3 ms·

I don't understand §2. If someone is a bad swimmer they're a witch, and if someone is a good swimmer they're innocent? What's the logic behind that?

krapp 2y ago
Likely the same logic that went into a lot of Western Christian belief about chivalry and witch-hunting - that God (or whatever Assyrian equivalent in this case) would judge innocence or guilt through the laws of nature. You have to remember that "logic" presupposed magical thinking and religion at the time.
idoubtit 2y ago
"Ordeal" was exactly the same process in Europe for centuries. In France at least, this "divine judgment" was mostly by fire and water. I remember reading about these "river ordeals" in Dominique Charpin's books about Mesopotamia. It was also used in "trials" for infidelity, to the woman, sometimes with her supposed lover. But we don't know the exact process: maybe the suspects were tied up if the authorities thought the accusation was well backed up!
drcode 2y ago
It's likely a way for a judge to inject their own subjective judgement into an accusation of witchcraft: The hope is that people that are innocent are more likely to accept a "trial by water" because they hope the deities will help them survive that trial, and the judge can then also add a little of their own subjective opinion, after talking to both parties, to either say "yup they survived the trial, pull them out of the water" or (if they think they deserve it, for whatever reason) let the person drown.
anvandare 2y ago
Well, if she weighs the same as a duck... It seems to be a variation of §1 - because witchcraft is a serious crime and the god of rivers (Idlurugu) would obviously drown anyone who was a witch.[1] §1: accuse someone of murder -> (can't prove your case) -> your own life is forfeit §2: accuse someone of witchcraft -> (can't prove your case) AND (they prove they are not punished/drowned by the river god) -> your own life is forfeit Trial by ordeal was an ancient thing, even back then.[2] It is the sort of thing you see where there was no real distinction between legal and theological, between law and rite. Indeed, Töyräänvuori concludes: >Arbitration via suprarational trial seems to be required in cases where it is the word of one person against another, and no forensic evidence can settle the manner. Anthropologically, the ordeal is supposed to reveal whether the witness or accused is lying through the threat of supernatural punishment, functioning as a primitive lie-detector test. Its use in European witch trials likely also follows from this function, as accusations of witchcraft were often spread through social contagion. An important facet of the trials is that they seem to have been meant to acquit the accused innocent of the crime in most of the cases it was used.[2] It's interesting that unproven (false) accusations and perjury are at the very top of the legal code, with severe punishments attached. Which are exactly the sort of abuses you'd see pop up when a legal code is in place. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idlurugu#Idlurugu_as_a_legal_procedure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idlurugu#Idlurugu_as_a_legal_p... [2] http://saa.uaic.ro/wp-content/uploads/6.-Joanna-T%C3%96YR%C3%84%C3%84NVUORI-SAA27.2.pdf http://saa.uaic.ro/wp-content/uploads/6.-Joanna-T%C3%96YR%C3...

krapp 2y ago

Likely the same logic that went into a lot of Western Christian belief about chivalry and witch-hunting - that God (or whatever Assyrian equivalent in this case) would judge innocence or guilt through the laws of nature. You have to remember that "logic" presupposed magical thinking and religion at the time.

idoubtit 2y ago

"Ordeal" was exactly the same process in Europe for centuries. In France at least, this "divine judgment" was mostly by fire and water. I remember reading about these "river ordeals" in Dominique Charpin's books about Mesopotamia. It was also used in "trials" for infidelity, to the woman, sometimes with her supposed lover. But we don't know the exact process: maybe the suspects were tied up if the authorities thought the accusation was well backed up!

drcode 2y ago

It's likely a way for a judge to inject their own subjective judgement into an accusation of witchcraft: The hope is that people that are innocent are more likely to accept a "trial by water" because they hope the deities will help them survive that trial, and the judge can then also add a little of their own subjective opinion, after talking to both parties, to either say "yup they survived the trial, pull them out of the water" or (if they think they deserve it, for whatever reason) let the person drown.

anvandare 2y ago

Well, if she weighs the same as a duck... It seems to be a variation of §1 - because witchcraft is a serious crime and the god of rivers (Idlurugu) would obviously drown anyone who was a witch.[1] §1: accuse someone of murder -> (can't prove your case) -> your own life is forfeit §2: accuse someone of witchcraft -> (can't prove your case) AND (they prove they are not punished/drowned by the river god) -> your own life is forfeit Trial by ordeal was an ancient thing, even back then.[2] It is the sort of thing you see where there was no real distinction between legal and theological, between law and rite. Indeed, Töyräänvuori concludes: >Arbitration via suprarational trial seems to be required in cases where it is the word of one person against another, and no forensic evidence can settle the manner. Anthropologically, the ordeal is supposed to reveal whether the witness or accused is lying through the threat of supernatural punishment, functioning as a primitive lie-detector test. Its use in European witch trials likely also follows from this function, as accusations of witchcraft were often spread through social contagion. An important facet of the trials is that they seem to have been meant to acquit the accused innocent of the crime in most of the cases it was used.[2] It's interesting that unproven (false) accusations and perjury are at the very top of the legal code, with severe punishments attached. Which are exactly the sort of abuses you'd see pop up when a legal code is in place. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idlurugu#Idlurugu_as_a_legal_procedure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idlurugu#Idlurugu_as_a_legal_p... [2] http://saa.uaic.ro/wp-content/uploads/6.-Joanna-T%C3%96YR%C3%84%C3%84NVUORI-SAA27.2.pdf http://saa.uaic.ro/wp-content/uploads/6.-Joanna-T%C3%96YR%C3...