Documentary form
The decision, being complete, was embodied in a document drawn up by the scribe, regularly witnessed, often by the judges, and sealed. Thus it was that the judges granted him an irrevocable tablet.[134] These irrevocable tablets, practically imperishable also, have now come after thousands of years, to tell their tale.
Administration of oaths
7. Administration of the oath.—The ceremony of swearing to the truth of evidence, or the terms of a compact, is continually mentioned. The exact form of words used in taking the oath is not certain; but in actual suits, in the law-court procedure, the judges administered an oath to both parties and witnesses. In the Code oaths were admitted for purgation of alleged crime,[135] as evidence of loss, deposit, injury;[136] and the reception of a sworn deposition is recorded.[137] References to oaths continually occur in the contracts.
Form of the oath
The judges “gave them to the oath before Shamash and Adad,”[138] or, more briefly, “gave him to the oath of god.”[139] The name of the god by whom men swore is usually given. As might be expected, the god who figured most prominently in the Code was Shamash, the chief deity of Sippara, often associated with his consort, Aia, or Malkatu. Sometimes the oath was “by the king.”[140] Often one or more gods and the king are named together. When Babylon became supreme it was usual to swear by Marduk and the local gods as well. The significance of these oaths for historical purposes is great, both as indicating political relationships, and as often affording by the name of the king the only clew to the date of the document. Mr. King, in his [pg 093] edition of the Chronicle,[141] and Dr. Lindl,[142] have made skilful use of these oaths in determining chronology.
The place where it was administered
The administration of the oath took place before the censer of Shamash[143] or at the shrine, Šašaru, of Shamash,[144] in Sippara; or before the emblematic dragon sculptured on the doors of the Marduk temple at Babylon.[145] Other places are named which we are not yet able to identify. A kind of magical conjuration appears sometimes to have been employed,[146] which is not yet understood.
Its purport
The purport of the oath was, not to give false evidence, or, in the case of contracts, not to alter the stipulated agreements. It is often followed by the words, “whoever shall alter or dispute the words of this tablet,” evidently a quotation of the words of the oath; but the consequence of so doing is not given. Either it was too well known, or too awful, for the scribe to write it down.