SOME REMARKS ON THE REFORMS OF URUKAGINA

Author(s): I. M. DIAKONOFF
Source: Revue d'Assyriologie et d'archologie orientale, Vol. 52, No. 1 (1958), pp. 1-15
Published by: Presses Universitaires de France
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/23294839
Accessed: 13-01-2016 10:13 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Presses Universitaires de France is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Revue d'Assyriologie et
d'archologie orientale.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 142.51.1.212 on Wed, 13 Jan 2016 10:13:34 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 REVUE D'ASSYRIOLOGIE

ET D'ARCHOLOGIE ORIENTALE
PUBLIE SOUS LA DIRECTION DE

G. CONTENAU E. DHORME
CONSERVATEUR EN CHEF HONORAIRE MEMBRE DE L'iNSTITUT
DES MUSES DE FRANCE PROF. HON. AU COLLGE DE FRANCE

A. PARROT
CONSERVATEUR EN CHEF DES MUSES NATIONAUX

Secrtaire de rdaction : M. LAMBERT

LTIe Volume 1958

SOME REMARKS ON THE REFORMS

OF URUKAGINA
by I. M. DIAKONOFF (Leningrad)

A few years ago I published a translation of the so-called Reform -texts of

Urukagina. Since then several new translations of the texts or of parts of them
have been published1. A comprehensive dition of Ihe texts in transcription and
translation was recently published in RA 50, pp. 169-184 by M. Lambert. It is a

pity that in his highly important and suggestive contribution M. Lambert has not
made use of Soviet studies of early Sumerian society2. The author mentions my

1. See the rfrencs in the paper by M. Lambert : RA 50, 169. Also, cf. F. J. Stephens : HA 49, 129.
2. V. V. Struve : Problema zarozdeniya, razvitiya i razlozeniya rabovladelceskich obsestv drevnego
Vostoka (= The Problem of the Birth, Development and Decay of the Slave-holding societies of the Aneient

Orient) , Izvesliya Gosudarslvennoy Akademii Istorii Malerialnoy kultury (abbrev. IGAIMK), 77 [1934] ;
V. V. Struve : Rabstvo v drevneysem Sumire (= Slavery in Aneient Sumer) , IGAIMK, 97 [1934] ;
A. I. Tyumenev : Chozyaystvennyi personal chrama Bau v Lagaie (= Working personnel of the Temple of Bau
in LagaS) , Vestnik drevney istorii (abbrev. VDI) [1948], No. 1, pp. 12-30 ; I. M. Diakonoff : O ploscadi i sostave

naseleniya umerskich gorodov-gosudarstv (On the Area and Population of the Sumerian City-states ) ,
VDI [1950], No. 2, pp. 77-93 ; I. M. Diakonoff : Gosudarstvennyi stroy drevneysego Sumera (= The Structure
of the State in aneient Sumer) , VDI [1952], No. 2, pp. 13-37 ; I. M. Diakonoff : Sale of land in Pre-Sargonic
Sumer , Papers presented by the Soviet Dlgation at the XXIII International Congress of Orientalists,

Assyriology, Moscow, 1954 ; I. M. Diakonoff : Kuplya-prodaza zemli v drevneysem Sumere i vopros o umerskoy
obicine (= Sale of Land in the most aneient Sumer and the Problem of the Sumerian Rural Community) , VDI
[1955], No. 4, pp. 10-40; A. I. Tyumenev : Gosudarslvennoye chozyayslvo drevnego Sumera (= State Economy in
Aneient Sumer), Moscow-Leningrad, 1956, pp. 1-518.

Revue d'Assyriologie, LIJ.

This content downloaded from 142.51.1.212 on Wed, 13 Jan 2016 10:13:34 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 I. M. DIAKONOFF [RA 52

translation, but it is apparentlv known to him only from a rsum by J. Klma1.

In the meantime, I had prepared a new dition of the Reform -texts. But
as the translation of M. Lambert is in many cases practically identical with my own
and in some cases an improvement upon it, there seems to be no ground for a new

complt publication of the texts just now. On the other hand, in a few points of
translation and in several points of interprtation I difer materially from
M. Lambert. Therefore it might be use fui to publish the following remarks on
M. Lambert's translation.

In his dition, M. Lambert dparts from the tradition of editing the text just
as it stands ; he divides it into paragraphs and redistributes the reform -paragraphs
according to the order of the corresponding abuses mentioned in the introductory

parts of the inscriptions. More than that, when the abuse is mentioned in the
reform part of the inscription, namely, in the same sentence as the corresponding
reform , he divides the sentence into two and places the abuse in the first part
of his dition and the reform in the second. Thus the order of the reform

paragraphs in M. Lambert's dition is not that of the original texts. Such a

rearrangement of the text is surely a dangerous procdure, since it imposes upon the
mind of the reader the subjective interprtation of the editor and severs completely
what may have been meant to be closely connected2.

Although I disagree with M. Lambert in his arrangement and numbering of

the paragraphs, I retain in the following the division proposed by M. Lambert,
dropping my own. This has been done with the view to making the comparison of

my remarks with M. Lambert's dition more convenient3.

I. The abuses

1. (III) 5l m-laha^ke4 6m e-dabs 1ansu -da-le se-dabi sudu -du-le 10e-dab5

n-sar--mu10 12ussud-du we-dabh The chief boatman had the -boats in charge (for
his own benefit), the chief shepherd had the asses in charge, the chief shepherd had
the sheep in charge, the chief fisherman had the fishing-places in charge.

