Dispute Resolution in the Provincial Courts of the Third Dynasty of Ur. Laura E Culbertson

Transcription

1 DisputeResolutionintheProvincialCourtsoftheThirdDynastyofUr by LauraECulbertson Adissertationsubmittedinpartialfulfillment oftherequirementsforthedegreeof DoctorofPhilosophy (NearEasternStudies) intheuniversityofmichigan 2009 DoctoralCommittee: ProfessorPiotrMichalowksi,Chair ProfessorGaryBeckman ProfessorNormanYoffee ProfessorHenryT.Wright

2 LauraE.Culbertson 2009

3 ii Formymother

4 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ItisapleasuretoexpressmygratitudetotheprofessorsunderwhosecareI completedmydegreeattheuniversityofmichigan:dr.garybeckman,dr.norman Yoffee,andDr.PiotrMichalowski.Ihavebeenfortunatetobenefitnotonlyfromtheir expertiseasscholarsandinstructors,butalsofromtheirintellectualindulgence,hospitality, andwarmth.aschairofmydissertationcommittee,piotrmichalowskiwasacriticaland enthusiasticmentor.icannotimaginehowiwouldhavecompletedthisprojectwithouthis encouragement,especiallyduringthefinalphases.iamalsogratefultodr.henrywright forhiscarefulreadingsofmychaptersandhisthoughtfulcontributionstotheproject.still, allmistakesandomissionsaremyown. TheDepartmentofNearEasternStudiesandtheRackhamGraduateSchoolare responsibleforyearsoffundingthatmadeitpossibleformetoattendtheprogramand completemydegree.thedepartmentofneareasternstudiesalsoprovidedacollegial environmentwheremanysocialandintellectualdoorswereopened.ithankdr.kathryn Babayanforherfriendshipandacademicadvice.IalsothankLisaMichelin,Margaret Casazza,andAngelaBeskow,membersofthedepartment sadministrativestaff,forbeing helpfulandinvestedinthestudentsofthedepartment. MydissertationbenefitedimmenselyfromthegenerosityofManuelMolina,who sharedhisownprojectsonuriiilegaltextsandalertedmetoimportantunpublishedtexts. IthankJonathanTaylorandthestaffatBritishMuseumfortheirhospitalityandkind permissiontostudytabletsintheircollection. Finally,IamgratefulforallofthefriendsandcolleaguesIgainedattheUniversity ofmichigan,includingnicolebrisch,libbyboulter,davidhughes,vadimjigoulov,ben iii

5 Rubin,andespeciallyRobertHaug.Iamaboveallindebtedtomyfamilyfortheirsupport, andiespeciallythankmymotherfortheincalculablewaysshehascontributedtomy educationandwell-beingingeneral. iv

6 TABLEOFCONTENTS DEDICATION ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iii LISTOFFIGURES vii LISTOFTABLES viii LISTOFAPPENDICES ix LISTOFABBREVIATIONS x ABSTRACT xi CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION Introduction TheStudyoftheCorpusandtheArchivalApproach TheStudyofEarlyMesopotamianLaw TheStudyofDisputes DisputesandtheUrIIIState FROMTEXTTOPROCESS:DITILASASSOURCESFORDISPUTES ANDTHESUMERIANDI Introduction ProceduralRecords inmesopotamia TheStructureoftheRecords ACounter-NarrativeExample:á dar ReadingforProcedure TheAdministrativeContextoftheRecords TheAdministrativeCharacteristicsofDisputeRecords DitilaasRecordofdi Conclusions THELIFE,CHARACTER,ANDRESOLUTIONOFDISPUTES Introduction TheOriginsandCatalystsofDisputes ThePre-historyofCases FromFamilytoCommunity FromCommunitytoCity Summary:TheLandscapeofDisputeResolutionin theuriiistate TheResolutionProcedure AssemblingthePartiesandStartingthedi EvidenceandProof OralStatements Oaths ThePromissoryOath TheEvidentiaryOath WrittenDocumentation 93 v

7 3.4.6 TacticsandResolutionStrategies TheResolution CompensationandDamages ReturningtoCourt Conclusions THECOURTANDITSENTITIES:THEDYNAMICSAND COMPOSITIONOFAUTHORITYINTHEURIIICOURTS Introduction MesopotamianCourts:ContextandTerminology TheCompositionofUrIIIProvincial Courts TheOfficeoftheGovernor(ensi 2 ) TheGovernors OfficeatLagaå TheGovernors OfficeatUmma TheGovernor sofficein Summary Judges(di-ku 5 ) TheJudgesatLagaå TheJudgesatUmma UmmaandLagaåJudgesin Summary Themaå kim TheAdministrativeFunctionofthe maå kim TheSocio-PoliticalContextofthe maå kim TheSo-CalledAttendingWitnesses lu 2 (ki-ba)gub-ba lu 2 -mar-za Thelu 2 -mar-zaandlu 2 ki-ba gub-baas Courts CaseWitnesses(lu 2 -inim-maandlu 2 kiinimma) TheDisputants SummaryandConclusions DISPUTERESOLUTIONINTHETIMEOFTHEURIIISTATE Introduction TheCentralistModelofUrIIILaw TheKingandDisputes CasesoftheKing JudgesoftheKing(di-ku 5 lugal) RoyalMessengers RoyalFamilyMembersandAssociates Summary SummaryandConclusions 164 APPENDICES 166 BIBLIOGRAPHY 218 vi

8 LISTOFFIGURES Figure 2.1StructureofTextsReportingSlaveSaleDisputes:Lagaå StructureofTextsReportingSlaveSaleDisputes:Umma TheStructureofMarriageDitilas OrganizationofDisputantsinText OutlineofOathsandProceduresinText NumberofCasesOfficiatedbyUr-LammaandArad-NannaatLagaå AverageNumberofOfficialsPerYearatUmmaandLagaå FrequencyofthePresenceoflumar-zaatLagaå 141 vii

9 LISTOFTABLES Table 2.1 ExpressionsofInitiatingadi Comparisonof Lawsuit andadi Comparisonof Dispute anddi ExamplesofCasesResultingfromCrisesorTransitions ExamplesofCasesInvolvingOffenses,BreachesofBehavior,orBreakof Contract ReferencestoTimeElapsedandCasePrehistory ExamplesofOfficialsCitedinCasePrehistory TownsandCitiesMentionedintheUmmaandLagaåDitilas TheUseofditil-ladumuGNinUmmaDisputeRecords Referencesto (Thiswas)inGN Referencestoditil-ladumuUmmaki ExpressionsofNotReturningtoCourt GovernorsofLagaå CasesofUr-Lamma,GovernorofLagaå CasesOverseenbyArad-Nanna,GovernorofLagaå,GrandVizier GovernorsofUmma MaskimsofSpecificJudges 136 viii

10 LISTOFAPPENDICES Appendix 1. ListofDitilas ReferencestoUrIIIMarriageDissolutions SelectedTextEditions CasesoftheLagašJudges 210 ix

11 LISTOFABBREVIATIONS A TabletsinthecollectionoftheOrientalInstituteMuseum,Universityof Chicago AHDO Archivesd Histoiredudroitoriental,Wetteren AnOr AnalectaOrientalia(Rome1931ff.) AO MuseumsiglumLouvre(Antiquitésorientales) AoF AltorientalischeForschungen,SchriftenzurGeschichteundKulturdes AltenOrients(Berlin1974ff.) AOr ArchivOrientáliní(Prague1931ff) AuOr AulaOrientalis(Barcelona1983ff.) Bab Babyloniaca(Paris ) BBVO BerlinerBeiträgezumVordererOrient(Berlin1982ff.) BM TabletsiglumoftextsintheBritishMuseum,London BPOA BibliotecadelPróximoOrienteAntiguo(2006);UrIIIAdminstrative TabletsfromtheBritishMuseumPartI FAOS FreiburgerAltorientalischeStudien(Freiburg1975ff.) HS siglaofhilprecht-sammlung,universityofjena,germany ITT InventairedestablettesdeTello L TabletsiglumoftextsintheArcheologicalMuseuminIstanbul (Lagaå/Girsu) MCS ManchesterCuneiformStudies(Manchester1951ff.) MLC MorganLibraryCollection,siglumoftheYaleBabylonianCollection,New Haven MM tabletsinthecollectionsoftheabbeyofmontserrat(barcelona) MVN Materialiperilvocabularioneosumerico(Rom1974ff.) NSGU/NG Falkenstein,A Die neusumerischen Gerichtsurkunden. Rev.Sem. RevueSémitique(Paris ) RTC F.Thureau-Dangin,Recueildestabletteschaldéennes(Paris1903) SNAT Selected Neo-Sumerian Administrative Texts from the British Museum (Japan1990) TCL Textes cunéiformes,muséesdulouvre(paris1910ff.) TCTI BertrandLafontandFatmaYildiz,TablettescunéiformesdeTelloauMusée d'istanbul:datantdel'époquedelaiiiedynastied'ur.tomei.ittii/1, PIHANS65.(Leiden,NederlandsInstituutvoorhetNabije Oosten,1989) TUAT TexteausderUmweltdesAltenTestaments(Gütersloh1982ff.) UIOM TabletsinthecollectionsoftheUniv.ofIllinoisOrientalMuseum UM TabletsiglumoftheUniversityMuseum,Philadelphia x

12 ABSTRACT Thisdissertationisaninvestigationofdisputeresolutionasitwaspracticedinthe twobest-documentedprovincesofthestronglycentralizedstateofthethirddynastyofur (UrIII,ca BCE),UmmaandLagaå.Thissouthern-Mesopotamianstateleft tensofthousandsofadministrativedocumentsreportingonavarietyofeconomicand administrativeactivities,andthisprojectfocusesonapproximately370ofthem,in particularthoseidentifiedbythesumeriantermditila( caseclosed )thatrecordthe outcomeofdisputeproceedings.thecorpusutilizedforthisundertakingconsistsbothof ditila-documentsanalyzedbyadamfalkensteininhis1956treatmentofthetopic,aswell asmanythathavebeenidentifiedorpublishedsincethen. Previousstudiesofthesedocumentshaveviewedthemasevidenceof law andas sourcesforthestudyofsumerianlinguistics.theapproachadoptedinthisdissertation, however,viewsthetextsaslimitedadministrativesummariesofprocedures,and,inspired bystudiesintheanthropologyoflaw,minesthemforevidenceofsocialgroupings, mobility,andcompetitionamongprovincialelitesandtheirassociateswithinthe38-year windowcoveredbythetexts. Thestudyshowsthat,inspiteoflong-standingimagesoftheUrIIIstateasastatic, despoticentity,thereweredifferencesbetweenthetwoprovincesandchangesinthenature ofcourtsovertime.thefindingsofotherrecentstudiesthathavenotedvariationsin administrativeorganizationamongtheprovincesarecorroborated,whileitisalso demonstratedthattherewereregionaldifferencesintheorganizationandexecutionof disputingpractices.thelatterpointindicatesthattherewasnotacentrallylegislated, xi

13 uniformlyappliedbodyoflawsoverarchingthestate,andthuschallengestheideaofanur III legalsystem. Moreover,itisarguedthattheresolutionsystematworkintheseprovinceswasin constantflux,subjecttobothlocalpoliticalchangesaswellascurrentsofcompetition amongurban,provincialelites.disputingwasengagedbyanumberofelitefamilies,who participatedbothasdisputantsandcourtofficials,inordertosecureandtransformstatus andnegotiatetheirpoliticalstandingwithinthecommunity. xii

14 CHAPTER1 1.1Introduction INTRODUCTION Conflictanddisputationareinevitableandconsequentialpartsoflifeinallsocieties, evenifsuchpracticesweredifferentlyconstructedacrosstimeandspaceandinconsistently depositedintothewrittenrecord.amongtheprodigiousbodyofadministrativedocuments transmittedtousfromthepowerfulmesopotamianstateofthethirddynastyofur (hereafteruriii;ca b.c.e.),isarelativelysmallcorpusoftextsknownto scholarsasditilas,atermthatliterallymeans closedcase. Theseroughly370records, primarilyemanatingfromthelargestcoreprovincesoftheuriiistate,ummaandlagaå, 1 documenttheresultsoflegalproceduressuchastrialsandlitigations,thoughthis dissertationwillarguethattheircontentsaremoreaccuratelydescribedastheabbreviated reportsofmediateddisputeresolutionsandpublicproceduresaimedatclarifying ambiguousorcontentiouseconomicandsocialtransactions.byeitherdefinition,theditila documentsconstitutethefirstsubstantialcorpusofproceduralrecordsinworldhistory, 2 andareamongtheearliestknownwrittenevidenceforancientlaw. 1 Recentstudiesonthecity,province,andhistoryofUmma(modernTellJokha)canbefoundinvanDriel (1999/2000),Dahl(2003and2007),Studevent-Hickman2005,Adams2008,Steinkeller2007,andOuyang 2009:13ff.Oh e2003andmolinaforthcomingdealspecificallywiththecourtrecordsoftheprovince. ForanoverviewoftheprovinceofLagaå,itsUrIIIcapitalofGirsu(modernTelloh),andtherecovered documents,seefalkensteinandopificius1957,jones1975,sallaberger1999:285,sharlach2004,andallred 2006:106f.SuchdocumentsalsoexistfromthecoreprovincesofUrandNippur,butinsmallernumber. Falkenstein1956-7istheauthoritativetreatmentonthecourtrecordsofthisprovince. 2 LegaldocumentswereproducedbeforetheUrIIIperiod,butevidenceforlegalprocedure,litigation,ordispute processing,iscomparablylimited.seewilcke2007:42ff.forarecentoverviewofthesetexts. 1

15 Theappearanceoftheseditilarecordsinhistorycoincides,accordingtosome scholars,withtheadministrativetransformationsimplementedbykingåulgiinthelatter halfofhisreign(seesteinkeller1987),whichsawaprecipitousandrapidexpansionof administrativerecordkeepinginthecoreprovincesofthestate.eventhoughtheprecise archaeologicalcontextoftheditilasisunknown,itiscertainthattheywerefiled,likemost UrIIIadministrativedocuments,incentralarchivesoftheprovincialinstitutions,the governors palacesatbothlagaå 3 andumma. 4 Theroyalyearnamesprovidedin individualditilasallowforthereconstructionofarelativechronologyofthetexts,and indicatethattheycanbeassignedtoaperiodofroughly38-39years.afterfirstappearing inåulgi syear32,thecorpusspannedthereignsofhissuccessors,amar-sin,åu-sin,and Ibbi-Sin,beforedisappearingbyIbbi-Sin syear5,notlongbeforealladministrative documentationceasesandtheuriiistatedisintegratesaltogether. Thesetextspreservealimitedimprintofdisputingandnegotiationamongelite membersofsouthernmesopotamiansocietyduringthis38years,documentinginteractions ofrelativelyfiniteandcentralizedcommunitiesofthewealthyprovincialnobilityandtheir closeaffiliatesandsubordinates.anarrayofsocial,economic,andcivilmattersare addressedbytheditilas,rangingfromtopicsthatwenowplaceundertheheadingoffamily law(includingmarriages,divorces,adoptions,probateandinheritanceissues,andthesale andstatusofhouseholdslaves);tocontractlaw(includingdisputesoverpropertyclaims andtransfers,loans,hiringoflabor,anddisputesovernegligenceormismanagement);to 3 Filingtags(pi sandub-ba)thathavebeenrecoveredfromlagaå(discussed2.x.x)indicatethatthelagaå disputerecordswerecentrallyorganizedaccordingtoyeardate,andusuallyalsoaccordingtocourtofficial(e.g., ajudge,agroupofjudges,orthegovernor). 4 UmmahasneverbeensystematicallyexcavatedapartfromashortperiodbeforetheSecondWorldWar,but Molina(2008: )hasexplainedthatthemajorityofUmmaditilascomprisepartofalarge,single acquisitionofuriiitextsfromummaobtainedbythebritishmuseumin1912(almostalltextsinthebm series).This suggeststhatwearedealingwithahomogeneousgroupoftabletsfromthecentral archivesofthegovernorofumma,possiblycomingfromasinglefindspot (127).Itisindeedimpossiblethat theseditilas,themajorityofwhichdatetoamar-sin syear2,wouldcoincidentallyhavebeenrecoveredfrom myriaddispersedlocationsandcompiledintoasinglecollectionbyanantiquitiesdealer. 2

16 debtlaw(includingloans,leases,creditorcomplaints,anddebt-slavery);togeneralmatters ofentitlementandsocialstatus,careofproperty,andfamilywelfare. However,evenafterafullcenturyofindispensablescholarshiponthese documents,thecorpusdeservesnewexamination.muchoftheresearchonearly Mesopotamianlegaldocuments,includingtheditilas,hasyieldedapictureofacomplex system,legalorotherwise,thatoperatedaccordingtologicthatisfamiliar,accessible,and predicabletothemodernscholar.theeaseoftheapplicabilityoftheverynotionof law tothiscorpus onethatsignificantlyantedatesthecodeofhammurapi,thecodesofthe HebrewBible,andthepivotallegalphilosophiesproducedbytheClassicalandRoman civilizations shouldimmediatelywarrantourskepticism,unlesswepositthatinnumerable social,political,andideologicalupheavalsoverthemillenniahavelittleaffectedsocieties sincethebeginningofmesopotamiancivilization.indeed,severalscholarshavealready expresseddoubtsabouttheapplicabilityof law totheearlymesopotamiancontextafter criticalanalysesofroyal LawCodes (e.g.,michalowskiandwalker1989,with discussionofsjöberg1976;andseenowrubio2009:31ff.),butthematterrequiresfurther investigationpayingspecificattentiontonon-royaldocuments. Withidentificationandpublicationofnewditilasinrecentyears,andtaking inspirationfromworksoflegalanthropologists,thepurposeofthisdissertationisto reexaminetheditilasinordertounderstandthesocialdynamicsandlocaldistributionsof powerthattheypartiallyreflectandrecord.thatis,thisprojectisnotaninvestigationof theditilasper se,butratherutilizesthemasasourcefordisputingproceduresandsocial transformationsunderwayinuriiisociety.thisprojectowesanincalculabledebttothe philologicalandmesopotamianlegalstudiesthatprecedeit,buttheapproachadopted hereinisanthropologicalandviewsditilasasbyproductsofdisputingpracticeswhichmay beminedforevidenceofsocialgroupings,mobility,andcompetitionamongtheelitesand 3

17 theirassociatesofthisperiod.inordertoseesuchmostclearly,theprojectadoptsa comparativeapproach,simultaneouslyexaminingtheummaandlagaåditilasbutas separatearchives.thesmallhandfulofditilasthusfarknownfromotherprovincesalso assistedthisendeavor. Severalfactorsjustifytheneedforsuchanapproach,includingthereshapingofthe corpusinrecentyearssincetheseminalworkofadamfalkenstein(1956-7),the developmentofnewdirectionsinthestudyofmesopotamianandancientlawfromwhich theditilashaveescapedconsideration,andthefactthatrecenttreatmentsofuriiisociety andeconomyhaveemphasizedregionalvariationsinadministrationandlocalpolitical structures,apictureagainstwhichtheuriiiditilasmustbecompared. 1.2TheStudyoftheCorpusandtheArchivalApproach Whenscholarsfirstidentifiedditilatexts,theyregardedthemascomprisinga corpusofuriiilegal-administrativedocumentsthatself-identifywiththesumerian signatureditil-la,meaning CaseClosed (afteredzard1967:151)or Completed Proceedings (afterfortner1997:19),whichappearsasaheading(überschrift)intexts fromlagaå,andasasubscript(unterschrift)inmanyoftheummatexts.thureau- Dangin(1903),Virolleaud(1903),Pélagaud(1910),Mercer(1913,1915),deGenouillac ( ,1911),andFish(1935)identifiedandpublishedsmallgroupsofsuchtexts, provokingsubstantialinterestintheuriiilegalsystemandinthedevelopmentofearly Mesopotamianlawingeneral.Buildingontheirinvestigations,AdamFalkenstein(1956-7)systematicallyassembled,translated,andcollatedallknownexamplesofsuchtextsin hisvenerablestudydie neusumerischen Gerichtsurkunden(NG).Thisthree-volume workprovidesfirst-rategrammaticalandphilologicalanalysesofthetexts,aswellas criticalandphilologicalcommentaries,andthusdeservedlyremainsanauthoritativestudy 4

18 ofuriiilegaldocuments.falkensteinalsodevelopedparametersforthecorpus, expandingthetotalnumberoftextsto220,byincludingdocumentsthatdidnotcontainthe sub-orsuperscriptditil-labutwhichnonethelessrecordedlegalcasesinthesameform andstyleasthetextsthatdidbearthedesignation.sincethen,manyscholarshaveusedthe term ditilla, asitismostoftenrendered,torefertouriiilitigationrecordswhetherornot theyself-identifywiththetermditil-la. Falkenstein sngreflectstwodifficultlimitations,however.firstly,falkenstein excludedlitigationrecordsfromhiscorpusiftheydidnotcontainexplicitmentionofa courtofficial(e.g.,ajudge,governor,ormaå kim),regardingsuchtextsas private legal documentsandpublishingthemseparately(çig,kızılyay,andfalkenstein1959).because ofthelackofsecurearchaeologicalcontextfortheditilas,includingtheso-called private ones,itremainsimpossibletoknowifthesedocumentswereindeedstoredoutsideofthe governors archives,andthusiftheseparatecategorizationofthesetextsisjustifiedbytheir context. 5 Similarly,Falkensteinwasreluctanttoincludetextsthatdidnotexplicitlyinclude evidentiaryoaths(nam-erim 2,seeChapter3),owingtohisassumptionthatthisoathwas thecrucialindicatorofacompletedlitigationandproperlegalprocedure.theshapeand dimensionsofhiscorpuswerethereforepredicatedontheassumptionthatlitigationwasa firmlyestablishedprocedureduringtheuriiiperiod,assumingthesameformofexecution fromplacetoplace. Secondly,becauseonlyfewUmmaditilaswereknownatthetimeofFalkenstein s work merely29comparedto193textsfromlagaå hiscorpusfacedtheunavoidable limitationofbeinggrosslyone-sided,andthedatawouldnotallowforacomparisonof UmmaandLagaåditilasthatcouldexposeregionalidiosyncrasiesbeyondthelevelof 5 Regrettablyfew private disputerecords(i.e.,recordskeptoutsideofaninstitutionalarchive),letalone recordswithasecureprovenience,areknownfromtheuriiiperiod,saveforsmallsamplingssuchasahandful ofdocumentsoftheur-nuskuarchivefromnippur(seegarfinkle2000:208-9). 5

19 philologyorlocalscribalpractices.hisdiscussionoftheuriii legalsystem (vol.1, 1956)isthuslargelyapplicableonlytotheLagaåcorpus,reflectinglittleaboutUmma s organizationanddisputingprocedures.becauseofthefoundationalnatureoffalkenstein s work,manystudieshaveinheritedabiastowardslagaåwhenapproachingtheuriiilegal system,andsomestillviewtheditilasasadistinctlylagaåitetypeofdocument(e.g., Pomponio2008:121). Falkenstein sindispensablecontributionwasswiftlyreviewedbykraus(1958) andsollberger(1958),thelatterofwhomincludedanewditilainhisreview.moreditilas weresubsequentlyidentifiedandpublishedinsmallassortmentsbykienast(1969), Sollberger(1976),vanDijk(1963),Sigrist(1995),Molina(2004,2008,forthcoming), andjohnsonandveenker(forthcoming).resultingfromthesediscoveries,theumma corpushasexpandedandwarranteditsowntreatment(e.g.,oh e2003ormolina forthcoming).importantneweditions,collations,translations,andanalysesofselective groupsoflagaåandummaditilashavealsobeenpublishedbykrecher(1974),b.lafont (2000),Molina(2000,forthcoming),LafontandWestbrook(2003),Sallaberger(2008), andpomponio(2008).consequently,theparametersoftheditilacorpushaveshifted again,andmanyoftheabove-citedscholarsnowgrantmembershiptoanyuriiidocument thatrecordsalegalprocessofanykindandinanystageofitsexecution(e.g.,molina 2004,2008). Asitiscurrentlyconceived,thecorpusthuscontainsavarietyoflegaladministrativetextsthatexhibitclearevidenceofcourtentitiesorlitigiousprocedures.Of course,thedistinctionbetweenuriiilegalandadministrativetextsisoftendifficultto determine(sallaberger1999),andthenotionofanexpansivegenreofuriii legal documents islargelyascholarlyinventionratherthananativetextualcategorization. However,itislikelythattheUrIIIarchivistsdidthemselvesconceiveofditilasasa 6

20 specifictypeofdocumentbasedontheirlabel,hencefilingthemtogetherinthearchives, butwhethertheyconsideredthislabelalegaloradministrativeoneisquestionableand anachronistic. TheUrIIIditilasshouldberegardedasdocumentsunassociatedwiththeSumerian modelcourtcases ofoldbabyloniannippur,so-termedbyroth(1988),evenifthere aresuperficialsimilaritiesbetweenbothtypesoftexts. 6 TheUrIIIdocumentsarestrictly administrativeincharacter,withtheinclusionofyearnames,namesofidentifiablepeople, andtechnicalterminology(hallo2002),andcannotbeconsideredliteraryorschooltexts. 7 Whilethecontextandpurposeofthe modelcases isuncleartome,theirliterarycharacter, OldBabylonianorigins,andfocusonIsin-erakingssuggestthattheyareproductsofa contextdissimilartothatoftheuriiiadministrativearchives. Thepresentstudy,aimingtocomparedisputingatLagaåandUmma,utilizesall texts(seeappendix1)thatbearthedesignationditila,butgivenourspecificinquiries,i alsoutilizedtextsthatexhibitevidenceofdisputing,resolutionprocedures,ornegotiations, andaccordinglyincludetheso-called private documents;courtentities(judges, maå kims,witnesses)neednotbepresentfornegotiationstooccurbetweentwoparties.i treattheditilasascomprisingatleasttwoseparatearchivesthatspanaroughly38-year period,withtheexceptionoftextsthatareunproveniencedorshowevidenceofbelonging outsidetheummaandlagaåprovincialarchives;suchtextsarenotequivalentto private 6 Forexample,thesecond modelcase ofcbs11324(kleinandsharlach2007:9)identifiesitselfasdi t i l - l aandnamesam aå k i m,butthedocumentisoldbabylonianandreportsthatitscasewasadjudicatedbythe Isinking,Iåme-Dagan,thushavingnoobviousrelationtoUrIIIadministrativedocuments. 7 Tomyknowledge,thereisonlyonepairofperfectlyduplicatetextsfromthecorpus,thetabletofText60,and thefirstoftwocasesenteredonthecollectivetabletbm110379(molina2008:no.4),bothfromumma.text 120aand120baretypicallyconsideredquasi-duplicates,butinthecaseofthelattertexts,thespanningofthe caseinquestionfromummatothesubsidiarycityofnagsumayexplaintheneedfortwocopiesofthe document.anexplanationfortheformerpairofduplicatesishardertoproduce,buttheexistenceofthesetwo duplicatesisnotevidencefortheirinclusioninaschoolcurriculum. 7

21 documents(e.g.,theadabditila[widell2002]ormvn 11185,probablyfromSusa).I alsoconsiderthehandfulofditilasfromurandnippurwherepossible. Limitedbyhisdata,Falkensteinconsideredtheditilastobelongtoasinglegenreof legaltexts,andpaidlimitedattentiontoregionalandtemporaltrends.subsequentstudies ofditilashaveanalyzedsmallcorporaorsingletexts,notcontextualizingthedocumentsin anyarchivalcontext.consequently,thefullbodyofditilashasyettobeanalyzedbyway ofanarchivalapproach,buttheadvantagesofsuchhavebeenoutlinedbygelb(1967), Civil(1980),andSteinkeller(1982)andthepresentstateofthedatapermitsustoconsider mostofthedocumentsasbelongingtoatleasttwoinstitutional,archivalcontextinumma andlagaå,respectively.thisstrategydiffersfromtheatomisticinvestigationsoflegal textsinthatitallowsfortheidentificationoflargertrendsamongthetextsandorganizes themaccordingtoprovenience,therebyexposinglocalandregionalvariationsinhow disputingwasdone.atthesametime,thepresentstudydiffersfromthecomprehensive analysesofoldbabylonianlegaltexts(dombradi1996,fortner1997)orpre-uriiilegal documents(edzard1968,wilcke2007),becauseitdoesnotorganizethetextsaccordingto legalcategories 8 butratherconsidersthemaccordingtothenatureoftheunderlyingdispute andpersonsandfamiliesinvolvedinthem,aswellasaccordingtothechronological contextasmuchasispossible. Inadditiontothediachronicandregionaltrendsthatmaybeexposedbythis method,therearefurtheradvantages.importantly,itallowsforthepolitical contextualizationoftrendsandchangesinuriiidisputingpractices,makingitpossibleto observehowperformancesofdisputingwerebothshapedbyandintegraltopolitical developmentsonthelocalandstatelevel.meanwhile,byunderstandingtheditilasas sourcesforthestudyofdisputesinsteadofanalyzingthemassingletexts,weareableto 8 See,however,Holtz s(2009:5ff.)recentdiscussionoftheadvantagesofatypologicalapproachtolitigation records,withdiscussionoffalkenstein,fortner,anddombradi. 8

22 gaingreateraccesstothevarietyofeventsandproceduressurroundingdisputing.the numberofresolutionproceduresandtransactionsreflectedinthedatafaroutnumberthe totaloftexts,notonlybecausesometextscontainreportsofmultiplecasesthatoccurredon thesameday(collectivetablets,henceforth),butalsobecausemanyditilasmakereference topastevents,cases,orstagesofdisputinguponwhichthepresently-reportedcasehas built;thetotalnumberofactualcasesforwhichwehavesomereferencemaywellbethrice thetotalnumberofdocumentsinthecorpus.suchissuesofreadingthetextforprocedure andcasehistoryaretakenupinchapter2,whilethelivesoftheseproceduresandhistory ofdisputesarereconstructedinchapter3. 1.3TheStudyofEarlyMesopotamianLaw Anotheradvantageofposingnewapproachestothestudyofdisputerecordsofthe UrIIIperiodinvolvestheirabilitytoassistinaddressingoldandnewquestionsaboutearly Mesopotamianlawingeneral,andonitsrelationtothestateanditsmembers.Sincethe discoveryofthecodeofhammurapi(ch)andsubsequentpiecingtogetherofotherearly LawCodes compositionsrepletewithhegemonicandcentralistclaims questionshave circulatedinavenerablechainofscholarship(overviewedinchapter5)aboutthe relationshipbetweenthesemonumentaltexts(andbyextension,theking)andthepractice oflawandorderwithintheseearlystates.thelatterfieldofactivityispartiallypreserved bylegaldocuments,orbetter, practicedocuments (afterwells2005),acategoryof tabletsincludingrecordsofcontracts,salesorothertypesoftransactions,andlitigiousor resolutionprocesses,suchastheditilas.whilenumerousanalyseshaveevaluatedthe natureofthelawcodesandmagisterialclaimsofcentralizedlawtheyarethoughtto embody,legaldocumentshave rarelybeentheobjectofcomparablereflection (Roth 2001:243),especiallythoseoftheUrIIIperiod. 9

23 SpecialattentionhasbeenpaidtotherelationshipbetweenCHandthe contemporarydocumentsoftheoldbabylonianperiod,andnumerouslinesofinquirynow concludethatthech,thoughmonumental,wasnotthemetaphoricalbackboneofa centralizedoldbabylonianlegalsystemasoncethought,butratheraworkwhoseimpact wasfeltbyrestrictedgroupsofscribalaristocracy. 9 Similarinquiriesmustbeextendedto thedataoftheuriiistate.thelawsofur-namma(lu),inwhichtheuriiidynastic founderur-namma 10 describesthecreationofthestateandimpositionofjusticeuponit, maybecomparedwithnon-royallycommissionedpracticedocuments,suchastheditilas. InlightofthecentralizationofadministrationandtaxationimplementedbyUr-Nammaand Åulgi(Sharlach2004),itseemsunnecessarytochallengetheideathattheUrIIIkingshad anexclusivecontroloverdecision-making. Yet,aproblematicunderpinningofMesopotamianlegalstudiesistheeverpervasiveassumptionoflegalcentralism,thenotionthatacentralpower,theking,creates andimplementsaformal,autonomousbodyoflawsandlegalproceduresthatweretobe appliedandenforcedequitablyineachcornerofthestate. 11 Onceembracedasthe definitivemodelformesopotamianlaw(jacobsen1946,mendenhall1954,speiser1954), itisnowcomplicatedbytherepositioningofthelawcodesandthefactthattheywerenot enforced,universallyappliedtreatises.inspiteofthisrejectionofoneofthecentralpillars oflegalcentralism,variousstrandsoftheparadigmnonethelessprevailinmesopotamian studies. 9 Avarietyofapproachesandlinesofargumentationhaveledtodifferentanglesofthisposition,see representativesofdifferentmethodsineilers1932,landsberger1939,kraus1960,finkenstein1961,bottéro 1982,Levinson(ed.)1994,Levy(ed.)2000,Renger2008,Rubio2009;butseealsoChapter5. 10 ForanoverviewofUr-NammaandthefoundationoftheUrIIIstate,seeKuhrt1995:58,Flückiger-Hawker 1999:1ff. 11 Or, thefalseideologythat lawisandshouldbethelawofthestate,uniforminallpersons,exclusiveofall otherlaw,andadministeredbyasinglesetofstateinstitutions (Tamanaha2000:299,citingJ.Griffiths 1986).SeealsoA.Griffiths1998aand2001;butseealsoChapter5. 10

24 Forexample,onesymptomofthedependenceofMesopotamianlegalstudieson suchconceptualizationsoflawhasbeenanemphasisonthestructureoflegalsystemsand analysisofspecificlaws.indeed,inspiteofalonghistoryofsinglingoutprocedural recordsfromotherformsoflegaldocuments(transactionalrecords,contracts,etc.),few studieshavesoughttoinvestigatethesocio-politicaldynamicstheyindirectlyreport. 12 MoststudiesofUrIIIlegalorpracticetextshavelikewiseconcentratedonphilological analysesofparticularstagesofprocedure(e.g.,edzard1975,sallaberger2008),the structureofcourtsandfunctionofcourtentities(e.g.,ishikida1998,oh e2003,lafont andwestbrook2003),ormeaningandexecutionofspecificlaws(e.g.,finkelstein1966). Lessfocushasbeenexertedonthesocialcontextofconflicts,thecombinationofforces thatbroughtabouttheirresolution,orthesocialandpoliticalconsequencesofdisputingfor theparticipants.asaresult,changesandfluctuationsinthesystemareoverlookedor disguisedinuriiischolarship,whichunintentionallyfavorstheideaofastaticand monolithiclegalsystemeveninlightofobservablehistoricalchangesonboththelocaland statelevelthroughoutthisperiod. Falkenstein sng,thoughnotadisquisitiononlegalcentralism,nonetheless incorporatedmanyaspectsoftheparadigm,concludingthat, Dieneusumerische GerichtsurkundeistdurchdieüberragendeBedeutungderGerichtsbarkeitdesKönig bestimmt (1956:147).NotonlydidFalkensteinconductmanyofhistextualanalyseswith referencetoliteratureandroyallycommissionedworksattributedtotheuriiikings a validmethodologyforphilologicalanalysis buthealsopredicatedhisinterpretationsof manyditilasontheassumptionthatacoherentstatestructurearchedovertheprovinces. 13 Moreover,Falkensteinexpectedtofindauniformityofprocedureamongthedocuments, 12 ForusefulexceptionsfromtheOldBabylonianperiod,seeDombradi1996,Leemans1968,Yoffee2000:47, androth Seeespecially1956:139ff.andhiscommentariesonText213,101,

25 eveninspiteofnotingvariationsintextualcompositionfromprovincetoprovince.where hefounddifficultiesinterpretingatext,hetypicallyappealedtostructuralpresentationof otherdocumentsratherthanfactorsofchronologicalcontext,regionalcontext,orthesocial make-upoftheparticipants.eventhoughthepurposeofngwasnottoadvancenew theoriesandphilosophiesofancientlaw,thestudynonethelessexemplifieshowthe centralistparadigmaffectsscholarlyreadingsofancientdocuments;thepresentendeavor continuestostrugglewiththislegacy. TheeminentgenealogyofscholarshiponearlyMesopotamianlawhasthusfar producedmanyimportantworksthatcontinuetoteachmuchaboutroyalideology, narrativesofstateformation,andidealsofsocialorder,butitisthecontentionofthis projectthattheoryandfacthavebeenconfused:thefocusonlawcodesand,thus,the centralistperspectivetheyembody,hasplacedincommensurateemphasisontheideasand ideals oflawfromtheperspectiveofkings,whilethepracticeoflawandlivedrealityof disputinganditsresolutionintheuriiiperiodhaveremainedlargelyuntreated.withthe advantageofdatabasesnowavailabletotheuriiischolar, 14 thecurrentstateofthecorpus ofditilas,andassistancefromotherfields,itispossibletoaccessatleastasmallbut illuminatingsliverofthisrealmofactivity. 1.4TheStudyofDisputes Ofcourse,wearefacedattheoutsetwiththeproblemofwhatismeantby law ; oneparadigmcannotsimplyreplaceanother,yetsomeframeworkforinvestigationis 14 Inparticular,theCuneiformDigitalLibraryInitiative(CDLI; DatabaseofNeo-SumerianTexts(BDTNS; 12

