AMA.GI4

[sheshki]

In Ancient Mesopotamia rulers often used royal titles that had prestige or were somehow linked to famous rulers from the past.
Why? Simply to show the world that, by connecting back to those rulers through those titles
they themselves were great rulers as well and their cause was legitimate.

That somehow brings us to Liberty Fund, a libertarian moneybag outfit that bankrolls all sorts of Koch-linked youth-oriented baggertarian propaganda projects, or in other words,
a neo liberal Institution. They seem to have been the first using the signs AMA.GI₄ in modern times. So why did they choose these signs ?

Well, they actually don´t say on their website, but they do point out that: "The cuneiform
inscription that serves as Liberty Fund’s logo
and as a design element in our books is the earliest-known written appearance of the
word “freedom” (amagi), or “liberty.”

By doing this they basically do the same as the kings back then. Pointing towards an
event/thing from the long distant past to more or less justify their cause.
The problem here is that their definition of "liberty" and "freedom" differs quite a lot
from what AMA.GI₄ meant back then.

A good example of how Liberty Fund and Libertarians in general define "freedom" and
"liberty" is this exerpt from the poem:

Anthem for the Ama-Gi, by Jim Davidson, 2000

"We are the tribe of freedom you see.
In cuneiform writing they say 'Ama-Gi'
The most ancient way of writing we're free,
In wedges of clay before 2000 BC.

For four thousand years now people have known
That freedom is greatest when each is left alone.
No central planners, no central plan
Can make as much difference as one single man"

What a poet. And there are 18 more verses...

But, like i said, this is a good example how they view terms like "freedom" and "liberty", or better
how they turned and twisted AMA.GI₄ to fit their own agenda.
If you look at the second verse again you can see that Mr. Davidson describes the
complete opposite of a sumerian society.
Because the first emerging city-states developed a centralized and organized government which
was the base for their success in the first place.

AMA.GI₄, and you probably already read about this, but for completeness sake i will
repeat it here, means the following according to ePSD

amargi [REVERSION]  wr. ama-ar-gi₄; ama-gi₄ "reversion to a previous state" Akk. anduraāru

If you translate it literally it means "going back to your mother".

Here is a quote with a quote from this website:
"Here’s how David Graeber explains it in his brilliant book Debt: The First 5,000 Years:

Faced with the potential for complete social breakdown, Sumerian and later
Babylonian kings periodically announced general amnesties …
Such decrees would typically declare all outstanding consumer debt null and void
(commercial debts were not affected),
return all land to its original owners, and allow all debt-peons to return to their
families.
Before long, it became more or less a regular habit for kings to make such a
declaration on first assuming power, and many were forced to repeat it periodically
over the course of their reigns.
In Sumeria, these were called “declarations of freedom”—and it is significant that
the Sumerian word amargi,
the first recorded word for “freedom” in any known human language, literally means
“return to mother”—since this is what freed debt-peons were finally allowed to do."

Quote from WIKI
"A number of Libertarian organizations have adopted the cuneiform glyph as a symbol.
It is used as a logo by the Instituto Político para la Libertad of Peru, and
another version is a trademarked logo of the Libertarian publishing firm, Liberty
Fund."

The assumption that AMA.GI₄ = "our-definition-of-freedom" inspired people to name their commercial enterprises after that Sumerian word.
Or they try to make money any other way possible out of AMA.GI₄.
Here are some examples:

Amagi Metals
selling gold, silver and other precious metals for bitcoin

Amagi.nu
motivational speakers maybe?
Here is a quote from the website:
"Amagi is the first known written expression of freedom and returning to source. This was written 8000 years ago in the Sumerian society.
In my life I notice how people and organisations strive for freedom by creating profit.
The perception is; "when I create profit I create freedom"
What happens when the means to create freedom becomes the goal? It is an interesting feeling.
People and organisations that feel their mission, live their mission and work their butts off to achieve their mission, experience true freedom.
This freedom expresses itself through joy, sustainable development, health and profit."

Amagi Radio

Amagi Strategies

Amagi Agriculture, Industrial Hemp Growers
Quote:

"Freedom is Growing!"

