The reforms of Urukagina

‘Since time immemorial, since life began, in those days, the head boatman appropriated boats, the livestock official appropriated asses, the livestock official appropriated sheep, and the fisheries inspector appropriated. . . and the guda-priests paid grain taxes to the town of Ambar. The shepherds of wool sheep paid (a duty) in silver on account of white sheep, and the surveyor, chief lamentation-singer, supervisor, brewer and foreman paid (a duty) in silver on account of young lambs.

The oxen of the gods ploughed the garlic plot of the ruler and the best fields of the gods became the garlic and cucumber plots of the ruler. Teams of asses and spirited oxen were yoked for the temple administrators, but the grain of the temple administrators was distributed by the personnel of the ruler.

When a corpse was brought for burial, the uhmus took his seven jugs of beer, his 240 loaves of bread, 2 ul of hazi-grain, one woollen garment and one bed; and the umum took one ul of barley. When a man was brought for the “reed of Enki”, then the uhmus took his seven jugs of beer, his 420 loaves of bread, 2 ul of barley, one woollen garment, one bed, and a chair; and the umum took one ul of barley. . .

The ruler’s estate and the ruler’s fields, the estate of the “woman’s organisation” and fields of the “woman’s organisation”, and the children’s estate and the children’s fields all abutted one another. The bureaucracy was operating from the boundary of Ningirsu to the sea.

When the sublugal would build a well on the narrow edge of his field, the iginudu was appropriated (for the work), and the iginudu was also appropriated for (work on) the irrigation channels which were in the field.

These were the conventions of former times!

When Ningirsu, warrior of Enlil, granted the kingship of Lagash to Urukagina, selecting him from among the myriad of people, he replaced the customs of former times, carrying out the commands that Ningirsu, his master, had given him. He removed the head boatman from (control over) the boats, he removed the livestock official from (control over) asses and sheep, he removed the fisheries inspector from (control over) . . ., he removed the silo supervisor from (control over) the grain taxes of the guda-priests, he removed the bureaucrat (responsible) for the paying (of duties) in silver on account of white sheep and young lambs, and he removed the bureaucrat (responsible) for the delivery of duties by the temple to the palace.

He installed Ningirsu as proprietor over the ruler’s estate and the ruler’s fields; he installed Ba’u as proprietor of the estate of the “woman’s organisation” and fields of the “woman’s organisation”; and he installed Sulsagana as proprietor of the children’s estate. From the boundary of Ningirsu to the sea, the bureaucracy ceased operations.’

Abuses, bringing back previously lost rights and reinstating the correct relation between the state organisation (and the temple administration) and its subjects. Naturally, this self-legitimating tone was quite evident to the population. Similarly, Urukagina’s disassociation from previous governments was equally clear, despite the fact that their dysfunctions and measures were a reaction to the socio-economic crisis of the time.

For now, however, it is inaccurate to speak of reforms, since this would lead to the assumption of an effective change in the juridical or administrative system of the time. The aim of the edict was to reestablish order through a return to the past, idealised (as usual in archaic societies) as a perfect world, characterised by optimal institutions, which were far better at the time of their (divine or kingly) foundation, than later on. In practical terms, the reforms were mainly focused on a reduction of tributes and the abolition of abuses of power. Urukagina was not the first ruler to implement these kinds of measures. At Lagash itself, Entemena proclaimed that ‘he caused the son to return to the mother, he caused the mother to return to the son’, since he remitted interests on debts, and that he ‘established freedom’ not just in Lagash, but in Uruk, Larsa, and Bad-tibira (maybe taking advantage of his momentary conquest of these cities).

Apart from the propagandistic aim, these measures reveal the fact that a certain stratum of society was forced to go into debt and sell its property and children to repay interests to a creditor. This downward spiral eventually brought to the disappearance of small family estates and the rise of debt slavery in case of a missing repayment. Debt slavery was considered a serious damage to social order, since it damaged the ‘free’ portion of the population. Consequently, the solution was to ‘re-establish freedom’. The ruler issuing a reform edict therefore became a liberator, rejecting the accusation of being accountable for this social deterioration. In the case of Entemena, the causes for slavery are not explained. Urukagina, on the other hand, blamed the crisis (in order to set himself above his predecessors) on the individual abuses of power and the occasional malfunction of the system, rather than the structure of the system. Despite his statement, it is quite clear that this increasing debt of free farmers was a structural problem, linked to the overall tendencies of the period. These led to the disappearance of small family estates and the enrichment of temple and palace estates, as well as their administrators. These problems were actually caused by the rulers’ government, forcing rulers to release edicts as a way to keep matters under control and avoid rebellions, without changing too much of the system. The return to the past therefore became a means to mask the profound social changes that were taking place at the time.

These changes led to an unbearable tribute system (in terms of taxes and services) for free inhabitants, and maybe a marginalisation of their lands compared to the areas of development administered by the temple or the palace. It became increasingly difficult for free individuals to maintain this fast pace of contribution and production. A couple of bad years could have destroyed families, irreversibly starting the downward spiral of debt and debt slavery. Members of the highest echelons of society benefited the most from this situation (as lenders), also due to their contacts with the administration, responsible for the accumulation of grains and other products. Blaming priests and administrators for this crisis was aimed at pleasing that part of the population suffering the most from it. The crisis was largely due to the consolidation of large economic organisations, the enrichment of the elite, and the progressive decline of village communities and their farmers. Therefore, aside from individual responsibilities, the crisis remained unstoppable.