26 needed. 15 Cross-culturalstudiesproducedinthefieldoflegalanthropologyhavemuchto offerthisproblem,buttherelationshipbetweenthestudyoflawanditsapplicabilitytothe UrIIIstateisinasomewhatawkwardposition.Overthecourseofthelastcentury,two majorcurrentshavedominatedtheanthropologicalstudyoflaw:thestate-orientedstudies oflegalformalism,and,emanatingfrommalinowski sseminalcrime and Custom(1926), asubstantivistschoolthatfocusedonnon-institutionalnormativeordersamong primitive societies. 16 Theformeremphasizedlawasrules,whilethelatterdevelopedtheideaoflaw asculture. TheUrIIIstateisnotanappropriatecandidateforeitherschool.Ontheonehand, thecomplexityofthestate,withitsairsofcentralizationandcomplex,interprovincial administrativestructureseemssuperficiallymorecomparabletoclassicalandmodernlegal systemsthanto primitive societies.however,eveniftheideaofacentralizedbodyof rulesexistedincodes,theabsenceofanyproofforlegislation(landsberger1939,roth 2000)andthedifficultiesofdemonstratingjudicialcentralizationortheexistenceof specializedlegalprofessionals(seewestbrook2005) 17 disqualifiestheuriiistatefor comparisonwiththeseothercontexts.ontheotherhand,theotherapproachinlegal anthropology,àlamalinowski(1926),involvestreatinglawassetsofculturalnormsthat communitiescanenforce,andthismodeofunderstandingseemsequallyinapplicabletothe UrIIIsocietygiventhecomplexityofhierarchy,degreeofstateformation,andsoforth,not tomentiontheinvolvementofinstitutions,writing,andbureaucracy.moreover,inthe absenceofanynon-administrativesources,wehavenoaccesstothekindsofsourcesthat 15 AsEngel(1990:335)hasaskedinconnectionwithhisstudy, Whatmightourresearchlooklikeifitrejected thedefinitionsandassumptionsoflegalcentralismandemphasizedthatsystemsofmeaningareinseparable frombehavior?chaotic,perhaps. 16 SeeFuller1994,Roberts1981foradescriptionofthesetrajectories,withfullcitations.SeealsoHertel2007 foranoverviewofthelaw-as-rulesandlaw-as-processdichotomyanditsconnectionwiththestudyofold Assyrianlaw. 17 ButcomparetoWestbrook searlierworks,e.g.,1985and

27 wouldbenecessaryforsuchastudy.neitherlegalformalismnorthelaw-as-culture approachcanusefullyservetheuriiicontext,evenifbothschoolshaveprovidedmany importantstudiesforustoengage. Facingasimilarconundrum,manylegalanthropologistsabandonedtheimpossible pursuitofbuildingtheedificeoflawandturnedinsteadtomattersofprocess,focusingon thestudyofdisputesasamorefruitfulmethodforunderstandingthepracticeddynamicsof authorityandpower(gluckman1955,bohannan1968,pospisil[date]).asroberts (1983:11)putit, OncewearefreedfromthenecessityoftheKingandtheJudge,though intheweststillexpectingtofindthemsomewhereinthepicture,itbecomespossibleto examinetherangeofdisputeinstitutionsinafarlessrestrictedway. Indeed,studiesof disputesystemsprovedtobeausefulentrywayintothestudyofpowerdynamicsandthe mannerinwhichrulesandprocessarecreatedandtransformed.manystudies,bywayof dissectingsingledisputes,haveuncoveredcomplexcross-sectionsofsocialrelationships, seeingthingsnotobviousifonemerelystudieslegalterminologyandontology.studiesof resolutionprocedureshaveallowedscholarstoseehowsocialandpoliticalchangesoccur byfocusingonthedynamicsofnegotiationandhowithappens.tosummarizesomeofthe findingsofdisputestudies: 1)Disputingisneveranapoliticalorneutralprocess,butisanarenainwhichthe proportionsofpoweramongcommunitymembersaredeterminedandstandingcanbe redistributedasnegotiationsoccurorasthird-partyentitiesaffirmanddenyclaimsof entitlement(seegriffiths1998). 2)Disputinginvolvesparticular,culturallydeterminedconfigurationsofpeoplethat reflectsocialstanding(seeabel1973,felstiner1974,benda-beckmann1983,chase 2005).Thatis,eventhoughtheremaybenumeroustypesoforganizationsthatmaybe 14

28 assumedintheresolvingofadispute(greenhouse1985),theseorganizationsare determinedbycontextandcanbesubjecttochangeassocietyitselfchanges. 3)Infact,multipleresolutionagentscanexistinasinglesociety,andtheseneednot behierarchicallyorganized(galanter1981,j.griffiths1986,merry1988,fuller1994). 4)Culturallyspecificlogicisemployedtoperformandresolvedisputes,andsuch isnotnecessarilyfixedby law, butcanratherbedeterminedbyindividualsorassembled committees(damaska1997,comaroffandroberts1981,cotterrell2004,bohannan2005, Chase2005:2).Thatis,disputingisnotaninstitutionsomuchasasocialagency. 5)Evenwhenadisputeisreducibletoamatterbetweentwoindividuals,itmay easilyescalatetothelevelofcommunityfactions;thecommunityinwhichdisputantsreside isneverremoteorirrelevanttothepursuitofresolution,butdeeplyinvested(harrington andmerry1988,parnell1988,cover1983). 6)Notalldisputesarepredicatedonconflictorcrime(Bennett1998:651after Griffiths1998a).Somedisputes,asweshallsee,arebasedonmutualinterestsin determiningrecompense,compensation,ortheironingoutoffiscalirregularitiesresulting fromunavoidablesituationswhichnoparticularindividualisdeemedtobeatfault,while otherdisputesaremerelyresponsestoroutinelifesituations,suchasfamilydeaths, divorces,orvariousunforeseendisasters.inthesecases,disputingmaybeperformedso thatordermayberecoveredorperpetuatedandambiguitiesclarified. 7)Finally,itfollowsthatdisputesarenotthereforenotanomalous,butsocially pathological, routinepartsofsocialdiscourse (A.Griffiths1998a:136). ItisnotagiventhatalloftheseaspectsofdisputingwillbevisibleintheUrIII data,buttheseobservationsandarguments,basedondecadesoffieldwork,alertusto characteristicsofourdocumentsthatcouldotherwisebeoverlookedandprovidea provisionalsetoflenseswithwhichtoconductastudy.mostimportantly,wearerelieved 15

29 ofthenecessityofresortingtoadefinitionof law, andcanratherseekunderstandingof howanysuchnotionwasbuiltamongthecommunitiesattestedintheditilas.perhaps,after all, Lawiswhateverpeopleidentifyandtreatthroughtheirsocialpracticesas law (orrecht,ordroit,and soon) whatlawis,isdeterminedbythepeopleinthesocialarenathroughtheirowncommon usages,notinadvancebythesocialscientistortheorist (Tamanaha2000: ). 1.5DisputesandtheUrIIIState ScholarlyconceptualizationsoftheUrIIIstatehavetransformedsignificantlyover thelastcentury,andthelastdecadehasyieldednewmodelsthatemphasizethelocal, specific,anddiachronicaspectsofthehalf-centuryforwhichtheuriiiperiodyielded documentation.comprehensiveworksnowconsiderprovincesindependently(e.g.,dahl 2007,Ouyang2009)orincomparison(e.g.,Sharlach2004,Allred2006),andare increasinglyfocusingonsocialandpoliticaldimensionsofthestateafterdecadesofalmost exclusiveconcentrationonthehighlycentralizeduriiieconomy.therehasthusbeena de-emphasisontheissueofcentralization.asgarfinkle(2008:60-61)hasrecentlyargued, TheUrIIIstatewascentralizedonlyinthesensethatthecrownwasthelocusforthedirectionof resourcesfromthroughoutthestate.inordertomanageanddirecttheseresourcesthekingsofur reliedextensivelyonlocalnetworksofpowerandauthoritythatlaybeyondtheirimmediatecontrol competitionfrequentlyexpresseditselfinthepursuitofstatusandwealththroughthecontrolof officesthatwereoftenaccompaniedbytheusufructofthelandandotherresourcesofthestate. ThefindingsofthisprojectaccordwellwiththesenewperspectivesontheUrIIIstate.The disputeresolutionsystemoftheuriiiperiodwasnotaliving,breathinginstantiationof statepower,butratherinvolvedlocal,competitiveforcesamongurban,provincialfamilies ofeliteswhosoughttomaintainandcreatepowerbywayoflocaldisputingtraditions, manyofwhichwerelikelytohavepredatedtheestablishmentoftheuriiistate.disputing inthetimeoftheuriiistatewasintegraltotheircompetition,andcanbeunderstoodasa socialactthathadconsequencesforallpartiesinvolved,includingdisputants,court officials,andcommunity. 16

30 Afterproposingamethodforextractingsuchdynamicsfromtheditiladocuments (Chapter2),Itracedtheoriginofdisputesfromthebottomupinordertounderstandhow theyprogressedthroughprovincialsocietyandfoundresolution(chapter3).inorderto understandthenatureoftheauthoritybywhichresolutionoccurred,inextapproach disputesfromtheoppositedirectionbytracingthedynamicsofcourtcompositionfromthe topdown(chapter4),beforereturningtothequestionoftheroleofthekingandstate (Chapter5). 17

31 CHAPTER2 FROMTEXTTOPROCESS: DITILASASSOURCESFORDISPUTESANDTHESUMERIANDI 2.1.Introduction 1 Theinherentabilityoflegalprocedurestomanipulatediscourseandrender misshapenportraitsofconflictshaslongbeenperceived.textualreportsaboutsuch proceedings,evenmorepredisposedtotrivializeanddistortevents,aretheonlylink betweenancientproceedingsandlaterinquiringparties.inordertoengagethelogicof disputeresolutionandthedynamicsofcourtsintheuriiiperiod,itisnecessarytoreflect uponthetextualsources theditila-tabletsthatrecordtheresultsofcases(sumeriandi) consideringwhatkindsofinformationthesetextsareorarenotcapableoftransmittingto us.morespecifically,thisendeavorrequiresconsiderationofhowconflictsanddisputes enteredintothetextualrecordinthefirstplace,andhowscholarscan,giventheimmense distancesbetweenancientandmodernsocietiesandtheabbreviatednatureofthetexts, extracttheancienteventswithoutimposingdistortionsorassumingthatthetextsare untarnishedmirrorsofreal-lifeevents.aroutineplightformanylegalhistorianseversince SirHenryMaine sancient Law,suchanapproachhasyettobeappliedtotheditilasofthe UrIIIperiod.Inmanyanalyticalstudiesofditilas,forexample,textortextualstructureis conflatedwithactualcaseprocedures,anearlyunavoidablemethodologicaltrapgiventhat 1 Theterm process isusedthroughouttorefertoarelatedseriesoftransformationsassociatedwith completingacertaingoal,andisnotintendedtobeequivalentto legalprocedure asaregermanprozeßor Frenchprocès. 18

32 thetextsaretheonlyvestigeoftheuriiisystemavailabletous.certainly,thisapproachis accompaniedbyanumberofperilsandthetextscannotbeexpectedtopresentuswithfirsthandtestimoniesofuriiidisputes.hereiconsidertheissueofhowwrittenaccountsof casesareconstructed,organized,andpresentedintextswiththeaimofdevelopingan approachforaccessingthe reality behindthem,thatis,theproceduresandpractices experiencedbytheparticipantsmentionedinthetexts. Thisendeavorcanbeaidedbyotherstudiesofdisputeresolutionsystems,which,at theveryleast,mayassistinestablishingourexpectations.anumberofstudieshavenoted, forexample,theimpossibilityoffindingadispute inanyphaseofitslife thathasnot beenadulteratedbychargedconversation,roundsofproceduresaimedatfixingor examiningtheproblem,ortheexpressionofthedisputeinwrittenlanguage.asconley ando Barrnotedintheirstudyofmodernlegaltranscripts, Asapracticalmatter,itisvirtuallyimpossibleforaresearchertocomeuponadisputeinanysortof pristineform.inmostcases,bythetimethefirstaccountisgiventoathirdparty,thedisputeislikely tohaveundergonesignificantchangessincetheoccurrenceoftheeventsthatgaverisetoit(conley ando Barr1990:x). Rosen(1989),inhisstudyofIslamiclawcourtsinMorocco,similarlyarguesthat, Whateverelsealegalproceedingmaybe anencounterbetweencontendingpartiesseeking confirmationoftherespectiveclaims,acarefullystagedritualaimedattheexorcismofpotential chaos,alife-threateningconfrontationwiththemanifestpowerofthestate itisnotasimple recapitulationofapastoccurrence Itisneverreallypossibletoreconstructexactlytheactionsor utterancesthatgaverisetothecaseathand:nowitnesscanpreciselyrecreatewhatwasoncesaidor heard,andeventhevideotapeofanundisputedcrimecannotdelineatetheinnerstateoftheaccused (1989:20). Itfollowsthatdisputesarenotonlyundecipherableoutsideoftheculturalandpolitical contextsinwhichtheydevelop,butalsothatdisputesarethingsconstantlyinflux.shifts intheparametersofdisputesarewelldocumentedcross-culturally.parnell sengaging studyofaruralmexicancommunityinescalating Disputes (1988),forexample,provides adetaileddissectionofwhatbeganasasimpleconflictbetweentwomenoveramissing key,butshowshowthedisputespiraledintoacommunity-widepolarization,eventually 19

33 requiringstateinvolvement,andhowitsmeaningandstakesfacedconstantrenegotiationas peoplecommunicatedanddebatedaboutthematterbothin-andoutsideofofficial proceedings.indeed,asnewpartiesandauthoritiesareintroducedtoaconflict,adispute willnecessarilytransform,andeventhelanguageusedtoarticulatetheproblemmayshift intodifferentlevelsofdiscourse e.g.,fromcolloquialvernaculartolegalcourtlanguagein thecaseofconleyando Barr sstudy(1990) suchthat,insomecases,theinitial participantsmaylosetheirvoice.moreover,asdisputestravelandexpandthrough differentdimensionsofapopulation,formidable,state-levelcurrentsmaybesetagainsta community scustomsandvalues(parnell1988:5),furthercomplicatingthematterforthe historianorscholarand,forourpurposeshere,requiringanattentiveapproachtothetexts thatreportonthedisputesinquestionandthecontextinwhichtheywereproduced. 2 Giventhissamplingofreflectionsandobservations,towhatextentcantheUrIII textualrecordsinformusaboutdisputesandlegalproceedingsinearlymesopotamia?this chapterseekstoaddressthisquestionbyfirstdelimitingwhatthetextscannottellus,and thenbyattemptingtopreciselytriangulatetheroleofthetextualrecordswithinthereal-life processesthattookplace.atstakeisthequestionofwhetherthetextualrecordsatour disposalhadasignificantroleinresolutionprocedures,presentandfuture,aproposition thatoftencomeswiththesuggestionthatthestate,orsomecentralinstitution,wasinvolved andpreeminentlyauthoritativeintheproceedings.ihereattempttorepositiondispute recordswithintheuriiiadministrationandinstitutionalfilingsystemsinamannerthat accuratelyreflectstheirroleinreal-lifeprocedures.finally,withalltheseconsiderations, thischapterseeksapreliminarydefinitionofwhat,infact,aprocedureor case (di/dïnum)wasintheuriiiperiod,utilizingthetextsasafullcorpus.scholarshaveso fardefinedthetermeitherbyequatingitwiththestructureofinformationinthetexts 2 RelatedstudiesofparticulardisputesofinteresttothesepointscanbefoundinComaroffandRoberts(1981), NaderandTodd(1978),A.Griffiths(1998);seecasesinGagosandvanMinnen(1995). 20

34 assumingthatthetextsarereliable,first-handsourcesforcases orbylookingacrossvast periodsanddifferentlanguages,usinglexicallists,literarytexts,andlegaltexts.asa result,wehaveabroadandsuperficialunderstandingofwhatadi-procedureis,but particularsoftheuriiiusagestillneedtoidentified.moreover,astextualstructuredoes notequatetoanoutlineofprocedure,ourcurrentunderstandingofdiasa litigation involvingastandardizedprocessmaybeerroneous. 2.2 ProceduralRecords inmesopotamia StudiesoflegalcorporafromancientMesopotamiatypicallyseektoimposesome kindoftypologicalschemeontothetexts,basedeitheronspecificclausesorheadings employedinthetextsoronlegalthemes(e.g.,contract,marriage,divorce,probate,criminal cases,etc.).thisapproach,thoughinherentlyanachronisticgiventhevastdisparities betweenancientandmoderngenericcategories,hasneverthelessprovidedfruitfulanalysis andindispensableorganizationtoimmensesetsoftexts(e.g.,schorr1913,falkenstein 1956,Edzard1968,Dombradi1996,Fortner1999:19ff.,Wilcke2007,Holtz2009;see discussionsinyoffee2000:47,hertel2007:4ff.,106,andrenger2008:184).insuch taxonomies,recordsoflegalprocedures,litigations,ortrials(i.e.,prozeßurkunden)are usuallyregardedasauniqueclassoflegaltexts, 3 andtheditilasoftheuriiiperiodare usuallyconsideredtobeadistinctivecategoryoflegaldocuments,differentfrom transactionalrecords,contracts,orwitnessedoaths,becausetheypresumablyreflectlegal protocolsordirectaccountsoftrialprocedures(e.g.,lafontandwestbrook2003:184). 4 3 See,forexample,Fortner s(1997)distinctionbetweenlitigationrecordsand associateddocuments or Holtz s(2009:3)discussionofthe tablettrail. 4 SeeKrecher1974fortheapplicationofthisdistinctiontoSargonicandpre-Sargoniclegaldocuments,further, Dombradi1997:IntroandFortner1999:19ff.forthecomplicationswiththisdistinctioninOldBabylonian legaltexts,andhertel2007:93ff.fortheoldassyrianperiod.hertelexplainsinhisdiscussionofoldassyrian legalrecordsthat, ThedissonancebetweenthegeneralcharacterofOldAssyrianterminologyandthedrivefor analyticalprecisionandabstractioninscholarlypracticedemandscontemplationonhowcanwejustifyour 21

35 Falkenstein(1956:13)evenproposeddifferenttypesofditilas,identifyingaclasshecalled Prozeßprotokollen( trialprotocols ),thosetextswhichrecordspecificpartsofthecourt proceedingsasopposedtootherlegaloreconomiceventsthatrelatedtothelitigation.the explicitenumerationofthevariouspartieswhoattendedtheproceedings(e.g.,disputants, judges,orwitnesses)givesweighttothisperspectiveasthepresenceofsuchpersons impliestheperformanceofanofficialprocedure,asopposedtosimplythedraftingof transactionalrecords.additionally,suchtextsoftenpresentinformationinasortof narrativeform,asiftheancientscriberenderedatranscriptofcompletedproceedings, outliningpoint-by-pointtheseriesofeventsleadingtoaresolutionortransformationof circumstances.inpractice,scholarsassume,moreoftenthannot,thattheinformation providedinditilasandotherproceduralrecordsprovidesamore-or-lessfirst-handaccount oftheproceduresthattranspiredandthat,withacertaindegreeofcare,thescholarcan reconstructtheancientproceedings,allowingthetabletstoplayadirectiverolein understandingthereal-lifecontextsandeventsthatledtotheresolutionofcases(e.g.,see below2.3).giventhatthetabletsaretheonlyvestigesoftheuriiisystemthathavebeen transmittedtous,theseperspectivesaredifficulttodismiss. Thisviewofdisputerecordsismoreanalyticallylimitingthanuseful,however,and theideathaturiiiproceduralrecordsareontologicallydifferentfromotherlegalformsand documentsisunsustainable.indeed,theproceduralrecordsdo relateastory, asroth (2001:255)putit,butthesamecouldbesaidofanylegaltextfromMesopotamia,evenif thestoryismerelyaboutadealstruckandwritteninacontract,anoathtakenandrecorded, orasalecompletedanditsfinalizationsymbolizedwiththedraftingofasalereport.even thoughuriiiproceduralrecordsappeartobedifferentthankstotheirostensiblenarrative structure,theycannotbereadasfirst-handtranscriptsofcasesinthesenseofa subdivisionsofthevariedrepertoireoflegaldocuments,andwhatthesesub-divisionsrefertointermsoflegal ontology (2007:106). 22

36 stenographer snotesproducedinamoderncourtroom.consequently,theissueofthe relationshipbetweenlegaltextsandtherealityvaguelyreflectedinthemisnota straightforwardone.anoverviewofhowscholarshaveconceptualizedthestructureof ditila-recordsdemonstratessomeproblems. 2.3TheStructureoftheRecords Ditila-recordsarenotoriouslytrickytointerpret,andscholarshavefaceddifficulties indevelopingcompositereconstructionsoftheirstructureforseveralreasons.forone, thereistheconsequentialmatterofhowtotranslatethedisputerecordsintomodernlegal vernacularandoffindingtheappropriateterminologytodescribespecificsumerian formulaeandterminology.second,thetotalquantityofthesetextswasnotalways substantialenoughforathoroughreconstructionofprocedures,andmanystudiesofditilas havebeenatomisticanalysesofsingletextsorofsmallarbitrarilyselectedgroups,aside fromfalkenstein swork(1956)andmolina sanalysisofthebritishmuseumumma records(forthcoming);manyreconstructionsoftextualstructureexclusivelyreflectthe Lagashcorpus. 5 Asfewstudieshavereferencedeachother,thefollowingoverviewis provided. Mercer(1913:38)wasamongthefirst 6 toofferacompositereconstructionofthe ditila-records,but,giventhelimitednumberoftextsathisdisposalandthecontemporary stateofthefield,heunderstoodthesedisputerecordswithinthecontextofearlycontract law.tohim,thestructureofdisputerecordswasadirectoutgrowthofthestructureofold Akkadiancontractformulae,andhesuggestedthattheinclusionofanoathintheUrIII 5 IwillnotofferacompositeoftheUmmatextualcorpushere,butseethefollowingchapteronprocedurefor descriptionofthecasesandtheirmethodofpresentationinthetexts. 6 Forotherearlyworks,seeVirolleaud1903,Thureau-Dangin1903,andPélegaud

37 textssignifiedanewstageinthedevelopmentoflawfromtheoldakkadiantotheuriii period(1913:36).hisoutlineofthesetextsisasfollows: 1. Introductionofpartiesinvolvedinthe contract (listednames) 2. Theobjectandnatureofthetransaction 3. Mentionofany extraincidentsconnectedwiththetransactions 4. Oath 5. Witnessandjudges 6. Date (Mercer1913:38,mynumbers) Mercer scompositewasintendedtobeasummaryofthebasic formula (1913:38)for recordingtransactionalevents,ratherthanacasetranscriptornarrative;hisoutlinereads likealistofentriesonaform.thisinterpretationofthetextsconformstothewaythat scholarsunderstandothertypesoflegaltextsfrommesopotamia,suchascontractsandsale reports,inwhichbasicinformationisrecordedinpredeterminedformulaeasifthescribeis simplyfillingoutan(imaginary)templateashedraftsthedocument. ManyofMercer sassumptionsabouttheplaceofditila-recordsinuriiilegal taxonomieswereeitherobviatedorrefinedbyfalkenstein smorecomprehensivework, whichfirmlyestablishedtheditila-recordsasauniqueclassoflegaldocuments,as describedintheprevioussection,ratherthananoath-inclusivesubtypeofcontracts.inhis detailedanalysis,falkenstein(1956:59ff.)advancedahypothesizedcourtprocedureby payingattentiontotheorganizationandstructureofdisputerecords,proposingthat litigationoccurredinroughlyfourphases:theformalinitiationofproceedings(59),the takingofevidence(or discovery asitispresentlycalled,62),thefinaldecisionor judgment(74),andanyclosingproceduresdealingwithdisclaimers,payments,orother actionstotieuptheproceedings(79).sallaberger(1999:224) 7 elaborateduponand reproducedthesephasesasfollows: 7 SeealsoKraus

38 1. Thebackgroundofthecase(Vorgeschichte des Prozesses) 2. Thecomplaint(thatis,aformalactiontoinitiatealawsuit;die Klage) 3. Argumentationanddiscoveryofevidence(Beweisführung) 4. Renunciationofclaims,obligations,orpenalties(Verzichterklärung und Verpflichtung, die Strafe zu übernehmen) 5. Enumerationofentities(officiators,witnesses,disputants) IncontrasttoMercer soutline,falkenstein/sallaberger sreconstructionpurportstobean overviewofthestagesofconductingacaseandtheovertuseofgermanlegalterminology emphasizesthisreading.givenfalkenstein sunquestionablepremisethatthetextswere recordedafterthecompletionofcases,hiscompositereconstructionofditilascanbe understoodasasummarytranscriptofaseriesofcasephasespunctuatedwithalistofthe relevantentities. Morerecently,B.Lafont(2000:40ff.)hasofferedanother,moreelaborateoutline ofditilastructure,subsumingthephasesoflitigation(procès)undersevennumbers: 1. Initiationoflegalaction( intenterunprocès )signifiedbyoneofthreeexpressions(i n i m gar,di dug 4,ori ni m dug 4 ) 2. Recordoftheentitiesoverseeingtheresolution(includinganyentitiescitedashavingbeen involvedbeforethelegalproceedingsbegan) 3. Comparisonoftestimonies 4. Deposition 5. Rebuttals 6. Expressions/Oaths(nam -eri m 2 -am 3 /m u-l ugal ) 7. Whererelevant,theissueofreturn(gi 4 ) Withtheinclusionofmodernlegalterminology(deposition,rebuttal), 8 Lafont s reconstructionconformsmoreaccuratelytothephasesofamodernlegalprocedure,ina generalsense,andfocusesontheactionsandoperationsinvolvedinsettlingthecase that is,adepositionoranexecutionofanoatharethingspracticed ratherthanadescriptionof informationonthetablet. 8 ConsultingThe Council of Europe French-English Legal Dictionary,Strasbourg(1994). 25

39 Molina sten-stageoutlinesimilarlyequatestextualstructurewithreal-lifephasesof litigation,andheassertsthatthetabletsprovideinformationaboutjudicialprocedurewith certainprecision (2000:29): 1. Theheading:ditila 2. Briefintroductionabouttheobjectoflitigation 3. Shouldthecaseproceed,relevantinformationtotheprehistoryofthecase 4. Thenatureoftheclaim 5. Pertinentevidence 6. Respectivetestimoniesandevidenceforeachparty scase 7. Yieldingofoneoftheparties 8. Resolutionofthecase 9. Apromissoryoathorexplicitacceptanceofthejudgmentbythepartywhodidnotwinthecase 10. Nameofthemaåkim( comisario ) 11. Namesofgovernorandjudges 12. Namesofwitnesses 13. Date Eachoftheseusefulreconstructions 9 isaccompaniedbythedisclaimerthatnot everyelementoftheoutlinemaybepresentoneachtablet,andthatsometabletsmayspend moreorlessspaceelaboratingonasinglenumber.thispointinpartexplainsthe variationsinthesescholarlyreconstructionsandthedifferentnumbersofphases,aseach phasemustderivefromdifferentinterpretationsaboutwhichelementsshouldappearinthe compositeandwhichshouldbeomitted.lafontincludesaphasecalled rebuttals, for example,whiletheothersomitthisphaseorpresumablysubsumeitunderanother category.thereisnoclearsumeriantermfor rebuttal initsformalmeaning,butsincethe textsfrequentlyreportthatadisputantdeliveredsomekindofstatementfollowingthe expositionofhisadversary sclaim,itisdifficulttoestablishwhichperspectiveismore accurate. Thisissueaside,manyofthevariationsinthesereconstructionsresultfromvery differentperceptionsofearlymesopotamianlawoperatingunderneaththeanalyses,a questionwhichinturnresultsintheuseofmodernlegalterminology.forexample,while Molinapositstheexistenceofpreliminarystagesoflitigationthatoccurbeforethestartof 9 SeealsoPomponio2008foranothercompositeoutlineofLagashditilastructure. 26

40 thecaseproper(stage3),falkensteinandlafontsuggestanimmediate,formalinitiationof litigation(stage2and1,respectively).or,whilelafontusessumerianterminology (inim gar,etc.ofstage1)tosignifytheonsetoflitigation,falkensteinandsallaberger subsumepostulatedphasesoflawsuitsundergermanterminology,eventhoughthereisno appropriatesumerianwordforsuchphases;thereisnosumerianexpressionfor Beweisführung,forexample. Inshort,eversinceMercer swork,theincreasinguseofmodernlegalconceptshas coincidedwithanassumptionthatthetextsaremirrorsorprotocolsofreal-lifeprocedures, whichinturnareintelligibleinthetextsowingtotheorderofinformationandnarrative structure.inotherwords,whilemercerunderstoodthetextsessentiallyasstylizedforms, thelatterthreescholars,byutilizingmodernlegalterminologyormodernconceptualizations oflitigation,viewedthetextsaspreservedcapsulesofwholedisputes.therehasbeena blurringofthedifferencebetweentextualstructureandthereal-lifepracticesusedtoresolve cases. ThecompositesofFalkenstein,Sallaberger,Lafont,andMolina thelatterthreeof whichwereadmittedlymeanttobeexpositoryratherthananalytical mayhavedifferent advantagesanddisadvantagesforthestudyofditila-records.inanycase,theideaofthe textsasnarrativesthatcanbeequatedwithareal-timetranspiringofeventsisnot supportablewhenconsideringanysingletext.forexample,inareconstructionofthree textsthatrecordcontestationsovertheownershipandstatusofslaves, thestructureand wordingofthetextsdefyanyreal-timeinterpretation,andtheoutcomeofthecaseis presentedasagivenfromtheveryfirstlinesofthedocument: 27

41 Ditila. PN 1 boughtslavefrompn 2 forxshekels(ormina)ofsilver. [SLAVEand/orPN 2 claimedthesaledidnotoccur,thatslavewasillegitimatelyenslaved duetonon-payment]. WITNESS 1 andwitness 2 sworethatpn 1 paidforslaveinfull. SLAVEwasconfirmedtoPN 1. PN 3 wasthemaåkim. Namesofjudges. Date. (fromlagaåtexts35,38,45) Figure 2.1. Structure of Texts Reporting Slave Sale Disputes: Lagaå. Presumably,thedisputesbetweenPN 1 andpn 2 summarizedhererevolvedaroundquestions ofwhetherthesaleoftheslavehadoccurred,whetherthesalewaslegitimate,orwhether thesalehadbeencompletedbywayofpaymentinfull.atsometime,then,thestatusof theslaveandthenatureofthesalewerequestionable,andambiguityprevaileduntil witnesseswereproducedwhocouldconfirmonesideofthestoryandconvincethe judge(s)toconfirmtheslavetothebuyer.thesameisapparentintextsfromumma,as, forexample,inmyreconstructionoftext48: PN 1 boughtslavefrompn 2 for2/3shekelsofsilver. InthepresenceofWITNESS 1, InthepresenceofWITNESS 2. IntheyearÅulgi43,heboughtSLAVE. Later,hisfathersaidhewasnotsold. 10 Beforethegovernoritwasconfirmed(thatthesaletookplace). PN 1 willreturnwiththeslaveinhishand. DitilaofthesonsofA ebara. Date. (Text48[Collated]) Figure 2.2. Structure of Texts Reporting Slave Sale Disputes: Umma. 10 ThislineinText48(Umma)couldalsoread: Later,hisfathersaidhedidnotsell(him), (egi r-raab-bane 2 nu-sa 1 0 bi 2 -du 11 ) 28

42 Thetextualreportsaboutthesedisputesinsistunambiguouslyattheoutsetthatthesales werebothlegitimateandcomplete,eventhoughthesubsequentlinesrevealthatthese matterswereoncecomplicatedandunderwentatleastoneprocedure(witnesstestimonies) toun-complicatethem.inreality,aproceduredoesnotbeginwithaconfirmationofstatus butremainsopentointerpretationuntilvariousproceduresensuethatclarifythematterand establishtheappropriatestatusoftheslave.theserecordsthuscannotbeconsideredpointby-pointreportsabouttheprocedurestakentoclearuptheambiguityofthematters concerningtheslave ACounter-NarrativeExample:a 2 dar Moreover,ditila-recordsoftenemployloadedvocabularyattheoutsetofthetextin amannerthatconfusesthenatureofthedispute.anexamplecanbetakenfromtextswith attestationsofthesumerianverba 2 dar,recentlytranslatedas tocheat,confiscate (Michalowski,forthcoming,LetterUdÅ1), tosequester (Steinkeller2004b:101note29) or toseizeillegally. 11 Inditilas,theobjectsofana 2 darcanbeslaves(text67:5, Lagaå),freewomen(Text369,Umma),grain(Text145:7π,Lagaå),orimmovable property(text214:10-13,case2,umma).whenapartyisfoundtoberesponsiblefor havingcommittedtheact thatis,iftheactcommittedbyapartyisdeterminedtobe illegitimate heorshewillberequiredtopayrecompensetorepairtheensuingdamage, eveniftheoffendingpartyinvolvesthegrandvizier soffice(s ukkal-mah,text67). Whenthetextsreportonsuchevents,theypresentinformationinamannerthat presupposesthe guilt oftheoffendingpartyinsteadofnarratingastoryabouta contentiousacquisition;thetextsimmediatelydeclaretheacquisitiontobea 2 dar,before 11 SeealsodeMaaijerandJagersmaAfO44/45:285.Falkenstein(1957:90)translatesa 2 daras zuunrecht zurückhalten,beschlagnahmen. 29

43 explaininghowthemattercametobecharacterizedassuch.forexample,theummaditila SNAT372reportsthedissolutionofamarriage: I nin-za 3 -ge-sidumugu-du-ka nu-ur 2 -eå 4 -tar 2 dumua-kab-åe 3 -en 6 -ke 4 a 2 in-ni-dar dam-åe 3 ba-an-tuku nu-ur 2 -eå 4 -tar 2 -ea 2 nu-ni-dar nu-zubi 2 -in-dug 4 I e 2 -sag-il 2 -la [I] AN.DU-bi [I] lu 2 -du 10 -ga lu 2 ki-inim-ma-me [gu]-duab-banin-za 3 -ge-si-ke 4 nam-dam! -åe 3 -am 3 ba-an-[tuku] nam-erim 2 -bi[in-ku 5 ] [x]ranu-[x] [1-3linemissing] rev. mu-[lugalxxx] dumu-munu-un-[]ma-an-[dug 4 ] bi 2 -in-dug 4 [x] I ur-mes engar± I ur- d dumu-zi[x] lu 2 -inim-manu-ur 2 -[eš 4 -tar 2 ] du 11 -galul-la 2 ba-an-[x]-ku 4 mu-lugalpad 3 -da-aå gu-dunu-un-da-gi-[in] mu-lugalinimba-a-gi 4 -a-x-eå nu-ur 2 -eå 4 -tar 2 -edamin-taka 4 1ma-naku 3 -babbarin-la 2 -e igiensi 2 -ka-åe 3 I lu 2 - d åara 2 dumuinim- d åara 2 [I} ur- d ba-u 2 dumugu-du-du [ I ni]-da-mu [lu 2 ]ki-bagub-ba-me [iti] åu±-numunmu amar- suen/lugal-eåa-aå-ru-u / mu-æul Nur-EåtarsonofAkab-åenabducted(a 2 dar)ninzagesidaughterofguduandmarriedher(byforce). Nur-Eåtarsaid: Ineverabductedher;Iknownothing (aboutthis). Esagila,AN.DU-bi,andLu-dugawerethewitnesses. GuduthefatherofNin-zagesisworethatshewas takenformarriage. [1-3linesmissing]. [Akab-åen?][said]:Iswear[bytheking]:mysondid not[takeher?]. Ur-mesthe farmer±andur-dumuzithe[x](were)the witnessesofnur-eåtar. Theycameupwithfalsewords. 12 Theysworebytheking. Gududidnotconfirm(this)... Nureåtarleft(his)wife.Hewillpayher1minaof silver. Beforethegovernor.Lu-ÅarasonofInim-Åara,Ur- BabasonofGududu,andNi? damuwerethemenwho servedattheplace.6 th monthofamar-sin6. Inthefirstlineofthetext,weareinformedthatNur-Eåtar illegallytook (a 2 dar)the womannin-zagesiandmarriedher.thetextexplicitlystatesattheopeningthatnur- Eåtar sactionswereunequivocallybefittingtheterma 2 dar.atthesametime,the 12 Or,perhapsthislineextendsfromthem uinbrokenline10: becausethewitnessesofnur-estarcameupand sworeafalsestatement 30

44 majorityofthetext sbodyisspentoutlininganumberofritualsandproceedingsthatwere executedinordertodeterminetheveracityofnur-eåtar sclaimofinnocenceand/or ignorance.eventhoughmuchofthisportionofthetextisdamagedandillegible,itisclear thataseriesofsucheventsensuedtodeterminethenatureofnur-eåtar sactionsandto untangletheconflictingtestimoniesoftherelevantparties.thecomposerofthetextnever otherwiseexpressesambiguityaboutnur-eåtar sactionsandmarriage,revealingthefinal, fixedinterpretationofrealityinthefirstlinesandthenaddingthesubsequentinformation merelytosupportthisforegoneconclusion.inshort,eventhoughmuchofthetextreads likeanarrativeofthecasefromitsstarttocompletion,itisnotsuch.theotherattestations ofa 2 darpresentinformationinasimilarfashion. Theconsequencesofoverlookingtheformulaicstructureofthetextsand subsequentdistancetheycreatebetweeneventsanddocumentationaretwo-fold.first,the fixityanduniformityamongtheditilatextsofummaandlagaåcanleadtotheassumption thattherewasafixityanduniformityoflitigationpracticesacrossandwithintheprovinces ofthestate,implyingthatthereexistedacentrallymandatedmethodforresolvingcases,a legalmodelwhichrequiressubstantiation.second,thisperspectivealsorequiresthe assumptionthatcasesarrivedincourtinclear-cutcondition,withanobviouslegalmatterin mindandwell-definedstakes,orwithobviousplaintiffsanddefendantswhoseplightsfell underspecificlegalheadings.indeed,thetextsalwaysreportfromtheperspectiveofthe victoriousdisputant,eitherbyimplicatingfaultoftheloserofthecaseattheoutsetofthe text(asinthecaseofa 2 -dar),orbyopeningthedocumentwithastatementthatthe victoriouspartywastheonewhoopenedproceedings,asinforexample: PN 1 hadsuch-and-suchlegitimateclaimofentitlement,butpn 2 failedtomeethisobligationsvis-à-vis thisclaim.thecourtdeterminedthata)theclaimwaslegitimateandb)thatpn 2 hadfailedtomeetthe claim.thecourtdeterminedthatpn 1 winsthecase E.g.,Text308(Appendix3,no.5). 31

