41), when they are first mentioned (Gen. 31:1). Laban agrees to give a daughter in marriage to Jacob when he makes him a member of the household: "It is better that I give her to thee than that I give her to another man. Dwell with me!" (Gen. 29:19). Our thesis that Jacob's joining Laban's household approximates Wullu's adoption is borne out by other remarkable resemblances with the Nuzu document.

"Laban's insistence that Jacob take no wife in addition to his daughters (Gen.31:50) is interesting but without other evidence would prove nothing because the prohibition against the bridegroom's taking another wife is rather widespread [especially for prosperous families, see what I said above about co-wives] (compare also N 435:10).

"More significant, though by itself inconclusive, is Laban's gift of a handmaid to each of his daughters upon their marriage to Jacob (Gen. 29:24, 29). This is done under similar circumstances according to another tablet (H V 67:35-36). Rachel's theft of Laban's gods (Gen. 31:19, 30-35), however, is unmistakably paralleled in the tablet translated above. While they are called teraphim in verses 19, 34, and 35, they are called "gods" in verses 30 and 32, as in the Nuzu tablets.

"There is no doubt, therefore, that the teraphim were simply idols. The possession of these gods [goddesses!] was important, and, in addition to their religious significance, they may have implied leadership of the family. Because Laban had begotton sons, none but the latter had any right to the gods and hence Laban's indignation is justified: "Why has thou stolen my gods?" (Gen. 31:30)." [Here Gordon fails to even consider that women were the ones who did ceremony with the teraphim.]

"Jacob, on the other hand, had not bargained for so secondary a position. His hopes had been frustrated by the birth of Laban's sons. The following words of Laban are quite intelligible if understood as being addressed to Jacob in the latter's capacity of Laban's adopted son (not son-in-law!): "The daughters are my daughters and the sons are my sons and the flocks are my flocks and whatever thou seest is mine" (Gen. 31:43). Laban was to exercise patriarchal authority over all his children and grandchildren as long as he lived.

"Jacob, as Laban's adopted son, and Jacob's wives, children and flocks belonged to Laban. Laban had every right to punish Jacob for running away and stealing members of Laban's household, but "the God of Jacob's father" had appeared to Laban in a dream and commanded him to deal gently with Jacob (Gen. 31:24, 29).

"Furthermore, even the heart of a crafty Aramean like Laban was not devoid of parental tenderness: "And as for my daughters, what can I do to them now--or to their children that they have borne" (Gen. 31:43). That Rachel and Leah were not free to leave their father's household was not merely because they were his daughters (for under ordinary circumstances married women belonged to their husbands). They still belonged to Laban on account of their husband's status as an adopted son. They were as guilty as Jacob in agreeing to run off (Gen. 31:14-16.)

Here Gordon provides an illustration of a female icon from Nuzi, which strongly resembles Syrian and Canaanite figurines, especially those of Megiddo:

"That Laban had been roguish in more ways than one is also evident from the Biblical account. The most shameful occasion of which we know, is the way he "palmed off" the wrong bride on the unsuspecting Jacob (Gen. 29:22-27). Furthermore, that he had not been an ideal father can be gathered from the complaint of his daughters: "Are we not reckoned as foreign women unto him?" (Gen. 31:15).10

"The Nuzu tablets make a sharp distinction between native women (called "daughters of Arrapkha", the local capital), who cannot be subjected to mistreatment, and foreign women, who are regularly found to occupy inferior social positions [and abused]. This clarifies the terminology used by Rachel and Leah. They felt that Laban had treated them as foreign women, whatever be the precise financial significance of their reason: "for he has sold us and indeed eats our money." (Gen. 31:15).

[In other words, he is living off the proceeds from their arranged marriage, which included not just brideprice but also seven years of bride service from Jacob for each daughter, for a total of 14 years. The biblical account emphasizes how Jacob was cheated, but this line shows that the daughters were exploited as well.]

[Hierarchy within the patriline itself is firmly stated in Genesis:] "However much the blessings themselves may have been shaped to fit subsequent history, their original function as testamentary wills is still preserved. Thus Isaac appoints his son to follow him as family chief: "Be a lord to thy brothers!" (Gen. 27:29), while Jacob designates Judah as his successor: "Judah, may thy brothers pay thee homage . . . may thy father's sons bow down to thee!" (Gen. 49:8). ...

"While Hebrew society was essentially patriarchal, with the father ruling the family, it had certain fratriarchal aspects, whereby a man is singled out to exert authority over his brothers. Another brother may be appointed vice-fratriarch (I Sam. 8:2; 17:13; I Chron. 5:12). In Hebrew the terms designating "fratriarch" are quite distinct from "first-born": for example, "Shimri was the fratriarch, though not the first-born, for his father made him fratriarch" (I Chron. 26:10). Fratriarchy is detectable in the Nuzu tablets as well as in the cuneiform records of the Hittites and Elamites."

But now back to women's lesser status in inheritance, which improves if she has no brothers: "While the right of daughters to inherit is quite familar to us, it is not recognized in all states of society. Numbers 27:8 decrees thus: "If a man die, and he have no son, ye shall transfer his estate to his daughter." Under similar circumstances a daughter is to get a share of the parental estate in one of the Nuzu tablets (H V 67:27-29)."

But a wife herself can become an inheritance. The background to this is the relative dispossession of daughters, who cannot support themselves, and the fact that marriage cut them off from support from their birth family. The levirate did function as a kind of survival insurance for widows (however odious it might be to them), but they had no say in what became a hidebound custom. Its main purpose was not to support these women but to preserve their husband's line:

"Levirate marriage (to cite one of its variant forms) designates the in- stitution whereby the widow of a man who dies without having begotten a son is to marry the deceased's brother and the first son of this union is legally the son of the dead husband. Such is the essence of the law accord- ing to Deuteronomy 25:5-7 (compare also Gen. 38 and Ruth). Though the institution came to be interpreted as a measure to preserve the deceased's name in Israel (Deut. 25:6), it seems to have originated in purchase marriage, according to which a girl is bought by and belongs to her hus- band's family. This, at any rate, is the case in a Nuzu tablet (N 441) wherein a father, when obtaining a bride for his son, specifies that if the son dies, she is to be married to another of his sons."

Now we come to husband's power not only to unilaterally divorce a wife, but to punish her by casting her out in the most humiliating way possible, and using her own children to do it:

"Hosea 2:4-5 refers to the custom of having a reprehensible wife expelled naked by her own children: "Take action against your mother, take action, for she is not my wife nor am I her husband (i.e. I herewith divorce her) ... Lest I have her stripped naked and set her as on the day she was born." (compare also Ezek. 16:39; 23:26).

In a Nuzu tablet (N 444:19-23) a husband wills: "If (my wife) Wishirwi goes to (another) husband and lives (with him), my sons shall strip off the clothes of my wife and drive (her) out of my house." Similarly another tablet (H V 71: 34-36) contains the same injunction. This custom finds a parallel in a cuneiform tablet from Hana, in Aramaic magical bowls from a very much later time in Babylonia, and, oddly enough, among the ancient Germans [doubtless referring here to Tacitus' account].

"Frequently the Nuzians sold their daughters or sisters into what are euphemistically called adoptions, with the proviso that the adoptors shall marry the girls off. Exodus 21:7-11 shows that a similar custom existed in Israel, whereby a man could sell his daughter as a slave [disregarding the probability of rape] and the purchaser was to see that she was married. One of the possibilities mentioned is that his son should marry her."