375
3.3.3.3 Breach of the oath led to divine punishment and probably
also human (if discovered).^43 Fear of sanctions was extremely effective.
The party selected would sometimes refuse, preferring to lose the
case (WO8/2 (1976) 160–61). The other party feared the decisive
effect of the oath on the issue in dispute. Not surprisingly, therefore,
imposition of the oath very frequently triggered a compromise settle-
ment between the parties (e.g. CT 4 47a = AfO15, 37). Nonetheless,
perjury was not unthinkable. When a debtor swore repeated false
oaths denying nonpayment of the debt, the creditor’s only recourse
was a prayer to the gods, calling on them to punish the wrongdoer
(UET 6 402 = Charpin, Le Clergé d’Ur.. ., 326–27).3.3.4 Ordeal
3.3.4.1 The most explicit accounts come from Mari. According to
Durand, the procedure there involved swimming a set distance, per-
haps with some handicap, such as carrying a millstone or swimming
underwater.^44 Prior to entering the water, the swimmer reiterated
the claim at issue, sometimes in answer to a series of interrogato-
ries (ARM 26/1 249, 253). The use of substitutes was possible: towns-
people swim for their prince (ARM 26/1 249), a lady-in-waiting for
her queen (249), a wife for her husband (254), a mother for her
daughter (253). If the swimmer failed to complete the course and a
fortioriif he drowned, his case was lost, by divine judgment.3.3.4.2 Although attested in practice mostly from Elam and Mari,
use of the ordeal was widespread, as its presence in LH indicates.^45
Nonetheless, it was undoubtedly much less common than the oath
procedure. LH applies it to witchcraft (2) and adultery (132), both
of which are prominent causes at Mari (ARM 26/1 249, 250, 252,
253). The Mari letters, however, also mention its use for personal(^43) See Leemans, “Le faux temoin.. .”: an oath proved to be false is called “theft
of god and king.”
(^44) See Durand, “Ordalie.. .,” for the Mari material. From the mention of car-
rying a millstone, Cardascia concludes that they did not swim but waded across
the river (“L’ordalie fluviale.. .,” 281–84). Cf. Heimpel, “Hit.. .” Frymer-Kensky
claims that the ordeal at Elam was a drinking trial (“Suprarational Procedures...,”
115–20).
(^45) In AbB 8 102, a man clears himself of an accusation by the palace, some-
where between Eshnunna and Babylon.
WESTBROOK_f10–360-430 8/27/03 12:26 PM Page 375