A History of Ancient Near Eastern Law

go to court with his colleagues.^271 The priestly phylai had precedence

over the individual, and could assume control over the property in

case of delict.^272

6.1.4.2 The inscription of Urk. 1, 278–80, expressly forbids the pre-

senting of offerings to persons other than those who had provided

for them. The offerings seem to be considered a type of possession

of the mortuary priests, who might attempt, unless prevented, to dis-

tribute or alienate them with some freedom.^273 This fact is recog-

nized implicitly in the mortuary contracts prohibiting the alienation

of the mortuary endowment property.^274

6.1.4.3 The mortuary cult sn-≈.tland is held in trust for the deceased,

as it were, by a co-beneficiary.^275

6.2 Inheritance^276

6.2.1 In the will of Heti, the man, speaking “with his living mouth,”^277

gives to his children property “in order that they may live.”^278

(^271) Moussa and Altenmüller, Nianchchnum.. ., 87; Goedicke, Rechtsinschriften..., 57.
(^272) Goedicke, Rechtsinschriften.. ., 57.
(^273) Helck, Wirtschaftsgeschichte.. ., 92.
(^274) Goedicke, Königliche Dokumente.. ., 86.
(^275) Eyre, “Work.. .,” 33; Boochs, “Zur Funktion des Sn-≈.t,” 7; Goedicke,
Rechtsinschriften.. ., 27–28, 127–29; Gödecken, Meten.. ., 197; Franke, Verwandt-
schaftsbezeichnungen.. ., 303–4; Perepelkin, Privateignetum.. ., 30–65; Helck, Wirtschafts-
geschichte.. ., 89ff. In the Stela of Merer, Lichtheim renders the sn-≈.ttitle of a wife
as “one who shares his [= the husband’s] estate” (AEL1, 87); Schenkel translates
“Dienerin...” (Memphis, 64).
(^276) Harari and Menu, “Notion.. .,” 132–33, 148–50. As always, there are prob-
lems of terminology. Thus, m≈d.tin Urk. 1, 14, can only be vaguely defined as a
“share by a division(?)” (Wb. 2, 192/15); fi¢.tmay be a term for paternal inheri-
tance (Goedicke, Rechtsinschriften.. ., 6). According to Goedicke,Rechtsinschriften...,
55, the expression ny-ps“.t.f “that which belongs to his hereditary share,” means that
there were stipulations concerning inheritance and that the division was not left up
to the free choice of the legator. See also Edel, “Inschriften.. .,” 98. Literary texts
also refer to problems of inheritance, e.g., Ptahhotep (Lichtheim, AEL 1, 69).
(^277) See Théodoridès, “Concept of Law.. .,” 293. Several such texts contain the
similar statement that the stipulations are made “while he (the legator) was alive
upon his two feet” (Urk. 1, 11, 8–9, Fourth Dynasty; also Urk. 1, 16, 16–17);
Goedicke, Rechtsinschriften.. ., 49. In Urk1, 24–32, the official is represented as “he
speaks with his mouth before his children, while he is upon his two legs, alive
before the king.” Cf. also the expression m rd.wy=f(“with/in his two feet”) found
in the Inscription of Metjen (Goedicke, Rechtsinschriften.. ., 11).
(^278) Boochs, “¢tm,” 22, believes that the fimy.t-prwas a substitute for the will, not
124 
WESTBROOK_F3_91-140 8/27/03 1:40 PM Page 124