7.1.5.1.5 The ceremony of passing (over) the pestle is known from
an isolated occurrence in the U“umgal Stele from the ED I period
(see 5.1.4.1 above).^176 Thus, the custom had for centuries been part
of legal practice. Its introduction into the canon of recorded opera-
tive clauses gave possession a new importance, pointing to a dif-
ferentiation between ownership and possession. On the other hand,
its surprisingly early occurrence with reference to a field shows that
it had already become a merely symbolic act.7.1.5.2 Central Babylonia
7.1.5.2.1 In OS sales of landed property (attested only from Isin),^177
the land is identified by measurement and location, after which
receipt of the price and sometimes of i“-gána payments by the seller
are recorded.^178 The i“-gána may be included in the price^179 or miss-
ing.^180 There are indications that it functioned as a concluding pay-
ment settling the transaction.^181 A “gift” may be mentioned.^182 Now
also gardens occur as objects of purchase. A seller who reneged was
obliged to repay double the price received.^1837.1.5.2.2 Sargonic field and house purchases sometimes contain an
additional penalty clause: double the price if the purchaser’s posses-
sion is disturbed.^184 Two individual texts document that payment was(^176) ELTS 12, “Side E” 4, may tentatively be read: ¢ 2 Ü;0.0 gána É-mud A-ºgír?ºgí“
ab-bala “2 bùr of field of E-mud’s; it was made over to A-ºgir.”
(^177) See Steinkeller, Third-Millennium.. ., p. 7, listing OS and Sargonic tablets sep-
arately (most of them edited in SRU and Krecher, “Neue sumerische.. .,” with-
out the information now available on provenance and date), and his edition of nos.
4–6; Wilcke, “Neue Rechtsurkunden.. .,” 47–67 with the re-edition of the Grand
document juridique. The purchase of the house is recorded on MVN 3 13 iv 3–9.
(^178) Grand document juridique, F (with duplicate SRU 19) and I+J (Wilcke, “Neue
Rechtsurkunden.. .,” 52–56). Both wool and barley i“-gána are paid in barley and
so may the “gift” (F) be.
(^179) Steinkeller, Third-Millennium.. ., no. 4 xv 17–18.
(^180) Wilcke, “Neue Rechtsurkunden.. .,” 22–23, suspects that the i“-gána was often
included in the price without being explicitly stated, that it was not paid to absen-
tees, and that several documents that look like purchases were, in reality, different
transactions.
(^181) Wilcke, “Neue Rechtsurkunden.. .,” 23.
(^182) Grand document juridique, F (with duplicate SRU 19) and I+J; MVN 3 53
(Wilcke, “Neue Rechtsurkunden.. .,” 52–56, 63)
(^183) MVN 3 36; see Wilcke, “Neue Rechtsurkunden.. .,” 58. See Kienast, “Ver-
zichtklausel.. .,” 29–30 and n. 9; Steinkeller, “Studies.. .,” 55.
(^184) Krecher, “Neue sumerische.. .,” no. 6; SRU 17:16–19. See Kienast, “Ver-
zichtklausel.. .,” 29–30 and n. 9; Steinkeller, “Studies.. .,” 55.
170
WESTBROOK_F4_141-181 8/27/03 1:40 PM Page 170