45 ThesecharacteristicsmaybetakentoimplythatPN 1 isaplaintiffandpn 2 adefendant,butit wouldamounttoaremarkablecoincidenceifallcaseshappenedtobeinitiatedbytheparty whoultimatelywon;thetextsthereforestructuretheiraccountaccordingtotheoutcomeof proceedings. 14 Thedistinctionbetweenplaintiffanddefendant,andwithitthenotionthat casescouldarrivebeforeacourtwithanobviousandtidyconfigurationand,consequently, anobviouscourseofaction,arefictionsofthetextualstructurethatareelsewhere contradictedbythetextsifdifferentapproachesareutilized ReadingforProcedure Mostditilasdonotprovideelaboratedetailaboutthecasestheyreport,btusome studiesofoldbabyloniantextsprovideexamplesforextrapolatinginformationabout procedure.roth s(2001)studyoftheuncharacteristicallydetailedoldbabyloniandispute recordpbs5100offersamoresuccessfulandrealisticapproachforreadingdispute recordsandnegotiatingwiththeirnarrativestructureinordertolearnwhatprocedureswere executed.arguingthatlegaltextsintendtorelateanaccountofevents,anddosoina mannerthatisnotarbitrary(2001:255),rothproposesthatanextractionandanalysisof proceduresandeventscanbeaccomplishedifthetextisreadwithattentiontonotonly1) theexternalformandstructureofthenarrative, butalso,andperhapsmoreimportantly, 2) theinternalpresentationofevents whyarecertainfactsandotherspresented,andin whichways,tomakethesituationcomeoutthewayitdoes,totellthestorythatittells (2001:256).TheanalysisofPBS5100thatresultsfromthisapproachdemonstratesthat thisrecord,andprobablymostrecords,werenotneutraldescriptionsofcasesbutrathera scribe sparticularrendition,perhapsinformedbyotherauthoritiesatcourt.thisdoesnot 14 Asimilarsituation,inwhichthedistinctionbetween plaintiff and defendant isoneonlyofrecordkeepingandgrammaticalconstructions,maybefoundamongthetiv(seebohannan2005:87,94note1),who otherwisecalltheotherpartyinvolvedinacasea partner. Thedistinctionbetweenplaintiffanddefendantis thedistinctionbetweenthesubjectandtheobjectoftheverb call (ibid.note1). 32

46 meanthatscribesinsertededitorialcommentaryintotheirreports,butratherthattheywere forcedtoselectappropriateeventstoincludeatthenecessaryomissionofothers.by identifyingandbreakingdownthedifferententriesofinformationthatthescribereports, Rothwasabletofollowthelogicoftheproceedingsanddescribewhatphasesorstagesof theprocessoccurred,orperhapscouldnothaveoccurred,andinwhatlogicalorder. Yoffee s(2000)analysisoftheoldbabyloniandocumentct4763offersasimilar analysisofeventsandjudicialprocedure. Theusefulnessofthesestudiesforditilasissomewhatlimited,however;thereisno textfromtheuriiiperiodthatisasthoroughasthesetwodocumentsandbothpbs5100 andct4763areunusuallydetailedandenumeratemorephasesoftheresolution procedures.also,ditila-recordshaveadifferentstructurethantheiroldbabylonian successors,andwereproducedindifferentcontexts,asthefollowingsectionwillexplore. Nevertheless,iflargesetsofditilasareexaminedtogether,patternswithintheinternal structureandthepresentationofeventsmaybecomeobvious,placingidiosyncrasiesand deviationsinsharpreliefandtherebyallowingthekindofstudythatrothandyoffeewere abletoaccomplishwiththelongeroldbabylonianrecords.suchidiosyncrasiesmay includeinstanceswhenascribeexplicitlystatesthataprocedurewasnotperformed,for exampleintext99whenitisreportedthatallpartiesdeclinedtoperformanoath,orwhen aprocedurehasfailed,asintheabove-providedtext369,inwhichwitnesstestimonies wereshowntohavebeeninvalid.inspiteoftheirmisleadingpremise,theditilacomposites producedbyuriiischolarsmay,iftakentogether,beusefulforcomparingtextsand determiningwhatisorisnotinthetabletandwhethertheseinternalfeaturesreflect somethingaboutprocedures. Insum,scholarshaveapproachedtheUrIIIdisputerecordswiththewrong expectations.evenifthetextsdodisplayaquasi-narrativestructure,itshouldstillbenoted 33

47 thatnarrativesareneverunbiasedinthefirstplace,asrothsuggests,andshouldnotbe expectedtoserveasaccurateorimpartialaccountsofdisputesandproceedings.rather thanreadthetextsasfirst-handaccountsofdisputesandreal-timenarrativesofthe proceedingsregardingthemasthecompositestudieshavedone,weshouldregardthe ditilasasformsortemplatesthatwerefilledoutbyscribessometimeafterdisputesand resolutionprocedureswerebroughttoaclose. 2.4TheAdministrativeContextoftheRecords Inotherwords,ditilasareproductsofcentralizedbureaucracyratherthan individualizedsynopsesofeventsthatweredispersedtothevariousinvolvedparties.by repositioningthedisputerecordsintheirinstitutionalcontext,wemaybeabletogaina betterunderstandingofthemechanicsoftheirconstructionandinternalstructures.in general,earlymesopotamianadministrativedocumentswerelimitedintherangeanddepth ofinformationtheyprovided,reflectingnotonlythedevelopedconventionsofrecord draftinganddemandsofeconomicandadministrativeefficiency,butalsothechoices, preferences,orevenpurposesofthescribeandpersonnelinvolvedintherecordedaffair. AsAdams(2004:3)putit,ourrecords cometousthroughascreenofnarrowlyfocused observation,selectiveretention,andreinterpretationatlevelsentirelyremovedfromthe conduct[oftheactivityathand]itself. Discussingeconomicandadministrativetextsof Puzriå-Dagan,Steinkeller(2004)arguedthatthetwomostimportantcharacteristicsofUr IIIadministrativetextsarethatthey1)almostalwaysarewrittenpost factumtotheevents theydescribe,and2)thattheydescribea specialtypeofreality, thatis,theystatefacts that arenotwhathappenedinreallife. Heexplains, Moreoftenthannot,thereisnoone-to-onecorrespondencebetweentheeventasitreallyoccurredand asitisdescribedinthetablet.onecouldsay,therefore,thattheadministrativerecordsoperatewithina kindof accountingreality oreven accountingfiction, inthattheeventsandtheirtemporalsequence arere-interpretedandregroupedtosuitbestthepurposesoftheadministrativeprocedure. 34

48 IfIamcorrectthattheoverwhelmingmajorityofadministrativedocumentswerewrittenpost-factum (andthattheextantevidenceleavesnodoubtthatthiswasthecase),itbecomesapparent thatthe operationofthewholesystematleastontheleveloftheindividual/primaryeconomicunitsdidnot dependonthepresenceofwrittenrecords(2004:74,77,quotedalsoinadams2004:2). Steinkellerfurtherarguedthatsuchadministrativeandaccountingfictionsreflecteda deliberateinterestinconductingeconomicprognostication,butasimplerandless controversialexplanationisthatsuchconventionsweresimplyefficient,well-suitedforthe consolidationofinformationinasinglespace,andwell-suitedtothemediumofwriting (seeenglund1988,widell2009).indeed,allwrittendocuments,ancientormodern,are inherentlyfictiveandbiasedinsomemanner,andcanimplicateavarietyofunrelated peoplebywayofsignaturesorstamps,evenifsuchpersonshavenevermet.intheuriii context,thescribehadthetaskofcomposingashortdocumentonceallrelevanteventshad fullytranspired,andconsequentlyhewasaffordedtheopportunitytosummarize,opting forsuccinctexpressionsandlimitingformulae,condensinginformationandfittingitintoa pre-establishedformulatothepointofdistortingreality.forexample,assteinkeller describes,whendraftingeconomictransactions,ascribemaywritethenamesofpeople whowereneverpresentattheeventsinquestion(e.g.,anabsentsupervisorormanager), sometimesmisleadingthemodernreaderintoconcludingthattherewasagreaterdegreeof centralizationofactivitywhenchainsofcommandmayhavedisseminatedtasksinorderto completelargerprojects.multipletransactions(deliveries,exchanges,sales)canbe recordedonasingledocumentunderasingledate,eveniftheeventsoccurredinphysically disparatelocationsoratdifferenttimes.steinkellerreferstothesedistortionsas accountingfictions andconcludesthatsuchfictions,combinedwiththepost factum 35

49 natureofthetexts,indicatethatthecuneiformtabletswerenotintegraltotheexecutionof transactions. 15 Ofcourse,theveryexistenceofwrittendocumentsdemonstratestheirimportancein someway,butthequestionisworthposingoftheditilarecords:whatwastherelationship ofthesetextsto,assteinkellerputit, reallife? AsdiscussedinChapter1,theserecords, liketheadministrativedocumentssteinkellerdescribes,werekeptincentral,institutional filingsystems,neverusedorretainedbythedisputantsinvolvedinthecaseandthus havingno private function(lafontandwestbrook2003:193),asopposedto,for example,a uppi lâ ragâmimoftheoldbabylonianperiod(seeveenker1974). 16 However,theinstitutionaluseofthetabletswaslimitedandshouldnotbetakenas indicativeofacentralized,institutionalizedlegalsystem. ItisherearguedthatwhiledisputerecordsintheUrIIIperiodmayhavehadan importantadministrativeroleforwhichtheywerecomposed,theyonlyhadanindirectrole intheprocessingofdisputesandthefunctioningofthedisputeresolutionsystemsofuriii society(contrawilcke2007).textsanddisputepracticesdidnothaveareflexive relationship,theformerservingmerelyaspassiverepositoriesofinformation muchof whichwasneveraccessedafterthefilingofthetablet.thepurposeofdisputerecordswas, 15 Whilethismaybeanoverstatement,anumberofUrIIIscholarshavenowinfact,questionedwhetherwriting indeedhadanindispensableroleintheday-to-daymechanicsofadministrationandeconomyatall,especially giventhatadministrativeandeconomicdocumentsaresolaconic,formulaic,fictive,andgenerallyremoved fromreality.adams(2004:1-2),forexample,posedthequestionoftherelationshipbetweenagricultural recordsandthecarryingoutofagriculturalactivities,wrestlingwiththefactthat, Thedensityofthewritten record mightseemaself-evidentindicationthataliterate,effectivelyfunctioning,infactalmostsmothering, bureaucracywassoindispensablethatitwasnecessarilyheldinplace. Wilcke(2007:12)hassimilarly dismissedtheideathatwritingplayedasignificantroleinthedevelopmentofearlymesopotamianlaw, finding,forexample,thatit wasinnowayanecessaryorimportantfactorintheformationofcontractsandnot forthelawofobligations. Indeed,itisanachronistic,andperhapsunnecessarytoassumethatthewrittenword waspreeminentlyendowedwithauthorityandauthenticity,prevailinginoperationsofinstitutionsandcourts overotherformsofcommunication,inallormostpre-moderncontexts(seemacneil2000).however,thevery existenceandabundantuseofwritingatteststoitsimportance. 16 Ofcourse,therehavebeenpracticallynoexcavationsofUrIIIdepositsoutsideofthepublicquartersand majorurbancenters,andthuswedonotknowwhatkindsoftextswerefiledindomesticquarters. Consequently,itispossiblethat private ditilasexist;seechapter1note5.bycontrast,domesticareasof OldBabyloniancitieshavebeenexcavated,yieldingthelegaldocumentsinquestion. 36

50 aslafontandwestbrookhavealreadysuggested(2003:193),preservingthenameofthe maå kim,apersonwhoactedasthepreferredrepositoryofinstitutionalmemoryand personalrepresentativeofvarioushigh-rankingcourtofficialssuchasgovernorsand judgesandotherrelevantattendingpartieswhererelevant,suchasa guarantor (lu 2 gina-abtum), 17 whooversawpasttransactions,andvarioustypescourtfunctionaries(e.g., thelu 2 kiinim-ma,seechapter4),whosupervisedorattendedpreviousattemptsat disputeresolution.thatis,thepointofdraftingcourtrecordswaspotential accountability, evenifthiswasonlyeverpotential,andtherecordsthuspreservethechainsofresponsibly andcommandofthevariousofficialsinvolvedincases.thusthetextswereonlyofusein theimmediateposterityofthespecificcasedocumentedwithin. Whenacasereturnedbeforeacourt,personswhoperformedsituationalcourt functionsprovidedaccountsofpasteventsinsteadofwrittendocuments.ifawritten recordwascitedinthecourseoftheproceedings,thepurposewastoassertthatsuch witnessesexistedandcouldtestify,andthustextsdidnotserveasevidenceper se(see Postgate1992:286);aswillbedemonstratedintheChapter3,oraltestimonywas unfailinglyvictoriousoverwrittendocumentationinthesettlementofuriiidisputes. Ifsuchfunctionarieswereentrustedwithpreservingmemoryandthevehicles throughwhichpastproceedingscouldbetransmittedtothefuture,andifthepurposeof writtenrecordswasmostimmediatelytopreservetheirnamesandtheassociatedcases,it followsthattheinformationonthetextswasneverintendedtobeareliable,unadulterated renditionoftheproceedings.theneedfordiscursiveaccuracyanddetailwasobviatedby thefactthatahumanentitycouldanddidfulfillthisfunction.thisdoesnotmeanthatthe informationpresentedindisputerecordswaswrittenhaphazardlyorselectedarbitrarily 17 SeeTexts51,62,70,and163(Lagash)orText281,288,and344(Umma)forexamplesinwhicha guarantor iscitedinassociationwithatransaction,ordirectlyreferencedashavingattendedproceedingsto verifytheexistenceornatureofapasttransaction. 37

51 (seeroth2001),butthatitwasnotselectedaccordingtoananachronisticstandardof matchingrealityorprovidingavivid,narrativisticaccountofproceedingsforanyreaderto follow. Theconsolidationofdocumentsinprovincialinstitutionssecuredthisinformation andperhapsreflectsanattempttostabilizeandmanagedisputeprocessinggiventhe propensityofconflictstoreturnbeforecourtsoverthecourseofdecades(seechapter3), andinthislimitedmanner,thetextsassistedindisputeprocessing.however,thetextsdid nothaveadeterminativeroleindisputeresolutionsand,giventheirlimitednature,wouldbe poorsubstitutesforpersonalaccounts. 2.5TheAdministrativeCharacteristicsofDisputeRecords Acloserexaminationofthespecifictypesofdistortionsemployedindispute recordsfurtheremphasizestheirlimitedabilitytocommunicatedisputenarratives.hertel (2007:101)identifiestwotypesof interpretivecomplications exhibitedbyoldassyrian legaldocuments,whichalsocanbefoundintheuriiirecords:abbreviationand telescoping.abbreviationsreferstotheomissionofinformation,suchaswhenanevent, thenamesofpartiesinvolved,thepreciseamountofsilverorareaofanurbanplot,orother keydetailsthatwouldseemessentialinmodernlegaldocuments,areleftoutofthe document.theresultisacomplicatedpresentationofchronology thatcanbeinterpreted invariousways (ibid.).ditilasaccomplishabbreviationwithgrammaticalsimplifications anduncommonlybasicsentences,sometimesprovidingsolittleinformationthatonecould postulatethatthetextservedmerelyasamnemonictriggerforthemaå kimorwitnesses. Telescoping referstoajumpfromoneproceduralsituationtoanother,where severalproceduresinbetweenareleftunmentioned (Hertel2007:101),andmayalsobe 38

52 consideredacharacteristicoftheuriiirecords.inditilas,eventsareoftencontortedinto simpleformulae,whichpresumablycouldsignaltothenativereaderwhateventshave takenplace,aswhen,forexample,thetextreportsthat, PNappearedbeforethejudges (PN igidi-ku 5 bi 2 -in-ñar).maskedbythisshortformulaisthetremendousamountoftime andpreparationrequiredtoundertakearesolutionprocedure.itisoftenclearthatphasesof aproceduremayhavebeenomittedfromthetext,evenifitisnonethelesslikelyorpossible thattheyoccurred;theabsenceofanoathmaynotmeanthatonenevertookplace,sinceit ispossiblethatitremainedunrecordedatthediscretionofthescribe(ortheauthoritative entitiesinstructinghim)ifitwasnotdeemedapivotalmomentofthecase. 18 Inadditionto abbreviation(punctuationofdetails)andtelescoping(collapsingoftime),theditilarecords alsocondensespace. Inadditiontothesecharacteristics,ditilasalsocentralizedisparatetimeandplaces intoasinglereportevenifdisputestraveledthroughavarietyofcontextandcourtsbefore takingshapeinwriting(seechapter3),andmisrepresent fact. Thatis,ditilasoftenstate informationasfacteventhoughthefactualbasisofthisinformationmaybecomplicatedor contradictedbycontentpresentedelsewhereinthesamedocument,asin,forexample,in divorcereports.appendix2listsall(legible)casesknowntome(elevenfromlagashand onefromumma)thatreportthedissolutionofmarriages.eventhoughthereasonsfora coupletodissolveamaritalcontractarecertainlycomplicatedandoftenresistasimple explanation,theserecordsnonethelessreportthestoryinamannerwherebyonepartyalone isimplicatedashavingviolatedthetermsofthemarriage.inotherwords,onespouseis foundtohavefailed,insomecapacity,toupholdtheconditionsandobligationsuponwhich themarriagewaspredicated,thusprovidingtheotherspousewithanentitlementtoleaveor 18 AsdiscussedinChapter1,suchproblemsinpartaccountfortheomissionofanumberof privatetexts fromfalkenstein scorpusindie neusumerischen Gerichtsurkunden.Becausementionofcertainprocedural oathsormentionofcertainentitieswaslacking,heassumedthetextshadnothingtodowithprocedure,and relegatedtheminstatusas private documentsunrelatedtoditilas. 39

53 possiblytodemandrecompense.inallbutthreeofthesecases,thetextsreportthatitisthe husbandwhowassomehowresponsibleforcompromisingthecontractandwhoseactions havecompelledthewifeand/orherfathertoseekdissolutionand/oradvanceademandfor restitution.asappendix2shows,thesetextsusethephrase helefther inallcases exceptwherethepassivepnba-tuku( shewasleft )isused.thecreationofamarriage isexpressedinthephrase(nam-dam-åe 3 )tuku totake(asawife), and,whileusually themanistheagentofthisconstruction,therearecasesinwhichitisthewoman(texts 14:17,and206:17π;seeLafontandWestbrook2003:201).Acomparisonwiththe terminologyofmarriageformationanddissolution,then,highlightstheunusualnessofthe constructionthatexpressesmarriagedissolutionandtheabilityoftheadministrative languagetohideordistortevents. Theseadministrativefictionsdescribedabovemustnotbeconfusedwithcurrent conceptualizationof legalfictions, whichreferstotheabilityoflegallanguagetoconceal socialdiscoursesandsocialeventsinordertoexpediteprocedure.maine(1861)pioneered theconceptoflegalfictionsinordertoexplainhowthelanguageofcodesandedicts disguisessocialandpoliticaldevelopments.morerecently,conleyando Barr(1990:11) havedevelopedtheconcepttoshowhowlegallanguageeliminatesaccesstothecourses andvagariesofconflictnarrativesinordertofacilitatelegalprocedure.intheu.s.legal system,forexample,legallanguageordocumentationutilizesterms(e.g., alleged and claim )thatflattenpersonalnarrativesandaimtorendersimplified,depersonalized accountsofpertinenteventsthatcanbequicklyevaluatedinacourtroomsetting(ibid.). Someinformationmustnecessarilyberelegatedtothecategoryof hearsay, belonging outsidetheboundariesoftheconstructedaccount.accordingtothisanalysis,legal languageanditscreationactivelyaffectsthecourseofprocedureaslegalprofessionals appropriateandmodifydisputenarrativesinordertoengagethelawandsettlecases.even 40

54 thoughalldisputeprocessesinvolvetheevaluationandconstructionofnarrativesinorder toresolvedisputes,itisnotlegallanguagethatpossessesthispowerinthesystemattested bytheditilas,butrathertheoraltestimoniesofpeoplewhoattendedtheproceedings.that is,the fictions foundinditilarecordsareadministrativeincharacter,andthereisno evidencethattheyencouragedtheswiftexecutionofresolutionprocedures.consequently, theapplicationofthetermof legalfiction tothesetextsmustbedonewithcaution. Inanycase,wemustregardoursourcesforUrIIIdisputesassecondary,tertiary, orgreatlyremovedsourcesfortheeventsdescribedwithinthem.giventheircontext, content,andthestructureofthecontent,theycannotbetrustedasimmediateaccountsof disputes,butmaystillbeusedforanalysisifthesecharacteristicsareregardedandnoted. Inwhatfollowsthischapterintendstoseekabetterunderstandingofwhat,giventhe proceedingsections,aprocedure(di),wasintheuriiiperiod. 2.6DitilaasRecordofdi Ifthetextcannotbeequatedwithprocess,thenitisnecessarytoreinvestigatewhat theprocess thedi is.thesumeriantermdi(d)(akkadiandïnum)hasbeen translatedanumberofways:lawsuit,case,trial,legaldecision,litigation,orlegalprocess (akintogermanprozeßorfrenchprocès), 19 andisthoughttoenjoy awiderlatitudeof connotationthanthedenotative judgment; verdict; or lawsuit whichisgenerally associatedwithit (Fortner1999:18).Derivativesarealsotranslatedinaccordancewith theconceptofformallaw,forexamplewithdi Ñaras tosue,bringalegalcomplaint or di-ku 5 as judge, orasaverb, decidealegalcase (seeedzard1975:73).linguisticand philologicalinvestigationsofthesetermshavealreadyexploredthesemanticboundaries 19 dinumcanbetranslated decision,verdict,judgment,punishment;legalpractice,law,articleoflaw;case, lawsuit;claim;court (CADD150ff.).Molina(2008)optsforthelessloaded process. SeeAttinger (1993:459)forafullbibliography;seeFalkenstein(1956:59n.2and1957:97). 41

55 andlinguisticandgrammaticalcontexts, 20 andmichalowski(1978:117)andedzard (2005:22ff.)havediscussedtheproblematicrelationshipbetweentheAkkadianand Sumerianversionsoftheterm, 21 sohereiprimarilyseektodefinetheparametersofactivity associatedwithperformingadiinthecontextofdisputing. WhileitisdifficulttoidentifyasingletermthatencapsulatestheSumeriandi,and, infact,manyoftheaboverenditionsneednotbechallenged,itisstillimportanttodiscuss someproblemswiththewholesaleimportationoftheirconnotationsandcontextsintothe UrIIIdata.Firstly,thedangersofapplyingessentialistdefinitionsoflawandlegal systemshavebeensummarized(tamanaha2000),and,because law isnotconstant acrosstimeandspace,anditmayoftenbemisleadingtotransportterminologyfromcontext tocontext,acrosshistoricalandsocio-politicalboundaries.iargue,infact,thatthetermdi/ dïnum hasbeendefinedsobroadlyinmesopotamiansourcesthattheparticularsofits usageduringtheuriiiperiodhavebeenoverlooked. Secondandmoreimportantly,thetermdiiscommonlyunderstoodtorefertoatrial orlitigation(e.g.,sigrist1995,lafontandwestbrook2003:184),i.e.,tosometypeof antagonisticrelationship,butthismeaningiscomplicatedbythefactthatmanytextsselfidentifyasadiorditilawhilecontainingnohintoflitigiousactivity,aswith,forexample, marriagecontractsanddeclarationsofachangeofstatus.genouillac(1911:13)noticed thisproblem,andstatedthatnotallditilascontainlegalprocedures,andgreengus(1969) andfortner(1997)laterconsideredtheproblematicnatureofdiaslitigationaswell. Falkenstein(1956:12-13,afterKoschaker1917:154note11)addressedtheissueby suggestingthatsuchtextsshouldbeconsidereddie gerichtliche Beurkundung eines Rechtsgeschäftes( thejudicialregistrationofalegaltransaction ),butthedistinctionis 20 opcit.aswellasfalkenstein1956:9ff., HalloandvanDijk1968:72(citingBIN8154and155);Wilcke (1978),Edzard1975:73f.,Michalowski(1978),Edzard2005:22f. 21 Thecaseforthewordbeingdi (d)ratherthandi ordi (n)isbestsummarizedinmichalowski1978:117,with fullcitations. 42

56 unsupportedbythenativeclassificationsandthissolutionstillfailstoexplainwhyaword for litigation wouldapplytojudicialregistrations. Anoverviewoftheterminologyofprocedurecanassistinresolvingthese problems.thefirstattestationsofthesumerianworddioccurasearlyasthefaraperiod oratleastjustbeforetheakkaddynasty(e.g.,seebin8154fromnippur).however,the termdoesnotroutinelyappearinsumerian-languagedisputerecordsduringtheold Akkadianperiod,incontrasttotheprominenceitisaffordedintextsfromUrIIItimes. Rather,OldAkkadianlegaltextsinSumerianusuallyemploytheexpressioninim(al-til) whentheyrefertolegalprocessesandtheirsettlements, 22 lessfrequentlyoptingfordi. 23 Ontheoccasionswhendiisused,itisalmostalwaysinconnectionwiththenameofa maåkim, 24 andisalmostalwaysinconstructionwiththeverbsi sa 2, tosettle, 25 even inletters. 26 Occasionally,themaåkimiscitedashavingsettledthedihimself,butmore oftenthereareotherfigureswhoassumethisrole.theidiomdi si sa 2 isnotused intheuriiidisputerecords;infact,iamnotawareofanyattestationsfromadministrative recordsofthistime. 27 Rather,theUrIIImethodofexpressingthatadihasbeencompleted istousetil, complete;finished, hencetheexpressionditil-la. Theearliestandonlypre-UrIIIattestationoftheconstructionditil-la( finished case ) 28 appearsintheregrettablyunhelpfuloldakkadiantextmcs 9150,inconnection withaterselyreportedseriesoftransactionsinvolvingsheep.thetextdoesnotassumethe 22 E.g.,fori ni m al -t i l :WdO1982,13:2014`,Krecher1974:241no.18lines9`-11`,no.21line21(=MAD4 15),BIN 8167;seealsothepre-AkkadNippurtextsBIN8170and E.g.,BIN E.g.,MAD480,maškimdi -si-sa 2 -a-bi ;herenootherauthoritiesarecited,perhapssuggestingthatthe maškimhadagreaterormoredirectroleintheresolutionofcasesintheoldakkadianperiod. 25 si...sa2:e.g.,krecher1974:257no.26col.3line2;mad4803;sr88:16(=bin8170);sr 8210(=BIN8 167),SR85:8(=BIN8164),SR82:10(= BIN8173);seeWilcke2007: Letters:E.g.,SR9214(=BIN 8157);seealsoSR93(=BIN8155)andSR94(=BIN8153). 27 ThisdoesappearinUrIIIliterarycompositions,however.See,forexample,ÅulgiHymnB TranslatedbySigristas sentencedutribunal (1992:46)andEdzardas Rechtssache (1968:passim). 43

57 formofadisputerecord,ifonecomparesitwiththeotheroldakkadiantexts,readsmore likeaneconomicreceipt: MCS9150,OldAkkadian 1ududa-dadam-gar 3 1uduinim- d åara 2 engar NIÑIN 3 maåkim 1udunin-gu 2 1udunin-[xx] niñirki-añ 2 maåkim 1uduNIGIN 3 dam-gar 3 lu 2 - d åara 2 maåkim 1uduur-lu 2 NIÑIN 3 maåkim ditil-la 1sheep,Dadathemerchant 1sheep,Inim-Åarathefarmer NiÑin(was)maåkim 1sheep,Ningu 1sheep,Nin-x-x NiÑirKiaÑ(was)maåkim 1sheep,Niginthemerchant Lu-Åara(was)maåkim 1sheep,Urlu NiÑin(was)maåkim Caseclosed. Thistexthasinspiredasmalldebate(i.e.,onerestrictedtofootnotes)aboutits interpretation,sinceitisunclearifthecitedmaå kimsaretherecipientsofsheeporifthey supervisedthedisbursementofsheeptothewinnersofacase,assuggestedbythe inclusionofthefinaldeclaration closedcase. 29 Thelatterpositionisperhapsbolsteredby thefactthatdiwasassociatedearlyonwiththeconceptof settling somethingoverwhich twopartieshavedisagreed,signifiedbyitscommonassociationwithsi sa 2,thus seeminglyreferringtoaresolutionprocessinsteadofatransaction. 30 TheAkkadianterm dïnum isusedinakkadiandocumentsoftheoldakkadianperiod,andisunderstoodas inim/awωtum word,matter asitisusedinthesumeriantexts. AftertheUrIIIperiod,theSumeriantermsdiandditil-laareoccasionallyused inoldbabylonianliterarycompositionsandlexicallists, 31 butitiscertainthattherehas beenanevolutionofthemeaningandcontextofthetermssincetheendoftheuriiiperiod 29 ComparetoUrIIIanimaldisbursementtextsdiscussedinOh e1983.onthevariousinterpretationsofthis text,seealsogelb(1952no.208,228,and242),edzard(1968no.79),sommerfeld(1999no.55-57),and Wilcke(2007:40note80).OntheissueofwhethermaåkimswerepaidforservicesintheUrIIIperiod,see Chapter4. 30 OnthegeneralstructureofOldAkkadianlitigationtextsandassociatedSumerianandAkkadian terminology,seewilcke2007:42ff. 31 E.g.,OBIziIandII,OBKagal. 44

58 andsincethedeclineofsumerianasthepredominantlanguageforrecordinglegalcases. SumerianliteraryworksfromtheOldBabylonianperiod,forexample,refertodiin connectionwiththe assembly (Akkadianpuærum),butneitherthistermnorthebodyof authoritiestowhichitrefersisconcernedwiththemanagementofdisputesinlagashor UmmaduringtheUrIIIperiod. 32 Forexample,fromFlood Story 24andLSUr364: di-til-lainimpu-uæ-ru-[um-ma-kaåugi 4 -gi 4 nu-ñal 2 ] Thejudgmentoftheassemblycannotbe turnedback(aftermichalowski1989:59) AftertheUrIIIperiod,thetermditil-laisattestedinMiddleAssyrianlexicallists 33 and infirstmillenniumlexicallists,mostnotablyana ittiåu,whereanakkadianequivalent (dïnumgamrum)isprovided. 34 Infact,thestrongestretentionofOldAkkadianandUr IIIterminologyisfoundinlexicallistsofthelatesecondandfirstmillennia. 35 Lexical equivalentsofsumerianandakkadianlegalterminologyareproblematic,however,andare knowntobreakdownuponinvestigationofthepracticalcontextsofterms. 36 ThetopicofthemeaningsandnuancesofAkkadiantermsreferringtodisputecases intheoldbabylonianperiod,dïnum andawωtum,isanimmensesubjectthatdeservesits owntreatmentandcannotbecoveredheretoanysatisfactorydegree.sufficeittosayfor ourpresentpurposesthatthereisadevelopmentofthemeaningofdïnum (andtherefore di)aftertheuriiiperiod.foronething,thereisatangibleredefinitionofthesumerian 32 Twopossibleexamplesofpu-uæ 2 -ru-umfromtheuriiiperiodareprobablyfromnippur:im28051(seevan Dijk1963ZA55:71)isunproveniencedandundated,whiletheothertextreferstoapu-uæ 2 -ru-umnibru ki -ka (RAIPragueHandouttextfromW.W.Hallo;Nippur,UrIII=P200661).ThedatingofthesetextstotheUrIII period,however,needsreevaluation. 33 AOTU2/170-72oi23,24, NeoAssyrianR5241oi29,30,32;ana ittiåu,seemsl1,7,col.128a,29,30,32.seealsofinkelstein s (1967)publicationofatabletcopyfromtheCodeofHammurapi. 35 E.g.,ana ittiåuviii46providestheakkadianequivalentofthephrasedisi sa 2 =di numåuteåuru,buti amnotawareofanyusesofthisidiombetweentheoldakkadianperiodandthislexicalentry. 36 See,forexample,Ellis(1972)onDI.DAB 5.BA=œimdatuorWestbrook(1996)onZIZ 2.DA=kiååatum;butsee alsosteinkeller1980andwilcke2007:59note

59 terminology,aswhen,forexample,oldbabylonianlegaltextsusethelogogramsdi.til.la ordi.dab 5.BAasidiogramsfordÏnum,(Kraus1939:157,Finkelstein1967,Ellis1972), eventhoughditil-laisnotsynonymouswithdiintheuriiiperiod(seebelow)anddiis seeminglytheequivalentofdïnum.moreover,ithasbeensuggestedthattheveryuseof thesumerianterminologyvariesbycityintheoldbabylonianperiod, 37 implyingthatthe termsarepossiblyinflux,whetherornottherealityofsolvingcaseshaschangedor remainedthesame. Second,inmostoftheUrIIIdisputerecords,thetermdicannottakeonthesame semanticfieldsastheoldbabyloniandïnum andseemstoreferprimarilytodisputes ratherthantoverdicts,laws,ortheactofsuing.thatis,intheoldbabylonianperiod,the meaningofthetermdïnum takesonamuchbroaderrangeofmeaningsthandiassumes duringtheuriiiperiod,referringnotonlytotheprocessbywhichlawsuitsaresettled,but alsotothefinalverdictorjudicialdecisionofthesuititself.itisnotequallypossible, however,foradiduringtheuriiiperiodtorefertoajudicialverdict.notonlyisthis usageunattested,butalso,ifthetermdiisdefinedassuch,thenthedistinctionbetweendi as verdict andditil-la, finishedverdict, isuncleartome.thereissimilarlynoclear instanceofthetermdireferringto law or rule asdïnum mayintheoldbabylonian period. Giventhesemanyshiftsinterminology,language,and,ofcourse,socialand politicalcontextsoverthecourseofearlymesopotamianhistory,howdoweunderstand themeaningofdifortheuriiiperiod?byutilizingthefullcorpusofuriiidispute recordsandobservingexactlywhatcanandcannotoccurinthecontextofadi,aswellas bypayingattentiontowhatismeantwhenthetextsrefertothisterm,itmaybepossibleto proposeaprecisedefinition.tostart,wemustassumethatdiandditil-laarenot 37 OnlegalterminologyaftertheUrIIIperiodseedeJ.Ellis1974:77,Landsberger1939,Kraus

60 interchangeabletermsandthatitisnotnecessaryorjustifiabletoimportthevarious meaningsofdïnum totheuriiicontext.moreover,itisnotpossiblethatdicarriedthe meaningof verdict or legaldecision intheuriiidisputerecordsasthisobfuscatesthe meaningofthemoreubiquitoustermditil-la.thelattertermrefers,obviously,tothe completionofthedi,whichinturnmustrefertotheprocessorpossibly case. Asmentionedabove,theconstructiondi si sa 2,characteristicofOld Akkadiandisputerecords,isabandonedintheadministrativelanguageoftheUrIIIperiod (seeshulgihymnb219),andcasesarecompletedinthisperiodwithtil, complete; finished. Adibecomestil,presumably,whenappropriateentitieshaveconfirmedone party sclaim,sometimesreportedwiththeverbgi toestablish,confirm. Thetermdi til-lathusseeminglyreferstotheconclusionofadi, orthemomentatwhichthematterfor whichthearbitrationwassoughthasbeenresolvedandtheprocessistheoreticallyclosed. Thecasecanresurface,however,asseenaboveincaseText276andalsoinText112:5and 15,indicatingthat,inpractice,casesdidnottrulystaytilforeverinallinstances. a-kal-ladumuab-ba-mudi-daba-a-gi 4 ur- d lamadumuab-ba-mu-ke 4 a-kal-laåeå-a-ni di-tain-tak 4 AkalathesonofAbamureturnedthecase. Ur-LamasonofAbamu,Akala sbrother,abandoned thecase. Still,Molina(2008:no.8)suggeststhatthegoalofallpartieswastomakethecasetiland eliminateambiguityonceandforall: Text287:o.6-r.3) åa 3 -ge-bu 3 -lu 5 mulugalin-pad 3 tukum-biu 4 3-kam-ka lu 2 -inim-manu-mu-tum 2 ditil-lahe 2 -abi 2 -in-du 11 Åagebulu sworebythekingandsaid: IfIcannotbringawitness inthreedays, letthecasebeclosed. AsimilarexamplecanbefoundinText

61 Therearealsoreasonstoproposethatditil-lawasnotonlyatermforacomplete dibutalsoareferencetothephysicaltabletthatrecordedtheconclusionofthedi,asis evidentinthebowdentablet(text377,johnsonandveenker,forthcoming,line8),which, inthecontextofdiscussingapastcasethathasresurfaced,usesthephraseditil-laasan indicatorthatthereisatabletdocumentingthecase: Text377,line8,Umma lu 2 -du 10 -gamaåkimditil-la-bii 3 -me-am 3 Lu-duga(was)them aå k i m ofthisditila. Thesameisalsoclearforbaskettags(pis andub-ba)thatlabelthefileswheredispute recordswerekeptandthatrefertothebasket scontentsasditilas. 38 Forexample: Text223,Lagaå pisandub-ba ditil-lai 3 -Ñal 2 arad 2 - d nanna sukkal-mahensi 2 gir 3 åu-i 3 -li 2 lu 2 -diñir-ra lu 2 - d nin-gir 2 -su di-ku 5 -bi-me muma 2 -gur 8 -mahba-dim 2 Tabletbox: (Here)aretheconcludedcasesof Arad-Nanna GrandVizier,governor, UnderÅu-ili Lu-DiÑira Lu-Ningirsu werethejudges. TheyearÅS8. ThedisputerecordText277alsodemonstratesthispoint: Text277,leftedge,Lagaå gaba-riditil-la[ x] pisane2-gal-kai 3 -ib 2 -g[ar] Acopyofthisclosedcase[...]wasputinabasketof thepalace(archives). Thusmodernscholarsarenotunjustifiedwhencallingthecorpusofdirecords,theactual texts,ditilas.mostlikely,theuriiitermfunctionsasacovertermthatreferstothe completeprocessandthefactthatthereisarecordoftheofficial(maå kim)whocan 38 SeeLagashTexts216,217,218,219,220,221,222,223,224,andBM14440(Sollberger1976:no.3).No tagspertainingtodisputerecordsarepresentlyknownfromumma.onp i s an d u b-b atexts,seealso Sallaberger1999: andNelson