Amagi Public Relations

Amagi training and nutrition

quote:
"About Amagi

At Amagi, we believe that all of us are intended to live lives of freedom and passion.
Rich lives, full of excitement and wonder, as individuals and as members of communities. "

a night club in kingston

Amagi Apothecary

quote:
" "Ama-gi" is an ancient Sumerian word which means "freedom". In fact, many consider it to be the first written expression
of the concept of liberty. It is in that spirit we here at Ama-gi Apothecary create natural, non-toxic goods in hopes of liberating
us all from those all-too-typical chemically and artificially enhanced products. At Ama-gi Apothecary, we take pride in our ingredients,
and strive to provide our customers with the best homemade natural goods. "

rings, phone cover, magazin, t-shirts, caps and other trinkets


AMA.GI₄ seems to be part of todays culture so there is no surprise that people have it tattoed.


Some comedy gold
HARMONY & The Amagi Symbol of FREEDOM (PDF)
Interpreting AMA-GI in the Parlance of the Harmony Model

And a final quote:
"Its a symbol that is very fashionable for Libertarian youth to go out and get tattooed on themselves
to show that they’re individuals. Of course they don’t actually see the irony in all
of them getting the same tattoo to show how they’re all unique."

[us4-he2-gal2]

Sheshki:



Thank you for bringing this interesting -and perplexing- popular reference to our attention. Quite a collection of references! Of course, almost any time people try to reference Sumer and adapt Sumerian culture to their own direction it is perplexing, but it has been happening since the dawn of time (even the Sumerians direct successors, the Akkadians, Babylonians and Assyrians endevered to emulate and seem Sumerian in different ways, after all, this was the culture from which Urbanism itself emerged). Maybe it isn't so curious why people like to reference the Sumerians to add legitimacy to their endeavor or their image etc. - but when it come to libertarian groups, I object to their attempts altogether.


In order to really make this objection, I will have to read and do some research. In particular, I would like to examine the reasoning behing libertyfund's explanation for their adaption of ama-gi4 as their official logo (see here). The page which you linked at the top of your post which refutes libertyfund's logo and scholarship is worth noting Sheshki, but too aggressive to be considered subjective. Perhaps I will translate the text from the clay cone pictured on the libteryfund website in order to nuance the argument a bit.

[dumu ki-en-gi]

hello 



ama-gi4. Ama = mother, gi4 = return.


ama-gi. The literal translation for the signs is "return to mother". It originally meant freedom from debt servitude, come to mean “freedom” in general.



A remission of the obligations {ama-gi4} of Lagash he instituted.

He returned the mother to the child

and returned the child to the mother,

and a remission {ama-gi4} of interest-bearing barley loans he instituted …



When he states that he “returned the mother to the child and returned the child to the mother” it means he abolished the practice of indenturing mothers and children as servants until the debts of the family were paid off. The debts themselves were not abolished, only the indentured servitude.applied the same standard of justice to the other cities under his control:



The citizens of Uruk, the citizens of Larsa, and the citizens of Badtibira,

a remission {ama-gi4} of the their obligations he instituted.

[sheshki]

Shulgi,

if you are posting content from other websites please provide us with a link to that site.
In this case it is from Sumerian Shakespeare

Thank you!

[dumu ki-en-gi]

Foundation Stone of the great temple of the city of Bad-tibira 

from Girsu Entemena reports that he was "at the same time give freedom to the people of the cities of Uruk, Larsa and Bad-tibira". To his city of Lagash, he had also "established liberty interests", that is to say, abolished the debts. abuot 2400 BC

[us4-he2-gal2]

Shulgi:

With some difficulty, I believe I have identified the text, the foundation stone, that you speak about above. This item is known as AO 24414 (CDLI P222593) - it is an inscribed stone tablet containing an inscription of Enmetena. As you say, it probably came from Bad-Tibira, from the great temple É-muš even, but this is not easy to claim.


The ancient city of Bad-Tibira (ancient Tell al-Madineh) has never properly and completely been excavated.. in the 1930s, a number of inscribed clay cones were sold to scholars by looters who had dug in the area, these cones contained building inscriptions of Enmetena. Later, a survey of Tell al-Madineh found further clay cones that were fragmentary and contained only a few signs - however, by comparing these with the cones found by the looters, it was enough to confirm the site as being Bad-Tibira (See. V.E. Crawford Iraq 22 1960).


