371
respect to the oath. As in the Neo-Sumerian period, a solemn oath
as to the truth of an assertion, imposed by the court, was the core
of the trial procedure. It could be taken by one side only, by the
party and/or witnesses (although more frequently imposed on a party
than in the previous period).^32 If taken by the party, at least, it was
absolutely decisive. Trial records often omit any mention of pro-
ceedings after the oath, since the verdict was self-evident.^33 The deci-
sion whether the oath was to be used, upon which party it was to
be used, and the content of its assertions were entirely within the
discretion of the court, although the parties undoubtedly presented
arguments on these issues.^34 The court, having heard unsworn evi-
dence, sent the witnesses of one side and/or the party himself to a
place where the oath would be administered (see 3.3.3.1 below).3.2.3 Following its decision, the court could issue a variety of orders.
Apart from payments, it could order the restitution of property (CT
8 6b = UAZP 268), the division of property in an inheritance (TCL
1 104 = UAZP 293) or partnership (CT 2 22 = UAZP 282), the
delivery of a criminal into the service of his victim (see ki““àtum,
under 8.4.2.3 below) or to death (see 8.1.1 and 8.3.1.1 below). In
LL 30, the court issues an order restraining a young married man
from consorting with a prostitute. The court would often make an
ancillary order that any tablets rendered invalid by the decision be
broken (e.g., CT 8 43a = UAZP 271), and by the same token could
validate a copy of a lost tablet (CT 47 63:62 †uppam anniam uballi†).
If a plaintiff’s claim were rejected, the court could also impose a
penalty on him for vexatious litigation (see 8.6 below), or for suing
again on a matter already litigated. The final order of the court was
for an oath of forbearance: this was a promissory oath not to liti-
gate the same issue again. It was not necessarily imposed upon the(^32) In LH 9, it is taken by the witnesses for both sides, but that is because it is
a three-cornered case, where the oaths of owner’s and buyer’s witnesses serve to
join a third party, the seller, as defendant.
(^33) Contra Ries, “Beweisurteile.. .,” but see Dombradi, Darstellung.. ., 368–70.
(^34) In VAS 22 28, the plaintiffdeclares himself unsatisfied with the oath imposed
on the other side by the court and insists that a more detailed oath be taken at
the locality of the land in dispute. Although presented as a decision of the plaintiff,
we consider that the court’s agreement was understood. Since the oath was duly
taken and the plaintiffthus lost, the record, drafted tendentiously for the benefit of
the defendant, emphasizes an incident that served to strengthen the latter’s title.
WESTBROOK_f10–360-430 8/27/03 12:26 PM Page 371