Overview

The societal reforms of Urukagina (ca. 2350 bce), Sumerian king of Lagash, were preserved over the millennia on six inscriptions found on five ceremonial clay nails and an oval clay plaque. (The Sumerians often wrote their documents on all types of objects, including ceremonial maces and statues and other items not normally considered media for writing.) The reforms were written in Sumerian, the world’s earliest written language. There are at least three versions of the Reform Edict, which constituted a covenant between the monarch and Ningirsu, the patron deity of the Sumerian kingdom of Lagash-Girsu, ensuring that the socially disenfranchised (such as widows and orphans) would not be abused by those in power. The composite reform texts begin with a description of building activities and canal excavations performed by the crown. It appears that each edition of the Reform Edict was written for a slightly different occasion—the renaming of a canal, the liberation of the people of Lagash, or the cataloging of various abuses. Overall, however, the reforms have been exceedingly difficult to translate and thus to interpret.

Context

Although developments in Mesopotamian history and political institutions in the third millennium bce are imperfectly understood, because of fortunate circumstances numerous royal inscriptions from the vicinity of Lagash, in the south of modern-day Iraq, have shed light on a portion of this period (ca. 2500-2340 bce). The late-nineteenth-century French excavations at Tello (ancient Girsu) and American work in the 1970s at al-Hiba (ancient Lagash) unearthed thousands of cuneiform texts written in Sumerian. Included among these texts are over one hundred royal inscriptions and fragments in multiple copies that delineate a 150-year period during which the kingdom of Lagash, comprising the cities of Lagash, Girsu, and Nina, played a significant role in the region. Mentioned in the inscriptions are nine kings of Lagash, the last of which is Urukagina.

The Lagash kings describe many building (and rebuilding) projects for a multiplicity of deities, the most important being Ningirsu, the aforementioned city god of Lagash. Significant texts from Girsu concern a boundary dispute with a neighboring kingdom, Umma. The earliest king of Lagash known to have left inscriptions was Urnanshe (ca. 2500 bce), who fought against an alliance of Umma and another Sumerian city-kingdom, Ur. A historical, if perhaps propagandistic, perspective on the border conflict was recorded during the reign of the third known king of Lagash, Eanatum (ca. 2450 bce), in his so-called Stele of the Vultures. Here, the Lagash king wrote a history of the conflict tracing the issue back to Urnanshe, his grandfather. He argued that Umma had violated an agreement over the use of an agricultural area between the two territories called Gu’edena (a term etymologically related to the Hebrew “Eden”), which belonged to the kingdom of Lagash (in the name of the god Ningirsu). During the reign of Eanatum, the Lagashite king forced the Ummaite monarch to swear an oath that he was to use Gu’edena as an interest-bearing loan. The conflict was reignited during the reigns of the next kings, Enanatum I and Enmetena, both of whom claimed victories over their Ummaite enemies.

Few royal inscriptions from the next Lagash kings have been unearthed, but there are over sixty surviving texts from the last monarch, Urukagina, who was defeated in about his seventh year by Lugalzaggisi, king of the neighboring city of Umma. Apparently, the Lagash king, though defeated, was able to claim the title “king of Girsu,” perhaps implying rule over a smaller territory. In addition to the royal inscriptions, more than seventeen hundred administrative texts have been dated to the last three Lagash monarchs (Enentarzi, Lugalanda, and Urukagina), most of which are concerned with the Emi, the bureaucratic structure organized by the wife of the ensi (a major Lagashite official). The wife of Urukagina, Sa-Sa, is mentioned several times in these texts.

Although the date of its composition is uncertain, the earliest version of the Urukagina Reform Edict was most certainly written before Urukagina’s defeat by Lugalzaggisi, the king of Umma and of the city of Uruk. Later versions describe Urukagina as the king of Girsu, and thus they were probably promulgated after his defeat by the Ummaite. The Reform Edict begins with a description of a number of building projects completed by the monarch for a plurality of gods. The Lagashite king then delineates a series of abuses by previous Lagashite monarchs (to whom he was evidently not related). These abuses included grain taxes on priests, excessive fees imposed upon mourners, the exploitation of the poor by the rich, and the exploitation of the property of the masses by the crown. To atone for these abuses, Urukagina pledged to fix certain prices, to cancel certain debts, and to protect widows and orphans.

