Slavery during the third dynasty of Ur / [Bernard Joseph Siegel].

  • Bernard J. Siegel
Date:
1947
Catalogue details

Licence: In copyright

Credit: Slavery during the third dynasty of Ur / [Bernard Joseph Siegel]. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    21/60 page 19
    While the purchaser thus had the right to forfeit his claim to the purchased object until paid for, he also had the right to hold it until the time of settle¬ ment. To return to de Genouillac, 1910-21, 832, Urlugal, hard pressed as he must have been, sold Babadanumea a second time, to a merchant Lu-dGIR+ KARA-da. The money received from the merchant would serve to alleviate Urlugal’s general financial straits or to satisfy his creditors.37 Urlugal was paid outright by the merchant, and the transfer was effected. Urlugal, however, was guilty of not having cleared the former claim of Ludingirra. The latter, once having verified his purchase, took the slave girl from Lu-GIR + KARA-da. Whether or not he paid Urlugal at this point re¬ mains unstated. Very likely he did, although it is possible that he either paid later or had an outright claim to her because of the seller’s breach of contract. At all events, the merchant was left high and dry, so to speak, and demanded —and must have received—his money back from Urlugal. From this parallel we are probably justified in restoring the destroyed portion in de Genouillac, 1910-21, II, 3516 (rev. 2) as ki-mi(n)-na—uin a second place,” namely, elsewhere. Then the facts of the case appear to have been that Urbaba had sold his maid servant and her child twice. The first pur¬ chaser, who naturally had prior claim, took them from the second purchaser. The latter (Namzitarra) was either a party who had paid for the maid servants outright, or was a merchant, expected to do so. Urbaba was then obliged to re¬ pay Namzitarra. This, however, he was not able to do, and as a result was obliged to give his unmarried child to Namzitarra into servitude until the amount was worked off or the child redeemed. Sale by the Mother In addition to the cases of sale of children by the father, there are several documents which attest to sale by the mother.38 The documents themselves are simple cases of claim against sale.39 They are especially interesting for the 37 We know from the First Dynasty of Babylon, for instance, that the indirect sale by the debtor for money owed his creditor was commonly transacted with a merchant. See Driver and Miles, 1939, p. 70. 38 De Genouillac, 1910-21, II, 925, 2775, and 3532; ibid., Ill, 5657 and 6416. Ibid., Ill, 3519 is a special case and will be discussed in the following chapter under the section, “Marriage of Slaves”; ibid., Ill, 5657 is really a case of self-sale. 39 De Genouillac, 1910-21, III, 3532 typically illustrates the sequence of events in these cases. Apparently Namninidu had claimed she had not sold her daughter to Dingirsaga. Dingirsaga, it is said, had bought Nin(x)baba, a maid servant, from her mother for her completed price of five shekels silver. Moreover, he brought the tablet (contract) of purchase before the judges. The mother then yields before the testimony and swears not to raise any future claim for the girl. Ibid., II, 925, is a slight variation. The facts of the case are as follows: (1) Atu sold her daugh¬ ter to one Ursugalamma; (2) the child later claims that she is not the maid servant of Ursuga-
    digitised image 1
    digitised image 2
    digitised image 3