2.3.5.1 The king was everywhere the supreme judge, although his
judicial activity is more in evidence in some periods than in others.
There was no formal machinery of appeal from a lower court; rather,
a subject would petition the king to redress an injustice suffered by
a lower court or official. The king could also try cases at first instance.
Various law-code provisions suggest that certain serious crimes
involving the death penalty were reserved for the king (e.g., LE 48;
MAL A 15; HL 111), but he is also found judging apparently trivial
matters.2.3.5.2 Royal officials, whether central or provincial, exercised juris-
diction in the same manner. Provincial officials sometimes sat with
the local council to constitute a court. The local courts give the
impression of being ad hoc assemblies, especially with such desig-
nations as the Egyptian “court of this day” (qnbt n hrw pn). They
could have large numbers, as the terms like Akkadian “assembly”
(pu¢rum) and Egyptian “The Thirty” suggest. The local council (qen-
bet) at Deir-el-Medina, when sitting as a court, comprised between
eight and fourteen villagers, meeting after work. Jeremiah was tried
before an assembly of “princes” (≤arim), priests, prophets, and “all
the people” ( Jer. 26).2.3.5.3 “The judges” seem to be different from the official- or coun-
cil-based courts but remain shadowy figures in the sources. At all
periods, it is a matter of debate whether the term designated a pro-
fession or merely a function. Certainly, they were not trained jurists
in the manner of modern judges, but the terms “royal judges” and
“judges of the city X” may point to a special status, with different
hierarchical levels. Neo-Sumerian litigation records sometimes con-
tain a number of diverse cases (presumably the day’s docket), all
before the same named judges, who must have sat on a more or
less permanent basis.2.3.5.4 There appears to have been no special term for courthouse
before the Neo-Babylonian period. The location of the court is occa-
sionally mentioned as a temple or temple gate, but it was by no
means the universal practice and, where so situated, did not neces-
sarily involve participation of priests in the court.30
WESTBROOK_F2_1-90 8/27/03 1:39 PM Page 30