Time Line

About the Author

Urukagina was the last king of the Sumerian kingdom of Lagash before the era of Sargon, an Akkadian king who conquered Mesopotamia and neighboring areas, ushering in a period of political unification that lasted for over a century (ca. 2340 bce). Urukagina was first mentioned as a high official during the reign of the previous king, Lugalanda. In fact, he did not take the title of “king” until the second year of his reign. His relationship to the previous monarch, as well as to the entire Lagashite dynasty before him, is unknown; Urukagina never mentions his father in any of the extant inscriptions. Some modern scholars speculate that Urukagina was a usurper, but no concrete evidence supports this. He must have had some affinity (or at least some connection) to the previous administration, as deliveries of supplies for various temples in the Lagash vicinity were still being made in the name of Bara-Namtara, the wife of Lugalanda, during the first year of Urukagina’s reign. This may imply that he considered himself a legitimate successor to the previous king.

In Urukagina’s third year, he began making offerings to the gods of Umma and Nippur (the holy city of the Sumerians), perhaps in a diplomatic effort to assuage the imperialistic designs of the Ummaite king, Lugalzaggisi. However, within a few years, perhaps during the seventh year of Urukagina’s reign, the Ummaite king attacked and burned many of the Lagash temples. In a later version of the reforms, Urukagina calls himself “king of Girsu,” perhaps implying that he had lost the territory of Lagash to the Ummaite conqueror. Indeed, in later inscriptions, Urukagina’s records indicate that he then restricted his building to the area and towns surrounding Girsu. The destruction of Lagash by Lugalzaggisi is known by a unique document from Lagash, in which Urukagina complains about the Ummaite king’s plundering of Lagashite temples, the destruction of Lagashite barley fields, and the sacking of the city of Lagash itself. Urukagina considered these acts to be sins against the city deity of Lagash, Ningirsu, and even against Nisaba, the god of Lugalzaggisi. Urukagina makes clear in this text that he was not at fault for the invasion. Interestingly, many of the areas taken by Lugalzaggisi were perhaps restored to Lagash and Urukagina during the reign of Sargon of Akkad (as described in a text of Manishtushu, one of the royal sons of Sargon).

Explanation and Analysis of the Document

By abolishing former abusive customs and replacing them with new precepts through the Reform Edict, Urukagina evidently proclaimed a general amnesty in Lagash (written “Lagaš” in the text) concerning the old precepts. He furthermore established divine ownership over estates that had been administered by members of the royal family. He also claimed to have changed the taxes collected on special occasions, such as weddings, divorces, and funerals.

The text of the first and most complete version of the reforms appears to consist of four parts. The first section is the introduction and dedication to Urukagina’s god, Ningirsu (written “Ningirsu”), with a brief note about building projects and dedications. Second, Urukagina outlines various abuses committed by previous monarchs (primarily concerning the appropriation of temple property). He next describes his own elevation to kingship and the new practices that were then introduced. He concludes with a contract between himself and Ningirsu. In the third version of the text, a key passage concerns the position of women.

Column i

The text begins with a prologue concerning the city god of the Lagash region, Ningirsu (apparently the Lagashite form of Ninurta, a major Sumerian deity), celebrating the building and dedication of various structures. This god was the son of Enlil, the active head of the Sumerian pantheon. Ningirsu combined both military and agricultural attributes. To begin, he was a mighty warrior god who destroyed the mountain enemies of Sumer as well as the Anzu, a mythical birdlike creature who had threatened the god’s authority over humankind. Moreover, Ningirsu gave humans advice on farming, as evidenced in the Sumerian text “Farmer’s Instructions.” In one myth, this god defeated the demon Asag and proceeded to organize the world by making the Tigris and Euphrates rivers usable for irrigation and agriculture.

Both Tirash (“Tiraš”) and Antasur, attested to as early as the Lagashite king Urnanshe, were either geographic regions or structures (either temples or palaces) dedicated to Ningirsu. Baba, the divine consort of Ningirsu, is also found in the earliest inscriptions from the vicinity of Lagash. It is not certain what type of structure Baba’s “pantry” was. The literal meaning of the term is “stone bowl,” and some scholars have surmised that the building in question was a storehouse where stone bowls were kept to be used for temple provisions. Some Lagash archival texts mention a building with a similar description at Girsu (“girsu”) that provided emmer, a breed of wheat, for the monthly provisions of the god Ningirsu. Thus, the Urukagina text may be referring to a like structure.