Since then a number of stone foundation tablets have been given or perhaps sold to scholars, AO 24414 was first published in the 1970 by M. Lambert. As noted in NABU 2012 1 pg. 3, Lambert never mentions where the stone tablet came from, and further, CDLI seems to be confused and lists it as coming from "Girsu" , however it likly comes from Bad-Tibira (as tentatively suggested in Frayne and Steible) perhaps by way of the black market.


Here is Frayne's translation of AO 24414:

So we see that there is a 'cancelling of obligations' or a 'setting free' of persons sold into debt slavery by Entemena, something that seems to precede or foreshadow the famous reforms of Urukagina. While I don't want to contradict the innovations of these kings, I am skeptical that modern libertarian movements are using Sumerian sources in an academic way - I will have to review some of the literature on the economy and on the reform to answer this in full.


Here is a website that collects some views on AO 24414 and on the reforms of Urukagina, just some of the views about the subject at hand:

conscience-sociale.blogspot.ca/2013/09/carving-freedom-sumer-enmetena-tello-amagi-amargi-amaargi-debt.html

[dumu ki-en-gi]

Thank you, I know this

But I also see to P431120

[us4-he2-gal2]

The "Reforms" of Urukagina and Lagash, ama-gi4 and the Liberty Fund

e n e n u r u:








At the top of this thread, Sheshki brought to our attention a curious use of ancient cuneiform literature, that is, the adoption by the liberty fund, and by libertarians, of the Sumerian term ama-gi₄. Apparently, this has inspired some tax hating youth culture to go out and get ama-gi4 tattoos even. I share Sheshki's contention that this surface level identification with ancient notions of "freedom" and "liberty" is highly problematic and I will attempt to examine the context of the term in relevant ancient textual material in order to explain why.



The libertyfund website (here) gives the source of their information as Kramer 1956 (History Begins at Sumer... also titled: From the Tablets of Sumer..). Essentially, their explanation of their logo, ama-gi₄, is paraphrased from Kramer 1956 chap. 7, reading:


"According to Samuel Noah Kramer in From the Tablets of Sumer (1956), Lagash was the site of the first recorded social-reform movement. Once considered a relatively free society of farmers, cattle breeders, boatmen, fishermen, merchants, and craftsmen, the Lagashites found that a change in political power had stripped them of their political and economic freedoms and subjected them to heavy taxation and exploitation by wealthy officials.

Sumerian historians believe that at this low point in Lagash’s history, Urukagina became the leader of the Sumerian city-state of Girsu/Lagash and led a popular movement that resulted in the reform of the oppressive legal and governmental structure of Sumeria.

Although Urukagina’s reforms were short-lived, the oppressive conditions in the city before the reforms were recorded in cuneiform on several clay cones and an oval-shaped plaque excavated by the French in 1878. On the tablets of the period is found the first written reference to the concept of liberty (amagi or amargi, literally, “return to the mother”), used in reference to the process of reform."


Essentially, in order to challenge libertyfund's use of the material we would need to revisit Kramer's claims and weigh them against the findings of more recent scholarship. The statements highlighted in white will be examined further below.

A Digression on the Social Structure of Lagaš

In order to discuss matters such as the "Reforms" of Urukagina, a minimal description of the current understanding on Lagašite society would be advantageous. An archive of some 1700 administrative texts from Girsu, discovered in 1902, allow us to study the economy of that city more closely than any other Sumerian city. This archive (circa 2400 B.C.) derives from one organization was known first as é-mí (household of the woman) and later under Urukagina as the é-^dBa-ú (household of the goddess Ba'u). The household of the women, was a household managed by three successive first ladies toward the end of the ED period, before this nothing is known of the household. It was through the é-mí that the ensi controlled the economy of Lagash. The renaming by Urukagina was a token gesture with no appreciable change in practice (Prof. Wu Yuhong 2001, citation below).


