Cover not available
Article published In:
Journal of Argumentation in Context
Vol. 9:2 (2020) ► pp.243–282

Legal argumentation in Mesopotamia since Ur III

| University of Information Technology and Management in Rzeszow, Poland
In this paper, I show that we can find some foundations of logic and legal argumentation in the tablets of Mesopotamia at least since the dynasty of Ur III. In these texts, we see the oldest correct application of logical inference rules (e.g. modus ponens). As concerns the legal argumentation established in Mesopotamia, we can reconstruct on the basis of the tablets the following rules of dispute resolutions during trials: (1) There are two parties of disputants: (i) a protagonist who formulates a standpoint and (ii) an antagonist who disagrees with the protagonist’s standpoint and formulates an alternative statement. (2) There is a rational judge represented by high-ranking citizens who should follow only logical conclusions from facts and law articles as premises.
Keywords: argumentum ad hominem , inference rule, legal argumentation, legal proceeding, Mesopotamia, Ur III, modus ponens , rhetorical tropes, rhetorical question
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Archeology of logic
  • 3.The role of court proceedings in dispute resolutions since Ur III
  • 4.Examples of logical and rhetorical arguments from business correspondence
  • 5.Examples of logical arguments from legal proceedings
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 28 October 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.19015.sch
References (21)
References
Cicero. 2006. On invention, The best kind of orator, Topics (trans: Hubbell, H. M.; Loeb Classical Library 386). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, Google Scholar
Cole, S. W. 1996. Nippur IV. The Early Neo-Babylonian Governor’s Archive from Nippur. Oriental Institute Publications. Volume 1141. Chicago: the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Culbertson, L. E. 2009. Dispute Resolution in the Provincial Courts of the Third Dynasty of Ur. A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (Near Eastern Studies) in the University of Michigan.Google Scholar
Culbertson, L. Local Courts in Centralizing States: The Case of Ur III Mesopotamia, [in:] Social Theory in Archaeology and Ancient History, 185–202. DOI logo
Friberg, J. 2007. A Remarkable Collection of Babylonian Mathematical Texts. Manuscripts in the Schøyen Collection Cuneiform Texts I. New York: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Holtz, Sh. E. 2009. Neo-Babylonian Court Procedure. Series: Cuneiform monographs. Brill: Leiden, Boston. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2014. Neo-Babylonian Trial Records. Society of Biblical Literature Atlanta. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kienast, B., Volk, K. 1995. Die Sumerischen und Akkadischen Briefe des III Jahrtausends aus der Zeit vor der III Dynastie von Ur. Freiburg: F. Steiner Verlag.Google Scholar
Lafont, B. 2000. Les texts judiciaries sumériens, [in] Joannes (ed.), Rendre la justice en Mesopotamie. Presses Universitaires de Vincennes, pp. 35–68.Google Scholar
Mercer, S. A. B. 1913. The Oath in Cuneiform Inscriptions, Journal of the American Oriental Society, 331, 33–50. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Michalowski, P., Walker, C. B. 1989. A New Sumerian “Law Code”, [in] H. Behrens et al. (eds.), Dumu-e2-dub-ba-a: Studies in Honor of Ake W. Sjoberg. Philadelphia.Google Scholar
Molina, M. 2000. La ley mas Antigua: Textes legales sumerios. Madrid.Google Scholar
2008. New Ur III Court Records Concerning Slavery, [in:] P. Michalowski (ed.). On the Third Dynasty of Ur: Studies in Honor of Marcel Sigrist. Journal of Cuneiform Studies Supplementary Series 1. ASOR, pp. 125–143.Google Scholar
Roth, M. 2001. Reading Mesopotamian Law Cases PBS 5 100: A Question of Filiation, Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 44/31:243–292. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roth, M. T. 1995. Law collections from Mesopotamia and Asia Minor. With a contribution by Harry A. Hoffner, Ir.; edited by Piotr Michalowski. Scholars Press Atlanta, Georgia.Google Scholar
Schumann, A. 2019a. Did the Neo-Babylonians Construct a Symbolic Logic for Legal Proceedings?, Journal of Applied Logics – IfCoLoG Journal of Logics and their Applications, 6(1): 31–82.Google Scholar
2019b. On the Origin of Indian Logic from the Viewpoint of the Pāli Canon, Logica Universalis, DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Eemeren, F. H., Garssen, B., Krabbe, E. C. W., Francisca, A., Henkemans, S., Verheij, B., Wagemans, J. H. M. 2014. Handbook of Argumentation Theory. Dordrecht Heidelberg New York London: Springer.Google Scholar
van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R. 2004. A Systematic Theory of Argumentation. The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Walton, D. 1995. Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning. Series: Studies in Argumentation Theory. Routledge.Google Scholar
Weisberg, D. B. 2003. Neo-Nabylonian Texts in the Oriental Institute Collection. Oriental Institute Publications. Volume 1141. Chicago: the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Cited by (5)

Cited by five other publications

Hall, Edith
2022. Some Functions of Rhetorical Questions in Lysias’ Forensic Orations. Trends in Classics 14:2 ► pp. 349 ff. DOI logo
Schumann, Andrew
2020. Judgments and Truth: Essays in Honour of Jan Woleński. Studia Humana 9:3-4 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Schumann, Andrew
2021. On the Origin of Logical Determinism in Babylonia. Logica Universalis 15:3 ► pp. 331 ff. DOI logo
Schumann, Andrew
2021. Logical Reasoning for Forecasting in Mesopotamia. Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric 66:3 ► pp. 721 ff. DOI logo
Schumann, Andrew
2023. Argumentation tradition of traders in late antiquity. Journal of Argumentation in Context 12:2 ► pp. 159 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.