Column ii

One of the other major goddesses of the region, Nanshe (“Nanše”), had her seat of residence at Nina, the least known of the three major cities of the region of Lagash. In Sumerian mythology, she was the daughter of Enki, the god of wisdom, and Ninhursag. In the myth concerning Enki and the world order, Nanshe was given the Persian Gulf by her father as her dominion. By the time of Gudea, a king of Lagash (ca. 2130 bce), Nanshe was considered the goddess of social justice, defending the rights of orphans, widows, debtors, and refugees. She was also described as the “Lady of the Storerooms.”

The “sheep-plucking shed,” mentioned in various texts from Girsu, stored emmer for the monthly provisions of the god Ningirsu, perhaps being similar to the “pantry” mentioned in column i. The “Nimin-DU canal” evidently went out of the area of Lagash to the south and east, heading toward the Persian Gulf. The “wall of girsu” was presumably a portion of the city wall of Girsu, dedicated to Ningirsu himself. The second edition of the reforms includes mention of more deities to whom Urukagina dedicated canals and temples.

Column iii

After the dedicatory prologue, the main body of the text is first concerned with abuses of previous royal administrations, which had been perpetuated “since time immemorial.” Although Urukagina does not mention any monarch by name, it is implicitly understood that the previous Lagashite kings are held guilty of taking advantage of many in society. It is not clear what these officials (head boatmen, livestock officials, and so on) were doing improperly. Perhaps they had usurped the prerogatives of the temple administrators, a situation that Urukagina planned to reform.

The identity of the town of Ambar is uncertain, as is its location. It may have been either a town near the province of Lagash or a town near the northern city of Kish, the titular head of the Sumerian city-states. The lustration (purification) priests were evidently involved in farming land that was subject to a grain tax. It is not clear, however, why the demand of this tax at the city of Ambar was considered abusive. The fragmented third edition of the Reform Edict adds that the priests were required to build grain storehouses at Ambar. These priests were also mentioned in earlier administrative texts from Shuruppak, a Sumerian city to the northwest.

Column iv

Once again, it appears that the different administrators (surveyor, brewer, and others) were improperly collecting taxes. Historians do not know why the garlic and cucumber plots of the rulers are singled out in this section. However, it is clear that, according to Urukagina, they should have belonged to the divine estates. White sheep were brought to the palace by state administrators and were sheared to be used as offerings. The third edition of the Reform Edict elucidates that the shepherds had been required to pay a five-shekel silver tax in addition to the tax of wool, demands that must have been considered abusive by Urukagina

Column v

Evidently, the temple administrators were also guilty of abuse and took improper items as payments. The various lists of items in this column most certainly refer to funerary goods. Similar lists are found in a great variety of literary documents, including the version of the Epic of Gilgamesh recorded by the Akkadians (another people group living in southern Mesopotamia), which describes items used in the funeral for Enkidu. Enkidu is described in Sumerian and Akkadian literature as the semidivine friend of Gilgamesh, the fifth king of Uruk. Similar items are mentioned in a text describing the death of Ur-Nammu, a Sumerian king of Ur. Many of these items may have been of a ceremonial nature. The “Ear of the Mongoose” may have been a sort of earmuff dedicated to the deity Ninkilim (symbolized by the mongoose). The meaning of “ŠU.GABA.UR” is uncertain, but it appears to have something to do with a cloth that holds the hand to the chest. A similar item (a chest covering) is found among a list of funerary goods for the deity Bilala. Similarly, the “outer woolen garment” and “linen draping” of the reforms can also be compared to like items found in archival texts from Girsu dating to the reign of Urukagina. The term throw-stick/bow is derived from earlier Sumerian sources, but the precise nature of the item in question is uncertain; in mythological contexts it is referred to as a magic staff connected to the underworld. Archival texts from Girsu describe fishermen along with assorted birds, including, as here, “yellow ravens”; perhaps the inhabitants of the underworld were decked out in these birds’ feathers.