I will sketch three scholarly models of the Lagash economy inspired by the archive discussed, with reference to Glenn Magid (a promising Harvard PhD candidate in 2001 whose work was published in RAI 45, he nevertheless did not continue in the field), and with reference to Foster 1981 (A New Look at the Sumerian Temple State). Each of the following models to be discussed must make use of two principal textual groups to formulate their societal model - a) the archives of the é-mí/é-^dBa-ú and b) the royal inscriptions of the Lagashite kings.




Societal Model a) The Tempelstadt (Temple state) model:

Originally formulated by A. Deimal in the 1930s, it was adapted by A. Falkenstein, and maintained by scholars such as Kramer (1956) and Jacobsen. Essentially, the model states that the entire state of Lagaš 'was divided into "great organizations" like the é-mí/é-^dBa-ú. The model also holds that most or all agricultural land in mid-third millennium Sumer belonged to temples and political leader derived their authority from the management of the gods' households.

However this model has met with serious criticism as discussed below.


Societal Model b) The Three Sector Model:

Formulated by Soviet scholar I. Diakonoff ("The Structure of Society and State in Early Dynastic Sumer MANE 1/3 1974 [original Russian 1959]), the model holds that the state of Lagaš was divided into three sectors, and in one of these sectors (and only one) were economic orgainzations like the é-mí/é-^dBa-ú present.

Diakonoff challenged Deimal's Templestadt model, recalculating the areas of temple land that Diemal had studied and finding that 'although the temples were of major economic importance, they were by no means the only land holders and did not comprise, as Deimal believed, the majority of the population of the state.' Agreeing with Diakonoff at least in part, Gelb argued that rather than finding the é-mí/é-^dBa-ú organization as normative for all of the Lagaš state, it may better be taken as an example of just one type of "household" economy of the place and period.


Socio-economic Model c) The Household Model:

A third approach is taken by Magid himself, and is a study of the "mirco" level of economics rather than the "macro" level as was the focus of the above models. Seemingly with Gelb, the author sees the various organizations of Lagash not as one temple state, but as a series of households some being temple some secular, which pay workers by rations (like a modern factory, you have production, overseers, workers and pay = rations). Magid examines a large sub-category of the é-mí/é-^dBa-ú, the ration lists, and explains the structure of Lagash society thusly:

The Sumerian economy was essentially a quota economy. The state provided the necessary means of production to overseers, who were liable for making fixed returns to the state (and subject to debits for shortfall and credits for surplus). Under the overseers were the workers receiving rations, some full time (year round) some part time (4 month periods). How these workers were procured is not entirely evident, they may been prisoners of war, they may have come about through debt slavery - but they were essentially owned by the overseers. This model remains highly speculative due to the limitations of available evidence.

A Close Examination of Urukagina's "Reforms"

The texts known as the "Reforms" of Urukagina are known mainly from some 8 or 9 clay cones originating from Girsu, they were excavated illicitly and later sold to scholars. The texts contain royal inscriptions, hence their content may variously be historical or propagandistic. The "reforms" are attested in three different recensions (=versions) probably reflecting successive reiterations of Urukagina's accomplishments; of these, the first recension receives the most attention, for a translation one may now refer to the ETCRSI corpus (look in Early Dynastic / Lagaš / page 4 / Urukagina 01).







i) Did a 'change in political power' strip Lagashites of their freedom? Were they subjected to heavy taxes by wealthy officals?



In Urukagina 1 (recension 1), in the list of "abuses", it is stated that six professions (shepherds, surveyors, chief lamentation-priests, stewards, brewers and overseers) had to pay silver tax on the fleece of sheep and lambs. Later in the text, in the 'reform' section, Urukagina abolished these taxes.
However, these interpretations rest on translations which are, in fact, far from certain: Foster 1981 examined this passage as translated by 5 different scholars and found no consensus on the exact significance of the exchanges, noting: "Not only is the plain sense of the passage opaque, but the reasons for the payment and why the people named had to render it are obscure. One can offer reason for considering the practice an "abuse" or unfair exaction before establishing in the first place what the practice was."

