A History of Ancient Near Eastern Law

 575

comes: (a) if the party whom the judges had ordered to “lift the

gods” refuses (làmagàru) to do so, he loses the case; (b) if the ritual

takes place, the party who “turned back (unsuccessfully) from the

gods” (a“ar/i“tu ilàni ittùr) loses; (c) if the ritual takes place and one

party “lifts the gods” but his opponent insists on his claims or state-

ments, that party loses.

3.6 The Ordeal

3.6.1 Some twenty documents attest to the practice of the river

ordeal (ÍD¢ur“an).^29 It applied mainly to criminal law, but disputes

over property and personal rights could also be decided by recourse

to this supra-rational legal procedure. Unlike “lifting of the gods,”

which almost invariably foresaw a ritual confrontation between one

party and his opponent’s witnesses, the river ordeal was decreed

when neither litigant had produced documentary evidence or testi-

mony supporting their claim.

3.6.2 While the procedures of the ancient Near Eastern ordeal are

still a matter of dispute, it can be concluded from the Nuzi evidence

that both parties or, at times, only one, were ordered to go to a

watercourse,^30 where they would undergo a personal (and physical)

test, possibly but not necessarily implying death.^31

3.6.3 Due to the extremely formulaic conciseness of the sources,

the judicial implications of the ordeal are not entirely clear. With

the sole exception of EN 9/1 430, we do not have any evidence

attesting to a sentence pronounced by the court as a result of the

ordeal. The standard formula written at the end of most records

states: “concerning this (legal) matter they shall go to the ordeal”

(a““um awàti annâti ina/ana ¢ur“an illakù).^32 If one of the litigants refused

(^29) Cf. Hayden, Court Procedure..., 39–50 and, most recently, Wilhelm, “Ein
neuer Text zum Ordal...”
(^30) Cf. the standard occurrence of the determinative ÍD = nàru“river,” which
precedes the term ¢ur“ànu.
(^31) See EN 9/1 430 (cf. Hayden, Court Procedure.. ., 45–46): both litigants were
sent by the judges to the ordeal; the defendant lost and was condemned to indem-
nify the plaintiff. Whatever the river test involved, both parties plainly came back
alive.
(^32) See, e.g., JEN 124: 18–20; 631: 18–19; EN 9/1 140: 14–15; etc.
WESTBROOK_f14–564-617 8/27/03 12:28 PM Page 575