1. I. M. Diakonoff : Reformy Urukaginy v Lagase (= The Reforms of Urukagina in Lagas) , VDI

[1951], No. 1, pp. 15-22. Cf. the rsum by J. Klima : Journal of jurislic papyrology, VI (1952), pp. 163-164.
2. The same principle was followed by K. Sethe in his otherwise admirable dition of the Pyramid texts,
which he arbitrarily divided into separate Sayings (Spruche) ; the resuit was that many years elapsed before
the real purport of these texts, which proved in their entirety to be a funeral ritual, could be discovered by
Mrs. M. E. Matthieu ritual , VDI [1917], No. 4, pp. 30-56) andlater re-discovered
(Teksty piramid zaupokoynyi
by H. Ricke and S. Schott (H. Ricke : Bemerkungen zur agyptischen Baukunst des Alten Reiches ; S. Schott :
Bemerkungen zum agyptischen Pyramidenkult , Beitrge zur agyptischen und
Rauforschung Alterlumskunde,
lleft 4 u. 5, Cairo, 1950).
3. In most cases I have also retained M. Lambert's mode of transcription.

This content downloaded from 142.51.1.212 on Wed, 13 Jan 2016 10:13:34 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
1958] SOME REMARKS ON THE REFORMS OF URUKAGINA 3

The l m-laha4 (or lu md-lah^-da), the udul and the essad (or ussud)1 were not
controllers of certain corporations in the borough of Lagas, as M. Lambert puts it,
but chiefs of workers' gangs on the temple esttes2. AU temple esttes certainly had

boats, fisheries and live stock, and there is no reason to suppose that in the present

passage only Lagas is meant. On the other hand, I have attempted to show3 that the
boroughs or communities, constituting together the state of Lagas, are not identical
with the temple esttes. The citizens of the diffrent communities of Lagas, as well
as of ail the other Sumerian city-states , were organized in clans or large patriarchal
families with land of their own4, while temple functionaries, like the lu-m-laha4, etc.,
held temple land in tenure on condition of service ; their holdings were strictly indivi
dual. It was an additional allowance to the payment in kind they got for their service ;

some of them got only barley- and wool-rations and held no land at ail5. Now, the
drivers of ass-herds and the shepherds were those who worked farthest from the

temple6. The same is evidently true of boatmen and fishermen as well. It was

precisely those members of the temple personnel who worked far from the temple
itself that mostly got land in addition to an allowance of barley and wool every
three months, while those who worked at the temple itself, or at the court of the
ensi and his wife, received only monthly food rations and no allotments. Thus,
according to the order established in Urukagina's time, and also to the older usage,
the functionaries mentioned in 1 ought to have got land allotments and a food
ration.
The translation had in charge for e-dab5 is not the only possible one ; it can

also be translated had in charge for his own benefit , had the benefit of , had
the use of , as in the well-known phrase lu-kur6-dab5-ba men who have the benefit
of an allowance (what is a land-allotment).
is meant
In view of ail this, we may conclude that the abuse mentioned in 1 amounted
to a usage according to which the chiefs of the more out-of-the-way workers' gangs
got their incomes directly from the produce of the workers and not as an allowance
from the temple or state administration.

1. M. Lambert reads essad-de6. But it is difficult to explain why the scribe should choose the sign DU
to render the active case -e after d instead of choosing one of the more common writings. Perhaps in the Lagas
dialect the pronunciation of the word essad was ussud ?
2. On the organization of work on the temple esttes cf. A. I. Tyumenev : Stale Economy in Ancienl Sumer,
pp. 170-199.
3. VDI [1955], no. 4, pp. 10-40.
4. Sale of Land in Pre-Sargonic Sumer, Papers presented by the Soviet dlgation..., pp. 25, 27.
5. A. I. Tyumenev : op. cit., pp. 135-169.
fi. Ibid.. p. 181. In Urukagina's time they got land allotments, ibid., p. 1441.

This content downloaded from 142.51.1.212 on Wed, 13 Jan 2016 10:13:34 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
4 I. M. DIAKONOFF [RA 52

The measured
2. (III) lisatug-ge-ne 15se-gub-ba 16Ambarki-a17e-g sutugs
out the rent in barley in Ambar.
I think that the sutug (or gutug according to E. Sollberger) is the well-known
incantation-priest . The se-gub-ba was a sort of rent for uru4-/a/-]and that was
not held on condition of service but on condition of payment in kind1. The abuse

mentioned in this paragraph is more or less parallel to that mentioned in 3 (e).

3 should be divided into at least three paragraphs :

3 (a). (III) 18sipad-udu-siki-ka-ke^ne 19bar udu-hda-ka (IV) 1k b-gar-r-s

2l-zir-gid 3agrig igala-mah 5l-babbir 6ugula-ugula-ne 7bar sila^-GAB-ka-ka 8k

The of wool-sheep, instead of a white ram, had to lay
b-gar-r-s shepherds
out silver ; the land-measurers, the agrigs, the chief choir-priests, the brewers (and)
ail the chiefs of workers' gangs, instead of a... lamb had to lay out silver. Thisrather
obscure statement is rendered somewhat clearer in the text of the Plaque ovale :

(I) 10[l-zir-gida-ke^ne (?)] 11[agrig-ge-n]e12ugiila-ugula-ne13gala-e-neliengar-r-ne

15l-babbira-ke4-ne 16udu-siki -mu-tm 17-gal-la -ur4 18i/4-da udu e-hd 19siki-b
ba-tmu 20k gin-5-am6 [The the agrig]s,
-gal-la-a ile-g-g-d landmeasurers,
ail the chiefs of workers' gangs, the choir-priests, the chiefs of cultivation, the brewers,
in case they brought wool-sheep and plucked (the wool) at the Palace, if the ram was

white, its wool was brought to the Palace in order that he (the owner) should pay
5 shekels of silver.
The more opulent men of the temple esttes had the right to own livestock

(cf. 13 of the Reforms ) but probably only under the control of the Palace, where

they brought their sheep for shearing . Ownership of white sheep was evidently a

privilege of the Palace, so the wool of such sheep was confiscated and the owner

heavily fned. 5 shekels of silver was the cost of the wool of ca. 20 sheep2. This
could not be the price for shearing and washing the wool, as M. Lambert supposes.

