373
3.3 Evidence
There were two forms of conventional evidence: witnesses and doc-
uments; and two supra-rational methods: the oath and the ordeal.
There were also evidentiary presumptions, for example, according
to LE 40, the inability of a buyer to establish the identity of his
seller is regarded as proof that he is a thief.3.3.1 Witnesses
Witnesses could be male or female; slaves are not attested. They
could give evidence on the basis of local knowledge (VAS 18 1:53–
67 = Westbrook, Marriage Law.. ., p. 135). Hearsay evidence was
apparently admitted: “A. swore: ‘I heard B. (the accused)’s brother
C. say: “The piece of cloth which B. is wearing was stripped from
the body (statue) of Nin-Marki”’ ” (TCL 11 245:20–28 = Wilcke,
“Diebe.. .,” 59).^39 Testimony was initially given without oath; the
court would interrogate the witnesses and then decide whether to
send those of one side to confirm their account under oath.
It sometimes happened that witnesses did not corroborate the
claims of the party who called them. When witnesses for the plaintiff
were unable to answer a key question as to the status of the person
in dispute, the judges threw them out (BBVOT 1 23 = Wilcke,
“Freiheit.. .”). In BE 6/2 58 (= Westbrook, Marriage Law.. ., 116)
female witnesses called by a reluctant groom not only failed to confirm
his accusations against his bride; they confirmed her accusations
against him. In CT 8 12b (= UAZP 260), the plaintiff’s witnesses
evidently confirmed the defendant’s version, for the court ordered
the defendant to swear an oath “as the (plaintiff’s) witnesses swore.”^403.3.2 Documents
Documents could be persuasive evidence but were not decisive. They
recorded oral legal transactions and might be incomplete, inaccu-
rate, or fraudulent. Witnesses were often required to testify as to the
authenticity of documents.^41 They were, nonetheless, prima facie(^39) Cf. the witness statements in PBS 5 100: see Roth, “Reading Mesopotamian
Law Cases.. .,” 256–60, 269–77.
(^40) Lines 14–16, following the analysis of Loewenstamm, “Cumulative Oath....”
(^41) E.g. CT 2 47 = UAZP 261 (claim that testament forged by beneficiary); BE
6/2 49 = UAZP 298 (which of two testaments was the later and therefore valid).
WESTBROOK_f10–360-430 8/27/03 12:26 PM Page 373