662
by the queen mother.^17 In Emar 257, the thief of a slave is seized
with the stolen property, whereupon the owner brings him before
the court.
In TBR 95, a woman begins an action to recover her home by
petitioning the king, who orders an administrative inquiry. Should
this reveal a property dispute requiring forensic procedure, the official
is to send both parties to the king.3.2.2 The court could decide the case on the basis of evidence
adduced by the parties (Emar 33, 252), could investigate at its own
initiative (Emar 212), and could impose the oath on one of the par-
ties and/or his witnesses (Emar 28, 212; TBR 84; Westenholz 1).
In a trial for theft, the court imposes an oath on local notables which
may be based on their local knowledge rather than their connection
to either of the parties (Emar 257).3.2.3 Following its decision, the court could order payment of a
debt (ASJ 14:44). A separate order from the king may have been
necessary for the enslavement of a judgment debtor (Emar 19).^18
The court could annul an adoption (Westenholz 2).3.3 Evidence
3.3.1 Although many contractual documents and even litigation
records (Emar 28, 212; TBR 84), confidently state that the docu-
ment will defeat any future claims, when a tablet was produced as
evidence, the court still preferred the testimony of the witnesses to
the document (Emar 212; cf. Emar 252; TBR 47).3.3.2 The oath imposed by the court, whether on a party or on
witnesses, was decisive (Emar 212; ASJ 12:11 and Westenholz 1—
both). In many cases, its imposition led to a compromise, which in
the extant documents is proposed by the party against whom the
oath is to be taken (Emar 28, 212, 257; ASJ 14:43).^19 In ASJ 14:43,
it appears to be taken in the temple of Nergal. In Emar 212, it(^17) See Beckman, “Emar Notes.. .,” no. 122.
(^18) See also Yamada, “Division of a Field...”
(^19) In Westenholz 1:17–22 (broken); in our interpretation, the defendant refused
to take the oath and accepted liability.
WESTBROOK_f16–657-691 8/27/03 12:29 PM Page 662