B-gar-r-s is Present-Future 3 with a modal sense of obligatory or

1. SL, 367, 121 ; A. I. Tyumenev : op. cit., p. 173.

2. The price of 20 manahs of wool was 1 shekel of silver, A. Deimel : Or., 2, p. 20. A pedigree ram can to-day
produce up to 40 kg of wool but a common sheep used formerly to produce not more than 2 to 5 kg of wool ;
with their primitive method of plucking wool instead of shearing (the scissors and shears had not been invented

yet) the Sumerians could hardly get more than 4-5 manahs of wool per sheep. That makes 5 shekels of silver the
price of wool from at least 20 sheep.
3. 1 retain this traditional
term although it is certainly not a tense but an aspect, namely, the imperfective

aspect ; in this I fully agree with the view expressed by R. Jestin, 1 Verbe sumrien, p. 209 ; his more recent term
inactualis seems to me a little too obscure. Of course, we have very often to translate the Sumerian aspects
in terms of tenses. As verbal aspects are a common trait of my mother tongue, I may be permitted to add that the
Sumerian Present-Future has much in common with the Slavic and frquentative
imperfective aspects but has
also some additional shades of meaning of a modal character (possible or obligatory See now also
action).

This content downloaded from 142.51.1.212 on Wed, 13 Jan 2016 10:13:34 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
1958] SOME REMARKS ON THE REFORMS OF URUKAGINA 5

possible action very common in the wording of laws1 ; but here : laid out 2.

-gal-la-a in line I, 19 of the Plaque ovale, in view of -gal-la in line 1.17 prsents
a difficulty. But I do not think that the reading a-ba-gub is justified.

E-g-gd-d : the element -d.- with a transitive verb has perhaps an additional
sense of purpose or obligation which certainly is inherent in the verbal noun with the
suffix -ed- ; the verbal noun in question has often the character of a supine3.

3 (b). (IV) 9gud-dingir-r-ne-kei 10ki-sum-ma nensi-ka 12i-urui13gdna-sagb-ga
14dingir-r-ne-ka lbki-sum-ma 16ki-uks 17ensi-ka 18e-gl-lam 19ansu-bir-ra 20gud-du7-dui
The oxen of the
21sanga-sanga-ne 22e-ne-KS-DU-ame gods tilled the kitchen-garden
of the ensi4 ; in the best felds of the gods there were kitchen-gardens and cucumber

gardens of the ensi ; the yoke-asses and the . ..-oxen of ail the priests one took away
(from them)5.
Bir is here probably yoke (not offcer or, more accurately, personnel ,
men which is rendered by the same sign but with the reading ern).
The coupling of asses to oxen is difficult to conceive. The verb KS-DU can

hardly be understood here in the sense of to bind , bearing in mind that it is used
in the sense of to carry away in line VI, 3 and A, V, 5.
The text speaks of the oxen of the temple working in the felds of the ensi,
but it does not follow that the temples in question are those of Lagas only, and not
those of Girsu ; cf. 9 of the Reforms . I do not see that 3 (b) has anything to
do with 3 (a). In the variant of the Plaque ovale one can see clearly that Ihcrc is
no connection between using temple stock for work in the onion-gardens of the ensi
and the fine for bringing a white ram to the shearing. The only connection is that
in both cases the priests and the chiefs of the temple personnel were treated unjustly
(from their point of view).

V. V. Struve : Kategoriya vremeni i zamena ideogramm v sumeriyskom yazyke i pisme ( = Tense and substitu
tion of ideograms in Sumerian language and script). Vestnik Leningradslcngn Universilela [1957], N 8, p. 85 sqq.
1. I read b-gar-r-s in 1951 ; it is also the reading of E. Sollberger, Le systme verbal, example 329. Being
an aspect, the Present-Future can refer as well to the past as to the present or future : dumu-ukii-ke4 har
SAG + HA-na -mu-ak kua-b l ba-da-kar-r In the case the d. made a h., a citizen could carry away its fsh .

Thus, when the Present-Future is used, say, in a law (i-Ial-e), and we translate it
as Future ( he shall pay ),

we do not fully do justice to the exact sense of the Sumerian expression ( he must pay or, sometimes, he can

pay ). The same additional sense of obligation or possibility is to be found in the Akkadian Present.
2. My opinion is now that we have here preterite : see R. Jestin : 1 Le verbe sumrien (1943), p. 245.
3. Cf. the examples given by R. Jestin : 1 Verbe..., pp. 292 sqq. ; 2 Verbe..., pp. 366 sqq. ; 3 Verbe..., p. 118.
4. The reading ensi or insi still seems more probable in spite of the g!o;s Nl-in-si for PA-TE-SI ( = i-in-si ?).
5. The dative infix -ne- corresponds here probably to the Locative-terminative case [sanga-sanga-ne(-e)
e-ne-KS-DU-am6], an occurrence not without parallels ; the sense of the dative infix is broader than that of the

Indo-European Dative ; it expresses the gnral idea of something being done to someone. Another explanation
might be that sanga-sanga-ne(-k) is Genitive, and the indirect object (*sanga-sanga-ne-ra) is dropped altogether.

This content downloaded from 142.51.1.212 on Wed, 13 Jan 2016 10:13:34 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
6 I. M. DIAKONOFF [RA 52

The interprtation proposed by M. Lambert seems too far-fetched (Toute une

part de l'conomie du quartier Lagash, celle ayant trait l'levage, tait... largement
dficitaire au profit du Girsu. Ses dpenses ne pouvaient tre couvertes que par les
autres secteurs, en particulier l'agriculture. C'est ainsi que les gens de Lagash voyaient
souvent, et sans plaisir, les bufs de leurs temples coupls aux nes du prince, et leurs
meilleures terres abandonnes ce dernier p. 171, note). The texts speak plainly
of sheep belonging to priests, brewers, etc., not of a part of the economy of the

borough Lagas (meaning probably the temple esttes of Lagas). In the economic
texts the sheep of the temple are called property (-rum) of the goddess (or of
the chief priestess, the wife of the ensi). There is no reason why such sheep should be

regarded as belonging to individual members of the temple personnel.