Column vi

The temple administrators also abused the poor, as is seen in this column. The translation “undertaker” (that is, priest performing funeral rites) is not certain, but it fits the context here. The “reeds of Enki” perhaps signal a healing or burial ceremony. A Lagash incantation text from the time of Urnanshe connects the use of the reed in magic to Enki, who was the god of the subterranean freshwater ocean and was associated with the arts (especially magic). He was often depicted wearing a sorcerer’s hat. His primary cult center was at the southern city of Eridu, recognized by the Sumerians as the first city. Although the meaning is uncertain, given the context, the shu-ila (“šuila”) rites must have also been funerary in nature. Bread is also connected to shu-ila rites mentioned in the Epic of Gilgamesh.

Column vii

The “safe passage toll” perhaps refers to the passage of the dead to the netherworld, as similar to Greek mythology. The “great gate” is probably the gate through which individuals had to pass in order to reach their final resting places. A probable iconographic depiction of this gate comes from a seal impression from this period that features a boat approaching a winged gate, presumably the gate of the netherworld.

The lady and children described here appear to be the ruler’s family. Once again, it is not clear what abuse is being referred to. The ruler’s family and their property had either grown to a level that prohibited more expansion or were administered together. In any event, the reform concerning this issue describes a separation of the royal family properties that were assigned to different temple organizations.

The boundary of the god Ningirsu signified the area of the kingdom of Lagash, bordering Umma to the north and west and the marshland to the south and east (as far as the Persian Gulf). The “subordinate to the king” seems to have been a collective term for chain gangs, perhaps in relation to agricultural and even military work. The term blind workers probably refers to a lower class of unfree workers rather than to those who were legally blind. Alternatively, in some periods of Mesopotamian history (especially in the Neo-Assyrian period, ca. 900-612 bce), prisoners of war were blinded to inhibit their mobility. The column concludes with a summary statement about all of the abuses outlined in the previous sections.

Column viii

As with most kings in the ancient Near East, Urukagina claimed that his authority to rule came from a divine source—in this case, from Ningirsu, the city god of Lagash. However, he did not claim authority also for hereditary reasons but instead only because the god chose him from among the “myriad people.” He thus proved his legitimacy by reversing the abuses of former times, stopping the royal administrators from continuing their improper tax collections, and restoring the social order to its proper state.

Column ix

In this section Urukagina outlines the installation of the temple administration over many of the estates that had been under the control of the crown. Shulshagana (“Šulšagana”) was the offspring of Ningirsu and Baba. It seems likely that the royal family’s property was divided into three organizations, all technically under the ownership of the divine family of Ningirsu. Interestingly, Shulshagana is not mentioned in the later editions of the reforms.

Column x

The actual gender of the personnel described here is unclear; some commentators argue that “old men” are also listed, in addition to the “wailing women.” In any event, these individuals were probably connected with lamentation rites and thus were associated with the lamentation singers. Perhaps this section is describing a tax on a particular mourning ceremony, different from the “reed of Enki” tax in column vi and in the opening of this column. The “lu-ziga attendants” were probably lamentation singers connected to burials. The mud and sadug were liquid or dry measures, probably fabricated to a standard size.

Column xi

The different times of day mentioned here are likely referring to the hours when religious ceremonies were to be performed. The sagbur (“sagbur”) were perhaps associated with the lamentation singers, but their particular function is not clear. The sagbur were perhaps responsible for removing the clothes of the deceased before they were wrapped for burial.

Column xii

The practice of indenturing family members to secure loans is well known from other texts in this period. Moreover, many documents from the Ur III dynasty (ca. 2112-2006 bce) describe whole families that were forced into servitude because of debt or other criminal activities. The earliest attestation of the cancellation of debts comes from a few generations before Urukagina, during the reign of the Lagash king Entemena, who claimed to have cancelled debts for Lagash. Interestingly, the Sumerian term for cancellation of debts, ama.ar.gi, literally means “return to the mother,” signifying a release from either public obligations (taxation and conscription) or private debts.

Version 3: Column iii

The words “exceeding her rank” (sometimes translated as “transgressing moral limits”) probably refer to a woman’s attempting to transcend her social status, although it is unclear what that would have entailed. Sumerian contracts from this period occasionally contain a clause about a wooden stake driven into the mouth of the accused. Whether this is to be taken literally or figuratively is not known. Interestingly, section 22 of the legal Ur-Nammu Code reads, “If someone’s slave woman, presuming her to be the equal of her mistress, has sworn at her, she shall scour out her mouth with one quart of salt” (Roth, p. 19) The references in Job 29:17 and Psalms 3:7 to the breaking of the teeth or jaws of the wicked occur in legal contexts and perhaps indicate a related custom.