According to Foxvog (JCS 46 1994 p. 15) the Sumerian term gar, often translated 'to pay' in the reform texts (as in pay silver in tax) is better understood as 'to charge (to an account) in the terminology of texts relating to animal herding and the exchange of fleece. This may relate back to the household model sketched above, wherein a charges were debited or subtracted in a quota type economy, in the event of surplus or shortfall.


Further, Foster 1981 emphasizes that Urukagina is not necessarily overturning the state of affairs that had just 'crept in', or a recent 'change in political power' that levied new taxes - he objects to this notion (which was held both by Deimal and by Kramer) on the grounds of the phrase which introduces the list of 'abuses' or the list of former customs; this phrase is: u4 ul-li-a-ta 'from distant days' a Sumerian term which implies the primordial state. Foster observes "on the basis of these lines, it is clear that Uruinimgina himself stated that the former practices dated back to time immemorial."






ii) Did Urukagina become the leader of Lagaš and lead a popular movement that resulted in the reform of government structure?



Well, Urukagina certainly became the leader of Lagaš, that much is clear. Some scholarship notes that his own inscriptions seem to imply that he was a usurper (recension 1 mentions that Ningirsu choose him 'from the multitude of people'), or he may have come from a collateral line of the family. Thus, if either of these situations were the case, he would have needed to have sought legitimation amongst the people (Steinkeller 1999 Land-tenure Conditions in Third-Millennium Mesopotamia...fn. 30). However, Cooper had noted that Enmetena had made the same claim, that is, he claimed to have been chosen from the myriad of people, but Enmetena was clearly the son of the king (Cooper SANE 2.1 p. 35). Prof. Wu Yuhong adds more nuance to the issue of Urukagina's ascendence (citation below) when she discusses 3 lists of offerings made to the friends of the 'crown-prince' who is named Uru-ka; this Uru-ka was also identified as the head a tribe. Wu convincingly explains that it was customary in Lagaš at this time to abbreviate names, and, together with the information that the son of the previous king, Lugalanda, had died that year, Wu suggests that Uruka(gina), the head of a local tribe, was legitimately named as the successor of Lugalanda. Further, Urukagina continued to make offerings to the grave of Lugalanda, something which usurpers did not do.


It is clear that from the time of the earlier kings of the Lagashite dynasty, a power struggle of sorts between the secular rulers and the temple authorities had been underway. In a series of articles written by Wu Yuhong (I am referencing JAC 16 2001 "Lugalanda's Reform in [the] House of [the] Lady in Girsu"), the author carefully studies the administrative archive of the é-mí/é-^dBa-ú, particularly the ration lists. She observes that a major expansion of the é-mí/é-^dBa-ú occurred under Lugalanda, with significantly greater quantities of barley rations being issued to slaves etc. etc. - an increase in the royal economies.


What is fascinating here, is what Wu finds when she compares the archives during the reign of Urukagina with those during the reign of Lugalanda. Going by his royal inscriptions, we would expect a big difference - but royal inscriptions can be propagandistic. Instead, Wu states that the opposite is attested in the administrative material (italics mine):

"However, from the numerous administrative texts from the House of the Lady, we find that there is nothing difference between the properties of Urukagina's wife Šaša and those of Lugalanda's wife Baranamtarra. In the economic system of Lagash, Urukagina followed Lugalanda in everything. Šaša still held the estates of Baranamtarra, and taxes and tribute still came from bishops, officials and workers to the palace."



Does this mean that there were no 'reforms' of Urukagina? While the dating of recension 1 of the reform texts is by no means certain, there is some indication that it may be dated to year 2 of Urukagina's reign (RIM 1 p. 248 observes the reference to a canal named "The God Ningirsu Received his Authority from Nippur", which was built in year 2). If this is the case, it seems doubtful that the social reforms took place in the way suggested by the royal inscriptions. There remains some possibility that the reform texts date to later in the king's reign and that he did carry out some drastic reversals in economic policy as a response to the initial attacks by Umma (which resulted in his defeat by Lugalzagessi a few years later (Wu 2001 p. 115)) - perhaps even enacting some of the social reforms under consideration. The sparse nature of the economic texts in Urukagina's final year allow for this eventuality.





iii) Is ama-gi₄ loosely interpreted as "liberty" first attested on the reform texts?