2ern-ensi-ka 3e-ba The rations (in barley,
3 (c). (V) 1se sanga-sanga-ne
se-ba) of ail the priests the men of the ensi dealt out. This means that the temple
incomes were controlled by the administration of the state, cf. 9.

5.
(Y) 22sanga-gara-kel 2Skiri6-ama-uk (VI) 1gis na-ba-ni-rig5-rigb 2gi-lim
An appointed
3e-ta-KS-DU priest in the garden of the ama-uk could fell a tree
or carry away the fruits1.
Ama-uk2 is not the poor as a gnral term but a definite category of persons ;
a separate member3 of this category is evidently the dumu-uk of 16. Now, uk
is = Akkad. labnu, a term known from the Samsi-Addu I letters and used to dnot
a person not able to supply himself with arms etc., in contrast to a free citizen4.
It is probable that the Akkad. labnu is identical with the musknum (suknum =
= appam labnum). The latter was a person who did not own real but
property
was given an allotment by the crown on condition of service5.

1. Formerly I read gis-nci ba-ni-ri-ri which is certainly wrong. The occurrences of the verb na-rig5 to fell
(a tree) in the administrative documents are very instructive from the point of view of the theory of Sumerian

prfixs. The forms na-i-rigs, na-i-mi-rigb, na-e-me-rig5,na-e-ma-rig5, na-bi-rig5, na-b-rig5, na-ba-ni-rig-a are used
in essentially identical contexts. Cf. DP 103, 409-453 ; FS 57, 98, 157, etc. Cf. also DP 449 and DP 430, where
the forms mu-na-Sid and e-na-sid are used in absolutely identical contexts (the nu-bnda, distributing logwood,
crdits it to an inferior offlcer).
2. Ama- is here probably a wcTrd-building element, cf. ama-ern = akkad. : ummantu armed force , ama
lul-la = lie ( ?) , ama-siki old woman , ama-ir mourner , ama-lud-da = akkad. : ilitti
etim, sumaktru child
or slave born in the house , also perhaps some sort of relation ( grandson and granddaughter ?). Nin-ka-gi-na,
the daughter of the ensi Ka-k, was the wife of the ensi Ur-gar and ama-tud-da of the ensi Nam-maha-ni, cf. the
inscription of Ur-gar, prince of Lagas, published by W. K. Shileico in Zapiski vostoinogo otdeleniya Rossiyskogo
archeologiieskogo obsceslva, XXV [1921], p. 140 ; a family mentioned in Nik., I, 19, II, consisted of one Ur-&Nin
Marki, his wife, his two sons, his two daughters and his two ama-tud-da, one maie and one female.
3. Cf. the expressions mr ummnim, mr awlim, etc.
4. ARM, II, No. 1, 11-23.
5. Vide I. M. Diakonoff : Symbolae Taubenschlag, Eos, XLVI1I, 1, pp. 37-62.

This content downloaded from 142.51.1.212 on Wed, 13 Jan 2016 10:13:34 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
19581 SOME REMARKS ON THE <( REFORMS OF URUKAGINA 7

The expression kiri6-ama-uk is perhaps the direct object of the verb in a locative
sense (cf. A. Falkenstein : GSGL, 103, a 2). The term ama-uk itself is not or
has ceased to be felt as a genitive construction.

Perhaps the reading of the second verb should be e-ta-giru-re6 (E. Sollberger :
Present-Future with the additional sense of possibility. The
e-ta-girn-r)
reduplication in na-ba-ni-rig5-rig5 is quivalent to the Present-Future , cf. A. Poebel,
GSGr, 446 c.

The artisans
8 (a). (VI) 28gis-kin-ti 29nig-su-il-la (VII) H-luk-am6 had

(the obligation of) nig-su-il-la (or ninda-su-il-la).

78 a-ZAR-la The
8 (b). (VII) 2gurus-mina-me akur6-dug-BEC ii-tuk-am6
men who were two (= every second man ?) had (an obligation of) kurs-dug-~REC 78
of flowing water1 or of hempen cord ?).
(?
The gurus-mina are here identical with the sub-lugala of 11-14. Both the

gis-kin-ti and the sub-lugala were members of the temple personnel. We shall return
to the interprtation of 8 (a) and (b) later.

' ensi-ka 1 -mina sgna -mina-ke4 9 nam-dumu

9. (VII) egna-ensi-ka-kei
The house of the ensi was
l0gna nam-dumu-kei nzag-i-s-s-am6 joined to fields
of the ensi, the house of the House-of-the-Woman to the fields of the House-of
of the Children to the fields of the
the-Woman , the house of the Establishment
Establishment of the Children. .

Zag-i-s-s~ame should be translated stood together or were joined to ,

merged (economically). The House of the ensi, the House-of-the-Woman
and the Establishment of the Children were the courts of, respectively, the ensi,
his wife and his children. But the corresponding fields were not
primarily royal
lands ; they were the temple esttes of dNin-gir-su, ABa-U and the divine children. It
is a well known fact that the temple estate of the goddess dBa-U was under Lugalanda
called -rum (property of ?) Bar-nam-tar-ra, the wife of Lugalanda, while under

Urukagina it became -rutn iBa-U. This was precisely the resuit of the reform
mentioned in 9 : -mina -mina-ka Ba-U nin-ba In the house of
gna i-gub
the House-of-the-Woman he installed the goddess ABa-U in (the character of)
their mistress. But before the reform the temple estate had been joined to the court
of the queen, and being her -rum (property), constituted the fields of the Ilouse

of-the-Woman .

