a certain date or be deemed the robber (lú-la-ga) himself.^143 In NG
42 the victim sold the robber’s wife, daughter and slave as slaves;
the absence of the culprit is not explained.8.4.3 LU §c1 requires compensation for grain stolen from a neigh-
bor’s house through failure to repair one’s own (cf. LL 11).8.5 Damage to a field (= the crop?) was punishable with servitude,
like theft (NG 203:7–15). Damage to a neighbor’s house led to
confiscation of the culprit’s house when he refused to pay for the
damage (NG 143). LU §a5 (/31) punishes negligent flooding of
another’s field with a set payment of barley per acre.8.6 False Accusation and Perjury
An accusation of witchcraft or adultery which is proved false by the
river ordeal leads only to a fine for the accuser (LU 13', 14'). A son
who accused his father of embezzling offerings from the temple, how-
ever, suffered the death penalty, perhaps on a talionic principle.^144
In NG 84, false witnesses were declared “thieves” (lú-im-zu¢), an
offence for which LU §a2 (/28) prescribes a payment of fifteen shekels.8.7 Prison
Imprisonment is mentioned but not specifically as a punishment. It
applied to debtors and criminals pending payment of penalties.^145 If
Wilcke’s interpretation of LU 3 is correct, a person guilty of false
imprisonment is imprisoned and pays a fine of fifteen shekels. If the
talionic principle is involved, the imprisonment is best understood as
imposed pending payment.(^143) SNATBM 210 (= Sollberger, “Documents.. .,” no. 10). He need not have
been accused of the crime himself; he may have been a shepherd contractually
liable for losses by robbers.
(^144) Roth, “Reassessment.. .” = Lafont, “Les textes judiciaires.. .,” no. 9; Petschow,
“Talion...”
(^145) MVN 18 181, 286; MVN 20 207. See Wilcke, “Kodex Urnamma.. .,” 311,
n. 82; Frymer, “Nungal Hymn...”
- ( ) 221
WESTBROOK_F5_182-226 8/27/03 1:42 PM Page 221