62 testifyabouttheproceedings.inotherwords,adiisnotequivalenttotheverdict,whilethe termditil-lareferstothefactthatadihasbeencompleted,andtoitsdepositintothe writtenrecord. Onlyanexplorationofthenativeusesofdiinthecontextofdisputerecordswill clarifyitsmeaning.usingthisapproach,wefindthatthemajorityofsuchtextssignifythe beginningofundertakingadiwithoneofseveralexpressions.inmanyinstances,thetext reportsthatoneoftheinvolvedpartieshassimply appearedbeforethejudges, usingthe constructionpnigidi-ku 5 bi 2 -in-ñar. 39 Almostallusesofthisexpressionarefollowed byafirst-persondeclarationofthematterathand,accompaniedbytheverb(bi 2 -in)-du 11, he/shedeclared. Forexample: BM23678,rev.5,Lagaå dam-qa 2 -atu 3 KA-la-aašgub åeå-a-nidi-bibe 2 -eå 2 dam-qa 2 -at.bi 2 -in-du 11 DamqatandherbrotherKA-la a,theleatherworker, startedad i. Damqatdeclaredthat... Whenafirst-persondeclarationisomitted,onewillfindinsteadareportthatapromissory oathwastaken,anaffairthatwouldsimilarlyinvolveapublicaddressbeforewitnesses. Wherethisexpression PNappearedbeforethejudgesanddeclared isnotused, anotherexpressionswilllikelybefound:inim Ñar,di du 11,orinim du 11,as Lafontpointedout(2000:40seeabove).Thesetermsarealsofrequentlyaccompaniedbya succinctfirst-persondeclarationaboutthematterathand Insteadofjudges,sometimesagovernoriscited.SeeFalkenstein1956:18ffforabreakdownoftheentities presentatcasesinthelagashcorpus. 40 Garfinkle(2000:208,seealso2004:8note20)haspointedoutthattheuseofdug4incourtrecordsistheir distinguishingcharacteristic. 49

63 Compound Verb: igidi-ku 5 -neåe 3 in-ñar bi-in-dug 4 inim Ñar di dug 4 Common Translations: tomakeastatementbeforejudges;appear beforeatribunal(sigrist1995:no.1,7) tosue(falkenstein1957:124,lafontand Westbrook1993:194);makealegalclaim;to bringlegalactionagainstsomeone(thompsen 1984:306);toclaim,sue(Hallo2002:152) tostartlegalproceedings;(falkenstein 1957:97);tolodgealawsuit(Finkelstein 1969:80n.18);carryonalawsuit(against someone)(thompsen1984:301);toadjudicate (Hallo2002:152);tolitigatewithsomeonefor Literal Translation: toappearbefore judgesandsay toplaceastatement, speak(thatis,to presentone spoint ofview 41 tosayadi something(wilcke2007:43) inim dug 4 tosue;makealegalcomplaint toutteraword, statement,complaint Table 2.1. Expressions of Initiating a di. Theattestedlexiconofbeginningadiinvolvesreferencestospeechand declarationsbeforetheauthoritativepartywhowillbeentrustedtosettlethematter. 42 Edzard(2005:22f),infact,hasspeculatedthatdimayderivefromthenon-finitemarûformoftheverbdug 4, tospeak. Eventhougheachofthesecompoundverbshasa connectionwiththeactofspeakingordeliveringastatement,theyaretypicallytranslated byextensionashavingtodowithregisteringacomplaint,suing,orformallyinitiatingthe litigationprocess.regardlessofthepotentialanachronismsimposedbysuch conceptualizations,theimportanceofutteringsomekindofstatementtiesthedifferent termstogether. 43 Itfollowsthenthatadiisnotonlyanoccasionofpublicdeclarations aboutamatter,butmorespecificallyinvolvestheprocessofmakingsuchstatementsbefore 41 SeeLetter23line5inMichalowski(forthcoming),fromPuzur-NamushdatoIbbi-Sin:igi-nima-an-Ñar-ma, Hepresentedthematterasfollows. 42 Anexceptionistheverbdi gar,attestedonlyonceinadisputerecordfromadab,cmaa015-c0019line 5,seeWidell2002.Widelltranslatesas tobringalegalcomplaint. 43 TheassociationbetweenoraldeclarationsandlaunchingaprocedurepredatestheUrIIIperiod,wheni ni m wasusedinfavorofdi (seeabove)andcompoundverbssuchasgu 3 garexpressedtheonsetofproceedings (seewilcke2007:36,citingutu-hegal). 50

64 anauthoritativethirdparty,asopposedtosimplybeforeanadversaryorpartnerinthecase. Thethirdpartyhasbeenapproachedtodisambiguateaconfusedsituation,tosortthrough conflictingstoriesandconfirmthecorrectone,ortoestablishthataclaimisjustifiedand legitimate. Theassociationbetweenspeakingastatementbeforeanauthoritativepartyand startingacaseisclearinthepromissoryoathrecordedintext225: Text2256-rev.12,Lagaå 44 dinu-ub-be 2 inimnu-ub-be 2 -a sukkal-mah-ranu-u 3 -na-be 2 -a tukum-bidibi-in-du 11 NIR-dai 3 -me-a mu-lugalbe 2 -in-pa 3 Hesworebythekingthathewillnotutterad i,that hewillnotspeakacomplaint,thathewillnot complainbeforethegrandvizier,(and)thatifhe doesutterad i,itwillbeaseriousoffense. Thusfar,itseemsreasonabletodescribeadiasaquarrel,grievance,ordispute,but thedirectorexclusiveequationofdiwiththeseconceptsisnotsatisfactory.thetermdi cannotbeequivalenttoaquarrelorgrievance,sincesuchmattersdonotnecessarilyor specificallyinvolvepublicdeclarationsexplicitlydirectedatthird-partyadjudicators.more interesting,however,istheissueofwhetherdicanbedirectlysynonymouswithadispute, sincetextualreferencestodisdifferentiatethemfromdisputes.forexample,aditilafrom Ummadifferentiatesdifromadisputebetweentwomen,Ur-NinsunandLugal-itida,over aslavenamednin-kala.accordingtothetext,theresolutionoftheircaseisforestalled becauseakeywitnessisunavailable.heredicannotbesimplyequatedwith dispute, sinceitmakeslittlesensetosaythatur-ninsunandlugal-itidawerenotinvolvedina disputeuntiltheirkeywitnessreturnedfromhisjourney: 44 MostlikelyfromLagash.Sollberger(1958:106)arguesthatthetextprobablycomesfromLagashbasedon theinclusionofthepersonalnameag a-š ag-k eš-<d a>-e,whichappearsatlagashonly. 51

65 Text286:rev.3-6(Molina2008,no.7) 45 Lu 2 -åa-limkaskal-tadu-é didi-da Ur- d Nin-<sun 2 >-ka-ke4 mulugalin-pad 3 tukum-bidili 2 -bi 2 -in-du 11 Nin 9 -kal-lalugal-iti-daba-an-tum 2 -mu Ur-NinsunsworebythekingthatwhenAwil-åalim returnsfromthetrip,thed i willbeundertaken. Ifhedoesnotdothed i,lugal-itidawilltakenin-kala [theslaveoverwhoseownershipthedisputerevolves] withhim. Rather,thedihereseemstobetheprocessundertakentoaddressthedispute. However,thetermdicannotbelinkedwithlitigationorlawsuit,asevidencedbya numberoftextsthatpresentcasesinwhichthepartiesarenotactingagainsteachother,and insteadseemtobereachingagreementsthatarerecordedwithoutanyapparentreferencesto thesignalsoflitigation(evidentiarywitnesses,evidentiaryoaths,settlementsand confirmations). 46 Thisisclearestwhenconsideringmarriageagreements(Falkenstein s Ehevertrag), 47 suchasthosethatassumefollowingstructure: ditil-la PN 1 sonofpn hastaken PN 2 daughterofpn (forwife-ship). BeforeWITNESSEShe(var.they)sworebytheking. PNwasthemaå kim PNwerethejudges. Date. Structureoftexts1,2,3(Lagaå);seeGreengus1969:525 Figure 2.3. Structure of Marriage ditilas. AsGreengusalreadypointedout(1969:524),suchdocumentsarestructuredidenticallyto recordsofpromissoryoaths(compare,e.g.,bct2156),savefortheinclusionofthe headingditil-lainthecaseofthemarriageagreements.becauseofthisheading,these 45 Molinatranslates: Ur-NinsunsworebythenameofthekingthatwhenAwil-åalimcomesfromhistrip,the processwillbeundertaken (2008:155). 46 SeeFalkenstein1956:13foradiscussionandlistofsuchtexts. 47 Seealsotexts191case2;210col.ii14π-19πandcol.iii18-col.iv2;211cases1and6,forother,more abbreviatedexamplesofmarriageagreements. 52

66 textsimmediatelyposeaproblem:ifoneconceptualizesdiasadisputeorlitigationitis unclearwhatthestakesofthesuitwereorwhatitwasabout,whichpartieswereengaging anadversarialrelationship,orwhichpartywaseither plaintiff or defendant. Infact,all wecangatheristhatatleastfourpeople,organizedintotwoparties(twofathersandtheir respectivechildren),agreedthatamarriagewouldbeformedanddeclaredtheirintentions orallybeforejudges actionsthatatleastseemfarfrominimicaltotheinterestsofany involvedparty.falkenstein(see1956:13)addressedthisproblembyclassifyingsuchtexts aslegalmemorandaornotarizations(gerichtliche Beurkundungen)thatresultedfromor wereintendedtoassistinalawsuit,andincludedtheminhiscorpusoflitigationrecords becauseoftheheadingditil-la.thatis,falkensteinbelievedthatthesetextswerenonlitigious,butarguedthattheybelonginthecorpusbecausetheymayhavebecome significantifthecoupleinquestionwantedtodivorce. Greengus(1969:529ff.),settingsomeofFalkenstein sassumptionsagainstwhat canbeknownaboutearlymesopotamianmarriagepractices,arguedthattheideaofanonlitigiousditilaisoxymoronic(ibid.,531note137).findingitunclearwhymarriage agreementswouldberelevantinjudicialcontextsinthefirstplace,hesuggestedthateither theagreementsthemselvesmusthavebeenverdictsoflitigationsthatarenotknowntous, orelsethesetextsmustberecordsofnon-litigiousproceduresthatwereconducted,and written,tohelpiflitigationshouldbethreatenedinthefuture(530-1).asarguedabove, however,weknowlittleaboutthestagesofcourtprocedureduringtheuriiiperiod,and thewrittenrecordsdonotnecessarilyoutlinephasesoflitigation,makingitproblematicto propose,basedonlyontextualstructures,thattherewerelitigiousandnon-litigiousphases ofcourtproceedings.inaddition,itisanachronistictotranslatedias verdict or decision inthisera,sincethereisnootheruseoftheterminthedisputerecordsofthis period.and,mostimportantly,becausetabletsplayedvirtuallynoroleinconductingadi 53

67 and/orwinningcases,itisuncertainwhetherthesedocumentsweredraftedforusein potentialfuturecases. Analternatesolutiontotheproblemisneeded,andIsuggestthatitissimplerto viewadinotasalitigationbetweenadversarialpartiesthatrequiredaverdict,butrather, moregenerically,asadesignationthatisapplicabletoanyoccasionwhenpartiesdelivered oralstatementstoauthoritativeentitiesinpublic,inordertoestablishanunambiguous situationandfixpeopleandpropertyintoplace.amarriagepact,oranyoftheotherpacts recordedinditilaswithnoclearverdictorreferencetolitigation,couldthusbeconsidered di-proceduresandwereconcludedinordertoensurethatproperty,entitlements,and statuseswerestraightenedout,fixed,unambiguouslyandpubliclyacknowledged.thus,as Greengusseemstosuggest,thepurposeoftakinganagreementbeforethejudgesmayhave beentoavoidadispute.bymydefinition,adicouldbeundertakentoaddresseithera disputeoranysituationinwhichpropertyandstatuseswereinatransitionoranunclearor ambiguousstate. Thisargumentissupportableconsideringtheso-called unfinishedcases fromthe UmmaandLagaåprovinces.Falkenstein(1956:16-17)suggestedthatthereweresome casesforwhichtherewasnofinaldecisionandsupportedtheideathatthesecasesshould betermeddinu-til-la, incompletecase becausetheylackedconclusiveoathsor expressionsofconfirmation(e.g.,gi).thetermdinutilaappearsinlexicallistsofthelate secondmillenniumandfirstmillenniumwiththeakkadianequivalentdïnu lω gamru, 48 but,assollberger(1958:105)notedinhisreviewoffalkenstein,itisneveractuallyusedin theuriiiperiodadministrativedocuments. 49 Bymycalculation,upwardsof20%oftexts fromtheummacorpuscanbecalled unfinishedcases becausetheyhavenofinal 48 di nu-t i l -l a/di-nu la-a gam-ru (AOTU2/170-72oi25);di nu-t i l -l a/di-i-nu la ga-[am-ru](r5241o i30);d i n u-t i l -l a/di-i-nu la gam-ru(anaitticu7seg.130).theproblemswithlexicalequivalentsuriii legaltermsandlaterakkadian/assyrianterminologywerediscussedabove. 49 Infact,Iwasunabletofindmanyexamplesofdinu la gamruinakkadiandocumentsoflaterperiods. 54

68 settlement,decision,orconfirmationofstatus.tocharacterizethesecasesasincomplete, however,ignoresthefactthatmanyofthesecasesarewrappedupwithcommon expressionsoffinality:agreementstotakeoathsatafuturedate,agreementstoreconvene withnewevidenceafterafixedamountoftime,andagreementsabouthowtoresolvethe disputeelsewhere,suggestingthatitispossiblethatthesecasesare,infact,completeand thatthecourthasservedinthefullcapacityforwhichitwasrecruited. 50 Thepurposeofconductingadiwasnotalwaystosettleadispute,then,andthe reasonforassemblingacourtandperformingadicouldbetodevelopagreeduponcourses ofactionthatcouldleadtothesettlementofthedisputeelsewhereoratanothertime.in otherwords,eveniftheso-calleddinutilasdonotcontainaresolution,thediitselfis concluded. Insum,bylookingattheparticularsofthetermdiintheUrIIIperiod,wecan identifysomesalientcharacteristicsofthistermthatarenotvisibleifweequatetextual structurewithprocessorifweassumethatthetermbearsthesamemeaningforallthree thousandyearsofmesopotamianhistory.belowioffertwochartstosummarizethe differencesbetweendianddisputesorlawsuits.thepurposeofthesesuperficial comparisonsisnottoimplythatthereexistssomeessentialdefinitionof lawsuit or dispute indeed,theextantnumberofdifferingscholarlydefinitionsavailabletomeis fartoohightocite butrathertoemphasizetheadvantagesofunmooringtheuriii conceptofdifromtheotherancientandmodernusagesoftheterms.verylikelydi proceduresthemselveswouldnotallowforauniversaldefinitioneveninthenativecontext. 50 Forexamples,seeseeBM106527,M.Molina2008no.1,BM106540ibid. no.7;nsgu62=bm105347; possiblytcl

69 Lawsuit Initiatedwiththefilingofacomplaintor pleadings(generally),byonepartyagainst another Actiondirectedfromaplaintifftoa defendant Arbitrationandauthoritydeterminedby jurisdiction Procedure(litigation)definedbystatutory laws Proceduredictatedbyprecedent Concernedwithfindinglaw Table 2.2. Comparison of Lawsuit and di. Dispute 51 Startswhenmutualgrievancesare exchangedbetweentwoormoreparties Canbe privately managedandresolved (e.g.,withinahouseholdorsmall-scale community) Resolutionmaybeachievedinavarietyof manners(e.g.,betweenthetwoparties alone),bi-lateralnegotiation,etc. Mayculminateinanequitableremedyto harmonizetheneedsofbothsides Table 2.3. Comparison of Dispute and di. di Initiatedwhenmediationisintroducedto eitheradisputeorambiguoussituation Donotnecessarilyinvolveadversarial relationships(e.g.,marriageagreements) Involvedpartiesmaychooseanarbitratorat theirdiscretion Proceduredetermined(oftenad hoc)by third-partymediatorsand/orarbitrators,and mayvarywidely Concernedwith findingfact (Roth 2001:255) di Startswhenapartyseeksmediationand publiclydeliverstheirstatement Definitivelyapublicmatterknownto authorityfiguresandthird-partyarbitrators aswellas,mostlikely,tothegeneralpublic Resolution,ifitisthepurposeofadi,is accomplishedbyanauthoritativethirdparty Settlements,whereapplicable,are unambiguouslyone-sided 51 CompositedefinitionofkeyaspectsfromAubert1963,Abel1973,Felstineret al ,lempert1980-1, Snyder1981,Toivari1997:154,Parnell1988,Yoffee1988,Chase2005,Hertel2007:39ff.Theissueof whetherthedisputemustbepubliciseitherunmentionedorassumed. 56

70 2.7Conclusions Theobservable,intimaterelationshipbetweenthewrittenwordandmodernlegal systemsisnotuniversal.thisproblem,pairedwiththeimpossibilityofeverfindinga disputethathasnotbeenredefined,reworked,andrewordedbybothwrittenandoral discourse,makesitimperativeforscholarstoconsiderancientlegaldocumentsintheir immediatecontexts,andposesachallengeforscholarsoftheuriiidisputerecordsin disarticulatingtextandprocess.astheforegoingdiscussionaimstoshow,disputingand theconductingofcaseproceduresintheuriiiperiodwasprimarilyanoralworld,where textsweremerelycumulativecachesofwitnessnames,andwerehardlysuccessfulat transmittingaccuratetranscriptsofrealcasesandprocessesduetheirnatureas fictive administrativeforms.becausethesetextscannotbeequatedwithprocess,itwasnecessary todevelopabetterdefinitionofprocessintheuriiiperiodthatmoreaccuratelyreflectsthe realitiesofthecorpus.withsuchconsiderationsinmind,iofferanewoutlineofthe characteristicsofprocessesevidentintextsoftheuriiiperiod.adiisaprocessthat involves: a) asituationinwhichpropertyorpersonalentitlementsareinacontested,ambiguous,ortransitional status,resultingin b) anucleationofpeopleandaparty spublicdeclarationofacomplaint,promise,orstatementaboutthe matterathand, c) whichisdeliveredbefoream aå k i m andthird-partyjudgesorotherprovincialauthorities, d)whosejobitistoeitherdisambiguatethecomplicatedsituation,confirmorchangethestatusof things,orsettleacontestedmatterinfavorofoneside,hopefullyensuringthatitwillnotberaised againbyconductingthematterinpublic,takingoaths,andcommittingtheeventstothememoryof them aå k i m forfutureuseandpreservationofthenewlyestablishedstatus quo. Uponthecompletionoftheseevents,atextisdraftedanddepositedintothearchives, whereitcouldbeconsultedinthefutureforthenameofthemaå kimoranyrelevant witnessesortemporaryfunctionaries.justenoughdetailswerecommittedtothetabletto helpinlocatingthedocumentandassociatedmaå kimifthesituationdemanded. 57

71 Case maybethebesttranslationofdi,accordingtothisoutline,thoughcrossculturalcomparisonsmayproduceotherideas.forexample,itisprobablynoaccidentthat theconceptofstraighteningout(si sa 2 ),oftenanachronisticallymis-conceptualizedas justice, isassociatedwithcarryingoutadiintheoldakkadianperiod. 52 Thetermis akintotheconceptof disentangling, developedbywhiteandwatson-gregeointheir discussionthedisputerhetoricofsmallcommunitiesofthepacificislands(1990:2,35note 1). Wepreferthelabel disentangling over conflictresolution or disputemanagement because disentanglingpointstoelementsoflocalmeaningthatorganizeandguidetheactivitiesweexamine. Tobeginwith,thenotionofdisentanglingsignalsaprocessratherthananendproduct,indicatingthat engagementinmoralnegotiationitselfmaybemoresignificantthanspecificdecisionsoroutcomes (WhiteandWatson-Gegeo1990:35note1). Adiiscertainlyaprocessduringwhichtwopartiessoughtpublicarbitrationormediation ofathirdpartyinordertoclarifyambiguities, straightenout theplaceofproperty, statuses,entitlements,anddisentangleasituationthatis,orhasthepotentialtobecome, disorganized. Inanycase,withtheaboveoutlineinmind,itispossibletoexploremore specificallythemechanicsofexecutingthedi-procedure,determininghow,andbywhat authorityandpoliticalconfigurationsofpeople,differentcaseswereaccomplished. 52 Andbeyond,appearinginOldBabylonianliterarytextsaswell(e.g.,LSUr 439). 58

72 CHAPTER3 THELIFE,CHARACTER,ANDRESOLUTIONOFDISPUTES 3.1Introduction ElitesoftheUrIIIcoreprovincesconductedaprocedurecalledaditosettle disputes,uncertaintransitions,orsituationswhenroutinetransitionalphasesoflifeoffered noclear,normativemethodforhandlingchangesandthushadthepotentialtodevolveinto conflict.thischapterseekstotracethelifeofadisputefrominceptiontocompletion, attemptingtounderstand1)wheredisputescamefrominuriiisocietyandhowthey escalatedtothepointofrequiringarbitrationandtheperformanceofadi,and2)howthe UrIIIprovincialcourtshandledthem,andbywhatspecificperformances.Eventhoughit iscommonforstudiesofmesopotamianlawtofocusonthestructureof legalinstitutions andidentificationof laws, itisarguedherethatanemphasisontheprocess,where allowedbythesources,ismoreanalyticallyusefulforunderstandingthesocialandpolitical dynamicsofuriiisociety. 1 Indeed,socio-politicalstructureswereinconstantfluxand displayednewconfigurationsaftertheexecutionofprocesses,includingthedi.thus,this chapterattemptstoexplorehowandwhereourattesteddisputesformedandwhat relationshipstheychallenged,howthey,infullornascentform,wereaddressedbyadi, howwinnersandlosersofadisputewereestablished,andbywhatlogictheseprocedures helpeddisputesandtransitionscometoalegitimateandsociallyvalidconclusion,atleast 1 Forasummaryoftheadvantagesanddisadvantagesoftheideaof LawasProcess andtheprocessual approach,seecomaroffandroberts1981:11ff.,hertel2007:22ff. 59

73 temporarily.inordertoconsiderthesequestions,itisnecessarytounderstandwhata disputelookedlikeintheuriiiperiod,whereitcomesfrom,andhowitendedupina recordorincentralfilingsystemsoftheuriiiprovincialcapitals. CentraltothisdiscussionismyproposalthattheSumeriantermdi,whichhasa closerelationshipwithdisputeprocessingandresolution,isnotsynonymouswith dispute or trial, butratherreferstoapubliccivilprocedureusedintheuriiiperiodto resolvedisputesandattempttocontributetotheirmanagementandconclusion.disputes themselvesmustbeconsideredintheirspecificsocio-culturalcontext,sincethenatureand gravityofdisputescanbedifferentacrosscultures(chase2005). 3.2TheOriginsandCatalystsofDisputes Asinallsocieties,socialdiscordintheUrIIIperiodcouldarisefromanumberofforces, driven,accordingtotheditilas,byeventseitherroutineandendemicorunforeseenand disruptive.ontheonehand,disputescouldbetriggeredbytheinevitableeventsoflife, suchasfamilydeaths,whichcouldbeproblematicforfamilieswithnon-traditionalfamily structuresthatdefiednormativepatternsofinheritanceormarriage;financialcrises,in particularwhereapartywasunabletofulfillaroutinecontractualobligation;or unpreventableorunanticipateddisasters,whichcouldresultincostlydamagetoproperty andlong-terminjurytorelationshipsifhandledimproperly.ofcourse,thefullnuances andbackgroundsofthesituationsarenotexplicitlyarticulatedinthetextsduetothelatter s focusonthepertinentdetailsofresolutionratherthanthestoryofhowthedispute originated.infact,manycasesherecitedhavebeendifferentlycharacterizedbyscholars withdifferentresearchagendas.acaseinwhichaslavearguesforhisorherfreedom,for example,mayaccuratelybeclassifiedasadisputeoverslavestatus,butverylikelythe 60

74 initialcatalystforthistypeofconflictwasinfactthedeathoftheslave sowneranda problematicestatesettlement;thatis,suchacaseoriginatedwhenafamilydeathresultedin anunclearinheritancepattern.thesefactorswerelikelyinseparablefromdebatesoverthe slave sstatus,eveniftheyweresomewhatneglectedbyaditila sreport. 2 Inspiteofthese complexitiesandthefactthatthetextsonlytelltheendofthestoryratherthanthefullseries ofevents,itispossibletopostulatethatsuchtransitionsandcriseswereresponsiblefor sparkingalargenumberofcasesoratleastcausingpartiestoconsiderseekingthecourtto preventadisputefromensuing: Crisis or Transition: Family Death (Father) Sale Sudden Poverty, Financial Emergency Precarious Status Transition (e.g., Manumission) Loan of Funds or Property Presumed Normative Response: Transferofproperty andslavestoeldest son Sellerdelivers purchasetobuyer Povertynot anticipated;family membersassist, loanstaken Thefreedslave facesnofuture claimsbythe formerowner Debtorpaysoffthe debtaccordingto pre-determined Aberrancy: -Non-traditional familystructure -Alternative arrangementswere expressedbefore thedeath -Conditionsofthe salelater misunderstoodor denied -Paymentwas complicated -Familyincapable ofassistingornonexistent -Partycannotfind aloan -Newstatuscould orhasbeen contested -Manumission declaredvoidor temporaryby formerowner -Debtorcannotpay andhasno expendable Attested Resolution Strategies: Highlyvariable, dependingon familystructure, property,and context -Oathstakenor witnessstatements deliveredtoclarify theconditionsor transpiringofthe sale Highlyvariable. Includesdebtslavery,self-sale -Existenceof manumission determined -Newstatus declaredinpublic andconditions expressed Variable.Includes debt-slavery,selfsale,saleof Examples: Lagaå:29,32,33, 83,99,205case1 Umma:347 Lagaå:100,146, 176,262 Umma:132 Seealso337 (Nippur) Lagaå:35?,36,38, 68,71 Umma:48 Lagaå:75,76,77, 78;see205case3; seealso74 Umma:304 (Appendix3no.2), 317(Appendix3 no.4) Lagaå:118,142,L Themostcommonoccasionforslavestoappearincourtandattemptaclaimofemancipationwasuponthe deathoftheirowner,usuallythemaleheadofthefamily;suchcasesarepresentedasdisputesbetweentheslave andtheheirsofhisorherdeceasedowner.see,forexample,lagaåtexts7,

75 Unforeseen or Unpreventable Disaster to Rented or Supervised Property Imminent Family Transition (e.g., Impending Death of an Ill Person or Spouse) Marriages with Anomalous Needs scheduleand conditions Appropriateparty assumesdamages inaclear-cut situation Noprocessneeded; transferofproperty andslavestoeldest son/child Paymentsofbride priceanddowry andappropriate oaths propertyorassets -Debtorhasdied -Partiesdisagree aboutwhobearsthe responsibility -Theresponsible partycannotpay -Pre-established contractual arrangements cannot accommodatethe newsituation -Alternativefamily structureprecludes (straightforward) transferofproperty orcareforthedying party Unclear,butdi conductedtomake statusfixedand normative children,marriages Highlyvariable, casesoftensettled infavorofhigherrankingparty Newfamily structure establishedvia adoptionor conditional marriage arrangement Promissoryoaths, publicdeclarations ofthearrangement Table 3.1. Examples of Cases Resulting from Crises or Transitions. Umma:308 (Appendix3) Lagaå:72(slaves fled),127(missing sheep),132 (missingox) Umma:143?,144, 355(missing sheep) Lagaå:Text6,7,8 SeealsoMRAHO. 120(Limet2000) (unprov.) Lagaå:270 Ontheotherhand,disputescouldalsoeruptbecauseofanovertviolationof normativebehaviororanestablishedcontract,breachesofsocialoreconomicagreements, orevenfromwhat,inotherculturalorlegalcontexts,wouldbeconsideredcriminal offenses.failuretomeetpre-determinedobligationsorrefusaltoentertainrecompensefor theresultingexpensesfallsunderthiscategory.remarkably,eventhoughsomeofthese exampleswouldberegardedas criminal casesinmoderncourts,theyarepresentedand resolvedascivildisputesbetweentwopartiesintheuriiiprovincialcontextandnotas casesbetweentheoffenderandthestateorcommunity(i.e.,theyarenot public offenses). 62

76 Object of the d i : Failure to Fulfill Conditions Established by a Promissory Oath Denial of Existence of a Contract or Demonstrable Sale Double-Booking (Making the same contract with two parties) Failure to Deliver Property or Slaves after Receiving Payment or vice versa Misappropriation of Property or Land Mismanagement of Slaves/Goods or Abuse of Privilege Negligence, Loss of Property in an Employee s care Theft Homicide Flight of Slaves How Offending or Liable Party is Determined: -Establishmentofthe existenceandlegitimacy ofthepromissoryoath -Evaluationthepresent validityoftheoathif circumstanceshave changed -Evaluationofwhether thetransactionoccurred bywayofwitnesses -Testimonyorproof frombothparties claimingentitlementto thesamecontract -Determinationofwhich partyenteredthecontract first -Inquiryintowhetherthe paymentwasmadeor intowhethertheindebted partycanpay Recompenseawardedto thelandownerorviolated party -Determinationofthe natureofthe mismanagementand evaluationofthevalueof theresultingdamage -Evaluationofwhat recompensescanrepair thesituation -Determinationofthe valueoflost/damaged property -Determinationof againstwhomthe damageswerecommitted Guiltisdeterminedor assumed;evaluationof propertyloss Determinationofalleged murdererfinancialsetbacktosurvivor Slaveiscapturedand returnedtohisorher owner Attested Resolution Strategies: Settlementinfavorof appropriateparty (enforcementofoath, forgingofnew obligations) Completionofthe transactioncarriedout Objectofthecontract awardedtothefirstparty; damagespaidto appropriateparty Courtconfirmspropertyto buyer;sellermaypayrent toseller;interestmaybe paidfortimedelay Profit,rent,orrecompense paidtoappropriateparty Demonstrationof mismanagement, recompensepaidbutno penalties;paymentofrent forappropriatedproperty orslave Paymentortransferof propertycommensurate withlost/damaged propertytovictim Enslavement(Lagaå), impositionof compensationpaidtothe victim,ortransferof propertytovictim Impositionoffine, enslavement,ortransferof propertytovictimized party Ownershipofslaveand legitimacyofenslavement determinedbeforethe Examples: Lagaå:27,116,117, 119 Lagaå:45,46,47?,50, 53? Umma:287 Lagaå:15,68,70 Umma:60 Lagaå:63,65,66?, 131,207case1 Umma:48,49,51,289 Lagaå67,109,205 case4 Umma:120b,201, 284 Lagaå:12?,67,88, 106,212case1 Umma:62 Lagaå:88,123,143 Umma:307(see Appendix3) Lagaå:42,126,128, 129 Umma:69,121,127, 138,312(Appendix 3) SeealsoText125 (unprov.) Lagaå:41,202 Lagaå:41,72 Umma:281,282 63

77 Violation of Marriage Practices -Determinationofthe natureoftheviolation -Evaluationofthelosses totheviolatedparty slaveisreturned Dissolutionofthe marriage(invariably), paymentinsilverto violatedpartner Lagaå:14,15,16,17, 18,19? Umma:369 Table 3.2. Examples of Cases Involving Offenses, Breaches of Behavior, or Break of Contract. Eventhoughthese(notexhaustive)tablesonlyrepresentattestedsituationsanddo noreflectanativetypologyofcases,theystillinformusofseveralimportantthings.first, itisclearthatdisputecasesthatarrivedintheprovincialcourtsinvolvedsituationsthat merelythreatenedtobecomecontentiousinadditiontosubstantial,fully-fledgedcrises. Thatis,adicouldaddressbothadisputeaswellasauditanominoussituationifithadthe potentialtobecomeadispute.thus,whileitislikelythatmostcasesinvolvedanopposing relationshipbetweenmutuallyaggravatedparties,somecases,largelyfromtheformer categoryoftable3.1,couldarguablybeinanearlyphasesofescalation,inwhicha situationwassimplycomplicatedandconfusingandthusrequiredtreatmentincourtbya di.text75(seefalkenstein1956-7:plate6),forexample,inwhichaslaveisdeclared free,identifiesitselfasacompleteddieventhoughnoconflictoradversarytotheslaveis evident.presumably,thepurposeofthepublicperformanceofthiscasewastoensurethat aconflictwouldnotarisefromtheslave schangeofstatus. di-til-la ur-sañ-ub aradu -uæi -me-am lu - ba-baflu lu - nin-gir -sudumuu -uæ-ke -ne igi-biib - Ña Ñar ar mulugal ur-sañ-ub arad-ra ama-gi gi -nihe - Ña Ñar ar dumulu aå-gin -na-am he -dim bi -du -ga u arad-daama-gi gi -niba- Ña Ñar ar -kam Caseclosed.ConcerningUr-saÑub,theslaveofU uh: Lu-Baba,Lu-Ningirsu,thesonsofU uhappearedand declared, Bytheking:freedomisgiventoUr-saÑub, whichmakeshimlikethesonofafreeman. 3 (Thus)freedomwasgiventotheslave. Ur-saÑubsworebeforeLu-giåbar,Lu-gu aba,lu- 64

78 65 lu - giå-bar-e lu -gu -ab-ba lu - inana inim-ni-zi lu -bala-safl-ga sim muåen -tur nin- x±-[x]-zi ur-sañ-ub -ke in±-pad -da lugal-dug -ga-na nin-åu-gi -gi kal-ladumuba-zi nam-erim -am ur-sañ-ub u dumu-ne-ne dumu-gir fi-raba-an-ku lu -gi-namaåkim lu -åara lu -ib-gal lu -diñir-ra ur- iåtaran di-kufi-bi-me musi-ma-num ba-æul Inana,KAnizi,Lu-balaåaga,Simtur,andNi-x-zi. Lugal-dugana,Nin-åugigi,andKala,thesonsofBazi swore. Ur-saÑubandhischildrenhaveenteredinto freebornstatus. Lu-ginawasthemaåkim. Lu-Åara,Lu-Ibgal,Lu-diÑira,andUr-Iåtaranwereits judges. Inanotherexample,therelativelylongLagaåText99presentswhatappearstobea disputeoveranestatedivisionbetweenthewidowofmannamedduduandhisoffspring bywayofapreviousmarriage.thetextreportsatseveralturnsintheprocedurethatthe partiesdeclinedtotakerecommendedactionsagainsteachothertothefullextentofferedby theofficiators. 4 Forexample,Dudu ssonswereaskediftheywouldrequiretheir stepmother switnesstosweartohisstatement,andtheydeclineonthegroundsthathis statement,andthereforeherclaim,isagreeabletothem.eitherdudu sheirswere strategicallytrickedbythecourt sofficialsintobetrayingtheirinterestsandsupportingtheir opponent sclaim,orinthiscasethepartiessimplywerenotantagonistictowardsone another.perhaps,rather,dudu swidowandheirsweretentativelyunitedinmutual concernfortheproperfateoftheestate,and,possibly,theirdecisiontoaddressthematter withadipreventedtheestate sslavesfromraisingfutureclaimsoffreedomandprotected theirrespectiveinterestsforyearstocome. Second,theinclusionofboth civil and criminal matters,a distinctionwhich didnotexist inmesopotamianlegaltexts(renger2008:184,neumann2004:72),

79 deservescomment.asdeviantactsareculturallydetermined,itisperhapsnotunusualthat thesetypesofcasescanbeundifferentiated.however,itshouldbenotedthatbothtypes ofcasesshareconcernsfordamages,coststoeitherparty,orrecompense essentially pecuniarymatters.intheexamplesofoffensesthatmightbeconsidered criminal (homicide,theft),thecasestypicallycenteronthematterofwhatlosseswereincurredto thevictimizedpartyandinwhatformtheoffendershouldpaythese,suggestingthatthere wereother,probablylocalarenasinwhichactsofretributionandrevengewerecarriedout (seewestbrook2008a),fullyseparatefromtheprovincialcourts.inotherwords,the purposeofthediwasmerelytodeterminedamagesowedratherthantopunishorimpose penaltiesonacriminaloffender,andthustoaddresstheaftermathofthecrimeratherthan thecrimeitself(seetexts41and42,forexample).inshort,theditilasprovideonlyslivers ofthefulldisputes,and,asbothcasessuchasdudu sestateandthehomicidecasesmake clear,therewereclearlyotherlayerstothemattersathand,andotherphasesandanglesof thedispute slifethatremainundocumentedwithwhichthecourtwasunconcerned. Third,andperhapsmostimportant,itfollowsthat,accordingtotheditilas,adiis notconceivedasacasebetweenadefendantandthelaw,thestate,orthecommunity,but rathertakestheformofapersonalconflictbetweentwoparties.assuch,casescenter squarelyonaclaimofentitlementandbreachestosomeone sinterests,notonbreachesof laworaggressiveactstowardsstateauthority.thedispecificallyallowsforthe determinationoftwothings:thelegitimacyoftheclaimofentitlement i.e.,thepromises made,whatcontractswerestruck,whatstatementswereutteredinthepastbyrelevant players,etc. and/or,iftheclaimisfoundtobewell-founded,thequestionofwhetheror nottheotherpartyhadindeedfailedtomeethisorherobligations. 66