Thus, the text speaks of the temple esttes having been joined to the court of

1. Reading a-zalx-la Y

This content downloaded from 142.51.1.212 on Wed, 13 Jan 2016 10:13:34 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
8 I. M. DIAKONOFF
[RA 52

the ensi and his wife : the temple estate of ANin-gir-su in Girsu had been under

Lugalanda by the ensi and the tempie of iBa-U

ruled in Lagas (as well as that of

ASul-sagl-ga-na) by his wife1. It is difficult to see how it can be said of two temple
esttes administered by the ensi and his wife, that ils se contrarient .

11-12. (VII) I',sub-lugala-kei 18sag-gnag-ga-na-ka 19bul-ni i-d 20igi-nu-duh
The
21ba-dab5 22a-MUS-TM 23gnag-ga gl-la-a 2iigi-nu-duh 25ba-dab5 sub-lugala
made a well on the broad2 (farther) side of the field (and) the igi-nu-duh had the use

(of it ; or : had it in charge ) ; running (?) water existing on the field, the igi-nu-duh
had the use (of it).
I should prefer the old reading sub-lugala to ru-lugala (perhaps it should even
be subK-lugala). It is possibly the same term as sub (KA X SU) mentioned by Gudea,
Cyl. B, XVII, 20 XVIII. 1 : gim nin-a-ni mu-da-s-m arad-d lugal-e zag mu-da
uru-na suba-ni mu-da-nd-m The slave girl was equal to
gin-m zag-b-a
her mistress, the slave went together with the master, in his city the strong one and

the humble (the client ?) lay side by side.

Lugal is here probably simply master , not king : there was no king in

Lagas in the time of Lugalanda. Sub-lugala is he who humilites himself or falls

down before his master (sub to fall ; sub = suknum ; cf. cliens)3.
The sub-lugala was a sort of worker on the temple esttes who got an allotment
of land for his work4. He was by no means a slave, as can also
be seen from 13
and 14. On the other hand, the igi-nu-duh could be bought
and sold5 ; he got only a

barley- and wool-ration6. He was probably a temple slave employed on the irrigation
works. Now, a well or a ditch made by the sub-lugala would be situated on temple

land, and consequently could be taken for use or in charge (dab5) by the igi-nu-duh.
The reformer now guarantees to the sub-lugala the inviolable use of water on his plot.
The more ancient form of the word gn field was
probably gnag1. Sag

gtiag-an(i)-ak-a is not on the top of his field ga , but simply on the broad
(farther)
side of his field an obvious place in which to dig a well : one does not dig wells

1. But there were gardens belonging to ABa-U in Girsu as well, cf. DP 107.
2. O. Neugebauer, Malhematische Keilschrifitexte, II, p. 31 ; A. P. Riftin, Staro-vavilonskiye dokumenty,
No. 19 ; Allotte de La Fuye, RA XII, 117 sqq.
3. SL 33, 6 (here subit i. e. KA x S, a variant of KA x SU, cf. $L33, 1).
4. A. I. Tyumenev, op. cit., p. 154 ; A. Deimel, Or., 2, p. 39, calls him Militrkolon .
5. Nik I, 293; F0 141, 144.
6. A. I. Tyumenev : op. cit., p. 152.
7. A reading gdj is also possible ; the rendering of the syllable ja by the sign ga instead of gd is not wholly
without parallels.

This content downloaded from 142.51.1.212 on Wed, 13 Jan 2016 10:13:34 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
1958] SOME remarks ON THE REFORMS OF URUKAGINA 9

on hill-tops. In ail cases known to me where we meet the spelling GN-ga this

interprtation is borne out by the context1.

16. wdumu-uk-kei nhar-SAG -f-IJA-na 12-mu-ak 13kua-b l ba-da

(II)
In case one of the uk-men made a fishing-pond
kar-r lil-b i-AUtu i-e (??), a
citizen could carry away its fish ; this citizen could lodge a complaint (literally an
Oh, god Utu ! ).
I cannot see why l should be rendered as owner 2. It is probably the citizen

(= awlum) as opposed to the uk (= Akkad. labnum, musknum). An owner

would not be described as robbing or despoiling (kar) the dumu-uku3. The

fishing-pond was perhaps situated on the land of the community.

19.
-
(II) 22l sag sembe i i-d, etc. A man poured perfume (?) on4 the head

(of a girl)...
This paragraph probably refers to marriage5. The ensi and his administration

exacted an impost on divorces ( 18) and marriages ( 19).

II. The reforms

Preamble. 36 000 should not be rendered as myriads , though the figure

is obviously nothing but a rough approximation of the number of the citizens (l).

1. Nik I, 185 : mai gnag-ga -a young goats walking out in the flelds (Locative). DP 646 : s gnag-ga-s
unto the middle of the feld (Genitive + Terminative). Gudea, SI. I, 7, I-II, 2 : uru-a ki-r mu-na-ni-gar-a
in the city the foundations he gave him there, in the country the fields)
gnag-ga gnag ici mu-na-ni-gar-a (=
the fields (and) canals he gave him there (Locative). Uruk., B, VII, 18 : sag-gdnag-ga-na-ka (Possessive
pronoun + Genitive + Locative) ; do., 23 : gnag-ga gl-la-a (Locative). Compare also mas-gnag-ga in Nilc I,
170 with mas-gnag-uriiflala-ka-kam in Nik I, 184 ; the latter form proves that mas-gnag-ga is a single Genitive

construction. Cf. uz, Genitive uzug-ga. Are there early instances of the spelling *C.N-na in the Locative and

Genitive cases ? If there are, that would be the later forms.

If ga were an attributive expect
noun, such forms as *gn-ga-ka,
we should *! gn-ga-ka-s, etc. We

might think of it as an adjective or a noun in apposition to gn. But the etymological connection with ga rnilk

(> mamma > hillock ) proposed by F. Thureau-Dangin (Syl/C 50a) must obviously be dropped : ga is not
mamma (ubur) and certainly cannot dnot a hillock . Besides, a relative adjective of the type of the English
milky is not what we should expect in Sumerian : it would have been necessary to replace it by a noun in the

Genitive, and that would bring us back to the from *gn-ga-ka in the Locative.

