A History of Ancient Near Eastern Law

He established the liberation^4 of Laga“, he let the child return to the

mother, he let the mother return to the child. He established the lib-

eration of barley debts...He established the liberation of the “chil-

dren” of (the city) Uruk, the “children” of (the city) Larsa.m and of

the “children” of (the city) Patibira.k. He let them return to (the god-

dess) Inana.k, to Uruk into her hand; he let them return to (the god)

Utu, to Larsa.m into his hand; he let them return to (the god) Lugal-

emu“.k, to the Emu“into his hand.^5

The basic purpose was to reunify nuclear families separated by corvée

labor (e.g., temple building), imprisonment for debt, and perhaps

debt bondage.

1.1.2 Irikagina’s edicts present legally exemplary cases of former

abusive customs or rules (bi 5 -lu 5 -da, nam-tar-ra) and their abolition

and/or replacement by new precepts.^6 The ruler claims to have pro-

claimed a general amnesty at the beginning of his reign:

He cleared the prisons^7 of indebted children of Laga“, of those hav-

ing committed gur-gub- and “e-si.g- offenses,^8 of those having com-

mitted theft or murder. He established their liberation (ama-r gi 4 ).

(^4) Use of the technical term /ama-r gi 4 / “to return to the mother,” correspond-
ing to Old Babylonian anduràrum “to run free”, “freedom”, shows that its derived
meaning “liberation” was well established. Cooper (SARI, La 5.4) translates, “He
cancelled the obligations.”
(^5) FAOS 5/1 Ent. 79 iii 10–vi 6.
(^6) The so-called reforms of Irikagina exist in three different versions, only one of
them complete: (a) = FAOS 5/1 Ukg. 4–5; 60. Version (b) of Ukg. 1–3 and AO
27621 (Cooper, “Medium.. .,” 104) is very fragmentary, as is version (c) of Ukg.

6. Versions (a) and (b) are written on so-called cones, i.e., conical clay vessels
   (Cooper, “Medium.. .”); version (c) is found on a fragmentary “clay plaque.”
   Versions (a) and (b) begin with an enumeration of building activities of and canals
   dug by Irikagina; they describe the reforms and name a final act, namely the occa-
   sion marked by the inscription ([a]: the liberation of the people of Laga“; [b]: the
   digging and renaming of a canal). Version (c) begins with the reforms and contin-
   ues with a historical narrative about the conflict between the neighboring city-states
   of Laga“and Umma and a catalogue of Irikagina’s building activities. Versions (a)
   and (c) catalogue former abuses in comparison with the new rules. Version (b) as
   far as it is preserved enumerates only reforms named in (a), although in a partly
   different sequence. In omitting the catalogue of abuses, (b) gives up the basic binary
   structure and, when necessary, refers to them in subordinate clauses. Version (c)
   contains material present in neither (a) or (b). Several building and canal-digging
   activities mentioned in (b) and (c) are absent from (a). The documentation there-
   fore seems to point to three different edicts with a common core and special seg-
   ments in each. Version (a) seems to be the earliest of the edicts.

(^7) Steinkeller, “The Sumerian Term for Prison.”
(^8) Referring to taxes and or rental payments?
142 
WESTBROOK_F4_141-181 8/27/03 1:40 PM Page 142