80 Accordingly,itisanalyticallyuselesstocharacterizethedisputesasmattersbetween plaintiffs and defendants, aswassuggestedinthepreviouschapter,sincethis distinctionoftenrequiresthatoneparty(theplaintiff)isalliedincooperationwithstate officialsandtheinterestsofthestate(e.g.,asintherelationshipbetweenaprosecuting attorneyandavictim),andthatthesestateofficials,byadherencetoanabstractbodyof principles,protecttheinterestsoftheoffendedparty. 5 Eventhoughadientailsatriangular configurationofparties twodisputantsandthecourtorarbitratingentitywhoaddresses theirdispute thecourtdoesnothaveanyalliancewitheitherparty.itfollowsthatthere arenoprosecutorsintheuriiidisputeresolutionsystem. WiththesepreliminaryobservationsaboutthenatureandcharacterofdisputesinUr IIIsociety,itispossibletotracetheirtrajectoryfromcatalysttodi. 3.3ThePrehistoryofCases Beforeadispute,oranyproblemsassociatedwithit,isaddressedbyadi,where haditalreadybeenaddressed?moreinteresting,assumingthatourtextualsources representonlyasmallfractionofthetotalnumberofconflictsanddisputesexperiencedby membersofuriiisociety,whydidsomedisputesendupintheprovincialcourts,andhow weretheyselectedtobethere?chapter2alreadydiscussedtheimpossibilityofever findingadisputeinpristineformbecausediscourseandproceduresalwaysreshapethe stakesandredefinetheparametersofthematterathand.indeed,theditilaspresentdisputes astidy,firmlyresolvedcases,andreportthecasesasterselywordedsuccessstories, offeringanunambiguous,ifillusionary,ideathatthecourtanditsconstituentsswiftlyand successfullyendeddisputes.thisperspectiveisnotlikely,assuggestedbythefollowing 67

81 tableshowingtheextremelengthsoftimethatcouldpassbetweenthecatalystofthe dispute,andthedi(anddateoftheditila)itself. Text/ditila Date of ditila Years Cited before Composition of the ditila Reference to Another, Previous d i? 5:3f. Broken;ÅSdate basedonjudges Broken: PN ±dumupn [mu-da-x-ta] PN ±dumu PN [in]-tak (possibly,line 8) 10:4 Broken;mustbe 20yearsbetweenacquisitionofpropertyandditila ÅS 31:4 Broken 20yearsbetweenbequeathalofpropertyandditila 34:5 ÅSdatebasedon 3yearsbetweenstartofcaseandditila judges 34:6 ÅSdatebasedon 15yearssinceslavegivenandditila judges 41:10-15 ÅSdatebasedon judges 5yearsbetweenenslavementandditila 46:8 ÅS3 15yearsbetweensaleandditila 47 MustbeÅSdate, Atleast2yearsbetweensaleandditila basedonjudge 48 AS2 8yearsbetweensaleandditila 63:6and14 broken unclear 65:6 ÅS6 10yearsofprehistory 67:3 IS1 6yearsdurationofoffensebeforeditila 70 Broken Xyears,presumablymorethanafew:u a geme [mu-x-kam]12gin ku -[babbar-am ], andtheslave wageof12shekelsforxyears(pnwillrefund) 71:9 AS yearsbetweensaleandditila 88 ÅS4 10yearsbetweensaleandditila 102:6 LateÅSdatebased 20yearsbetweenbequeathalandditila onpresenceofåuilijudge 105:8 ÅS5 20yearsbetweentransactionandditila 113case3: Broken 40yearsbetweenfirstdiandditila Broken 6 2yearsforatransactiontobefulfilled 131 ÅS6 2years 144 AS3 3yearsofinterestcited 192:4π Broken 20years 205case1 ÅS4 36yearsbetweentransactionandditila 271 ÅSdatebasedon judges 10years Table 3.3. References to Time Elapsed and Case Prehistory. Itisinterestingtonotethatsomeditilasmentionoralludetoapreviousoccasionon whichadiwasalreadyperformedforthematterinquestion,suggestingeitherthatthere wasdifficultyenforcingarendereddecisionandthecasehadtoberedressed,orthatoneor 68

82 moreofthedisputantswasunsatisfiedwiththeoutcomeofapreviousprocedure.onthe otherhand,however,mostofthecaseslistedabovedonotspecificallyapreviousdiinthe overviewofcaseprehistory.becauseitisunlikelythatdisputantswouldidlyallowhighly chargedconflictsorsituationsofambiguousconsequencetogounaddressedforupto severaldecades,itmustbeinferredthatotherformsofresolutionandarbitrationwere soughtbeforethematterwastreatedintheprovincialcapitalsandsubsequentlyrecordedin aditila.thatis,itisnotlikelythatsuchprolongeddisputingisattributabletocumbersome courtmachineryorasaturationofprovincialcourtdockets. Morelikely,thereweremanyothervenuesthroughwhichdisputescouldbe addressed.cross-culturalcomparisonsandtheoreticalstudiesofdisputesystemsindeed showthat1)therearetypicallyavarietyof remedyagents, tousenader sterm(e.g., 1991,seealsoMetzgerandNader1963),inasocietythataddressdisputesandconflictsas resolutionissought,andthat,accordingly,2)disputescanassumedifferentformsasthey escalateandtravelthroughthesedifferentvenues.parnell(1988)arguedthatdisputescan spiralupwardlythroughdifferentpoliticalcontextsbeforeresolutionisachieved,involving aneverincreasingnumberofparticipantsalongtheway.davis (2005)studyshowsthat lawsuitscouldtravelthroughdifferent,unrelatedtiersoflegallevelsbeforefindinga conclusion,andampleotherstudiesofdisputeresolutiondemonstratethevarietyof contextswithinsinglecommunitiesandsocieties,bothofficialorunofficial,inwhich resolutionmaybeattempted(e.g.,naderandmetzger1963,galanter1981,comaroffand Roberts1981:107,Fuller1994,Barnash2004,Chase2005). Asadisputechangesresolutionvenues,itchangesstructureand,accordingtosome scholars,italsochangesinkind.roberts (1983:11-12)oft-citedsummaryofdispute 69

83 studiessuggeststhat,cross-culturally,theygenerallyassumeoneofthreemethodsfor resolution: 1. Bilateralnegotiation,aresolutionbetweentwodisputingparties 2. Mediation,aresolutionachievedbywayofathird-party shelporadvice 3. Formalarbitrationoradjudication,inwhichabindingdecisionisimposeduponthedisputants byan umpire (Roberts1983:11-12) Oneandthesamedisputemaytakeallthreeshapesinthecourseofitslife,andthechoice ofremedyagentanddegreeofauthorityexercisedbythisofficiatorvariesinturnaccording tosocialcontext(greenhouse1985).inmanycontexts,thedisputantsthemselvescan choosethecontextandtypeofremedyagentthatispreferred,saveforthecaseof adjudication,inwhichtheauthorityoftheadjudicatorispredicatedonastateorlegalpower thattranscendsindividualpreferences. Becauseitisdifficulttoconstructasimilar,morespecificschemeofthenative conceptualizationsofdisputeresolutioncontextfortheuriiisocietyduetolackof documentation,wecanprovisionallyrelyonrobert sscheme. 7 Thecasesdocumentedin theditilasconformtothearbitration-styletypedescribedbyrobert sthirdclassofcases.a usefulcomparisonmaycomefrommcree(1994),whoarguesinhisstudyofrecords frommedievalnorwichengland,thatdisputantscouldselectoneofseveralmodesof disputesettlement,choosingeither informalattemptsataccommodationbetween contendinggroups or moreformalappealsfortheinterventionofexternalauthorities (1994:834).Theformerapproach,essentiallyprivatenegotiation,automaticallyintroduces problemsforthehistorianbecauseitsimply obviatedtheneedforwrittenrecords (ibid.). Nonetheless,McReedemonstrateshowtheexistenceofsuchnegotiationscanbededuced orextractedfromthetextsrelatingtothelattercategory,becausetheuseofotherformsof disputeresolution(e.g.,negotiation) canoftenbeinferred fromacloseexaminationof 70

84 thecircumstancessurroundingadispute,anditcanoccasionallybeconfirmedbydirect testimony (1994:835). Asimilarapproachispossiblewithditilasandtherearetworeasonstopropose that,muchlikemcree sdata,thereweremultiplecontextsinwhichdisputescouldbe settledandmultipleauthoritieswhocouldaddressthem.itispossible,forexample,to identifyatrajectoryofentitieswhohandledcasesbeforetheirresolution,and,inmostof theseinstances,itispossibletoidentifyprogressivelevelsastheymovetowardtheirfinal adjudication. Text(s): Officials Cited in Case Prehistory: 8 Final Officials cited in the ditila: Texts8,42 Gudea,abauru 9 (localofficial) Governor Text34 RoyalCourier(lu 2 -kin-gi 4 -a) Judges Lagaå205(case4) lu 2 nig 2 -dab 5 -ba-officials Judgesandgovernor Lagaå120b(twodifferent hazanumofnagsu(localofficial) Judges hazanum),120a Texts62,64,69,268,370, Otherlocalofficials(e.g.,hazanum) Judgesoragovernor 371 Text71,257;see ; FormergovernorsofLagaå Judgesoranewgovernor Text205case1;276;see also278 See FormergovernorsofUmma Newgovernororothercity administrators Text113 Royaljudges(di -ku 5 l ugal ) Ur-Lamma,governorofLagaå Text88 (transactionundertheauspicesof) GrandVizier Judges Table 3.4. Examples of Officials Cited in Case Prehistory. Casescouldfaceavarietyofurbanofficialsandlocalheadmenbeforefinding resolution.forexample,casesoriginatingtheummasubsidiarycityofnagsuwereat sometimehandledbythelocalhazanum, 10 mayor, ofnagsu, 11 especiallyinanumberof textsdatingtothereignofamar-sin. 12 Thefactthathewasinvolvedinpriorstagesof disputeresolutionisevidencedbyhisswearingoathsaboutpertinentinformation.inlagaå text64,ahazanumswearswiththegovernor(ensi 2 )andthetwoareidentifiedas evidentiarywitnesses(lu inim-ma-bi-me,line13π).however,intheditilasthatcite 71

85 thishazanum,wefindadifferentfinalauthorityintheditilawhosubsequentlyaddressed thecase. Becauseweknowlittleaboutlocaldisputeresolutionmechanisms,suchasthatof thoseoflocalmayors, itislikelyuselesstoconceiveofuriiiresolutioncontexts,or courts,as formal or informal. Moreover,accordingtoourdata,manyofthedisputes orcasesthatarrivedinthe formal, provincialcourtswerenotfullyformeddisputes,many dealingratherwithwhatappearmoreascontracts(e.g.,marriageagreements)that presumablyhopetoavoidconflict,orauditsofsituationsthatappeartohavealreadybeen settled.inthepreviouschapter,itwassuggestedthateachofthesetypesoftexts,inspite ofthedifferencesinstructureandcontent,nonethelessrepresentstheexecutionofadi. Thequestionremainstobeexplored,however,astowhetherthesetabletsrepresent differentphasesinthelitigationprocess,forexample,1)preliminaryhearing,2)dispute resolution,3)auditandenforcementofverdicts.thissuppositionrequirestheassumption thatallphasesofdisputingoccurredinthesamecourts,andalsoisnotentirelysensitiveto therealitythatmostdisputesdidnotmakeitintothewrittenrecord. 13 Itremainsclearthat diswereapparentlyperformedtoaddressanyphaseofthedispute. Ofcourse,fortheUrIIIperiod,itisdifficulttorelocatethetrailofdisputesbecause wehaveonlythefinaltextualreport,butitisstillpossibletoidentifyattemptsatresolution beforethecasearrivedinthecontextinwhichtheditilawascomposed.attestationsof locallymanagedcasesaredifficulttocomebyintheuriiiperiod,saveforahandfulof tabletsfromthearchivesoftheentrepreneurialshepherdsi.a-a(garfinkle2003),the merchantur-dumuzida(seeneumann2000),andafewditilasthatregardthehousehold andsubordinatesofawealthylandholder,ur-meme(e.g.,lagaåtext209,seevandriel 2000:18andSteinkeller2002:122). 14 However,followingthesuggestingofMcReeto 72

86 minethetextforallusionstopastattemptsatresolutionandregardthecontextofconflict, thefollowingreconstructionsofdisputelifecanbeproposed FromFamilytoCommunity Whilemanydisputeswerepresumablyresolvedwithoutanythird-party involvementorwithinsmallgroups,otherswerenotsuccessfullyresolvedinthecontextat whichresolutionwasfirstattempted.inpart,someoftheuriiidisputesdocumentedin ditilas thatis,thosethatwereultimatelypresentedintheprovincialcapitals probably hadtotraveloutsidethecontextoftheiroriginforarbitrationbecausemostwereultimately betweenpeopleofunequalstatuses(e.g.,slavesandfreemen,richandpoor,high-ranking andcommon)andthusnegotiationormediationofamutuallyknownassociatewouldbe problematic.atthesametime,otherdisputeswerebetweenpeoplewho,atleastbytitle, wereofrelativelyevenstatus,butofthesamefamily,kingroup,orcommunityandthis mutualaffiliationprecludedanymemberofthelocalcommunityfromneutralintervention. Ineithercase,thestructureofsocialrelationsofpeopleinvolvedindisputeshasdirect bearingonthewaythedisputewilltakeshape,travel,andbeaddressed(seefelstiner 1974).BecausemostoftheUrIIIdisputeseither cross[ed]linesofstratification (after Roberts1983:8)orbecamemattersofstatusdefinitionastheyprogressed,theyreflectthis problembynecessarilytranscendingsocialarenas,movingfromadyadictotriadic configuration. Forthemostpart,thereweretwobasicsocialunitsinwhichdisputescould originate:thehouseholdortheguild,theextendedhouseholdorcommunityunitedby profession, twobasicunitsofuriiisociety(steinkeller2004b,steinkeller1987, Westbrook1995:149)inadditiontothepalace,temple,orneighborhood.Hypothetically, andassuggestedbytherecordsatourdisposal,manydisputesinummaandlagaåbegan 73

87 onthehouseholdlevelbetweenmembersofthesamefamily.whenthedisputeswere sparkedbyatransitioninthefamilysuchasadeathasnotedaboveintable3.1, disagreementsoverproperty,inheritanceanddivisionsofestates,marriages,andownership andstatusoffamilyslavesensued,and,byextension,issuesovertherighttoassumethe roleastheheadandmanagerofthefamilybecametense.whenthesecasescouldnotbe settledwithinthefamily,anoutsideentitywasneededtoadviseorconcludethematter. Whenhouseholdswerelarge,includedanumberofslaves,heldavarietyofsocially importantassociationswithpeople,andvaluableimmovableproperty,itwouldbe imperativeforaseparate,trustworthyauthoritytohandleoroverseethedivisionofthe estate.seeforexamplethelengthyestateauditsofwealthyhouseholdsdocumentedin Texts99,211,and213. Marriageagreementsanddissolutions,similarly,startedasmattersrestrictedto smallgroupsoffamilymembersand,arguably,thefirstattemptatmanagingthese situationsbeganinthehouseholdratherthanproceedingimmediatelytostateofficialsfora sanctioneddecision,contratheworkingsofmodernsocieties.indeed,mostmarriage agreementsanddissolutionsareframedasmattersbetweenhouseholdheads(seegreengus 1969:525ff.and,forexample,Texts1,2,3andAppendix2).Manyofthemarriage dissolutionslistedinappendix2wereexplicitlyframedasconflictsbetweenthefathersof thehusbandandwife.whenagreementscouldbestruckanddissolutionswere complicated,thefamiliescouldvoluntarilyseekoutsideassistanceonthematter. Inshort,whenthehouseholdswereunabletoresolvethedispute,itcouldbe broughtbeforeleadersofthelocalcommunityortrustworthyfiguresofrelevance.inmost instances,adiisresolvedbyjudges,agovernor,orthegrandvizier,butditilasoften mentionotherofficialsorgroupsthathandledthecasebeforeitarrivedinthecontext 74

88 recordedbytheditila.theditilasdonotmakeclearstatementsabouttheefficacyofthese groupsorwhythenewcourthassupercededthem,butoftenitisimpliedthattheprevious arbitratorswereeitherunabletomakeadecision,oroneorbothofthedisputantswas unsatisfiedtherendereddecisionanddismissedit,seekinginsteadanother,usuallyhigherranking,entitytoprovideanotherapproach. Inadditiontofamilies,varioussemi-independentgroupsareattestedintheditilas, includingmerchants(onwhichseesteinkeller2004b:102),coppersmiths(seeneumann 2000andText207),guda-priests(e.g.,Text115,seeLafontandWestbrook2003:194), andguild-andfamily-boundgroupsofhigh-rankingmusicians(e.g.,text205cases4and 5).Whenanoutsidepartyattemptedtocomplainagainstamemberofoneofthesegroups, memberswouldserveeachother sinterestsandactaswitnessfortheirrelativesand colleagues.however,whenmembersofthesegroupswereinvolvedindisputesamong themselves,theinvolvementofentitiesoutsidetheircommunitywasneeded.inafew cases,communitiesofpeopleareinvolvedindisputesascollectives.thepoorlyunderstood ruralcommunitycalledim-ri-a 15 iscitedinonecase,text201,forexample FromCommunitytoCity Ifadisputewasunsuccessfullyarbitratedinthecontextofvillagesorbya communityleader,itcouldthenbetakentotheprovincialcapital;presumably,nodispute, uponinception,precededdirectlytoprovincialauthorities.intheseinstances,the disputantseitherfoundnewarbitratorstoheartheirstatementsandmakedecisions,or, oftenintheummaprovince,theyattemptedaresolutionbeforetheprovincialofficials alongwiththelocalleaderswhowerepreviouslyinvolved.consequently,anumberof placesthroughoutthecoreprovincesarecitedinditilasasthehometownsofdisputants 75

89 (Falkenstein1957:83ff.)andprobablythesiteatwhichthedisputebegan(seealsoMolina forthcoming). SubsidiariesofUmmainUmmaditilas: SubsidiariesofGirsuinLagaåditilas: 16 A ebara,garåana,idula,nagsu,nigzida,zabalam Adab(onlyText250),Nina/NiÑin 17,Gu aba,(du)-giåaba OthercitedplacesoutsideUmmaand Lagaå: åanibru (e.g.,text117,lagaå),åauri ki (e.g.,text355, Umma) Table 3.5. Towns and Cities Mentioned in the Umma and Lagaå Ditilas. Theconstructionditil-ladumuGN(literally, ditilasonofgn )isusedahandfulof timesforcities,towns,orpeoplesnotintheprovincialcapital: Text(s): Cited Town: Year: Cited Court Officials: 144 ki Zabalam 3 AS3 Noofficialsmentioned 48 A ebara AS2 Noofficialsmentionedatend;governorcited 363 A ebara AS2 Governorandoneotherofficial 372 Garåana ki AS2 Noofficialsmentioned 360,373 Garåana-ka AS2 1royalcourier 268 Nagsu ki AS2 1maåkim,nootherofficials 331 NIGzida(NIG 2 -zid 2 -da ) AS2 ThejudgeLu-amana 362,286 Idula ki AS2 2officialscitedasfinalwitnesses Table 3.6. Uses of di til-la dumu GN in Umma Dispute Records. 18 NotethatinsomeoftheUmmacases,thegovernoriscitedashavingarbitratedthe caseandrenderedaconclusivedecision,whileinothers,noummacityadministratoror eliteofficialiscited,suggestingthatthelocalcommunity sdecisiontoperformadiinthe provincialcapitalcouldbeforreasonsotherthantomakeuseoftheauthorityofurban administrators. Additionally,stillothertextssuggestthatacaseoccurredororiginatedinadifferent communitywiththephraseåagn, (thiswas/concerning)ingn. Inthesecases,mostof whicharefromlagaå,thefinalarbitratorsorjudgesareurbanelitesoftheprovincial capital. 76

90 Text: Attested GN: Year: Lu-marza present?: Final Adjudicators: 42(Lagaå) åa 3 Nina ki ÅS4 No 2judges 50(Lagaå) åa 3 Nina ki ÅS4 No 2judges 83(Lagaå) åa 3 G[u 2 -abba Undated Yes,2 Governor ki ] 93(Lagaå) åa 3 Nina ki Missing No 3judges 117(Lagaå) åa 3 Nibru ki ÅS1 No 7judgesoftheking(see5.3.2) 374(Lagaå) åa 3 E-Gibile ki IS5 No 1official;sealofscribe 355 (Umma) åa 3 Uri ki 5 -maka Missing No 12listedmen,includingUmmagovernor Ur-Lisi Table 3.7. References to (This was) in GN. Interestingly,tencasesfromUmmaexplicitlymentionthatthecaseoccurredin,or primarilyconcernedpeopleof,ummaitself.inthesecases,arangeofofficialsarecitedas havingattendedthecases,fromlocalleaderstotheummagovernorhimself. Text(s): Year: Cited Officials: 375:6π AS2 Officialslistedasl u 2 ki -ba-gub-ba(manwhoservedattheplace),gudea 267 AS2 Ahazanumandotherofficialslistedasl u 2 ki -bagub-ba(menwhoservedattheplace) 281 AS2 5listedofficials 323 AS2 3men,listedasl u 2 ki i ni m -m a-m e 376 AS2 Agovernor 349 AS2 Nonementioned 324 AS2 Dadu,citedasmaåkim;nootherentities 323 AS2 3listedofficials 289 AS2 Anabauruandlistedl u 2 -ki -ba-gub-ba-m e 345 AS2 Officialslistedaslu 2 -ki-ba-gub-ba-me 343 AS2 Ur-ku,citedasmaåkim;nootherentities Table 3.8. References to di til-la dumu Umma ki Summary:TheLandscapeofDisputeResolutionintheUrIIIState Thereareanumberofwaysthatwecaninterpretthecitationofmultiplelocations andlocalandprovincialofficialsintheditilas,butthemostcommonlyexpressed understandingoftheuriii legalsystem assumesthattheprovincialcapitalsblanketed theirrespectiveterritorieswithacommon legalsystem, andsuchhasbeentheprevailing positionofscholars(e.g.,falkenstein1956,maeda1985,sigrist1995,lafontand 77

91 Westbrook2003).Giventhat,assomeUrIIIscholarsargue,thecoreprovinceswere organizedintoahierarchicalpoliticalconfiguration(steinkeller1987),itarguablyfollows thatlocalandprovincialcourtswerestructurallyinterrelatedinasystematicallyorganized judicialmachine,whichpossiblypositionedlocalcourtsunderthedirectjurisdictionofthe provincialgovernment.accordingtothisperspective,anyandallmattersofsocialdiscord andbreachesofnormativepracticesthroughouttheprovincewereofinteresttoanddirectly addressedbytheobjectivesofthecentralcrown. Theabovedata,however,seemstodefytheideaofacoherentsystembyindicating thatdisputantscouldseekvariouscontextsinwhichtosettletheirdispute;inspiteofthe cumulativecharacterofthetexts,thedisputesdocumentedintheditlasarepartial, anomalous,andwereselectedforarbitrationbyprovincialofficialsonlyafterothercontexts wereexplored.often,disputesthatwerehandledintheprovincialcapitalswereresolved withlocalstructuresintact(asexemplifiedbythecasesintable3.7). Withapreliminarysenseoftheoriginandcharacterofdisputesinmind,wecan proceedtoaninvestigationofthefinalstagesofthelifeofadispute,itsresolution.an overviewofthediprocedureitselffurtherclarifiestheabovepointsandthecharacterofur IIIdisputes. 3.4TheResolutionProcedure WhilewelacksourcesfortheconclusionofmostUrIIIdisputes,wecanobserve thefinalresolutionofsomedisputesduetothefactthattheyweresubjecttothe performanceofacompleteddiintheprovincialcapitalsandsubsequentlyrecordedina ditilatablet.thetopicofsuchresolutionprocedures 19 isadifficultoneforearly Mesopotamia,giventherigidlystandardizednatureofthetexts,whichwashesoverthe 78

92 idiosyncrasiesanddynamicsofuniquecases,andgiventhefactthatlegalproceduresobey aculturally-specificlogicthatcanoftenappear permeatedwithunreason toanoutsider (seedamaska1997:25).unsurprisingly,thetopicoflegalproceduresisgenerally neglectedinstudiesofancientmesopotamianlaw,whichinsteadfavorstructural reconstructionsofsystemsortheirorganization(e.g.,bottéro1982and1992,lafontand Westbrook2003)ortheidentificationoftextualtraditionsand laws (e.g,finkelstein 1966,Westbrook1988).Yet,studiesofproceduresofotherancientsocietieshaveshown theusefulnessoffocusingonhowlawisactuallyexecuted(e.g.,garagin1986,watson 1998),and,evenifthediperformedintheUrIIIperiodhardlyinvolvedlaw,an examinationofthesestudiescanyieldsomeinsights.asidiscussedinchapter2, procedurecannotbereconstructedbytakingindividualtabletsatfacevalueandassuminga one-to-onecorrespondencebetweenthetextualnarrativesandphasesofactivity. Tosummarize,resolutionprocedureshavebeenunderstoodasoccasionswhen officialorunofficialrulesandstatutescanbeenforced(seewatson1998:91ff.),when socialandculturalboundariescanbeidentified,(re)claimed,orshifted(garagin1986:2-6), whenauthoritiescan forestalllosers revenge,ortheiralienation (Chase2005:ix),as wellaswhenconflictcanbeeffectivelyregulatedandmanagedsoasnottoexpandinto socialchaos(watson1998:91).proceduresmaybeaboutthepoliticalmorethanaboutthe executionof justice, andthelogicthatdictatestheircoursesmaybeverycontext-specific ratherthanrigidlymandatedbyacentrallygoverneddesign. Itshouldbeemphasizedthatancientresolutionprocedurescannotbedescribedin allcasesastrials,sincethelatteriscommonlyunderstoodasnotonlyalocaleforthe above-listedcharacteristics,butalso adistinctivedomainfortheproductionoflegal meaning (Umphrey1999:394).Asthefollowingsectionsaimtoshow,theUrIIIdiwas 79

93 notaprocedureaimedattheproductionofrules,law,orlegalprecedent.rather,inthis disputeresolutionsystem,thepurposeoffindingresolutionsandperformingthediprocesswastoestablishfacts,asdefinedbythesocialandculturalcontexts,and,more oftenthannot,tosimplyconfirmtheveracityofonedisputant sclaim(s)ratherthanto introduceinnovativesolutions,sanctions,orpenalties. Inspiteofthestraightforwardnessofthesegoals,theprocesswasnotsosimply executed.asthenextsectionsaimtoshow,whenadiwasconductedinordertoresolvea dispute,itspreparationandperformancewasalengthyendeavorthatinvolvedbalancing factorsoftiming,finances,andtheassemblingofcomplicatedandsometimeselusiveforms ofproof.moreover,whileitmaybeanoverstatementtocharacterizetheseproceduresas purelyrandomorad hoc,therewasvariation(acrosstimeandspace)inthewaythe procedurecouldbeexecutedandresolved.itisonlybecauseofthesizeofthecorpusasa wholethatweareabletodetectanypatternsorcommoncharacteristicsoftheresolution procedureintheuriiiditilas AssemblingthePartiesandStartingthedi Ipreviouslyproposedthatthemostcentral,definitivereasonforperformingadi wasthefactofitspublicnature,whichcontributedtotheeffectivenessandlegitimacyofthe outcomeoftheprocessandestablishedaccountability.personsinvolvedinadispute deliberatelysoughtoutthisproceduretosettletheirproblems,andwerenotusually summonedorcoercedintoattendingcourtbyofficialwarrants.thedisputantsalsoseemto havebeenabletochoosetheirarbitratorsandwereprobablynotassignedthem.thisis perhapsindicatedbythephrase,especiallycommonatlagaå, PNcamebeforethejudges (PNigidi-ku 5 bi-in-ñar),governor,orgrandvizier(ortheirrepresentatives). 80

94 Eventhoughitislikelythatnotallpersonscitedonaditilawerephysicallypresent forthedurationoftheaffair,itisclearthatmanypeoplewerenecessarilypresentforthe proceedings,andthatadicouldstopinitstracksifacentralfigurewasabsent;tabletswere notconsideredasufficientreplacementfororaltestimonies(seebelow,3.4).theemphasis oftheprocedureonoraldeclarationsandwitnessstatementssuggeststhatthephysical presenceofmostpartieswasrequisiteforasuccessfulresolution.see,fortwoexamples, UmmaText287(seeChapter2)andText122,whichindicatethatdisputants caseswould notproceedtosuccessfulconclusionifthenecessarypartieswereabsent.inthefirsttexta disputantswearsthathewillbringawitnessinthreedaysorforfeitthecase(andthe privilegeofpartakingintheproceedings),whichindeedoccurs,and,inthesecond,a disputantistoldthathemustappearatanallottedplaceattheappropriatetime. 20 åeå-kal-la e 2 -u 6 -e e 2 - d åara 2 -ka mu-lugal gu 2 -zi-ga tukum-bi nu-gub-be 2 -en 3 mu-lugal-laditil-la he 2 -abi 2 -dug 4 (9names) lu 2 ki-bagub-ba-me nam-æa-nimaåkim Åeåkallaswore bythekingtoe uintheåaratemple: ifyoudonotstand(attheproceedings)atdawn,the casewillbeclosed, hesaid. (9names)werethemenwhostoodattheplace. Namhaniwasthemaåkim. Thistexthasbeencitedasanexampleofa summons tocourt,butprobablythis characterizationisanoverstatementandthetext,liketext287,merelyintendstoaddress thefactaprocedurerequiresbothparties(andthustheircriticaloralstatements).seealso thecompilationtext209,whichdocumentsthreecasesinwhichpartieshavereturnedto courtwithwitnessesafterafixedhiatusofthreedaystoretrievethem. Itmustbeasked,then,howallthenecessaryparties(disputants,witnesses, guarantorsofpasttransactions,maåkims,scribes,arbitrators,otherattendingpartiessuch 81

95 as bystanders, etc.)wereassembled,especiallygiventhedisparatehometownsofmany disputantswhoappearintheditilas.thepassingoflengthyamountsoftimebetweenthe sparkofadisputeandtheexecutionofitsresolution(table3.3)couldbepartially attributabletothedifficultiesofgatheringthenecessaryparties. Presumably,thefirstandforemosttaskofthedisputantswastoassembletheir witnesses(onwhomsee4.2.4),withoutwhomacasecouldnottakeplaceorevenbelost (e.g.,lagaåtext62).inmostcasesfromlagaåandafewfromumma,amaåkimwasalso presentfortheproceedings.molina(forthcoming)hasspeculatedthatthepurposeofthe maåkimwasactuallytodrawupthecaseforthetrial,but,eventhoughitwouldbe reasonabletoassumethatsomeonewasresponsibleforarrangingcases,thereisnodirect evidenceforthis.insomecases,themaåkimwasappointedforthecasebyajudgeor governor(e.g.,seetext280,leftedge, UrniÑar(wasthe)maåkimof(theman)Aba- Enlilgin ),andthequestionofhowtointerpretthisisdiscussedelsewhere(see2.4.1and 4.2.1)butitisprobablethatthepersonwhoassumedthisfunctionservedanobserverfor judgesandgovernors,viewingthecasesintheirstead. Thechoiceofarbitratorlikelydependedonthecaseprehistoryandthetimingofthe caseaccordingtotheavailabilityoftheofficialinquestion.itisotherwiseunclearhowadi wasscheduledandwhetherauthoritativepartiesselectedandenforcedthedateorthe disputantsapproachedtheprovincialauthoritiesandstartedtheprocessinanad hoc manner.therearesomereferencestojudgessettingdeadlinesfordisputantstoproduce witnessesandtablets,butthesearealwaysaftertheprocesshasbeeninitiatedandcourtis underway(seebelow). Inpart,asolutiontothisquestionhingesuponwhetherornotmosthigh-ranking adjudicatingofficialswerephysicallypresentatthedi,orwhethertheirofficewasmerely 82

96 invokedintheirabsence.thecollectiontabletssuchastext205,whichreportsthatallfive casesonthetabletwereoverseenbythelagaågovernorandgrandvizierarad-nanna, seemstoindicatethattherewereonoccasionsingleallotteddaysduringwhichtheofficial wouldhearcases(seetable4.3).however,itisdifficulttoestablishthatarad-nannawas physicallypresentandavailableinlagaåonmanyoftheoccasionsofhisserviceto disputants. Moreover,therearereferencesto places (ki)whereaditookplace,asinthe designationlu kidi-da-kagub-ba-me (these)werethemenwhostoodattheplaceof thedi (Text35,andMVN18185),suggestinganucleationofmenfortheexecutionof theprocedure.thisisalsoclearintext34:rev.6-7(andseealsotext126:14-16): ur-sañ-ub åeåa-æu-ma kidi-da-kai -gub-am Ur-saÑubthebrotherofAhumawaspresentat(or servedat)theplaceofthed i. Inadditiontogatheringvariousparitiesattheplacewherethediwastooccur, disputantsalsohadtoassembleappropriateevidence,whichconsistedprimarilyof witnesseswhocouldgivestatements,takeoathsaboutpastevents,andattesttothe executionofpertinentoathstakenbyadisputantinpreparationfortrial EvidenceandProof Toreiterate,theultimategoalofadiwastodisambiguatecompetingnarratives,to untangleconfusingstatuses,andtoclarifytheappropriatestatusofpropertyandpeople. Arbitratorsandjudgesrequiredtrustedritualsordemonstrationsofevidencetomakethese determinations;aschase(2005:3)putsit,suchrituals employintheserviceoflegitimacy andmakeboththedisputants statements,andtheprocessasawhole,legitimate. 83

97 Theideaofan evidentiaryprocedure, aseriesofstepsbywhichfacts(as culturallydefined)aredeterminedandconfirmationsofclaimsestablished,isnot straightforwardacrosstimeandspace.whatismeantby factualevidence canvary widelyevenwithinonesocietydependingonthespecificcourt.damaska(1997:25), discussingtheroleoftheoathinmedievaleuropeanlawsuits,hasshownhowthe rationalityofproofisculturallydeterminedandobeysaspecificformoflogicofitsown context.beforediscussingthelogicofmesopotamianmethodsofestablishingproof,itis necessarytoaddresstwoproblematicassumptionsabouturiiievidentiaryprocedurethat impedeanalysis. First,thetendencyofscholarstoseparateMesopotamianevidentiaryformsintoa dichotomyof rational versus religious underminestheequal,realeffectivenessofeither approach.recently,wells(2008)proposedthattherearetwotypesofprocedures employedintheneareast. Culticprocedures, ontheonehand,isacategoryincluding judicialoaths,oracles,andordeals,closelyakintothe supra-rationalprocedures discussedbyfrymer-kensky(1981)andwestbrook(2003)thatrelyonpowersbeyond humanlogic todeterminefact. Forensicprocedures, ontheotherhand,aredefinedas thosethatinvolve ordinaryjudicialandinvestigativeproceduressuchasthehearingof witnessstatementsandtheexaminationofphysicalevidence (Wells2008:206),andare similartothe rational proceduresdescribedbyfrymer-kenskyandwestbrook.wells (2008:206)terminologicalshift,heargues,isaimedatdisassociatingthediscussionfrom theanachronisticnotionofrationality,sincerituals(suchasoaths)couldbeconsidered rational totheirpractitionersandwereindeedhighlyeffectivemeansofsupportingclaims formuchofmesopotamianhistory.indeed,examinationoftheusesandmethodsof executingoathsinmesopotamia,forexample,arguablyshowsthatthereisarational, 84

98 logicaldesigntotheexecutionoftheprocedureanditsoutcome,evenifthelogicdefiesthe expectationsofthemodern,rationalthinker. Theproblemremains,however,thateitherdichotomyassumesthatculticorsuprarationalevidentiaryritualscannotengageempiricalreality,andarethusnot real orcapable ofestablishingfactsonthesamelegitimate,presumablyinfallible,basisasforensicornonreligiousmethodsoffact-finding.yetasroth(2001)hasnoted,earlymesopotamian procedureswereaimedatfindingsof facts, andthustheproceduresusedincourtmust havebeenappropriateformeetingthisgoal.indeed,eveniftheoathsusedinuriiidispute resolutioncouldresultindifferentdegreesofsuccessfortheoath-taker,theycommonlydid establishempiricallyobservablefactsinmanycases notbecauseofdivineinterventionor apractitioner sdreadofdivineretribution, 21 butdue,aswillbearguedbelow,tothepublic natureoftheoath-takingritualandthepossibilitythattheonewhosworecouldbeheld accountableforafalseoathandfacearuinedreputation. 22 Moreover,ontheotherhand, forensicmethodsofestablishingevidencecouldbejustasliabletoinaccuracyascultic ones,asisevidentinthefalsewitnessstatementsexposedinthecasesreportedintext369 (Umma)andTexts69,76,or84(Lagaå),whilewrittendocuments,consideredthemost infallibletypeofproofinmoderncourts,werenottrustedintheuriiicourts(seebelow). Because,asWells(2008)pointsout,Mesopotamianlegalsourcesmakelittleontological distinctionbetweenthesetypesofevidence,itisbettertoapproachthedata,wherepossible, withattentiontonativetypologiesorhierarchiesofevidencethatareattestedinthesources. AsecondfoundationalassumptionaboutMesopotamianevidentiaryprocedureis thatprocedureswerefixedinamannerthatcouldtranscendtheindividualneedsofa specificcase,orthatdemandsforspecifictypesofevidencewereissuedconsistentlyfrom casetocase(seeadiscussionofprocedureinjohnsonandveenkerforthcoming).inother 85

99 words,itisassumedthatiftherearetwoidenticalpartiesengagingintwoidentical disputes,andiftwoidenticalsetsofevidenceareassembledineachcase,thenonemay expecttwoidenticalverdicts.notonlydoesthisideanotapplytothelegaltextsfromeither UmmaorLagaå,itisarguablynotarealityofanylegalsystem,giventhatpower,politics, context,andotheremotionalortopicalfactorscandirectthesettlementofdisputes.while everycasehasatitsdisposaloaths,witnesses,andtexts,thesearenotappliedinthesame wayandforthesamereasonsineverycase,and,arguably,theycertainlydonotproduce thesameoutcomes. IntheevidencefromtheUrIIIditilas,thereisaclearhierarchyoftheformsusedin theproceedings,oratleastaclearpatternofwhichtypeofevidencewaspreferableinmost attestedsituationsandaccordingtomostofthepresidingofficials.mostcommonly,verbal statements,withorwithoutaccompanimentbyanoath,werepreferredoverwritten documentation.tabletswerementionedinordertoasserttheexistenceofpossible witnesseswhocouldtestifyorsweartothevalidityofaclaimorexistenceofatransaction. AttestedtypesofevidenceusedinUrIIIdisputeresolutionwerehierarchicallyorganized; thehigherformsofformsofevidencehadtheabilitytotrumpthelower.theseincluded, inorderofefficacy: 1. Swornoralstatementsbyawitness 2. Swornstatementsbyadisputantorunswornstatementsbyawitness 3. Unswornstatementsbyadisputant 4. Writtendocumentation Notallcasesconformpreciselytothisscheme,andthefactorofwhoofficiatedthecase mayhavedictatedthechoiceofappropriateevidenceandtheweightitcarried(see4.4).in someinstancesatumma,thepurposeofconductingthediwassimplytodeterminewhich oftheseperformanceswouldsufficeforthecasetobeconcluded,andafterpresentingtheir 86

100 suggestion,thearbitratorssentthedisputantsawaytofinishtheprocedurethemselvesin anothercontext(e.g.,text51,62,280,and286). 23 Thefollowingpresentsoverviewsofhowtheseformswereused,notingvariations betweenummaandlagaåcases OralStatements Thecommencementandexecutionofadirevolvedaroundpublicstatements wherebyparticipantsanddisputantsissuedtheirrespectiveclaims(orsidesofthestory) andpresentedsupportingevidence.astable2.1indicates,theveryinitiationofadi hingedonthedeliveryofpublicdeclarations.ifwitnesseswerepresent,theirwordwould trumpthestatementofthedisputantwhohadnosupportingtestimonies.itislikelythat debateensuedattheproceedings,giventhatarbitratorscouldrecommendanoathtoparties whosestoriesconflictedinordertocallforthmorewitnesses(e.g.,text169).inumma,a presidingofficialcouldevaluatethevalidityofaclaimonthespot;theummagovernors especiallyheldthisprerogative. 24 However,inmostinstances,acontestedstatementwould requirethesupportofanevidentiaryoath. StatementscouldberejectedonthespotandthisisexpressedwiththeSumerian termgur toreject or tochallenge. Intheeventthatastatementwaschallenged,the rejecteddisputantoftentookanoath(nam-erim 2 )tosecurehisstatement(e.g.,texts36, 37,42,54,55,79,86,107).Often,thisrebuttaloathwouldhelpthedisputantwinhis case,butnotineveryexample.inlagaå,around20%ofallattestedwitnessstatements weresubjecttochallenge,buttheactwaslessfrequentinummasources.see

101 3.4.4 Oaths EventhoughthecentralandeffectiveroleoftheoathinearlyMesopotamiancivil proceedingscannotbequestioned,thebasisofitspowerandlogicofitsuseremain difficultmattersforthemodernscholartocontendwith. 25 Itmustbenotedthattheuseof oathswasnotrestrictedtoditilasandresolutionprocedure,butwasalsofoundinavariety ofcontextswhereitwasusedasacivilactthatcouldsecuresocialrelationshipsandease theflowoftransactions.appearingincontracts,salearrangements,andotherkindsof promissorynotes,oathswereusedforsocialnegotiationingeneral.itthusbecamecentral todisputeproceduresevenbeforetheuriiiperiod,attestedamplyinoldakkadiantexts (seemad1135,oaic7and51,andsr85:2,forexample). Whilediachronicdevelopmentsoftheoathhavebeenstudied,alongwith philologicalandetymologicalaspectsofoathterminology,thefunctionofoathsindispute resolutionandthesocialcontextoftheirusehavebeensomewhatlessconsidered. Typically,UrIIIoath-takingisdescribedashavingtwotypes:thepromissoryoathandthe evidentiaryoath.yet,anexaminationofthecontextsofthesetypesofoathswillshowthat, inspiteofthelimitedterminologyforoathsintheuriiiperiod,theirusesandcontexts weremultipleandtheywereapplicabletovariouskindsofsocialinteractioningeneral,not justrestrictedtocourtcontexts ThePromissoryOath TheSumeriantermmulugal(pàd)iscommonlyunderstoodtorefertoa promissoryoathanditsperformanceinvolvesasinglepersonswearingtofulfillapromise beforetwoormorewitnesses.numeroustextsexistfromtheuriiiperiodthatrecorda promissoryoathandtheattendingwitnesses, 26 butfewofthesetabletsareeverreferenced 88

102 duringthecourseofadi,inwhichthetestimonyofwitnesseswaspreferred. 27 Ingeneral, therearetwocontextsinwhichthepromissoryoathwasusedduringthelifeofadispute: theinceptionofadisputeandtheconclusionofadi.becausepromissoryoathswere sworntoestablishmarriageagreements(texts1,2,3,or19),topromisethedeliveryof slaves(e.g.,texts48,49,51)orproperty(e.g.,text131)afterasaleortransaction,to agreeonprices(e.g.,text9),ortotheconditionsofloans(e.g.,text146),theseoaths couldbecitedinditilasinvolvingdisputesthathaveeruptedoverthenon-fulfillmentof swornpromises.thatis,theseoathswereapparentlynotalwaysreliable,andforreasons unknown,werefrequentlybroken.ofthetextsofthelagaåcorpus,forexample, approximately70casesofdisputationweresparkedbecauseofaperson sfailuretofulfill theconditionsofapromissoryoath,resultinginthepursuitofadi. Atthesametime,thepromissoryoathcouldalsobesworntopromisenotto commitanoffensiveactortorenouncefutureclaims(e.g.,text26).themostfrequent useofthepromissoryoathforthispurposewastheoathof notreturning tocourt,which wasswornattheendofadi(e.g.,texts147,156,157,164)andthusplayedaroleinthe executionofresolutionprocedure TheEvidentiaryOath Morefrequentarethetypesofoathsexpressedbytheconstructionnam-erim 2 - (am 3 )(Lagaå)ornam-erim 2 tar(umma).thistypeofoath,commonlyunderstoodas theevidentiaryorassertativeoath,wasprimarilyperformedbywitnesses,though disputantscouldsweartotheveracityoftheirownstatementsaswellifnecessary.even thoughthisoathwasnotalwaysdecisiveinwinningcases,asweshallsee,scholarshave consideredtheexecutionofthisoathtobethemostdecisiveandexpedientactinthe 89

103 resolutionofcases,onethatcementeduncontestablevictories. 28 Falkenstein(1956:66) consideredthe prozeßentscheidende Eid tobetheultimatedeterminerofthefateofthe proceedings,whilewells(2008:207),forexample,callsthisoath dispositive, sinceit automaticallydisposedofthecaseinfavoroftheoath-taker, andlafontandwestbrook (2003:194)characterizeitas absolutelydecisive. Theseperspectivesareattributabletothefactthatthemultipleusesofthenamerim 2 oathinditilashavenotbeenfullydisarticulatedapartfromfalkenstein sprovisional taxonomy(1956:63-72,andseesallaberger srecentstudy[2008]);theoathcouldbeused inseveralcontextsforavarietyofpurposesduringtheexecutionofadi.ontheonehand, theoathwastakentoattesttothetranspiringofpasteventsorexistenceoftransactions (e.g.,texts56,58,102,104,105),suchasasale,promissoryoath,declaration,orother pertinentincident,andinthiscasesomeonewho witnessed aneventsworetheoath. However,awitnesscouldalsotakethisoathinordertobuttressadisputant sstatementif theopposingpartycontestedit(e.g.,texts36,37,42,52,72,79,86,or107).inthelatter case,isuspectthattheoath-takingwitnesswasnotnecessarilyswearingto evidence, but vouchingforthereliabilityofthedisputant scontesteddeclaration.inumma,theoath couldbealsoswornintheåaratempleafterthecasewassettled,asasortofseparateand finalphaseoftheproceedings(seesallaberger2008),inwhichcasethepurposeofthe oathwasnottoassertorproveanything,andperhapssolidifiedandacknowledgedthe transpiringofthediasawhole.similarly,afewditilas,especiallyfromlagaå,conclude withareportthatoneorbothpartiestookthenam-erim 2 oathattheendofthecase(e.g., Texts126,127,andpossibly152,153),butintheseexamplesitisunclearwhatpurpose thisoathservedorwhereitfitintotheprocedure.inshort,thenam-erim 2 oathcouldbe usedintheunfoldingoftheditoestablishclaims,butitcouldalsobeusedasasortoffinal ritualtosealtheoutcomeofthecaseonceadecisionhadbeenproduced. 90

104 Intheformerusesoftheoath,itoftenservedasthefulcrumuponwhichthefinal decisionhinged,yetanexaminationoftheuseofthisoathaswellitsconsequences demonstratesthattakingtheoathwasnotaguaranteedmethodofwinningacase. Numerousfactors,includingthedispositionofthedisputants,thenatureofthedispute,the approachofthespecificofficiatorsofthedispute,andlocaltraditionscoulddeterminethe weightandnecessityofthenam-erim 2 oath.thesefactorsandconditionsarelosttousas thetextsdonotreportthem,buttheycanbeextrapolatedfromafewditilas. Forexample,adisputantwasentitledtodeclinethecourt srecommendationtotake theoathandrefuseit(recalltheabove-citedtext99),butthiscouldleadtolossofthecase (e.g.,text70:15,possiblyalsotext113).yet,justbecauserefusingtosweartheoath uponthecourt ssuggestioncouldleadtoaloss,itdoesnotfollowthatswearingtheoath invariablyledtoavictory.thedifficultlagaåtext18posescomplicationstomany assumptionsaboutthedynamicsbetweenstatementsandoaths.thecase,adispute betweentwowidowsoverthe son-in-law-ship (nam-mi 2 -us 2 -sa) 29 ofayoungman whomtheywishtomarrytheirdaughters,involvesaseriesofevidentiaryoathsthat contradicteachother. FatherandmotherofL.Disputant 1 Disputant 2 L.(m)daughter 1 daughter 2 Figure 3.1. Organization of Disputants in Text 18. Ioutlinethestagesoftheprocedureasfollows: 91

105 Disputant 2 claimedl.shouldbeherson-in-law WitnessessworethatL. sfather(whenalive)sworethatl.wouldmarrythe daughterofdisputant 1,andthatL. smotherwaspresentattheswearing L. smotherrenouncedthisoath Disputant 1 tookanoath(renouncingl. smother srenunciation) WitnessesstatedthatDisputant 2 renouncedherclaimtol. Disputant 2 rejectedthisstatement Disputant 1 tookanotheroathtotheveracityofthestatement Disputant 1 sdaughterwonmarriagetol. Figure 3.2. Outline of Oaths and Procedures of Text 18. ThetextdoesnotreportthefullreasonsforthevictoryofDISPUTANT 1,butonemayinfer thattheperformanceofoathscomplicated,ratherthanfacilitated,theresolutionofthis dispute. Thefactthatthedecisiontouseoathsmayhavebeenatthebehestofthespecific judgesorarbitratorswhosawthecasesisclearfromcaseswithsimilardisputesthatdonot useidenticalmethodsofresolution.forexample,text289andtext48,bothpresumably fromanummaarchivalcontextandbothdatingtoamar-sin2,involvesimilardisputesin whichapersonsoldaslave,receivedpaymentfromthebuyer,butthenfailedtodeliverthe slavetothebuyer.later,thesellerpresumablydeniedthatthesaleoccurredandadispute ensued.intext289,thebuyerisawardedtheslaveafterswearingthenam-erim 2 oath, butintext48thebuyerreceivestheslavesolelyonthebasisofthecourt sdetermination. ThecaseinText289,whichexplicitlystatesthatproceedingsoccurredinUmma,was arbitratedbyseveralattendingwitnessesincludingonewiththetitleabauru,whilethatof Text48doesnotspecifywhooversawit,statingonlythatitconcernedthepeopleof A ebara

106 Whileitmayseemrequisiteforadisputeresolutiontorelyonaconsistent, predeterminedexecutionofevidentiaryproceduressuchasthenam-erim 2 oathifitisto haveanydegreeofsuccess,theproceduresusedinuriiiummaandlagaåvaried accordingtotheofficiatorofthecase.infact,justaswiththeabovetwotexts,thespecific officiatorsinfactcorrelatetothefrequencyoftheuseoftheoathingeneral.forexample, Arad-Nanna,theGrandVizierandgovernorofLagaåafterÅu-Sin1,onlyusedoathsin approximately10%ofhiscases, 31 whileotherentities,suchasthelagaåjudges,usethe oathmoreregularly WrittenDocumentation Scholarsofvariousancientlegalsystemshaveshownthatcomplexlegalsystems donotdemandwrittenformsofevidenceorwidespreadlegalliteracy(thomas1992, Whitley1997).TheroleoftextsinUrIIIevidentiaryprocedurewasnegligible,ashas beenpreviouslynoted(e.g.,lafontandwestbrook2003).therelativedearthof referencestotablets,includingtopastditilas,intheresolutionofcasesperhapssuggests theirrelativeinefficacyinconfirmingclaims,andcertainlysuggeststhatarbitratorsinthe UrIIIperioddidnotregardthemasfirst-handaccountsthatcarriedthesameweightasoral statements.asliebesny(1941:130)oncesuggestedofwrittendocumentationinnuzi courtprocedure, proofbydocumentwasbutasimplerformofproofbywitnesses. Itis possibletosuspectthatmanydisputantssimplydidnothaveaccesstowritingand possessednotablets,butthisseemsunlikelygiventhesocialandeconomicaffiliationsof mostdisputants.regardless,inthefewcasesinwhichtabletsarecited,theyareusually notthedetermining,conclusivefactorsintheoutcomeofthecase. 93

107 Ingeneral,referencestodocumentsintheditilasmayoccurforoneoftworeasons. Inthefirstinstance,adisputantcouldrequireatabletintheproceedingsifthecaseinvolved adisputeoverapastcontractortransaction,andifthetabletwasaproductoftheseevents. Referencestocontracts,receipts,orwitnessedtransactionsmaythusappear,butthe purposeofyieldingthedocumentincourtwassolelytodemonstratetheexistenceand/or availabilityofwitnesseswhocouldtestifyabouttheevents.forexample,inlagaåtext 45:1-16(ÅS4),areceiptthatrecordsthesaleoftheslaveNinmenbabaismentioned,butit isclearthatcitationofthistabletisrelevantbecauseitbearsthenamesofthewitnessesto thesale,whomaybesummonedfortestimony. ditil-[la] Id nin-men- d ba-ba 6 geme 2 nam-egi 2 -ni-du 10 [ama]-na sam am til-la-ni5giñ ku 3 -babbar-åe 3 AN-safl-gadumu d utu-ki-du 10 -ke 4 in-åi-sa-a ur- d ba-ba 6 lugal-amar-ku 3 lu 2 -inim-maåa 3 dub-ba-ka dub-bikidi-ku 5 -ne-åe 3 AN-safl-ga-amu-defl u 3 nam-egi 2 -ni-du 10 -e geme 2 nu-u 3 -gi 4 -gi 4 -da mulugal-biin-pa 3 geme 2 AN-sa-ga ba-na-ge-en 6 Closedcase: Nin-menbaba,theslave: ANsaga,thesonofUtukidu, boughtfromhermothernameginiduforherfullprice of5shekelsofsilver. Ur- BabaandLugal-Amarkuarethewitnessesinthe tablet(thatdocumentsthissale). ANsagabroughtthistablettotheplaceofthejudges andnameginidusworebythekingthatshewillnot takebacktheslave. TheslavewasconfirmedtoANsaga. HerethetablethelpedANsagaunderminetheattemptsofhisslaveandhermotherto nullifytheirsale,butitisclearthatthetablet srelevancewaslimitedtothefactthatitcould implicateur-babaandlugal-amarku,thewitnessestothesale.thesameispresumably thereasonforthecitationofdocumentsinothercases(e.g.,texts116,131,146,case3of Text208,andonText99seeFish1935orWilcke1998:50-51).Text137(Umma)treatsa situationinwhichtheabsenceofacorroborativetabletaffectstheoutcomeofthecase,but thecaseisleftsomewhatambiguouslyandfalkensteindeclareditpotentially unsolved (1957:231). 94

108 Theonlyaberrancetothispatternappearsinthethirdcaseofthecollectiontablet 205:col.ii11ff.fromLagaå,inwhichaslave sassertionoffreedomisconfirmedonthe basisofatabletpresentedbytheslavetothegrandvizier. dumumumuse -ur -biarad lu -gu-la-ka-ra i -bi -lalu -gu-la-ke -ne inimin-ni- Ña Ñar ar -eå lu -gu-lati-la-a igi-niin- Ña Ñar ar mu-lugal dumu-munuse -ur -biarad -[ga -ka] ama-ar-gi -[bii -Ñar] [bi -in-du -ga] dublu -[gu-la-bi] nin-du -ga dumu±[e -ur ]-biarad -da-[ke ] igisukkal-maæ-åe mu-defl dumue -ur -bi-ke -ne kii -bi -lalu -gu-la-ke -ne-ta tug ib -ur ur- lammadumulu -mumaåkim TheheirsofLu-Gulahaveraisedaclaimaboutthe daughterofe urbi,theslaveoflu-gula. WhenLu-Gulawasalive,heappearedandsworeby thekingthat, thedaughterofe urbi,myslave,iset free. Nin-duga,thesisterofE urbi,broughtthetablet oflu-gulatothegrandvizier. TheheirsofLu-Gulaabandonedtheirclaimagainst thechild(ren)ofe urbi[literally,thechild(ren)of E urbiaredroppedbytheheirsoflu-gula?]. Ur-Lamma,thesonofLumu,wasthemaåkim. ThistextisoftencitedasexampleoftheprevalenceoftabletsinUrIIIevidentiary procedure(e.g.,wilcke2007),butthevictoryresultingfromthereferencetoatabletis idiosyncraticratherthantypical.presumably,thetabletwaspermittedastestimonybecause thepromissoryoathitdocumented declaringtheslavesfree wasissuedbyaperson whowasdeceased. Thesecondreasonfortabletstoappearintheditilasoccurredwhenadisputant claimedtheexistenceofarelevantdocumentoncethediwasunderway,butdidnot possessesitinhand.insuchsituations,theopposingpartyandofficiatorsinvariablymade thepartyswearapromissoryoathtoreturnwiththetabletinafixednumberofdays (usuallythreebutnotalways),lestheorshepermanentlyforfeitthecase.forexample,in LagaåText109apartyisgivensevendaystoarrivewiththetabletdocumentingthesaleof anorchard. 95

109 Whilethereareothercaseswhereasimilarextensionisgranted(e.g.,Text116and Sigrist1995:no.1),thereisnoextantrecordofadisputantsuccessfullyreturningwiththe tabletandconsequentlywinningthecase atleastasfarasthedetailsinthesecasesallow ustoknow.thisbegsthequestionofwhethertheextensionofproceedings,andtheoath promisingtoforfeittheclaimuponfailuretoproducethetablet,mayinfacthavebeenthe arbitrators tacticalmaneuveraimedatcallingadisputant sbluff.indeed,inallcasesin whichastockextensionisgrantedtoallowadisputanttoprovidesubstantiationforhisor herclaim,thispartyfailstoaccomplishthegoalandlosesthecase. Takingthissmallsampleofcasesintoaccount,thesolepurposeofcitingtabletsin UrIIIresolutionproceduresseemstoimplicatewitnesses.Itisnotclearwhythe officiatorsdeterminedthatwitnessesneedonlytomentionedratherthansummoned,butthe possibilityoftheirtestimonycouldsuffice TacticsandResolutionStrategies Inadditiontocallingbluffsoverallegedtablets,judgesoradjudicatorshadafullkit oftacticstowhichtheycouldsubjectthedisputantsifithelpedexpediteresolutionby makingswiftdeterminationsabouttheirclaims.mostcommonlyusedwastheofferofan extensionoftime,notonlyfortablets,butalsoforanyitemthatadisputantfailedto producewhenitwasdirectlyimplicatedintheprocedure.see,forexample,text131,in whichdisputantisrequestedtoproduceachairoverwhichadisputehaserupted. Typically,oratleastaccordingtotheavailabletexts,thismethodcouldeffectivelyexpose fraudulentorsupportableclaims,bringingtheproceedingstoaswiftconclusion(seealso Text169,259,and287). 96

110 3.4.7 TheResolution Asarguedabove,noteverydiwasperformedtoresolveadispute,and,inUmma, manydisputesareaddressedonlyinpartbydeterminingwhatcoursesofactiondisputants shouldtakeontheirown;whenconsideringtheresolutionofcasesintheuriiiperiod,itis importanttodifferentiatebetweentheconclusionofadiandthesettlingofadispute.the twoeventsmayoverlaponmanyoccasions,butinothercasestheymaynot.theexamples inwhichtheabove-describedmethodsallowedofficiatingjudgesorarbitratorstomakea decisionthatsettledadispute,thuscompletingthediaswell,andseveralfactors characterizetheachievedresolution.firstly,itwasunambiguouslyone-sided,nota mutuallyagreeableharmonizationofbothdisputants demands.secondly,asmentioned above,penaltiesandpunishmentswereabsent;whereonepartyhascausedafinancial setbacktotheotherbywayofabreachofinterest,theofficiatorsrecommendedpayments toequaltheresultingdamagesbutnothingmore.thirdly,itfollowsthat,inthecases wheretheexplicitintentofthediwastosettleadispute,officiatorsmerelymade confirmationsofclaims(expressedbytheverbgi(n), toconfirm )exactlyastheywere presentedbythedisputantsanddidnotimposenewideas,solutions,sanctions,orsocial reconfigurationsupontheinvolvedparties.thatis,theofficiatingentitiesmayhave determinedtheresolutionprocedureanddictatedwhatshouldbedemonstratedandhow, buttheydidnotinventtheoutcomethattheywouldcometoconfirm.often,thetextsmake thisclearwiththeexpression itwasconfirmedbeforepn(theofficial). Whenanydiwasconcluded,whetherornotadisputeresolutionwasthegoal,both UmmaandGirsutextssignaltheconclusionwiththetermdi-til-la( completeddi ), whichappearsasaheadinginthelagaåtabletsandasubscriptinummatablets,thelatter typeofwhichmayalsoculminatewiththephrasedi-biba-til thisdiisclosed (e.g., 97

111 Text281)ordi-bitil-am 3 (e.g.,text345).inspiteofthesuperficialsimilarity, however,thefinalappearanceofadiineachprovinceisdifferent. MostLagaåcasesweredecisivelyconcludedwithaconfirmationofstatus(signaled bygin)andthesecasesinvolvedthefullsettlementofdisputes.atumma,ontheother hand,noteverydiendedwithaconfirmationofstatusandasettlement,and,inthefew casesthatdo,itwasonlythegovernorwhoofficiated.otherwise,thetermginitselfis rarelyusedtoconcludecasesatumma;indeed,manyummacaseshavenofixed conclusionatall,andsomecasesareexpresslysuspendedorterminatedbeforeany settlementisrendered.duringthereignofamar-suen(towhichmostummaditilasdate), 20%ofcasesdonotinvolveadisputesettlement.Intheseinstances,theofficiatorssimply advisethedisputantsaboutanappropriateprocedureforresolvingthecase,eithersending themawaytoperformtheseritualselsewhereorprovidingstipulationsforapossible resumptionofproceedings. 32 Scholarshavecalledthesekindsofcases unsolved andclassifiedthemunderthe Sumeriandinu-til-la( unfinisheddi )(Falkenstein1956:16,Sigrist1995).Butthis termisinappropriatelyappliedtotheuriiicontext(see2.6).toreiterate,theexpression isnowhereusedinthecorpusofsumerianditilasorthelargerbodyoflegaldocuments; moreover,manyofthecasesthathavebeendubbed unsolved doinfactendwithlines reading,forexample,di-bitil-am 3, thiscaseisclosed (seeummatext144,for example),eveniftheydonotwrapupwithafinaloath,orthetermgin,asdomostcases atgirsu.thequestionofthenatureofauthorityinummaversusthatinlagaåisthe subjectofthesubsequentchapter,butsufficeittosayherethatummaandlagaåofficials clearlyhaddifferentobjectivesandobligationswhenpresidingovercases,andwhilelagaå 98

112 officiatorsconcernedthemselveswiththefullsettlingofcases,ummaarbitratorsadvised onhowtosettledisputes,butkeptlocalstructuresandlocalarenasofsettlementintact. Eventhoughitwasprimarilythejobofthedisputantstoresolveacaseandconfirm theirownclaims,theoutcomeofadispute,uponcompletion,becametheorderofthe officiator,andcouldlaterbereferredtoashis command (inim) CompensationandDamages AnumberofrecordsfromUmmaandLagaåconcludedthatthedisputewouldbe resolvedifthepropertyinquestionwassimplyreplaced,andthisisexpressedinthetexts withadeclarationthatonepartywillrepaytheotherfordamagesorcostsaccrued.thisis indicatedbytheconstructions u-s u-dam, torepay (afterouyang2009:39)or replace, whichfalkensteinrenderedrug 7 -rug 7 -dam.itemsreplacedincludegrain(e.g.,texts 208case5),animals(e.g.,Text128,324),silver(e.g.,Texts67or205case4),orslaves (Text190).Itisoftenimpossibletoknowifthereplacementindeedtookplaceandhowit wasenforced.inonetext,(text143),itappearsthatpartyfeltentitledtoarepaymentafter damagewasinflictedtohishouse,buthisopponentrefusestomakethereplacementand arguesagainstthisclaimofobligation ReturningtoCourt Justbecauseadiwasperformedtohelpsettleadisputedoesnotmeanadispute wouldstayfixedforever.bothlagaåandummahaveyieldedexamplesofcasesthat resurfacerepeatedlyincourt.accordingtosomeditilas(seetable3.3above),thedispute couldcontinuetofesterandperhapsreappearbeforearbitratorsforanotherprocedure.so concernedwasthecourtwiththepossibilityoffacingareturnofdisputantsthatanumber 99

113 ofmethodsexistedwhichcouldbeundertakentoavoidnewroundsofprocedures,andthis istheoneaspectinwhichthecourtsattemptedtoimposerequestsuponthedisputants. Expression: m u-l u g al oath+gi (publicpromisenottoreturn) m u-l ugal oath+ kur (publicpromisenottoalter astatementoragreement) t ug 2 -ur 3 +m ul ugal oath(publicforfeitofany futureclaims) Table 3.9. Expressions of Not Returning to Court. 3.5 Conclusions. Examples: 147:2π,156:2π.157:6π,164:3π 99:45-46(seealsoTexts41,76,351andseeZA5356 5). 73,78,169,258 Theprecedingdiscussionaimedtoshowhowdisputesanddisstartedandfinished intheuriiiperiod,eveniftheevidenceresistsproducingamapforsettlingadisputeor executingadi,andthoughitstillremainsdifficulttoproposetheexistenceofasingle, coherentsetofpatternsthatencapsulatesallcasesfromthewholeperiodandfromall provinces.itisnonethelessclearthattheditila-recordsprovideuswithaverylimited windowintotheworkingsofuriiidisputeresolution,thebulkofwhichwasconductedin venuesoutsidethescopeoftextualrecordsandwithouttheneedforprovincialofficialsor theconductingofadi. Inpart,thereasonforthegreatdifferentiationamongcases,disputes,anddecisions mustberelatedtothecomposition,structure,andpowerofthecourt andshiftsthereof overtimeandacrosstheuriiistate atopicthatmaynowbetakenup. 100

114 CHAPTER4 THECOURTANDITSENTITIES: THEDYNAMICSANDCOMPOSITIONOFAUTHORITYINTHEURIIICOURTS 4.1Introduction Nowthatwehaveaprovisionalunderstandingofhowdisputeswerehandledinthe UmmaandLagaåprovinces,itispossibletoinvestigatethenatureoftheentitiesthat presidedoverresolutionprocesses,investigatingtheextentandlimitationsoftheauthority uponwhichthispowerwaspredicated.thatis,giventhatdisputesinvolvethecastingof property,entitlements,orpeopleintointermediate,contestedstatuses,wemayaskwhoin provincialsocietiesdeterminedtheirtrajectoriesandonwhatauthoritysuchdeterminations weremade.centraltothisinquiryisthequestionofwhethercourtentitiesactedas coerciveagentsofstateandprovincialinstitutions,orwhethertheywereephemerally assembledgroupsofmediatorswhowereconsultedtoobserveandassisttheresolutionof disputesfortheircolleaguesandsubordinatesbyvirtueoftheirprofessionaltitles,social standing,and,perhaps,respectability. AfterbrieflydiscussingtheusesandlimitationsoftheideaofanUrIII court, this chapteraimstoshowthatatleastafewcommonfactorscharacterizetheprovincialcourts oftheuriiiperiod.ontheonehand,thesize,nature,andcompositionofcourtsvaried accordingtoprovinceandtheummaandlagaåcourtsweredifferentinsizeandmake-up throughouttheperiod.ontheotherhand,withineachprovince,thenatureofcourtentities 101

115 changedduringthelatterhalfoftheuriiiperiod. 1 Whiletheearliestknownditilas(Å32 AS3)reportdisputesthatwereoverseenbyasingleoffice,thatofthegovernor,cases graduallybecamethebusinessoflargergroupsofofficials,anditisnowpossibleto substantiatethesuppositionthatauthorityintheprovincialcourtswastransformedfrom beingvestedinasinglepersonorofficetobeingsharedamongcollegiaofhigh-ranking menfromthroughouttheprovincialandstateadministration(seewestbrook2005and Molinaforthcoming). 2 AsMolina(ibid.)hasalreadypointedout,noticeablechangesin courtcompositiondonotdemonstrablycorrespondtothereignsoftheuriiikings,yet maylooselycorrelatewithturnoverintheofficeofprovincialgovernor(ensi 2 )ineach province,thoughmostobservableintheummacorpus.shiftsandtransformationsinthe courtcompositionareindeedattributabletoforcesonthelocallevel,ratherthanaresultof centrallymandatedregulationsbytheuriiicrown,butitwillbesuggestedherethat currentsemanatingfrompoliticaldevelopmentsintheroyalcapitaldidripplethroughthe provincesanddirectlyaffectdisputeresolution. Finally,itcanbeshownthat,regardlessofthedegreeofpowerheldbygovernors orcollegia,theconcludingdecisionsofprovincialcaseswerenotunbreakableandcouldbe challengeduponalateroccasion.thereisnoextantditilathatreportsapunishmentor penaltywasimposeduponalosingdisputantasaresultofhisorherignoring,challenging, 1 Orpossiblythroughouttheentireperiod;thelackofdocumentationbeforeÅulgi32makesthisimpossibleto know. 2 Thecooperationofamixtureoflocalandstateofficialsinarbitratingcasescanbenotedforotherperiodsof Mesopotamianhistory,seeWestbrook2003:367ff.ontheOldBabylonianperiodorOelsner2003:918onNeo- Babylonianrecords.Yet,itshouldbenotedthattheconceptoftheurban assembly isabsentintheuriii sourcesofummaandlagaå,and,whileanassemblageofofficialsdidseecasesintheprovincialcapitals,these groupswereinconsistentlystructuredfromcasetocase,asthefollowingdiscussionargues,suggestingthat therewasnotafixedentitythatwarrantsthedesignation assembly asthetermmaybeusedforotherperiods (e.g.,fortheoldassyriansocio-legalframework,seehertel2008:144f.orfortheoldbabylonianperiod,see Seri2003,2005).ThepuhrumassemblyisattestedatNippurinmodelcourtcases,buttheseare qualifiedas literaryonanumberofgrounds (Hallo2002:141). 102

116 orbreakingthedecisionofthecourt,andadisputantwhorefusedtoplaybytherulesofthe courtwouldsimplyforfeittheclaimofentitlementratherthanfacecorrectionalmeasures. Inotherwords,thepowerofUrIIIcourtofficialswasnotabsoluteandwasnot basedontheimpartationofasovereignendowment.rather,theauthorityofuriiicourt entitieswaspredicatedonandinextricablefromeachofficial slocationintheprovincial politicalandsocialnetworks,hisrelationshipsvis-à-visotherhigh-rankingmembersof variouscommunities,hiscapacityasanofficial,elitememberofprovincialsociety,and oftenhismembershipinoneofthelargerulingfamiliesoftheprovinces.itwasa combinationoftheseundifferentiatedpersonalandpublicfactorsthatgrantedofficialsthe privilegeofhearingcases,asituationthataccordswellwiththepositionofanever-growing numberofscholarsthaturiiiofficialshadmultiple,oftenfluctuatingaffiliationsanda pluralityofoffices,spanningbothurbanandruralsociety,andthatitwastheircapacityas officialsthatentitledthemtoseekprofitandmaximizetheirstanding(e.g.,vandriel2000, Steinkeller2004b:103). 4.2MesopotamianCourts:ContextandTerminology Definingtheroleandorganizationofcourtsincomplexliteratesocietiesisa complicatedendeavor,mostimmediatelymadedifficultbythesimultaneouslygenericand loadedqualityoftheterm court. Ontheonehand,thistermmayrefersimplytothe settinginwhichdisputeresolutionisaccomplished,butitmayontheotherhandrefertothe bodyofauthoritativepersonswho,bywayofsomeentitlement,settledisputesandthereby engageissuesoflaw,societalorder,andsocialcontrol(seedombradi1996).whilethe firstcharacterizationignoresthespecificsofindividualcontexts,thesecondisperhaps inapplicabletothedisputeresolutionssystemsofmanyancientsocieties,whichdidnot haveareifiednotionoflaworganizedintoacoherent,comprehensivesystemthatconsisted 103

117 oflegalprofessionalswhosejobitwastoengagethislaw.accordingly,onemustask whetherthetermhasanyapplicabilitytotheuriiicontext,giventhatnonativewordfor court isknown,and,aswestbrook(1995:28)hasnoted, partiesspeakofgoingbeforea particularofficialoradministrativebody,orsimplybefore thejudges, butnotbeforea fixed,institutionally-affiliatedbody(seealsos.lafont2008:76).moreover,evenwithin Mesopotamiancivilization,differencesinwhatmaybecalled courts arenoticeableacross timeandspace 3 evenifcentralfactors(judges,therenderingofdecisions,theuseofoaths) remainconstant. 4 Equallyproblematicisaccuratelypinpointingthenatureofacourt sauthority. Often,ancientcourtsarereductivelydefinedassturdy,ifcumbersome,institutional machinesthat,bywayofastatutoryendowmentfromthegodsorcrown,couldenforce rules,prescribecoursesofbehavior,andpunishdeviations(e.g.,henrymaineandhis scholarlydescendents).earlymesopotamiancourtshavebeenfrequentlydescribedin suchterms,andscholarshaveattributed fullcoercivepower tothem(e.g.,westbrook 1994:20).TheUrIIIcourts,ashasbeenarguedthroughout,didnotassumeacorrectional ordisciplinaryrole,however,anditisnotdemonstrablethattheywerewell-demarcated institutionsintheirownright.thesecourtsalsohadnolegislativecapacityandcasesdid notestablishprecedentforfuturecasesofsimilarnature(onwhichissueseeroth2000 andlandsberger1939);thecourtswerethereforenotinvolvedinthereificationof principlesandproductionoflaws.thus,ifthesecourtshadcoerciveabilitiesandthe powertoprescribecoursesofsocialbehavior,suchwaspossiblyduetothepublicsetting andopennatureofthedi,whichhypotheticallycouldimposepressurestoresolvedisputes andacceptsettlementsratherthanperpetuatediscordwithinthecommunity. 3 ComparethecourtsandcourtentitiesdiscussedinWilcke2007:35f.(OldAkkadianPeriod),Liebnesny1941 (Nuzi),Fortner1997(OldBabylonianPeriod),orWestbrook2003bandHertel2008(OldAssyrianPeriod). 4 Atleast,superficially.See,forexample,Wells (2008)discussionofthechangingusesandexecutionsof oaths,ordeals,andoracles,orseewestbrook

118 Courtsmayalsobedefined,bycontrast,asneutralbutauthoritativemediatorsthat existtohelpconflictresolution(seegreenhouse1985orhertel2007:45forasummaryof mediation ).Thismayseemabetterdescriptionofthecasesreportedinditilas,sinceit describestheparticularconfigurationofdisputantsandofficiatorfoundinmanycases wherebytwodisputantsengagedinadiundertheauspicesofapowerful,high-ranking authoritywhosejobitwastooverseethatonesideofthestorywasestablishedascorrect (symbolizedbythisentity sdeclarationofaconfirmationwiththeverbgin).buttheidea ofthecourtasamediatorisonlysuperficiallyapplicable,sincethisconfigurationcouldalso becharacterizedassupervised negotiationratherthanmediation,andsinceitisthe disputantswhoestablishthefinaloutcomeandrenderitsatisfactoryforthecourt,rather thantheofficiators.thecourts-as-mediatorscharacterizationalsofallsshortoftheuriii datasinceothercasesseemrathertohaveinvolvedanarbitrator,who derive[d]his authoritytodecidethedisputefromtheinvitationofthedisputantsthemselves,whohave voluntarilysubmittedtohisdecision (Roberts1983:12). 5 Inadditiontothese idiosyncrasies,itisalsodemonstrablethatthecourtswerenotentirely neutral intheir decision-making,aconsequenceofthetightlyknitnatureofgroupswhowereinvolvedin thecasesfromeitherprovince. Engel(1990)hasdescribedotherdangerswithemployingthetermandconceptof court instudiesofconflictresolutionsystems,firstnotingthepropensityoftheconcept toignorechangesintimeandplace.theemphasisoncourtstructureandtheterminology ofitsparticipants,ratherthanitsdynamics,can simplifytheconceivedrelationship betweenindividualsandcourtbyexaggeratingthepredominanceofofficiallawinwhatis actuallyacomplextangleofoverlappingandcompetingsystems (Engel1990:335), 5 Differentdefinitionsformediationandarbitrationexist,furthercomplicatingthematter.SeeFelstiner1974. Dombradi(2007)hasposedsimilarquestionsonthedifferencesoftypesofcasestotheOldBabylonianlegal data( mediationoderresjudicata? ).SeealsoDombradi