2. The same applies to 17.

3. Kar = Akkad. kkmum, mas'um, zuBUM, etc., cf. $L 376*. The original sense of the verb kar was

probably to snatch something and run away with it . Hence the two senses of the verb in the early texts :
to run away (said of Ur-lum-ma in Ent., Cone A, III, 15-16, etc.) and to carry away , in both cases with
das erstarrte Inflx -da- of the Comitative.
4. Sag is the direct object of the verb in a locative sense, cf. 5.

5. The of pouring oil on the head of the bride is well known ; cf. for instance The Assyrian Laws,
usage
Tablet A, 42, etc.

This content downloaded from 142.51.1.212 on Wed, 13 Jan 2016 10:13:34 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
10 I. M. DIAKONOFF [RA 52

Still, it is not a standing idiomatic phrase describing an indefinite multitude, because

the phrase difers from one context to another. Entemena in his Nippur inscription1

speaks of 3 600 citizens, Urukagina of 36 000 , and Gudea, the good shepherd
of the Land (i. e. of Sumer, not of Lagas alone !) speaks of 216 000 2. The

divergence shows that, not being exact, the figures give each time the order of the real
number of the citizens in question. It is probable that Urukagina was elected by the
assembly of the citizens, in the same way as happened one or two gnrations later
with Iphur-Kis, the prince of Kis3. Lugalanda was not dead at the time of Urukagina's
lection and continued to live in Lagas for several years4, so it was hardly a palace
rvolution which brought Urukagina to power.

not seem that this paragraph is the continuation of

8. It does probable
6 and 7, because this would imply that Urukagina increased the imposts exacted
from the population instead of reducing them as, it seems, according to the two last
mentioned paragraphs, that he actually did.
It is more probable that we have here a list of allowances fixed for the diffrent

priests, etc., having no connection with the funeral ceremonies or, at any rate,

payments distributed by the temples or the state and not exacted from the family of the
dead as is the case in 6 and 7. The allowance might have been an innovation, which
would account for the absence of a corresponding abuse in the first part of the text.

I do not think that the lines XI, 11-16 belong to the same paragraph.
78 a-ZAR-la He
8 (b). (XI) ukur6 dug-REC ngurus-mina-ka 13ka-i-gii
revoked5 the k. of (each) two men.
He revoked the n. of the
8 (c). ligis-kin-ti 15nig-su-il-la-ba 16ka-i-gil
artisans.
As we mentioned before, kur6 dug REC 78 is hardly something that was due to
the sub-lugala but rather some service, impost or duty incumbeni on him. The

1. Ent. 32 (Vase B), I, The text seems to speak of Enteraena being elected protector of the temple al

Nippur and not ensi of Lagas (?).

2. St. B, III, 6-11.
3. A. Boissier : RA 16, p. 157 sqq. In Home also the pious Action was that the consuls were elected by the
gods through the people.
4. A. Deimel thought that Lugalanda and ail his household were killed, since his personal servants disappear
from the lists of the personnel on the temple esttes of ABa- in Urukagina's time. But surely they could have
lived elsewhere in Lagas. The ensi-gal who, together with Baranamtarra, the wife of Lugalanda, sent prsents to
the daughter of Urukagina ( TSA 2) was, no doubt, Lugalanda himself. This ensi-gal (or ex-ensi 1) is mentioned as
late as the 6th year of Urukagina, lugal {See W. K. Shileico, Volivnye nadpisi sumeriyskich praviteley,
Petrograd [1916], p. xxi ; W. Shileico : RA 11, p. 63 sqq.) Baranamtarra died in the second year of Urukagina,

lugal (DP 133, V ; TSA 9 ; F6 137).

5. Literally turned the word or the mouth .

This content downloaded from 142.51.1.212 on Wed, 13 Jan 2016 10:13:34 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
1958] SOME REMARKS ON THE REFORMS OF URUKAGINA 11

corresponding abuse in the text of the Plaque ovale has been joined by M. Lambert
to 12. This text runs as follows : (II) isub-lugala-kei 5kur6 dug-REC 78 en-na aka
6a nag-nag ''nu-na-sum-mu, which I propose to translate : the sub-lugala, however
much he would do the k., drinking-water one might not give him . Anyway, en-na
aka can hardly be rendered by autant que... y avait .
Therefore it seems probable that kure dug-BEC 78 is something the sub-lugala

(or gurus-mina) had to do or to render, and which he is now freed from. The same

applies, of course, to the nig-su-il-la (or ninda-su-il-la) of the artisans.

On the
10. topography of Lagas see also my article in the Vestnik drevney
isturii [1950], No. 2, pp. 77 sqq.

fnd -lugal-la-kei in the hand-copy

14. I cannot either published in the
Dcouvertes en Chalde, Partie pigraphique, LI-LII, or in the copy of E. Sollberger ;
it is lu-gu-la both in line 32 and in line 35. Is the new reading the resuit of a collation
or a mistake of M. Lambert ?M.

Lu-gu-la is probably not master but a person of high standing . L-gu-la-b

can hardly be son matre , since sub-lugala belongs to the personal noun-class ! It
should be rendered this person of high standing .

16-22-23. These are apparently parts of one paragraph ; M. Lambert's
idea of dividing it into three paragraphs and scattering them in diffrent parts of his
dition seems arbitrary :

(lll)6dumu-uk-kel 1har-SAG 4- HA-na s-ak 9kua-b l nu-ba-da5-kar-r 10nig

zuh-a uza s-da-b i-ru12nig--kur6-d-a 13a-ZAR-la e-lal In case a dumu-uk makes
a fishing-pond (??), no citizen can carry away its fish ; the thief.... the one hangs
with hempen cord (??).

Nig-zuh-a thief is probably a participle (cf. the conclusion of the text B-C),
and does not necessarily demand the addition of lu man . The verb is here probably

nig-... -zuh, not zuh.

