2.5 The Courts
2.5.1 Judicial authority was a royal prerogative usually delegated
to the provincial governors (ensik) or otherwise to judges (di-kud)
who administered justice in the name of the king, although the king
might occasionally sit in person on a case, as in an important sac-
rilege trial involving an official of the Innana temple.^46 The judges
mostly sat as a college (up to seven per case), while governors could
sit alone (e.g., NG 62). The vizier could also sit as a sole judge, but
in a second hearing of the sacrilege trial he sat together with the
governor of Nippur and a third judge (possibly a priest). Although
they are named in the documents and the same names recur fre-
quently, little is known about the judges as regards their origin, train-
ing, or remuneration. The same bench might sit on a variety of
cases recorded in a single tablet (Sammeltafel), evidently the day’s
docket.^472.5.2 Alongside the judges, the trial reports generally mention a
court official, the ma“kim, whose duties included preparing the case
for trial and acting as an “institutional witness.” He recorded the
particulars of the trial and could be called upon to testify as to pre-
vious hearings of the same issue.^48 The ma“kim seems to have been
a function rather than an office: each case was assigned “its ma“kim,”
who could already hold an office (NG 205:8; 77:11') or even be a
judge.^492.5.3 The di-til-la trial records were not intended for either of the
parties, as in later periods, but were official reports drafted for the
central administration, to be filed in its archives.(^46) Roth, “Reassessment.. .” = Lafont, “Les textes judiciaires.. .,” no. 9.
(^47) E.g. NG 211.
(^48) Falkenstein, GerichtsurkundenI.. ., 47–51; e.g., NG 205:2–17.
(^49) See Falkenstein, GerichtsurkundenI.. ., 48, no. 17 (Gudea). The ma“kim at the
first sacrilege trial was the vizier who presided over the second.
- ( ) 193
WESTBROOK_F5_182-226 8/27/03 1:42 PM Page 193