119 whichcanchangeaccordingtotimeandspace.moreover,theuseofsuchterminologycan overshadowconceptsandtermsmeaningfultothedisputantsandcourtparticipants themselves,consequentlyplacinganundueandmisleadingemphasisontheendofthe court: Thusweknowwhatthecourtconsidersa case tobe,butwhatdefinitionsmightthedisputants themselvesapplytothisterm?andhowwouldsuchdefinitionscomparetotheofficialdefinitions? Similarly,howmightlocalpeopledefinetheir community anditsboundaries?andhowmight suchdefinitionscomparetotheofficialjuralcommunitywithinwhichthecourtexercisesits authority? (Engel1990:335). ThesemattersaredifficulttoaddressbecauseofboththelimitationsoftheUrIIIditilasand theircursory,abbreviatedreportingstyleandthecontextoftheirproductionbythehandsof elitescribeswhowerepresumablymembersoftheurbanadministration.however,engel remindsofthedangerinimportingahegemonicconceptof court withoutattentiontothe nativecontextandactualdynamicsofpoweractingwithinthiscontext. Inspiteoftheseproblems,dispensingwiththeterm court leavesuswithno meanstorefertothespecificphenomenaofsettlingcasesreportedintheditilas,ortothe specificgroupsofpeoplewhostoodonhandtoundertakeadiandrenderresolutions.itis thusessentialtoutilizethetermwithattentiontothedetailsofthecontextandwith acknowledgementofeachofthevariouslayersofparticipantsandtheirrespective backgrounds.fortunately,studiesinthestructureandorganizationofpowerintheuriii provincesoffermuchtothetopic, 6 evenifmanyoftheofficesandpersonsattestedin ditilasremaindifficultorimpossibletocontextualize.prosopographicalstudyallows nonethelesstheidentificationofsomecourtentitiesanddisputants,andcanallowthe identificationofaffiliationsandrelationships,atleastontheprofessionallevel,ofcertain courtentities.therearetwowaysinwhichofficialsmaybeidentified.first,theirnames maybelistedattheendoftheditiladocumentaspartofarosterofattendingcourtentities 6 Foranoverviewandrecentcitations,seeChapter1. 106

120 (theunterschrift).second,giventhatmanycaseswerenotresolvedafterthefirst appearanceincourtandthatditilasoftencitetheperson(s)whopreviouslyofficiateda case,wemayalsofindreferencestocourtentitiesembeddedinthetext sreportaboutthe case sprehistory. Withtheabovediscussioninmind,Iprovisionallyuse court asashort-handto refertothearrayofconstituentsinvolvedwithconductingadi-procedure,thatis,theeverchangingbodyoflocalandeliteprovincialpersonsorofficials bothaffiliatedwiththe governmentornotandincludingthedisputantsthemselves assembledforadi,the resolvingofadispute,ortheoverseeingandattendingofproceedingsdesignedtoaddress potentiallyandparticularlycontentioussocialtransitionsorprecariouseconomic transactions.thefunctionsperformedbythesepersonsincludedjudge,maå kim,witness, orthefunctionsoflu 2 mar-zaorlu 2 ki-bagub-ba.itislikelythatthehighest-ranking personstofilltheseroles,forexamplethevizierorgovernors,didnotphysicallyattend casesbutprovidedoneormorerepresentativesfromtheirofficetoattendintheirstead;this explainstheprevalenceofthemaå kiminlagaåcases,wheresuchentitieswerelinkedto specificgovernorsandjudges.duringthereignofåulgiandearlyyearsofamar-sin,the personswhocomprisedthesecourtswerealmostexclusivelyfromtheofficeofthe provincialgovernor,representingthegovernorandhisauthorityasprovincialruler. However,overthecourseofAmar-Sin sreignanduptotheendofourdocumentation,the courtstransformedsomewhatandincreasinglyincludedhigh-rankingofficialsfroma varietyoflocalandurbanprofessions.theseofficialsassumedavarietyofephemeral, context-specificfunctionsfortheproceedings,rangingfrom judge tovariouskindsof attendingwitnesses,andanofficialcouldcirculatethroughthesevariousfunctionsrather thanpermanentlyentrenchhimselfinoneposition.thus,accordingtotheditilas,notallof theofficialswhocomprisedthiscourtweremediatorsorarbitrators,andsomeassumed 107

121 other,functionswhosepurposeremainsunclear.finally,asinmanypre-modernand ancientsocieties,theparticipantsofthecourtderivedtheirpowerandauthorityfromthe officesandoccupationstheyalreadyheld,whichhadnothingtodowithprofessionallegal orcourtstructure,andfromtheiroutstandingrelationshipsinthecommunity. Finally,accordingtotheditilas,disputantsandcourtofficialscamefromthesame limitedpoolandweremembersofthesameprovincialaristocraticcommunities.thesame elitesappearinditilasasdisputantsandcourtentities. 4.3TheCompositionofUrIIIProvincial Courts Itfollows,then,thattheUrIIIcourtswerenotaffixedtoanyoneinstitutionor judicial body.nonetheless,itispossibletodetectpatternsinresolutionpracticesor methodsforsolvingcases,possiblyimplyingthatthedynamicsofthesegroupswere complicatedand,potentially,unwieldy.thefollowingoverviewaddressesthedifferent typesofentitiesaccordingtotitleandsociallocationwithattentiontodiachronictrends TheOfficeoftheGovernor(ensi 2 ) Eventhoughregionaldifferencesinadministrativestructureareperceptiblewithin theuriiistate(seenowsharlach2004,allred2006,dahl2007)andthepoliticalhistories ofummaandlagaåmayhavebeenverydifferent,thesecoreprovincesoftheuriiistate sharedsomeadministrativeofficesincommon,includingthatofthegovernor,therulerof theprovince. 7 WiththeexceptionofthecomplicatedUmmarulingfamily(Dahl2007),Ur IIIprovincialgovernorsoftenoriginatedfromthelocalprovincialpopulationandwere directlysubordinate (Steinkeller1987:24)totheGrandVizier(s ukkal-mah)andthe 7 OntheUrIIIgovernorsingeneral,seeHallo1953,Frayne1997:195,275,345,379andSallaberger 1999:191ff. Offices hererefersspecificallytothegovernor sofficeitselfanditsstaff,asopposedtothe economic offices orbureausoutlinedbysteinkeller(2003,sharlach2004:24),whichmakeuptheeconomic unitsoftheprovincialcenter,overseenanddirectedbythegovernor. 108

122 king.paralleltoandindependentfromthegovernorwastheofficeofå agina,amilitary titleoftentranslatedas general (Steinkeller1987,Sallaberger1999:194).Theoccupierof thisofficetypicallycamefromoutsidetheprovincialcommunity,andmanyscholars suggestaconnectiontotheroyalfamily(steinkeller1987,dahl2007).theprecise differencebetweenthetwopositionsisstilldebated,butitisclearthattheywerepairedas somesortofcheck-and-balanceapproachtoprovincialmanagement,thegeneraloverseeing themilitaryandroyaldependents,andthegovernorscontrolling allthetemplehouseholds andtheiremployees,bothinthecapitalandintheprovincialtownsandvillages (Steinkeller1987:25).Itisthusnotsurprisingthatgovernorsappearfrequentlyinditila recordswhilegeneralsdonot, 8 astheformerwouldnaturallybemoreinvolvedinthecivil affairsofprovincialcitizenswhilethelatterattendedtoaffairsofthemilitary.inonetext fromumma(text212)thetwoofficesappeartogetherasequals,butitisprobablethatthis caseinvolvesapublicnegotiationbetweenthetwoofficesabouttheirauthorityovera groupoflaborers. Thegovernorhasbeendescribedasthe highestjudicialauthorityforhiscity (e.g.,edzard1967:147),andtherelativelyhighvolumeofcasesoverseenbyagovernor s officesuperficiallyvalidatethisclaim.atumma,roughlyhalfofallcasesmentionthe presenceofthegovernor sofficeatproceedings,whilenearlyafourthoflagaåcases referencethesame.thesefiguresare,ofcourse,determinedbythestateofthedataset currentlyavailable.inthecontextofcourtproceedings,thisofficeincludedsonsand relativesofthegovernorandasubordinatewhofunctionedasmaå kim,thoughthelatter wasnotnecessarilyrequiredinallinstances.occasionally,thegovernor ssoncouldserve onhisown(e.g.,text265,is1,lagaå).becauseofthepreponderanceofsealsdedicated 8 Withahandfulofexceptions. Gudeasonoftheåagi na appearsasamemberofthecourt(l u 2 m ar-za)in LagaåTexts89and199,andasam aå k i m inlagaåtext112,andthisispresumablythesamegudeawhois elsewherecalledab b a-i ri.seealsolagaåtext156.theå ag i n ahimselfappearsamongcourtentitiesin Text

123 toasinglegovernorandtheirsimultaneoususe,wemayassumethatavarietyofpeople usedtheseals;thegovernorhimselfwasnotnecessarilypresentatthecaseevenifhisname issingularlyinvokedontheditila. 9 Thefrequencyofsuchcitationsandthepreeminencethatgovernorsexertedover cases,coupledwiththefactthatmostoftheircaseswerereportedasconcretelyconcluded disputesintheditilas,mayleadtothesuppositionthatthegovernor sentouragewasnot onlythehighest-rankingcomponentofthisdisputeresolutionsystem,butalsothemost effective,expedient,andsystematic.anoverviewofspecificgovernorsandcomparisonof theirfunctionineitherprovince,however,showsthattheirpowerhadrestrictionsinthe contextofdisputeresolution,theofficehavingrelinquisheditsmonopolyastheprovincial authorityonsettlingcasesandgraduallybecomingoneofmanyofficestocomprisethe court.further,othereliteentitiesmayhavebeenmoreeffectiveagentsofdisputeresolution thantheofficeofthegovernors TheGovernors OfficeatLagaå DuetothecurrentstateofthedataanddegreetowhichtheLagaåprovincial archiveshavebeenrecovered,thegovernorsoflagaå 10 arenotaswellknownasthoseof theummaprovince,butcanbeprovisionallyoutlinedasfollowswithroughdatesoftheir textualattestationsprovided: 9 Forexample,Dahl(2003:158,andseenote402)countsatleast40sealsdedicatedtotheUmmagovernorUr- Lisi.SeealsocitationsinMaekawa1996:127.Nodoubtthehighnumberistheresultofthewell-recovered stateoftheummaarchives. 10 Inactuality,thetitleofthispositionwasusuallyrendered governorofgirsu outsideofthelocalcontext (seesallaberger1999:192,michalowskiforthcoming),butihenceforthanachronisticallyemploylagaå accordingtoscholarlyconvention(e.g.,seeexplanationsinsharlach2004:62orallred2006:106note173). 110

124 Governor: Attested Years of Reign: Attestation in ditilas: Lu-kirizal Åulgi Åu-Sin4 (5years) Ur-Lamma Åulgi33 12 Amar-Sin3 Åulgi Amar-Sin1 (19years) Alla/Alalu 13 Åulgi38-40 Amar-Sin1,5 (~2years) Nanna-ziåagal Amar-Sin4 Åu-Sin1? (~1year) Åarakam Amar-Sin4 Amar-Sin7 Amar-Sin5,6 14,Åu-Sinreferences (3-4years) Arad-Nanna,sukkal m ah Amar-Sin Ibbi-Sin4 16 (6-7yearsormore) Åu-Sin1 Ibbi-Sin2 Table 4.1. Governors of Lagaå. Byfar,thegovernorsUr-LammaandArad-Nannareceivedthehighestvolumeofcitation intheditilas,bothasoverseersofcasesandincitationsofpastcases,intheeventthata pastcasetheyoversawlaterwentbeforeanotherentity.referencestolu-kirizalarevery few, 17 andlittleisknownabouthistenureasgovernoroflagaå,butitisclearthathe oversawcourtcasesbecauseofreferencestohiminditilasdatingtolatergovernorships. Texts13:6,193:23`and205:6,allofwhichcertainlydatetothetimeofÅu-Sinover30 yearsafterlu-kirizal sgovernorship, 18 mentionhim(withhismaåkim)ashaving overseenpreviousmattersassociatedwiththedisputespresentlyaddressedbynew authoritiesintheåu-sinditilaathand. 11 AccordingtoSharlach2004: Or38,accordingtoMaekawa(1996:121). 13 BetweenÅulgi38-40,themanAlla/AlaluisitedasgovernorofGirsuintexts,butitisuncleartomeifhewas areplacementtour-lamma.seetexts43,71:44,or113forcitationsinditilas. 14 Accordingtothefiletag(pi sandub-ba)text AccordingtoMichalowski(forthcoming). 16 ThedeclineandeventuallackofdocumentationfromIbbi-Sin sreignmakesitdifficulttodeterminethe precisedateofterminationforarad-nanna stenureasgovernoroflagaå. 17 Tomyknowledge,onlythebadlybrokenText261containsaditilaofLu-kirizal,seerev.8π-9π:di -t i l -l a l u 2 -ki ri 3 -zal he 2 -sa 6 m aåki m (nootherofficialsarecited). 18 Text205datestoÅu-Sin4;Text193isbroken,butthereferencestothejudgesLu-Åara,Lu-Ibgal,and possiblyur-iåtaran,aswellasashortlistofl u 2 -m ar-zamen,securelydatethetexttothetimeofåu-sinand precludepreviousdates.text13mayalsobesecurelydatedtoåu-sinbasedonthesamejudges.seealsotext 77,whichismoredifficulttodate. 111

125 FarmorecasesareavailablefromthetenureofUr-Lamma,whosecasestypically concludedwithaconcrete,unambiguousconfirmationofadisputant sclaim,often representedbytheverbgin( toconfirm ),andusuallyaftertheperformanceofnamerim 2 oaths,themostcommonlyattestedmethodofconcludingadibyur-lamma s office.inotherwords,ur-lamma sofficedidnotlimititsinvolvementindisputestomere suggestionsaboutevidentiaryprocedureasothercourtofficialsdid,preferringratherto resolvedisputesbyallowingdisputantstodemonstratetheircasesbeforehim.inone instance(text113),theofficeentertainsacasethatwashithertooverseenbymencalled theking sjudges(di-ku 5 lugal),evidentlyexercisingtheauthoritytooverturntheir orders(inim). 19 Text: Date: Involved in Case Prehistory?: Oaths: Case closed: 20 Other Court Entities: 12 Å32 No No Yes Æabazizi wrotethe tablet 208 Å37 No 5/7cases havean oath Maåkim: Lu-igimaåedumuLu- Ningirsu Yes None Ka,[missing],Lugal-irida, Ka,Urgu,Lugal-irida 4 Å39 Unclear Broken Broken Broken Broken 200 Å44 No nam-érim Yes None Ur-BabaåeåUrmes,Lu- NanåedumuEgu,missing 142 Å45 No No Yes Broken Broken 254 S45.8 No nam-érim Yes None BaagadumuLu-Nanåe, AtudumuMalahgal,Urnigar 255 Å47 No nam-érim Yes None [x]-ba-uru,nigmu,[xx], Ur-Lammahimself 22 Å47 No nam-érim Yes None Ur-Baba 184 Å47 No 1 of 2 Yes None Ur-nigar,Ur-Baba cases 20 Å48 No nam-érim Yes None Ur-nigar 135 AS1 No No Yes None Lu-igimaåe,gala 166 AS1 No 1of2 cases Yes None AtudumuLugal-du ure, Unila 177a,b AS1 No A,notb Yes None Lu-Ningirsu,Nimu 43 AS1.4 No nam-érim Yes None AtudumuUr-dumuzi :30-1m ui ni m di -ku 5 l ugal -kaur- d l am a-ke 4 i 3 -kur 2 -ra-c e 3 BecauseUr-Lammachangedthe commandoftheking sjudges 20 Indicatedbytheuseoftheverbgi (n)ort ug --ur. 112

126 207 AS1 No 1of5 cases Yes None Ur-tur,Ur-nigar,Ur-nigar, Ur-[X],Ur-Baba 182 AS2 No 1of2 Yes None Ur-Baba,Ur-guza cases 278 AS3 Yes N/a Yes None Ur-Enkiguzala 205 ÅS5 Yes N/a Unclear Arad-Nanna Ur-BabadumuLu-Lala case1 83 nodate Yes N/a Yes Arad-Nanna Unclear 104 broken mu-lugal gin? missing 112 nodate Yes N/a gin Arad-Nanna Gudeaabaurudumu åagina 128 broken No No Yes None Kala 139 broken No No Yes None Ur-[missing] 150 broken Yes n/a Yes 4judges missing 152 broken Broken nam-érim Yes None Ur-turtur 159 broken No No Yes None missing 187 broken No? nam-érim Yes None AtudumuLugal-du urre, Ur-nigar 196 missing No nam-érim Yes None Ur-mama,Ur-mama,Atu dumuur-dumuzi 210 Missing No 1of10 cases Yes None Ka(3times),Ur- Ensignuna,Niurumragaba(twotimes),missing, Ka,Habazizi Table 4.2. Cases of Ur-Lamma, Governor of Lagaå. BytheyearAmar-Sin3,Ur-Lamma sofficedidnotindependentlyofficiatenew cases,servingratherwithotherentities,andur-lamma snamedisappearsfromtheditilas shortlyafterthistime,exceptforreferencestoseveralofhiscasesthatresurfacedbeforea newofficiatoratalaterdate. DuringthealmosttwodecadesofUr-Lamma sgovernorship,hiswastheonly officetooverseecasesintheprovincialcapital.thatis,incasesoverseenbyur-lamma andhispredecessors,noothercourtentitiesorofficesarecitedinthesamecasewiththatof thegovernor,allowingustoinferthatthegovernor sofficeheldamonopolyoversuch activityinlagaå. 21 Ofcourse,wemayalternativelyinferthatotherentities,suchasjudges, didaddresscasesandthattheseweremerelyunrecordedduringthegovernorshipsofur- 21 Withoneexceptionofcase113,inwhichUr-Lamma sofficewasjoinedbylu-nina,thechiefmusician;see below. 113

127 Lammaandhispredecessors,buteitherway,afterUr-Lamma sofficewasdismantled,the officeofgovernorassumedadifferentpositioninprovincialdisputesettlementatlagaå. WhilethecircumstancesofthetransitionofpowerfromLu-kirizaltoUr-Lammaare somewhatobscure,ithasbecomeincreasinglylikelythatur-lamma slongcareerendedin somestateofturbulence, 22 andhewasreplaced,mostlikelybeforehisdeath,byashort seriesofgovernors(nanna-ziåagalandåarakam)whohadpreviouslyservedintheroyal administration.nanna-ziåagalheldthetitlezabar-dab 5 whileåarakamwasprobablya royallandsurveyor(sagdu 5 lugal)(maekawa1996:122). Itiscertainthatthesetwogovernorswereinvolvedintheconductingofcourt procedures,evenifreferencesarefewandsometimesindirect.nanna-ziåagaliscitedin Text276andText101(datingtoÅu-Sin sreign);inthelatterheiscitedasworkingwith twojudges,alamuandur-iåtaran.åarakamoversawacaseindependentlyintext133 (AS5),buthisofficeisalsocitedashavingsharedresponsibilityoveracasewithAdaga thehazanum( mayor )intext64(ås6). 23 ThefiletagText256(Sollberger1976:437) indicatesthatafileexistedtostoreåarakam scasesduringtheyearamar-sin6. Interestingly,otherditilasdatingbetweentheyearsAmar-Sin3-5referenceneither governor(e.g.,texts140,275,278),suggestinganexpansionorproliferationofauthority overcasesduringthistime. Inotherwords,regardlessofthecircumstancessurroundingUr-Lamma sexitfrom office,theofficeofgovernoroflagaåneverrecovereditsmonopolyoverhearingcasesin theprovincialcapitalafterhisexitfromoffice.overthecourseofamar-sin sreign,the courtsbecameincreasinglymoreflexible,withopeningsformoreparticipantsintheir composition,whiledecisionsofpastandpresentgovernorswerefairgameforcontestation 22 PossiblyassociatedwiththeawkwardtransitionofpowerbetweenÅulgiandAmar-Sin. 23 SeealsoText71(AS5),ZA536307(L11089,datemissing),andText276forotherditilasthatciteapast involvementofgovernoråarakam soffice. 114

128 orrevisitationbyotherentitiesornewgovernors.possibly,ur-lamma sexitfromoffice resultedinachallengetotheofficeofgovernorfromwhichitdidnotrecover,openinga doorformorecompetitionandincreasedpresenceofotherelitefamiliesatcourt proceedings. ThistrendcontinuesthroughoutthereignofÅu-Sin,aftertheGrandVizierArad- Nanna 24 assumedthetitleofgovernoroflagaå(probablyinas8,seesallaberger 1999:192)andhisofficewasinstalledinGirsu possiblybecauseitwas expectedto settlethepoliticalinstabilityingirsuwhichhadbeguninamar-suen2 (Maekawa 1996:122).Arad-Nanna sofficethusattendedcasesdatedfromåu-sin1toibbi-sin2, thoughitisarguablethatitwasinvolvedincasespriortoåu-sin sreignbecauseatleasta fewtextsmentionhimashavingoverseendisputesinthedistantprehistoryoftheditila s case(e.g.,texts87,88,99,allås4).astable4.3shows,casesofarad-nanna soffice typicallyconcludedwithaconcreteconfirmationofstatusratherthananevidentiary directiveoropen-endedsuggestion,similartothecasesofhispredecessorur-lamma,and thusmostofhiscasesresultedintheclosingofdisputes,intheoryatleast.however, Arad-Nanna sditilasalmostneverclosedwithanoath,unlikethoseofur-lamma soffice, suggestingthattheformer sofficepreferredothermethodsofconcludingtheproceedings. 24 OnwhomseeMichalowski(CKUforthcoming).Arad-Nannawasmadesukkal -m ahsometimebetween Åulgi36and41,andthushadalreadybeeninvolvedinstateadministrationlongbeforesettingupofficein Lagaå,whichisalsoverylikelyhistownoforigin.Itranslates u k k al -m ah as GrandVizier accordingto convention,butsharlach(2005:18note5)hascommentedontheproblemswiththistranslation,suggesting instead ChiefSecretary. 115

129 Text: Citation: 11 ditil-laaradd Nanna±ensi 2 -[ka] 25 Date: Officiating Present ditila? 38 Arad- d Nannasukkalmahensi 2 -ka 174 sukkal-mah ÅS2 Firstcase only 87 Arad- d Nannasukkalmahensi 2 88 åuarad- d Nanna sukkal-mahensi 2 -ka 99 åuarad- d Nanna sukkal-mahensi 2 -ka 205 Arad- d Nanna sukkal-mahensi Arad- d Nannasukkalmahensi Arad- d Nannasukkalmahensi Arad- d Nannasukkalmahensi 2 di-bibi 2 - dab 5 In Case Prehistory? Case closed? Maåkim: ÅS1 n/a Ur-Baba dumuur- Lala(w/the judge) Other Entities: Ur-Iåtaran ÅS2 Yes Kala none Lu-Duga Lu-Åara, Lu-Ibgal, Ur-Iåtaran ÅS4 Yes Lugalgiåkimzi dumulugalnamgu ÅS4 Yes Erenda Lu-Åara andur- Iåtaran ÅS4 Yes Ur-Bagara dumuur-x ÅS4 Yes Ur- [missing], Gudeaaba uru,ur- Lamadumu Lumu, Lugaligihuå guzala,and Tiemahta ÅS5 Yes [missing] dumueurbi andgudea abba-iri ÅS5 Yes Ur-Nungala dumuuråagaand Lu-Gudea dumuuråaga ÅS5 Yes [missing], Lu-Gudea, Urbagara, and Lugalgiåki mzi Lu-Åara, Lu-diÑira, andur- Iåtaran Ur-Iåtaran, Lu-diÑira dumu Lugal- barae,ur- Nuna dumu Dada,and Nani gadubba, citedas lumarza Lu-Åara, Ur-Iåtaran, andludiñira 25 Falkenstein(1956)andMolina(2000:116)haveArad- d Nan[nasukkal-mah]ensi 2 -[ka],butaccordingtothe drawing,theresimplyisn troomforsukkal-mah.thedate,ås1isprobable,thoughthetextisbroken. 116

130 27 di-til-lasukkal-mah (Arad- d Nanna) 67 Arad- d Nannasukkalmahensi 2 -ke 4 a 2 in- [ni-dar] 333 Arad 2 -musukkalmah maåkim 57 Arad - Nanna sukkal±-[mah]ensi Lagaå[ -ke ] 83 åuarad- d Nanna sukkal- mah±ensi 2 - ka 112 di[til-laarad- d Nanna sukkal-mahensi 2 -ka] ÅS9 Yes Lugalgiåki mzi IS1 Yes Atudumu Ur-Dumuzi IS2 broke n Not dated broke n Dada, governorof Nippur cited Yes Arad-mu sukkal-mah Yes Abakala dumuurtur? Yes Ur-Lamma dumuur- [missing] Ur-Lamma cited Yes Gudea abba-iri dumu åagina Yes 168 [xx]sukkal-mah ÅS X 1? 186x igisukkal-mah broke Unclear n/a ZA53 565(L 11050) åu±arad- d Nanna± [sukkal-mah]ensi 2 - [ka] n Broke n Unclear unclea r Missing Table 4.3. Cases Overseen by Arad-Nanna, Governor of Lagaå, Grand Vizier. Moreover,unlikepreviousLagaågovernorships,Arad-Nanna sofficerarely None Lu-Åara, Lu- Ningirsu?, andludiñiraa, plusat leastto lumarza Nippur governor none Ur-igalim åitimand Lugalsigbu dumuan- [missing] arelu 2 - mar-za None? Missing officiatedcasesalonebutwasmoreregularlyaccompaniedbyoneormorejudgesandother kindsofentities.duringthereignofåu-sin,arad-nanna sofficeservedwithahighlyattestedgroupofjudgeswhohandledthemajorityofcasesfromlagaåatthattime(see below),andbythereignofibbi-sin,thisofficealsoservedinconnectionwithgroupsof elitemencalledlu 2 -mar-za(seebelow),eventhoughmanyofthejudgeswerestillactive andpresentatmanycases.theinstallationofarad-nanna svizierateofficeatlagaådid 117

131 resultinatake-overofdisputeresolution;localeliteswerenonethelessabletorivalhis presenceinthecourtsandretainthepreeminencetheyestablishedafterthedemiseordeath ofur-lamma Number of Cases Total 2 0 Year Figure 4.1. Number of Cases Officiated by Ur-Lamma and Arad-Namma at Lagaå. Inspiteofthepossibleinstabilityoftheinvolvementofthegovernor sofficein Lagaåcases,itshouldbenotedthatcertainaspectsoftheofficeremainedconstant.Allof thelagaågovernorsworkedwithalimitedrangeofofficialswhofilledthefunctionof maåkim.lu-kirizalisprobablylinkedwiththesamemaå kiminallhiscitations,urnumun-du 10 -ga(texts193,205).theofficesofbothåarakamandnanna-ziåagalare linkedwithamaåkimcalledsada(sa 6 -da,seetext276).althoughtheofficesofur- LammaandArad-Nannahaddifferentmethodsforapproachingcases,theysharedthehabit ofworkingwithalimitedrangeofpersonswhofilledthefunctionofmaå kim.ur-lamma 118

132 repeatedlyservedwithka(ka 5 -a),thesukkal(texts208,210),ur-nigar(texts20,184, 207,254),andUr-Baba(22,182,184,207),amongothers,whileArad-Nannaworkedin thecompanyofonelugal-gizkimziseveraltimes(texts27,87,204).itisfurther interestingtonotethat,accordingtoseveralexamples,ur-lammaandarad-nanna encounteredsomeofthesamepersonsintheirroleasmaå kim.atusonofur-dumuzi actedasmaå kimunderbothur-lammaandarad-nanna(text196,datemissingand Text67,IS1,respectively),asdidGudeaabauru(Text112,datemissing,andText205, ÅS4)andpossiblyamannamedKala(Text128,datemissing,andText38,ÅS2, respectively).ur-lamma slastofficiatedcasedatestotheyearamar-sin3,indicatingthat theinvolvementofthesemenwiththecourtsspannedatimeaslongas,ifnotmore,thana decade TheGovernors OfficeatUmma Umma sgovernorsinthelatterhalfoftheuriiiperiod(thebrothersur-lisi, A(a)kala, 26 anddadaga)arebetterdocumentedandmoreprevalentlyrepresentedinthe ditilas.theirreignsspannedthisperiodasfollows: Beforeheassumedthegovernorship,thenamewasAkala,butitwaschangedtothespellinga-a-kal -l a duringas8,renderedin amoreformalizedstyle (Maekawa1996:128). 27 SeeDahl2003:153ff.or2007forthemostrecentoverviewsoftheUmmagovernors.Iexcludethegovernor Abamuandotherearliergovernorsfromthistable,sinceAbamuandtheothersarenotattestedintheditilasand remainpoorlyknown.theenddateofdadaga sreignispostulatedtobeibbi-sin2or3,butofcoursethe significantdeclineofdocumentationearlyinibbi-sin sreignmakesitdifficultorimpossibletoproposeadate withanycertainty.thescanttextsfromibbi-sin4donotmentionanygovernorsandshednolightonthe matter. 119

133 Ur-Lisi Ayakala Dadaga Governor: Attested Years of Reign: Attestation in ditilas: Åulgi33 28 Amar-Sin8 Amar-Sin2-6 (20+years) Amar-Sin8 Åu-Sin7 Amar-sin8,Åu-Sin2,4 (8years) Åu-Sin7 Ibbi-Sin2orafter Referencesundated (5+years) Table 4.4. Governors of Umma. AftertheyearAmar-Sin2,theditilasourcesdeclinetocitethespecificname, preferringigiensi 2 -(ka)-åe 3, beforethegovernor, instead(seemolina2008:136). Thus,onlyUr-Lisiisroutinelycitedbyname,beforeAmar-Sin2.Assuch,textsthatcitea governor sinvolvementinapreviousprocedureortransactionrelevanttotheproceedings athandleaveitimpossibletoknowwhichgovernorismeant.ayakalaisotherwise mentionedinonlyoneditilarecord(text356),whichbearshisseal,anddadagais explicitlymentionedonlyonceaswellinthebadlybrokentext354. HencemostoftheexplicitattestationsofanUmmagovernormentionUr-Lisi,but thisisundoubtedlyafunctionofthisshiftinpracticeandhislengthytenure. 29 Thetotal numberofcasesattendedbyagovernoratlagaåaccountforlessthan22%ofthetotal attestedcases,whileummagovernorsappearinroughlyhalfofthecasesfromthis province,possiblysuggestingthattheummagovernorshadamoreregularroleindispute resolution,butofcoursethismayalsobeduetothecurrentstateofdocumentation.inany case,umma sgovernorsdidnotattendcasesindiscernablepatterns,andcouldserveeither aloneorinthecompanyofalargeentouragecomposedoflocalorroyalofficials. Consequently,itismoredifficulttoidentifytheirroleinthecourts. Nonetheless,Molina s(forthcoming,andseealsodahl2007)comprehensive analysisofcourtofficialsatummaoutlinesseveralimportantcharacteristicsofthe 28 BasedonDahl s(2003:154f.)overviewoftheevidencesuggestingthatur-lisiretainedthetitleof chiefof thegranary beforeshulgi33andwasthereforenotgovernorpriortothisdate.thepreciseascensionof Ayakalatogovernorshipremainsotherwiseobscureduetolackofdocumentation. 29 Perhapsunusually,seeMichalowski1985:

134 appearanceofumma sgovernorsinthetexts.forone,whilelagaågovernorsstoodwith, butindistinctionto,judgesasaseparatetypeofentity,theummagovernorur-lisi explicitlytookthetitleof judge onseveraloccasions, 30 andinthesecasesnootherperson atthecourttookthistitle.accordingtotheummatextstext285andtext110(both Amar-Sin5),forexample,Ur-Lisitookthetitleofjudgeinsomecases,inwhichinstances thetextsdidnotmentionhisstatusasgovernorofummaeventhoughtheydateto squarelywithinur-lisi stenureassuch.secondly,liketheofficesofthelagaå governors,thoseoftheummagovernorsservedwithpeopledrawnfromarelatively limitedpooloftheprovincialadministrationandrepeatappearanceswerenotuncommon. Ur-Lisiwasevenjoinedbyhisownfamilymembersinseveralcases(e.g.,hisbrother Akalanu-banda 3 ).Finally,mostofthecasesoverseenbytheUmmagovernors concludedwithadefinitiveconfirmationofstatus,expressedbybothlanguageofclosing (til)ofadi,andtheverbgin toconfirm. ItthusappearsthatboththeUmmaandLagaå gubernatorialofficespreferredtosettledisputesconclusivelyratherthanofferpreliminary proceduralcoursesofactionforthedisputants(asintheso-calleddinutilas). Umma spoliticalhistoryandrelationtotheroyalhouseholdalsoshedsomelight ontheroleofthegovernorsinprovincialdisputeresolution.likeur-lammaoflagaå,ur- Lisimayhavebeenthesubjectofapoliticaloccurrencethatresultedintheterminationof hisofficeasgovernorandsubsequentdismantlingofhishouseholdproperty(maekawa 1996:126f.,Dahl2003:165f.);theseeventsseemtocorrelatetothedownfallofAmar-Sin andthecomplicationsapparentinthetransferofpowerbetweenhimandåu-sin(onwhich seelafont1994,michalowski1977).coincidingwiththeonsetofur-lisi sprobable demiseandstartingaroundamar-sin5,theevidenceexhibitsasuddenandsubstantial increaseintheaveragenumberofofficialswhoservedoncasesatumma.thistrend 30 Ur-Lisidi -ku 5 :Text110,Text312,andText285,allAS5. 121

135 continuesuntiltheendofthedocumentationandur-lisi sbrothersandsuccessorsrarely servedoncasesalone. Itthusappearsthataruptureinthegovernor sofficeatummaresultedina proliferationofpoweroverdisputecases,muchlikeatlagaå,andthatthebreakservedas anopportunityforavarietyoflocalandprovincialelitestocompeteforrelevanceand authorityatcourt.incontrasttothedatafromlagaå,however,therearefewintelligible patternsofpreferencesforprocedureintheummacases,perhapsowingtothe unpredictableandsharednatureofauthorityoverseeingthesecases TheGovernor sofficeinsummary Thefollowingchartsummarizesthechangesincourtsizeinrelationtothe governorsofummaandlagaåduringthelatterhalfoftheuriiiperiod: Girsu Umma Figure 4.2. Average Number of Officials Per Year at Umma and Lagaå Theaveragewascalculatedbycompilingallcasesfromasingleyearandtotalingthenumberofpresent entitiesincluding:governor,judges,l u 2 -m ar-zaandl u 2 ki -bagub-bamen,andmenlistedashaving witnessedtheproceedings before them(igi-pn-e 3 ).AtLagaå,thetotalnumberofofficiators(andtherefore theaverage)beforeas4is1;atumma,someyearshadanomalouslyhadmorethanoneofficiatorlisted(e.g., Text328,Å39,hasagovernorandtwohigh-rankingofficialsfromthestategovernment). 122

136 Inbothprovinces,albeitinverydifferentpoliticalcontextsrelatingtothespecific circumstancessurroundingthefatesofur-lammaandur-lisi,thegovernorshipsof UmmaandLagaålosttheirmonopoliesoverdecision-makingandtheirexclusive entitlementtosupervisedi-procedures.thisweakeningortransformationofauthority coincidedwiththecreationofopportunitiesforvariousmembersoftheprovincialeliteto participate,atleastinthecontextofresolvingdisputesoftheprovincialcitizens.these changesmayhavebeentheindirectresultsofripplesemanatingfrompolitical developmentsinthecapital,butthisdoesnotprecludethepossibilitythatprovincialorstate officialsmayalsohave authorized theproliferationofpoweronceitwasunderwayin ordertoallowlocalelitesasenseofparticipationin,andthereforeloyaltyto,thestateand provincialrulers. Whateverthecase,itisnotdemonstrablethatthegovernors decisionswerebinding orenforceable,andcasesexistfrombothprovincesinwhichdisputantsreturnedtocourtto challengethegovernor sdecisionorevensuccessfullyoverturnit.therearepresumably manycontextsinwhichthesepossibilitiescouldoccur,buttwoareespeciallynoticeablein thecorpuses.ontheonehand,itappearsthatontheoccasionofachangeofgovernor, disputantscouldbringcasesanewbeforethenewgovernortoseekadifferentoutcome (e.g.,text205case1).thepossibilitythatgovernors officesandestateswereauditedor inventorieduponthechangeofhandproposedbymaekawa(1996,seealsodahl 2003:177),coupledwiththelikelihoodthatsocialaffiliationswouldexperience renegotiationsduringaperiodofpoliticalturnoverindicatesthatsuchacontextcouldalso beappropriateforrevisitingdecisionsorcasesoftheoldgovernor. Ontheotherhand,afterthetenuresofUr-LammaandUr-Lisi,disgruntled disputantscouldignorethegovernor sofficealtogetherandtaketheircasesbeforethe officesofrelativelylower-rankingofficials(e.g.,lagaåtext11).hencethereareseveral 123

137 casesthat,havingoncebeenaddressedbeforeagovernor,returnedtobedeliveredbefore judges,importantbutlower-rankingmembersoftheprovincialadministration(e.g.,from LagaåTexts13,64,67,71,88,99),whilemanyjudgesabidedbythedecisionofthe governorinplace(sometimesinthecompanyofamaå kimfromthepreviousdiasintext 41),therearecasesinwhichtheyentertainedchallengestothepreviousgovernor s decision(e.g.,texts83,150,205case1).casescouldalsobeleveledagainstthe governorhimself,asinthelagaåcaseoftext67(is1)inwhicharad-nannawas accusedofhavingmisappropriatedaslave.interestingly,thiscasewasofficiatedbythree judgeswho,inpreviousyears,hadservedasarad-nanna scolleaguesinthehearingof cases. Insum,whileitmayseemreasonabletoassumethattheprovincialgovernors, positionedatoptheprovincialsocio-politicalladder,wereideallytheultimateandmost powerfuljudgesofdisputecases,theirpresenceatcaseswaslimitedinfrequencyandin theamountofpowertheywereabletoeffectivelywieldoverthecourseoftheperiod,and Arad-Nanna,evenasVizier,wasnoexception.Theirpresencewaspresumably formidable,butcheckedandchallengedbytheotherkindsofofficialsfromthelocal aristocraticcommunity,whoservedwiththemandwithinthesamesystem Judges(di-ku 5 ) BecauseofthepreeminenceofjudgesindÏnu(legalcases,decisions)ofthelatter twomillenniaofmesopotamianhistory,itiseasytoassumethatearlymesopotamian courtssimilarlyrevolvedaroundprestigiouspersonsidentifiedasjudges, 32 butinfactthe roleandimportanceofjudgesduringtheuriiiperiodneedsreconsiderationbecause judgeswerenotprevalentinthecasesofummaditilas,norintheeconomic,administrative, 32 ForanoverviewofthetopicofjudgesinMesopotamia,seeFortner1997:173ff.,thecontributionsinSkaist andlevinson(2006),wilcke2007:35ff.,hertel2007:374f. 124