Beginning with line 11 the text is very dificult. Line 11 : one throws ( perfective

aspect) stones (? za) and (-b) that with a curse (? s-da) (??). Line 12 : nig-

g-d-a (if it is connected with nig--kur6-d-a) is derived from -g-d which means
not only to perish but also to flee away 2. The sense is obscure, but what is
the meaning of attaching (or hanging ) the lost objects in (or by) the a-ZAR-la

( hempen cord ? ). Perhaps the text speaks of a punishment ? A-ZAR-la is probably

[1. C'est une erreur de ma part que je n'explique pas. M. Lambert.]

SL = Akk. na'butum ; l -g-d = Akk. munnabtum.
2. 318, 30 : -g-d

This content downloaded from 142.51.1.212 on Wed, 13 Jan 2016 10:13:34 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
12 I. M. DIAKONOFF [RA 52

Akk. azall hemp , here cord . An adequate translation must fit the context
in 8 (b) as well.

I do not understand
18. this paragraph. But has it really anything to do
with the abuse mentioned under M. Lambert's 18 ?

Conclusion. Some of M. Lambert's translations seem to me somewhat

doubtful = domicile, = KA-ks = But I
(-hun gur-gub-ba accaparement, sceller).
confess I cannot suggest anything better.

*
* *

The^social significance of the reforms of Urukagina has been much debated

by Soviet scholars, and diffrent opinions have been profered1. I do not think there
is evidence of a struggle between Lagas and Girsu, either in the reform -texts
or elsewhere. To me it seems most probable that the reforms were the outcome
of a struggle of the priests and aristocracy (standing for the economic and political
autonomy of the temple esttes) against the ruler2, who sought to strengthen his
economic and political position by annexation of the temple esttes3. The ruler was

supported by the state administration (the sukkal, the abgal, the nimgir, the sag-sug5,
the maskim-di and other functionaries seldom or never mentioned in the administrative
documents of the temple esttes proper)4 and by a part of the temple personnel opposed
to the priests. Possibly the citizens of Lagas outside the temples had also a hand in
the struggle. Lugalanda and his wife administered the most important temple
esttes in person and must have met with considrable opposition from the sangas
and the other priests, who formerly held the temple esttes in their own hands, as is
shown by the earlier archives of Suruppak, Ur, etc. ; Urukagina, on the other hand,
must have been a creature of the priests. As can be seen from the above texts, the

priests gained from the reforms, although some of the latter, being solemnly declared,

1. V. V. Sthuvf. : IGAIMK, 97, p. 26 sqq. ; I. M. Diakonoff : VDI [1951], No. 1, pp. 15-22;
A. 1. Tyumenev t State Economy in Ancienl Sumer, pp. 137-142, etc.
2. The latter certainly had his court at Girsu. But there were other temple esttes, not only in Lagas and
in the smaller communities but also in Girsu itself which had not become royal esttes ; there certainly also
existed land outside the temple esttes, as well as citizens not belonging to the temple personnel, i. e. members of
patriarchal families owning their purchasable land (gna-sdm), cf. I. M. Diakonoff : VDI, No. 4, pp. 10 sqq. ;
Papers, presented by the Soviet dlgation..., p. 28.
3. This policy seems to date from the time of En-n-tar-zi, who was high-priest (sanga) of iNin-gir-su
previous to becoming ensi after Entemena and Enannatum II. Since then the sangas of iNin-gir-su disappear
from the documents, as well as the sangas of iBa- and iG-tm-dg. Compare the lists DP 132, 133, 226, TSA 5.

They reappear under Urukagina, but in a subordinate rle. The sons of iNin-gir-su had no sangas of their own.
4. The only exceptions are the documents where the guests of the wife of the ensi are listed and similar ones,
as well as the deeds of sale.

This content downloaded from 142.51.1.212 on Wed, 13 Jan 2016 10:13:34 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
1958] SOME REMARKS ON THE REFORMS OF URUKAGINA 13

have never been really put into action. I hope to return to these problems later.
In the foregoing remarks [ certainly do not pretend to solve ail the questions

posed by these difficult texts, which in spite of the important workdoneby F. Thureau

Dangin, A. Deimel, E. Sollberger and others, and especially the recent contribution

by M. Lambert, remain in many respects rather obscure ; but I hope that my remarks
will serve to further their investigation ; a delailed discussion of the texts of Urukagina
would be very desirable.
Below is given a concordance of the division of the texts into paragraphs as
conceived by M. Lambert and
myself. One can easily see, whatever may be said
of the order in which the abuses are listed, that in the order of the reforms there
is a certain internai logic : first comes the abolition of certain exactions from the

temple personnel and the priests ( 1-4)1 and the restoration of divine property rights
to the temple esttes ( 5), then the abolition of law-court duties ( 6), introduction
of new rates of rations and payments to priests, etc., which also were in the nature of

a duty levied from the population ( 7 and 8), abolition of compulsory services (?) of
the sub-lugala and the temple artisans ( 9-10), protection of possession-rights of the

ama-uk, to which group of the population probably also belonged the sub-lugala

( 11-12), and a summary of criminal laws ( 13).

In the text of the Plaque ovale (called text D in the concordance) remains of

family and criminal lgislation are preserved, possibly corresponding to 13 of the

texts B and C.

CONCORDANCE OF THE REFORM -TEXTS

Corresponding abuses
Paragraphs Paragraphs
Text M. M.
(I. Diakonoff) (M. Lambert) (I. Diakonoff) (M. Lambf,rt)

C VII, 27-VIII, 1. 1 : Abolition of the C III, 6-14. C III, 6-14.

B VIII, 14-23. usage permitting B III, 5-13. B III, 5-13.
A IV, 10-17. flshermen's and A IV, 10-172.

shepherds' over
seers to driv
direct income
from the pro
duce of their
subordinates.

