494
seems to have ordered a settlement.^52 This sequence may reflect a
system of appeals from lower to higher court.3.2.5 There is scant evidence for execution of the court’s decision.
A text from Nippur records that the governor of Nippur issued an
order holding the herald (nàgiru) responsible if a certain Nàdinu
should leave the city (see 3.2.3 above). We can surmise that the
court had prohibited Nàdinu from leaving Nippur and ordered the
herald responsible to see that he did not.3.3 Evidence
Conventional evidence was the testimony of witnesses and written
documents. Even in cases in which the critical events had taken place
generations before the trial, testimony of the mudû “ones who know”
was used to determine the truth of the situation. If conventional
methods were inconclusive, recourse was made to supra-rational
methods—the oath and the river ordeal—to reveal the truth. Thus,
there was no standard such as “beyond a reasonable doubt”; if the
accused could not prove his innocence, then the decision would be
remanded to the realm of the divine.3.3.1 Witnesses
Free men appear as witnesses; women and slaves are not attested.
Witnesses are recorded primarily in cases regarding claims to land.
When the trial took place at some distance from the disputed land,
the king dispatched officers to question “the ones who know” (mudû)
and report back to the court. They might be asked for first-hand
knowledge about land that has been claimed, including one case in
which the witnesses reported that land claimed as “the gate of PN’s
field” belonged, in fact, to another field.^53 Witnesses were questioned
not only for knowledge about an immediate contemporary situation
but also for knowledge of situations centuries old, as in the case of
Nebuchadnezzar BBSt. 6, when the king had witnesses questioned
about ancient practice before granting privileges to the head of the
province.(^52) UET 7 2.
(^53) MDP 6 31.
WESTBROOK_f12–484-520 8/27/03 12:27 PM Page 494