138 andlegalrecordsoftheuriiiperiodasawhole,havingnotevenbeenattestedbeforethe reignofamar-sin(seemolinaforthcomingandfalkenstein1956:32). 33 Eventhough judgesarefrequentlycitedinlagaåcases,especiallyduringthereignofåu-sin,thefact thattherearecasesfrombothprovincialcapitalsthatweresettledwithoutreferencetoany judgesfurtherlimitstheirsignificance.becauseothershavealreadydiscussedthe philologicalmatterssurroundingthetermdi-ku 5 judge (e.g.,edzard2005:20ff.),this discussionwillfocusontheroleofuriiijudgesinthecontextofdisputesettlement. CentraltoanyunderstandingofthejudgesoftheUrIIIperiodisthematterofwhat thetermortitledesignates(onwhichseewestbrook2005:29f.).withagreatervolumeof textualmaterialtoconsult,scholarsoftheoldbabylonianperiod(e.g.,walther1917:7ff.; DriverandMiles1956:491)developedthesuppositionthatjudgesweremembersofa professionaloffice,butitisnowmorefrequentlyassumedthatthepositionofjudgein manyperiodsofmesopotamiansocietywasafunctionratherthanapermanentoffice, usuallyundertakenbyelitemembersofsociety,afternoevidenceforajudicialcourseof studyhasbeenidentified(e.g.,kraus1982,fortner1997,westbrook2005:38). 34 Indeed, judgingwasregardedasaninseparablepartofanofficial sduties,eveninofficesthat wouldseempurelyadministrativeincharacter (Westbrook2005:38),andthusitneednot beconsideredtheprimaryprofessionalroleofanofficialthatrequiredspecifictraining. Unfortunately,theditilasrarelyprovidepatronymicswhenrenderingthenamesofpersons 33 Molina(forthcoming)counts65judgesintheentireUrIIIcorpus,only41ofwhomappearinwhatwemay call proceduralrecords. Inotethatmostofthesejudgesarementionedonlyonceinthedocumentation,and thosewhoarecitedonmultipleoccasionsarefromthesamerestrictedgroups. 34 Eveniftherewerecommonprotocolsor codes forhowpersonsactingasjudgeswouldoperateeffectively (S.Lafont2000:33),thereissimplynoevidencefor legal trainingintheuriiiperiod.whileforerunnersto thelexicalseriesana ittiåumayexist,theseriesdatestothemiddlebabylonianperiodandknownexemplars datetothefirstmillenniumbce.tablets1and2ofur 5.RA=hubulluindeedcontainlegalphraseologyand terminologyofcreditsandloans,butitisonlythesubsequenttabletsoftheseriesthatdatetooldbabylonian Nippurschools(contraRenger2008:193);Hallothusstatedthatthefirsttwotabletsarea separate composition (Hallo1982:85f.).NoNippurforerunnerstotheseriesexist,againcomplicatingtheideaofan earlymesopotamiantraditioninlegaltraining(michalowski, Thestudyof Law and Legal Phraseologyin OldBabylonianSchooling, paperpresentedatthe53 rd RencontreAssyriologiqueInternationale,July19 th, 2006,Münster.). 125

139 identifiedasjudges,impedingspecificidentificationofmostofthesepersonsoroftheir regularofficialprofessions.furthercomplicatingtheideathatdi-ku 5 judge, wasa designationusedinthecontextofcourtprocedure,thereareatleastthreetextsknowntome inwhichthenameofanummajudgeisaccompaniedbythetitleoutsidethecontextof courtprocedure.aroyaldeliverytextfromdrehemmentionsalambdeliveryof Luamana,judge, listedalongwithotherhigh-rankingfiguressuchasthegovernordada, andseveralmerchantsandåabras(sigrist,ontario128rev.15;ås5.7.13), 35 andthis judgeisalsocitedwiththetitleinoip12183(drehem,as5.3.26;seealsomvn10217, AS3).TheUmmajudgeKiaÑissimilarlycitedintheDrehemeconomictextPDT1433 (Å ),inwhichhisdonationofanimalstotheAkitufestivalisdocumented. However,theuseofthetitleoutsideoflitigiouscontextsisattestedintextsfromother Mesopotamianperiods, 36 andwestbrook(1995:30)hassuggestedthattheterm might thereforecoveravarietyofsituations, notlimitedtowhatweconsider litigious contexts. 37 Indeed,itisessentialtonotethatjudgesintheprovincialcourtsoftheUrIIIperiod typicallydidnotmake judgments ;inabsenceoftheruleoflaw,thetaskofajudgewas nottoascertainageneraltheoryoflawanddeductivelyapplyittotheparticularsetting presentbeforehim. 38 Asthepreviouschapterhasexplained,thejudge spurposewas generallyrestrictedtohearingtestimoniesorprescribingmethodsforsettlingdisputes, assessingdamagesandrecompense,andobservingthedisputantsastheyattemptedto demonstratethevalidityoftheirstatements.whiletheseactivitiesmayhaveinvolved 35 AlmostcertainlythesameLu-amanawhoactedasjudgeatUmma.SeeMVN18635and below. 36 E.g.,seeWiseman(1953/1983)6:31and56:48fortwoexamplesfromAlalakh.SeealsoWestbrook 2005:29note5. 37 SeealsoText3,whichcitesamemberofal u m ar-zalistnamed Ur-Baba,sonofUr-åaga,judge., with fourotherjudgeslistedseparately.lu-diñira,anoft-citedjudgeatlagaå,isaccompaniedbythetitleindrehem texticp376(tru376). 38 Thematterofthenatureandroleofjudgesiscomplicatedforanycontext;seeBenditt1978:1-3,15ff. 126

140 tacticalsavvy,wisdom,andanacutesenseofthecommunity sopinionsandvalues,the ultimategoalofuriiijudgeswasmerelytoconfirmclaimsratherthantoestablishthe theoreticalparametersaroundwhichacasewouldrevolveortojustlyrepresentalegislated bodyofrulesforthesakeofsocietyasawhole.giventhesefactors,itisunclearhowa judgewasanydifferentfromanyeliteofficialwhopresidedovertheexecutionofadi,and whysomepersonsretainedthedesignationincourtswhileothersdidnot.acomparison ofjudgesatummaandlagaåmayshedsomelightonthesematters TheJudgesatLagaå Therearearound17attestedjudgesfromLagaådisputerecords,thelargestnumber ofknownjudgesfromanyuriiiprovince. 39 Falkenstein s(1956:32ff.)comprehensive andsystematicdiscussionofthesejudgesstillstandsastheauthoritativeconsideration. TherearenocitedjudgesbeforeAmar-Sin3,beforewhichtimeallcasesoftheprovincial capitalweretheexclusiveconcernofthegovernor soffice.aftertheshiftofpowerfrom Ur-Lammatohissuccessors,however,officialsassumingthetitleofjudgeproliferate.Of thesejudges,byfarthemostfrequentlyattestedarelu-diñira,lu-åara,lu-ibgal,andur- Iåtaran.Thesefourmen(ortheiroffices)attendedcasesinvariousconfigurationswith eachotherandvariousotherentitiesduringthelatterhalfofamar-sin sreign,butduring theearlyreignofåu-sintheyattendedcasesasanexclusivecollege.lu-ibgaldisappeared sometimearoundåu-sin4,possiblyhavingdied,andwasgraduallyreplacedbyåu-ili withinthreeorfouryears;howeveroftenlu-ibgal ssurvivingcolleaguesservedasatriad withoutreplacinghim. 39 ComparedtofourfromUmma,threefromNippur,andthreefromUr,and10judgesarelistedonthe problematictext355fromummathatseeminglydocumentsadisputefromur.theimbalanceinthese numbersiscertainlyskewedbythedifferentialdocumentationavailabletoscholars,butisnonethelessstriking. SeeMolina(forthcoming). 127

141 AsAppendix2indicates,therewereseveralotherofficialswhoworkedinclose connectionwiththesejudges.gudeaabauruiscitedwiththemasjudge,maå kim,orin othertypesoffunctions(seefalkenstein1956:36).theofficialstiemahta,ur-lamma dumukala,andabamurepeatedlyactedasthemaå kimforthesejudgesoveraperiodof almosttwodecades.similarly,sometimesthejudgesthemselvescouldassumeavarietyof functions,aswhen,forexample,ur-iåtaranactedasbothjudgeandmaå kiminasingle case(text279).groupsofmenidentifiedaslu 2 -mar-zaappearedalongsidejudgesin someinstances,and,ofcourse,lagaåjudgeswouldattendcasesinthecompanyofthe governorarad-nanna,asdiscussedabove. TherelationshipbetweenjudgesandgovernoratLagaåmaysuggestthatthetwo sharedinterestsineachother sofficesandcouldactinterchangeablyintheconductingofa di.whilemanyoftheabove-citedexamplessupportthisinterpretation,therearesome examplesthatdonotfullyaccordandwherejudgesoverturnedthegovernor sdecisions (seetext101?)orviceversa.thedecisionoftheåu-sinjudgestosettleacaseagainst Arad-Nanna sofficeintheibbi-sin1text67,forexample,suggestsanunstable relationshipbetweenjudgesandgovernor,butperhapsthisoccurrenceisnotrepresentative ofallinteractionsamongtheseoffices. ItisclearthatLagaåjudgesservedaloneonlyrarely,butrathercooperatedin groupsofuptosevenmembersatatime.avarietyoffactorsislikelytohavedictatedthe presenceorabsenceofanyonejudgefromonecasetothenext,assumingthattheirservice asjudgeswastangentialtotheotherprofessionalandadministrativeresponsibilitiesof thesemen. Owingtosuchvariationsintheirattendanceincourt,therearesomeidentifiable differencesincertainjudges approachestosolvingcases.forexample,thejudgelu-åara, onememberoftheåu-sin-erafoursome,appearstohavebeentheonlyjudgeamongall 128

142 Lagaåjudgesorofficiatingentitieswhosepresencecorrespondswiththeuseofthe proceduralactgur, toreject. Itisnotclearwhatspecificprocedureswereinvolvedwith thisact,butitusuallyreferstoeitherawitnessstatementoranoathandwasoftenfollowed byanam-erim 2 oathornewstatementfromthedisputantwhosepositionwasrejected. Withtwoexceptions(UmmaText51[AS5]andText377[undated]),alloccasionsofa guroccurredinthereignofåu-sinandallofthesecaseswereaddressedbylu-åarainhis capacityofjudge.thatis,ifthecollegeofjudgesservedwithoutlu-åara,thegurwould notoccur,butifhewaspresent,theactcouldappearintheprocedure.thereasonforthis correspondenceisdifficulttodetermine,butitispossiblethatthejudges officesatlagaå haddifferentrespectiveinterestsoratleastvaryingstylesofapproachingcasesevenwhen theyservedascolleges TheJudgesatUmma AtUmma,incontrasttoLagaå,onlyafewjudgesareknowninspiteofthepresent extentofthecorpus.judgeswhoareattestedasbeingphysicallypresentatummacases, otherthanthegovernorur-lisi,arekiañ, 40 Lu-amana, 41 Ur-sagamu 42.Aba-Enlilginis attestedinacoupleofcasesfromnippur(nrvn11,as1)andur(text355),thelatter ofwhichalsoincludeslu-amana,butoneummacasementionsthataba-enlilgin s maå kimattendedacaseinumma(text280),suggestingthatmoredocumentationwould confirmaba-enlilgin spresenceinthisprovince.themostsignificantdifferencebetween 40 KiaÑ:StudiesSigrist116,17.KiaÑiscitedashavingoverseendisputesorwitnessedrelevanttransactionsin thecaseprehistoryinsnat374(text269,as6),undatedtext308(unpublished)withthemaåkimlu-sin, Text312(AS5,unpublished),Text377(JohnsonandVeenkerforthcoming),andText316(AS5, unpublished);intheseinstanceshedoesnottakethetitle judge. 41 Lu-amana:Text49(AS2),Text203(AS7.4.0),andMM928(+)943(seeMolina1996).PossiblyalsoBM (unpublished),i gi l u 2 -am a-na-åe 3,eventhoughheisherenotqualifiedas judge. CitedinnonlitigiousDrehemtextsOntario128,OIP2183,andMVN 10217,citedas judge ineachinstance.seealso Text355(UmmadisputeresolvedinUr). 42 Ur-sagamu:Christie stabletcitedasbdtnsno.59331,probablyfromumma:i gi ur-sa 6 -ga-m udi - ku 5 -åe 3 (line3). 129

143 theummaandlagaåjudgesisthattheformerdidnotserveincolleges,andonlyonejudge maybecitedpercase,sometimesasoneofmany bystanders (lu 2 ki-bagub-ba,see below).asingleexceptionisfoundinthecollectivetablettext203,inwhichlu-amana serveswithtwootherjudges,ur-muandnigarkidu,whoareotherwiseunattested.itis likelythatthistextdocumentscaseshandledoutsidetheprovincialcontext,sinceitreports thatallproceedingsweresupervisedunderanentitywhowasaffiliatedwiththecrown (gir 3 Åeå-kal-lau 3 ur- d nin-giz-zi-dagu-za-la 2 ).Interestingly,theUmmajudges rarelytookthetitle judge inthecontextofumma sditilarecords,assumingthetitlein non-litigiouscontextsinstead,particularlyineconomicdocumentsfromdrehemthatare citedabove. EveniftheactivitiesofjudgeswerelimitedinUmma,however,itcanbesuggested thatmanyofumma sjudgeswerepreoccupiedwithcasesfromotherprovincesorother politicalbusinessoftheprovincialadministration.kiañoversawatleastonepromissory oath inhishouse accordingtotheummatext342(bct2156)leftedge: ur-sa 6 -ga-mudam-gar 3 kiåibba-sa 6 -gana-me ki-nanu-gal 2 -la niñ 2 -na-menu-u 3 -da-an-tuku-a mu-lugal-biin-pad 3 igia-tudumuni 9 -Ñar-ki-du 10 -ka-åe 3 rev. igilu 2 -diñira-radumulu 5 -lu 5 -mu-ka-åe 3 igiur- d geåtin-an-kadumuåeå-kal-la-ka-åe 3 igiur-lugallu 2 inim- d åara 2 -ka-åe 3 igia 2 -nin-ga 2 -taguda 2 d nin-us 2 -KALUMka-åe 3 mu d amar- d sinlugal leftedge: åa 3 e 2 ki-añ 2 di-ku 5 -ka Ur-sagamuthemerchantswearsbythekingthat: anyseal(eddocument)ofbaåagaisnotathisplace, andthatnoonewilltake/haveit. BeforeAtusonofNiÑarkidu, BeforeLu-diÑiraasonofLulumu, BeforeUr-gestin-ankasonofÅeåkala, BeforeUr-lugalthewitnessofÅara, BeforeAningata,theguda-priestofNinusKALAM. Amar-Sin1. InthehouseofKiaÑthejudge. BecausethetextisfromUmma,itmaybeimpliedthatKiaÑ shousehold,oratleast hisadministrativeoffice,waslocatedthere.however,theummareceiptbpoa22183 (Å34,seeJohnsonandVeenker,forthcoming)recordsatransferofpropertybelongingto 130

144 KiaÑ swife(igi-kar 2 damki-ag 2 di-ku 5 -ra 2 -a,line4)fromummatour.this, combinedwiththeabove-citeddocumentfromdrehem(pdt1433),suggeststhatkiañ s affiliationsandofficialactivitieswerenotrestrictedtoumma.lu-amanasimilarly participatedintransactionsthatextendedbeyondumma sborders,whileaba-enlilgin,as mentionedabove,servedcasesinurandnippurevenifheisotherwiseassociatedwith Umma. Inshort,Ummajudgeshadstatusesthattranscendedthelocalarena,unlikethe Lagaåjudges,whoseemtohavebeenmoreintimatelyconnectedwiththeirlocal communityanditsaristocracy,appearingmorefrequentlyincasesandinclosercompany withotherpeople UmmaandLagaåJudgesinSummary ThetitleofjudgewasusedindifferentwaysinLagaåandUmma,butappears outsideofscopeofthegovernors officeonlyaftertheexitsofgovernorsur-lammaand Ur-Lisi.WhileitseemsthatasmallvarietyofLagaåjudgessharedthetitlewithina restrictedcircle,theummagovernorsecuredthetitleforhimself;theonlyotherofficials called judge primarilyusedthetitleoutsideofthisprovince.possibly,officialswhowere affordedtheprivilegeofservingasjudgewerehesitanttosharethetitleintheincreasingly competitiveenvironmentthatwasdevelopingduringthereignsofamar-sinandåu-sin.it isindeednoteworthythat,whentheofficeofgovernorandgrandvizierarad-nanna begantoattendcases,hedidnotorcouldnottakethetitle judge butwasmoreorless restrictedtoservingintheircompanyasaseparatetypeofcourtentity. Proceduralidiosyncrasiesshowthattherewerepersonalpreferencesatoddsinthe proceedings,where,forexample,arad-nannararelyentertainedconclusiveoathsattheend ofdi,whilelu-åarawaswillingtoallow orwillingtosuggest rejections(gur)to 131

145 statements.meanwhileatumma,thegovernorsattemptedamonopolyonthetitleof judge, evensometimesattheexpenseoftheirtitleofens i,andnocollegesofjudgesare knownsaveforthatdocumentedintext203,whichprobablyreportsacasethatwas handledoutsidetheauspicesoftheprovincialadministration Themaå kim TheAdministrativeFunctionofthemaå kim SeeminglythemostubiquitousfunctionintheUrIIIcourts,thepurposeofthe maå kimisnotoriouslydifficulttounderstandandthetermresistsaprecisetranslation. Sigrist(1995)suggested bailiff whilefalkenstein(1956:47ff.[esp.54],1957:139) adoptedtheterm commissar (renderedkommisär)withitsconnotationsofinstitutional leadershipandministerialcharge.thistermisalsofavoredbypomponio( commessario, 2008:121),B.Lafont(1996:43),andEdzardandWiggerman(1989:449ff.),whoadded thatthetermcanalsobeunderstoodas Anwalt (lawyer)or Sachwalter (trustee).b. Lafontgoessomewhatfurther,suggestingthatthemaå kimwasan auxiliaredejustice (1996:43).Anyoftheserenderingsimportproblematicanachronisms,however,and affordtheoccupantofthispositionmoreadministrativepowerintheuriiicasesthancan besupportedbythetextualsources.itcannotbeshownthatthemaå kimofacase introducednewinformation,arguedsides,orperformedanydirectiveroleincases,which wereconductedratherbydisputantsbeforetheofficesofgovernors,judges,andother figures.itisthusbetterunderstoodthatamaå kimwasafunctionratherthanapermanent occupationattachedtothehigh-rankingtiersofthebureaucracy.infact,scholarsnowopt toleavethetermhalf-translated,renderingit,forexample, maå kim-official (e.g.,allred 2006:passim),butitmaybemoreappropriatetoleavetheterminSumerianasthereisno equivalenttitleinthemodernworldandsince,whiletheoccupantofthepositionofthe 132

146 maå kimmayhavebeenanofficial,itwasnotthetemporaryfunctionofmaå kimthat renderedhimso. Inanycase,thesametitleisubiquitousineconomictextsoftheUrIIIperiod, wherethetermclearlyreferstoapersonwhowitnessedtransactions,deliveries, withdrawals,exchanges,orsales,andpreservedamemoryofsuchdealingsforfuture reference(seeoh e1983,vandemieroop1987:97ff.).inspiteofthefrequencyofthe terminsuchtexts,however,fewstudieshaveexplicitlyentertainedtheideathatperhapsthe maå kimoftheditilasservespreciselythesamejob thatofobserving,remembering,and, byextension,extendinglegitimacytothetranspiredevents. Thatthemaå kimheldthisroleintheditila-records,however,isespeciallyevident ininstanceswhenacase,alreadyoncepresentedtojudgesandsettled,resurfacedfora secondorthirdtimeeitherbecauseapartyfailedtoupholdtheobligationsestablishedinthe firstroundofproceedings,orbecauseoneorbothpartiesfoundthepreviousdecisions illegitimate,disagreeable,orpossibletochangeunderanewauthorityfigure.onsuch occasions,theentitieschargedwithaddressingthepetitioners claimsdidnotconsultthe archivesforthewrittenrecordofforegoingproceedings,butrathersummonedpersons whowerepreviouslyinvolved.text276(1π-rev.3)fromlagaå,reportingaseriesof casesconcerningthesaleofsomeproperty,illustratesthepoint: 43 [di-til-la] [fewlinesbroken] GIÅGAL-[di-åe3] 44 in-åi-s[a 10 -abi-du 11 -ga] ur-åa 6 -ga-[a] dubga 2 -nunsa 10 -a-binu-mu-da-du-a i 3 -bi 2 -lagišgal-di-da-ke 4 -ne ba-ne-a-sum-ma åa 6 -damaåkim di-til-la d Nanna-zi-åa 3 -gal 2 ensi 2 -ka ur-åa 6 -ga [Closedcase:] Ur-åagasaid: Ibought[astorehouseforxprice]from Giågaldi. Ur-åagadidnotbringthetabletofthisstorehouse sale. ItwasgiventotheheirsofGiågaldi. Åadawasthem aåki m. ItwastheditilaofNanna-ziåagal,governor. 43 SeealsoLafontandWestbrook(2003:196),whociteText160(Lagaå).Moreexamplesmaybefoundin Lagaåtexts41,121,138,and,fromUmma,seeText308,Text312,andText OnGIÅGAL-di,seeFalkenstein1957:36n.2andMolina2004:text3. 133

147 di-daba-a-gi 4 -a diga 2 -nun-ka ba-an-tak 4 -a i 3 -bi 2 -lagiågal-di-da-ke 4 -ne ba-ne-a-gi-na åa 6 -damaåkim di-til-la d åara 2 -kamensi 2 -ka Ur-åagareturnedwiththecase,andthecaseofthe storehouseremained(asitwas).theheirsofgiågaldi confirmedit. Åadawasthem aåki m. ClosedcaseofÅarakam,governor. Thistextreportsadisputebetweentheheirsof(theundoubtedlydeceased)Giågaldianda mannamedur-åaga.evidently,ur-åagaclaimstohavepurchasedastorehouse(ga 2 - nun)fromgiågaldi,butcannotsupporthisclaimtothesatisfactionoftheotherparties. Thetextreportsthat,inthepast,Ur-åagatwiceattemptedtobringthemattertocourt,and themaå kimforthesepreviousproceedings,åada,iscitedinbothcases.however, betweentheoccurrencesofthesetwocases,alocalregimechangehadtranspired:the governornanna-ziåagal sofficeoversawthefirstcasebutåarakam soffice,rather, attendedthesecond.perhapstheregimechangeaccountsforur-åaga ssecondattemptin court.inanycase,becauseåarakamwasnotinvolvedintheinitialcase,åadaagain assumedtheroleofmaå kimandhandledthetransitiontothesecondroundof proceedings.accordingtothistext,itwasthemaå kimwho,presentornot,wascitedas thekeeperofinformationaboutthepreviousproceedings.seealsotext286(umma). Afulldiscussionofthenegligibleroleofcontractsandreceiptsinwinningand losingcaseswasprovidedinthepreviouschapter,butitisworthreemphasizingherethatit ispossiblethatthecitationofasaletabletinthiscasewasrelevantonlybecausethealleged documentcontainedthenamesofwitnesseswhocouldattesttoexistenceofthecontended sale,therebysupportingur-åaga scase.seetext45(translatedinchapter3) TheSocio-PoliticalContextofthemaå kim Theadministrative,functional,orpragmaticroleofthemaå kimprovidesonlyone aspectofthisfunction,andanoverviewofthesocio-politicalcontextoftheofficialswho 134

148 assumedthisfunctioninuriiidisputecasesisrequiredaswell.giventhehigh-ranking statusandpowerfulaffiliationsofmanyofthemaå kimfoundindisputerecords(see Falkenstein1956:48f),avarietyoffactorsintersectedtosupporttheirselectionand qualificationsforthisduty. 45 Infact,itislikely,ifonlycircumstantiallydemonstrable,that theselectionofthemaå kimwaslinkedtothespecificofficiatorofacaseandpolitical affiliationswereasignificantdeterminingfactorintheappointmentofthisfunctionary. Thatis,theofficesofjudgesandgovernorsincludedacolleagueorsubordinatetofunction asmaå kim.inseveralcases(e.g.,87,143,169,205)onefindsthatarad-nannarevisited casesattendedbyhisofficeinpastproceedings,yetamaå kimwascitedashaving deliveredanaccountofthepriorevents.thissuggeststhatarad-nannawasdetached fromtheaffairsofthecourtandrequiredeyesandearstoattendtheproceedingsforhim. Theroleofmaå kimwasalsolinkedtothejudges offices,asisapparentintext 316(unpublished)andText308lines4-7,whichreportsthatadisputantclaimed: di-muki-añ 2 in-[til] KiaÑfinishedmycase, bi 2 -dug 4 shesaid, lu 2 - d suenmaåkimdi-ti-la-mubi 2 -du 11 Lu-Sinwasthemaåkimofmyditila; lu 2 - d suenen 8 ba-na-tar ar Lu-Sinwasasked, Isthisfalse? lu 5 -am 3 bi 2 -dug 4 sheexplained. 46 ThejudgeKiaÑhadahandfulofassociateswhoactedasmaå kimforhimandwould handlefutureproceedingsifadisputewasnotsettledthefirsttime(seetext377,johnson andveenkerforthcoming). 45 Thereisevidencethatm aåki m swerepaidfortheirservicesinsargonictimes(wilcke2007:39);however nocomparableevidenceexistsforpaymentofm aå k i m s i n theuriiiperioditself. 46 SeeSallaberger2008:173f.foranothertranslation. 135

149 308 Not dated Prehistory Other Entities: Text: Date: Judge: Maåkim: or Present case? 280 AS5.12 Aba-Enlil-gin(not Ur-niÑar Presentcase None present) 316 AS5.9 KiaÑ(notpresent) Ur-Ñeåtin-ankamaåkim Both 3lu 2 ki-bagub- ditilakiañ ba KiaÑ(notpresent) Lu-Sin Prehistory 5attending officials 377 AS 47 KiaÑ(notpresent) Lu-Duga Both Unnamed governor Table 4.5. Maåkims of Specific Judges. ThefactthatjudgeswerefarmorepredominantatLagaåthanatUmmamayaccountforthe disparityofreferencestomaå kims betweenthetwoprovinces,19fromummaversus over100fromthelagaåurbanelite,approximatelyone-thirdofwhomassumetheroletwo timesormore.ineithercase,thepeoplewhoactedasmaå kimcamefromalimitedpool, andofficialswhootherwiseservedasofficiatorsorjudgescouldsometimesassumethe functionthemselves. 48 Arad-NannaonceappearsasmaåkiminacasefromNippur(RA 71126,appearingwiththetitles ukkal-mah).ur-iåtaran,asmentionedabove,actedas boththejudgeandmaå kimofasinglecase(text194).amannamedhabaziziiscitedin acaseashavinginscribedtheditilaattheendofadi(text12,habazizi mu-sar a r ),but incasetext210(col.ivline12,datemissing),heappearsasamaå kiminstead,even thoughheotherwiseservedasascribe. Asmentionedabove,governorsinUrIIIcasesseemtohavehadafinitereservoir ofcolleagueswhoservedwiththemasmaå kim.thatthisphenomenonlikelyreflects collegialrelationshipsratherthanasortofcheck-and-balancetypeofconfigurationis evidencedbythefactthatmaå kimarechargedwithreportingthegovernors decisionsat futuredatesifacasereturnstocourt.theymustpresumablyhavebeentrustedassociates ofthegovernorsratherthanneutrallyselectedadversaries.seethepersistentappearances 47 Probablyyear5,accordingtotheprosopographicalanalysisofJohnsonandVeenkerforthcoming. 48 Similartothearrayofpeoplewhoservedasm aåki m insargonic-eratexts(wilcke2007:40). 136

150 ofthemaå kimlu-girsuinassertingthegovernor spositionintext41,forexample.the governorur-lammaseemstohavebeenfrequentlylinkedwithaloyalmaå kimcalledur- BabasonofUr-Lala,whoappearsashismaå kimintext11,and,duringthetenureof Arad-NannaasgovernorattendscourttopresentaformerdecisionofUr-Lamma(Text 205,case1).Judgescouldalsohavespecific,recurringcolleaguesserveasmaå kimover aperiodoftime,asisapparentfromtheexamplesappendix4. Tosummarize,evenifthetheoreticalpurposeofamaå kimwastopreservean institutionalmemoryofthecase,theyseemalsotohaveplayedtheroleoflegitimatingthe authorityandtrustworthinessofpresidingofficials,andwerethusmorereliablesourcesfor futureproblemsthanofficiatingentitiesthemselves.however,theoccupiersofthis functionwerenotgleanedfromdifferentsegmentsofsocietyastheofficiatorswere membersofthesamecircles TheSo-CalledAttendingWitnesses ThehighestvolumeofpersonsatcasesfromUmmaandLagaåarefoundinlistsof high-rankingmencalledlu 2 (ki-ba)gub-ba menserving(attheplace) andlu 2 marza(ki-ba)gub-ba,forwhichatranslationislessstraightforward. 49 Theformertermis prevalentatumma,whilethelatterisrestrictedtolagaå.neithertermisattestedbeforethe UrIIIperiod(seeOh e1980:128)orinotherprovincesaccordingtotheavailable documentation(e.g.,urandnippur),suggestingthatthesegroupsarelocalphenomena. Falkenstein(1956:54f.)suggestedthatthistermandlu 2 -mar-zareferredto Publizitätszeugen, publicwitnesses,butifthepurposeofthesepositionswaslimitedto 49 Muchhasbeenmadeoftheinclusionofm ar-zainthisterm,sinceitwasonceassumedtocorrespondtothe Akkadianparœu=Sumeriangarza 2 (PA.AN/LUGAL) rites (Emesalm ar-za),andthereforethoughttorefer toaritualfunction(e.g.,lafont2000:39f.).however,asoh eremarks,thisunderstandingdoes notaidour understandingofthefunction[oftheterm] (1980:126),anditismoreoverimpossiblethatthetermhasany relationtoemesal.recently,d AgostinoandSantagati(2008)haveshownthatm ar-s arefersrathertoa navalfacilityanditsprofessionals;seebelow. 137

151 thisfunction,itisunclearwhyotherentitieswereentrustedwithasimilarrole(e.g.,the maåkim),althoughthereareonlyafewexamplesinwhichbothsuchagroupandamaåkim appearinthesametext(text110,138,andseera271).atbothummaandlagaå,these designationsappearattheendofthetabletandconsistofalistofbetween2and14names followedbythetitle.iftherewereanyotherkindsofentitiesatthesamecase(e.g.,a governororjudges),thesepersonsareidentifiedbeforeordirectlyafterthelistofnames. Inspiteoftheubiquityandfrequencyofthesegroupsofpeople,theirpurposeand definitionremainselusiveevenafteraparticularlyrigorousseriesofscholarlyinquiries. 50 Aconfusingmixtureofpersonsfilledbothcategoriesfromlocal,provincial,androyal administrations.thefactthatthesegroupswerecomposedofadiverseassortmentof officialsandtitlesprecludesthesuggestionthattheirmembershipwasbasedonfamily affiliations.ithasbeenarguedthatthesetwodesignationsrefertoqualitativelydifferent courtfunctions(e.g.,oh e1980),butrecentlymolina(forthcoming),hassuggestedthat theyareessentiallythesame,arguingthatsomeofthesameindividualsmayserveineither typeofgroupateitherprovince,suchastheaforementionedgudeaabauru. Moreover,someoftheseverypeoplearefoundinlistsofnamesthatappearatthe endofditilasinuntitledlistsofnames before whomtheproceedingsoccurred(igi åe 3 ).Theprecisequalitativedifferencesbetweentheseigi-åe 3 listsandtheothertwo typesisnotimmediatelyclear,andthereareatleastafewditilasinwhichigi-åe 3 lists appearinthesametextasoneoftheothertypesofgroups(e.g.,text49).therepeated presenceofthesamepeopleinalltypesoflistsindicatesthattheboundariesbetweenthese groupswerenotrigid.generally,twomenofthesameoccupationorfamilydidnotappear inthesamelist atleastasfarasthelimitsofprosopographyallowustoknow. 50 Falkenstein1956:54ff.,Krecher1963,Oh e1980,steinkeller1989,andmolina(forthcoming).seethese sourcesforcomprehensivelistsofthedifferentvariationsofeachterm. 138

152 Asforthenatureoftheirinvolvementindi-procedures,theuseofigi-åe 3 and referencestoagroup spresenceata place (ki),suggeststhatallsuchgroupswere involvedinsomepartoftheproceedingsandwerenotmerelyinvokedasthegovernors were.moreover,thefactthatsometextsexistinwhichlu 2 (ki-ba)gub-ba,lu 2 -marza,origi-åe 3 listsaretheonlyentitiespresentatproceedingsalsocomplicatestheidea thattheywereneutralbystanderswhosepurposewasmerelytoobserveandkeepa memory.oh e(1980)hassuggestedthattheywerepresenttoimpartauthoritytofinal verdicts,butthissuggestionisvitiatedbythefactthatsomecasesattendedbysuchentities werenotconclusivelysettled,unlikethecasesoverseenbygovernors,and,atumma,such caseswereoftenfocusedondevelopinganevidentiaryprocessratherthansettlinga dispute.anoverviewofthesetermsandtheiruseacrosstimemayyieldfurtherinsights lu 2 (ki-ba)gub-ba TheUmma-attestedtermlu 2 (ki-ba)gub-ba,whichappearsonlyafteramar-sin 2andthroughouthisreign,isdifficulttoassess.Molina(forthcoming)hasrecently evaluatedthequestionoftheirpurposebyconductingaprosopographicalstudyofthe244 individualnamesofsuchentitiesatumma,166ofwhichwereidentifiable,anddetermined thatgroupsoflu 2 gub-bacouldconsistofthefollowingtypesofpeople:representatives oftheprovincialadministration(roughlyhalfofattestedmembers),whathecalls representativesoftheroyaladministration(e.g.,relativesofthes ukkal-mah,military figures,anddependentsofthes ukkal-mah),and professionals (e.g.,merchants),and localadministrators(e.g.,ahazanumorabauru).membersofthelagaåaristocracy couldappearaslu 2 gub-baatummaaswell.molinaconcludedthatthesegroupswere 139

153 involvedinthedevelopmentofthecase,thoughwerenotitsfinalarbitrators,andtherefore shared coresponsibility forthesituationanditsfinaloutcome. Indeed,groupsofthesemencouldattendcasesinavarietyofconfigurationswith othertypesofentities.theyappearalone(e.g.,text49),and,amongsuchcasesaretexts thatalsohappentoexplicitlystatethematterwas inumma (e.g.,text345and321,see Table3.8),indicatingtheircorporateaffiliationandservicetothiscity.Suchgroupscan alsoappearwiththegovernor(e.g.,texts62,369,or346),whoinsomecasesisqualified as judge ratherthan governor (e.g.,text285),orwithboththegovernorandajudge (Texts110and138),butneverwithajudgealone.Ifajudgeismentioned,itiseither becausehismaå kimhasattendedthecasetoattesttoapastdecisionofthejudge(e.g., Text316)orbecauseheisamemberofthelistoflu 2 ki-bagub-ba.whilemostcases thatmentionagroupoflu 2 ki-bagub-badonotalsomentionamaåkim,thereisone attestationinwhichtheyappeartogether,asmentionedabove(text49).finally,according totheavailabledata,thetermwasusedonlyincasesthatinvolvedresidentsofthecityof Umma;ifanotherlocaleiscitedintheditila(e.g.,GaråanaorNagsu,seeTable3.7),alu 2 (ki-ba)gub-balistisnotprovided(seeoh e2003:39) lu 2 -mar-za Similarly,thechangingbodyofLagaåofficialscalledlu 2 mar-zaorlu 2 mar-za ki-bagub-baappearsmidwaythroughthereignofamar-sinatyear5,replacing referencestogovernors,andreachespreeminencebythereignofibbi-sin.therare designationlu 2 kidi-da-kagub-ba( menwhoservedatthedi )alsoappearsaround thistimeintwoexemplars(text35and351),suggestingthatvariouskindsofgroups existedforengagingindi-proceduresascollectives. 140

154 lu-marza total cases 0 AS Figure 4.3. Frequency of the Presence of lu 2 mar-za at Lagaå. LikethegroupsatUmma,then,agroupoflu 2 mar-zamencouldservealoneand withoutthepresenceofjudgesorotherofficiatingentities(e.g.,text63),inthecompany ofoneormorejudges(e.g.,text67),orinthecompanyofthegovernor(e.g.,205).in addition,therewasoftenamaåkimatthecasesattendedbyalu 2 mar-zagroup.unlike thelu 2 gub-baatumma,thesegroupswerepresentatcasesinvolvingmembersofthe urbanaristocracyaswellasanumberofcasesthatoriginatedinotherlocalesofthe province(e.g.,text83,fromguabba).itisalsonoticeablethatmostcasesinwhichalist oflu 2 -mar-zaisprovidedmakeexplicitmentioneitherofapreviousdi,orofpast occasionsuponwhichapreviousgovernorwasinvolvedinadispute Thelu 2 mar-zaandlu 2 ki-bagub-baas Courts Evenifitisimpossibletoknow,accordingtothecurrentstateofthecorpus,what thepreciseroleofthesegroupswasorwhatcontributionsuchmenmadeinthecourseof 141