1. Here the paragraphs are numbered aecording to the system proposed by myself, not the one proposed by
M. Lambert.
2. In A etc., the abuses and the reforms seem to have been mentioned together ;
IV, 9-32,
one cannot be sure whether the abuses or the reforms are meant in the fragmentary text. The
moreover,
lacuna between Columns IV and V is small, and it is difficult to suppose that the space was sufficient for the

conclusion of the abuse part and the introduction of the reform part. Thus, perhaps the text A contined

no separate account of the abuses .

This content downloaded from 142.51.1.212 on Wed, 13 Jan 2016 10:13:34 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
14 I. M. DIAKONOFF [RA 52

Paragraphs Corresponding abuses

Paragraphs
IV-xt ! ; I. M.
(I. M. Diakonoi (M. Lambert) Diakonoff) (M. Lambrrt)

C VIII, 1-5. 2 : Abolition of the S 2 C III, 15-18. C III, 15-18.

B VIII, 24-27. payment of se B III, 14-17. B III, 14-17.

A IV, 18-... gub-ba by the D I, 5'-9'. A IV, 18-19*.

iufugi-priests. D I, 5'-9'.

C. VIII, 0-10. .'1 : Abolition of the fine S 3 G III, I9-1V, 8. G III, 19-1V, 25.
13 VIII, 28-IX, 1. l'or owning whit.e B III, 18-IV, 8. B 111, 18-IV, 8.
'? A IV, 26-... rams, etc. D I, 10'-21 '. D I, 10'-27', etc.
A IV, 26-32, etc.1.

C VIII, 11-15. 4 : Abolition of the '4 a) C V, 1-18 ; C V, 1-18.

B IX, 2-6. il-tax on the B V, 4-21. B V, 4-21.

priests. b) C IV, 20-25 ;

B IV, 20-V, 3.

C VIII, 16-27. 5 : Restoration of the 9 a) C VI, 25-31 ; C VI, 25-31.

B IX, 7-21. property of the B VII, 5-11. B VII, 5-11.
A V, 1"-... go d s on the b) B, C IV, 9-19 ;

temple esttes. D I, 22'-...

G VIII, 28-31. 6 : Abolition of the 10 C VI, 32-36. C VI, 32-36.

B IX, 22-25. maskim-di. B VII, 12-16. B VII, 12-16.

C VIII, 32-IX, 14. 7: Rduction of pay G V, 24-VI, 18. 6 : CV, 24-VI, 5.

B IX, 26-X, 13. ments to priests 32-IX, 1 B VI, 4-27. B VI, 4-14.
(C VIII,
A V, 6 -1 r>'. for funeral rites. B IX, 26-34; 7 C VI, 6-18 ;
A V, 6'-15') B VI, 15-27.

7
(the rest)

C IX, 15-X, 10. 8 : New rates of pay

B X, 14-XI, 10. ments to diverse
A ...-VI, 25'. priests ?

C X, 11-13. 9: Abolition of the 8 a) C VI, 22-24 ;

B XI, 11-13. kure-dug-REC78 B VII, 5-11 ;
A VI, 26'-... service (or tax)? D II, 4'-9'.
C VI, 37-VII, 8 ; C VI, 19-21.
b)
B B V1,28-V11,
VII, 17-25;
D 3'. 4.
...-II,

C X, 14-16. 10 : Abolition of a ser G VI, 19-21.

B XI, 14-16. vice of the arti B VI, 28-VI, 1.
sans (or of a tax
on them).

1. In A IV, 9-32, etc., the abuses and the reforms seem to have been mentioned together ;
moreover, one cannot be sure whether the abuses or the reforms are meant in the fragmentary text. The
lacuna between Columns IV and V is small, and it is difficult to suppose that the space was sufficient for the
conclusion of the abuse part and the introduction of the reform part. Thus, perliaps the text A contained
no separate account of the abuses .

This content downloaded from 142.51.1.212 on Wed, 13 Jan 2016 10:13:34 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
1958] SOME REMARKS ON THE REFORMS OF URUKAGINA 15

Paragraphs Paragraphs Corresponding abuses

Text M.
(f. M. Diakonofi') (M. Lambert) (I. Diakonoff) (M. Lambert)

C X, 17-19. 11 : The sanga-gar pro S S C V, 19-23. C V, 19-23.

B XI, 17-19. hibited from en B V, 22-VJ, 3. B V, 22-VI, 3.
A V, tering the garden
of the ama-uk.

C X, 20-X1, 19. 12 : Prohibition of arbi 13

B XI, 20-XU, 11. trary confisca (C X, 20-32 ;
tion of houseand B XI, 20-31)
stock of the sub
14
lugala. 1-19 ;
(C XI,
B XI, 32-XII, 11)

C XI, 20-29. i 13 : Summary of sundry Conclusion No known text. 15 (B VII, 26-28,

B XII, 12-28. criminal laws. C VII, 9-11).

D ... III, 5'. 14 : Divorce and mar 19 D II, 15'-3l'. D II, 22'-31 '.

riage taxes.

D III, 6'-l3 ? 15 : Criminal sanction 16 D II, 10'-14'. 16 : D II, 10'-14'.

for stealing flsh (D III, 6'-9')
from the pond of
22 22 :
the dumu-nh.
(D III, 10'-11')

23 23 :

(D III, 12 -13')

D III, 14'-19'. 16 : Criminal sanction 18 No known text. D II, 15-21 '.

against adultery
m

D III, 20'-24'. 17 : Criminal sanction 21 No known text. D III, 20 -22'.

against polyan (D III, 23'-24')

drv (??).

D III, 25'-... 18 : ? 20 No known text. D II, 32'-...

(no known text)

Unknown. 17 D ...-I, 4'. D ...-I, 4'.

(no known text)

11 C VI, 37-V1I, 4.

(no known text) B VII, 17-21.

12 C VII, 5-8.

(no known text) B VII, 22-25.

D II, 1-9.

This content downloaded from 142.51.1.212 on Wed, 13 Jan 2016 10:13:34 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions