ver to the jilted bride. For the same offence after the groom has
entered his house (for the wedding ceremonies?), LU 15 imposes on
the father-in-law restoration of double the níg-dé-a that the groom
brought.^755.1.2.5 The term níg-dé-a is rare, being found elsewhere only in
mythological texts and later lexical lists.^76 It is associated with níg-
mí-ús-sá, a term that is well attested in Ur III administrative docu-
ments. Their Akkadian equivalents are, respectively, biblumand ter¢atum,
which in the Old Babylonian period are betrothal payments made
by the groom (Laws of Hammurabi 159–61), the latter being prin-
cipally in silver. In Ur III sources, however, níg-mí-ús-sá is never
silver; rather, it consists of commodities, mainly livestock but also
other foodstuffs and salt, soap, gold paste and dye, which have been
interpreted as provisions for the wedding feast.^77 Wilcke points out
that the quantities in some texts are too large for immediate con-
sumption and must have been intended as a gift to the bride’s fam-
ily.^78 Nonetheless, the present state of evidence does not allow us to
attribute to níg-mí-ús-sá of Ur III the important legal role as a
betrothal payment that ter¢atum had in the following period.^79 At
most it can be said that níg-dé-a and níg-mí-ús-sá were expenditures
by the groom’s family in favor of the bride’s family that formed a
basis for damages if the latter failed to honor the betrothal contract.5.1.2.6 A widow did not require permission to remarry or a for-
mal ceremony, but she might need a contract. According to LU 11,
if a man had sexual intercourse with a widow without a contract in
writing, he was not liable to her for divorce payment. The dual con-
dition for non-liability suggests that a widow could be deemed mar-
ried by long-term cohabitation, but that consummation would not
be sufficient, unless supported by documentary evidence of the par-
ties’ marital intent.(^75) If correctly restored by Finkelstein, “Ur-Nammu.. ., 69, l. 299, formerly §12.
(^76) 77–82.
(^77) Falkenstein, GerichtsurkundenI.. ., 103–6; Greengus, “Bridewealth.. .,” 69–72.
(^78) “Familiengründung.. .,” 244–45. Similarly, Greengus, “Bridewealth.. .,” 84.
(^79) See the comparison by Wilcke, “Familiengründung.. .,” 252–67.
- ( ) 203
WESTBROOK_F5_182-226 8/27/03 1:42 PM Page 203