Much has been said about this section and its meaning. Although the phrasing is clear—in former times, a man could marry two women—its cultural meaning is not. Instead of polyandry or polygamy, neither of which are confirmed anywhere in Sumerian sources, the phrase is probably referring to women who were married more than once. However, an alternative view is that men could “take” (perhaps not legally) two wives, with the second serving as a sort of insurance policy for debt release. In other words, if a man was released from his debts, he would no longer need to take a second wife.

Audience

As with many documents from ancient Mesopotamia, the Urukagina reform texts do not reveal much, if anything, about their intended audience. A significant percentage of the Sumerian texts from Girsu were uncovered by French archaeologists in the late nineteenth century, when excavations were relatively primitive, at least by modern standards. As such, many of the original spatial contexts of the artifacts were not recorded. In fact, historians are not even certain as to which excavation site some of the documents came from. In turn, some of the texts that were uncovered by the American team at Lagash in the 1970s had evidently been reused by succeeding monarchs as fill material for construction projects.

In general, many Mesopotamian public inscriptions were intended for display on monuments, delineating the accomplishments of the ruler in power. However, only scribes were literate; the masses and even the ruling aristocracy for the most part were not trained to read. One can thus surmise that the contents of such displayed texts (for example, the Code of Hammurabi) were read by a public herald. Yet there were still other members of society, so to speak, who could read—the gods. Thus, monuments on public display were perhaps intended for a divine audience, as sort of a résumé of the monarch making the gods aware of his accomplishments on earth. This theory is enhanced by the fact that many documents were specifically dedicated to deities. In some cases, royal documents were deposited in building foundations or built into the structures themselves, to be read by the gods or by future monarchs who would expose them during reconstruction projects. Other inscriptions, however, were dedicatory and were meant only for divine inspection.

The original context and function of Urukagina’s reform texts are not known. They were not excavated but acquired by purchase, and thus they have no precise context (though it is most reasonable to assume that they were from Girsu). Thus, it is impossible to discern the immediate audience for the texts. The issue is made more complex by the fact that each edition of the Reform Edict seems to have been written for a different purpose.

Impact

Although previous Lagashite kings (such as Entemena) refer to edicts against social inequality and governmental abuse, the reforms of Urukagina represent the earliest known systematic treatment of legal and social reform in world history. Although they do not employ the “if … , then …” clauses of later monumental inscriptions, the reform texts are clearly antecedents to later Mesopotamian and other ancient Near Eastern legal texts, including the Ur-Nammu Code (ca. 2110 bce), the Code of Hammurabi (ca. 1792 bce), and the Middle Assyrian Laws (ca. 1100 bce). Moreover, many royal hymns of Ur-Nammu, Shulgi (ca. 2095-2047 bce), and Hammurabi, as well as later royal inscriptions of the Assyrian kings Sargon II (ca. 721-705 bce) and Ashurbanipal (ca. 668-627 bce) and the Persian Darius I (ca. 521-486 bce) reflect a concern for social and legal reform. In addition, the Mosaic laws (ca. 1300 bce), especially in Exodus 22:20-36, exhibit a similar concern for social reforms, with additional inclusions concerning the “stranger,” or non-Israelite.

A major theme in Urukagina’s Reform Edict is that of general amnesty. In fact, the amnesty promulgations listed in the reforms are the earliest on record in history. In particular, pardons were given to a variety of criminals, debtors, thieves, and murderers. Even if Urukagina was simply providing legal and social rhetoric, the possibility of amnesty for criminals is unprecedented in Mesopotamian legal texts. At any rate, the Urukagina reforms, contrary to the view of some scholars, are surely not evidence of a dramatic “democratic” revolution but were instead well-placed promulgations that allowed the crown to have greater control over its populace. Toward this end, somewhat ironically, the reforms clearly gave the temple administrators significant power that had been in the hands of the state. This particular issue clouds historians’ understanding of Urukagina’s true motives for his Reform Edict. He was perhaps more connected to the religious establishment than to the previous monarchy, but this is speculation.

Further Reading

Questions for Further Study