As shulgi has brought to our attention above, the answer to the above question is certainly "no". We indeed have evidence of this concept from the earlier Lagashite king Enmetena, see the above post April 10-17. In AO 24414, Enmetena records for posterity his virtues by recounting how he cancelled the obligations (ama-gi4) of the interest bearing loans of those of Lagaš - but he also did the same for the people of Uruk, Larsa and Batibira, three communities over which he seems to have exercised a temporary hegemony and to have conscripted laborers from (see Cooper SANE 2.1 p. 31-35 for a discussion of the relevant politics insofar as they can be observed).


The Sumerian Shakespeare has attempted to argue (here that recension 3 of Urukagina's reform texts should actually be dated to Enmetena, and that the reform portion of the text indicates that much more reform precedent should be ascribed to Enmetena than current scholarship realizes. This is based on the odd situation that the tablet in question is split and contains portions of the reform texts as well as the tale of the Uruk-Lagash border conflict (heavily broken). I am very dubious that scholarship has misunderstood this text for the last hundred years - - - In fact, I refute this suggestion by Sumerian Shakespeare, due to the mention of the pa-saman-imša canal in recension 3, which recension 2 describes as being built by Urukagina.


Lastly, and against the relevance of the reform texts to libertyfund's notions of "liberty" ama-gi₄ seems to occur only twice in Urukagina's texts. Once in recension 1 we see:

"As for the citizens of Lagash - the one living in debt, the one who had set up (a false) gur measure, the one who had (fraudulently) filled up the (legal) gur measure with barley, the thief, the murderer - he swept the prison clear (of them) and established their freedom [ama-gi4]" (RIM 1 p. 264)


Hardly a message of social justice if you are freeing the murderer and thief along with the one in debt, it would seem. A second occurrence of ama-gi₄ occurs in reform texts recension 2, at the end of the text, however it comes after a break of some 10 lines; so the translation "he cancelled their obligations" (RIM 1 p. 269) is unable to account for context - it could be that Urukagina has just freed a long list of persons of varying social character (murderers, thieves, debtors) from prison, as in recension 1. We are unable to interpret the motivation for such political propaganda, let alone the motivation if it were actually enacted, and there is no ground solid enough here to support any modern political agenda.

[us4-he2-gal2]

I have finally finished editing my post above - apologies to anyone who may have encountered it in a half finished state.

[dumu ki-en-gi]

[ama-ar-gi4 ] in Laws of Ur-Namma
P432130


Translation 1 - 137

To Enlil, the king of all the lands, a statue of Ur-Namma, the strong man, king of Ur , king of Sumer and Akkad, whose stone is diorite, I, Ur-Namma, the strong man,king of Ur and king of Sumer and Akkad, when the temple of Nanna my master I built, and the boats of Magan, by the true verdict of Utu, to his control I returned, I dedicated it to him. At that time,

within the temple of Enlil my master, for the statue of Ur-Namma a monthly food offering of 90 gur of barley, 30 sheep,

and 30 sila3 of ghee, as regular offerings, I established there for him. When An and Enlil to Nanna the kingship of Ur did grant, at that time, for me, Ur-Namma, the son born of Ninsuna,her house-born slave beloved, according to his justice, according to his righteousness, the orders(?) were issued(?), and the kingship of Ur was given to him. ... ... ...

... .... ... ......... ......,... ...... by the might of Nanna my master,

its seven gates I(?) opened.

Namḫani to governor of Lagaš I elevated .to the ki-sar-ra , the Magan ships of Nanna, by the might of Nanna my master, I returned.In Ur I made them shine.

At that time, for fields select (officials) there were; for long-distance trade chief boat captains there were; the chief herdsmen for those who take cattle, take sheep, or take donkeys there were.... ... At that time, I, Ur-Namma, the strong man,king of Ur and king of Sumer and Akkad,

by the might of Nanna my master,and by the lawful command

of Utu,justice in the country I did indeed establish. ... ... ...... I returned to their own control.Long-distance trade (independent? from) the chief sea-captains,the chief herdsmen,(independent? from) those who take cattle, take sheep, or take donkeys, and the Akkadians and foreigners in Sumer and Akkad, I returned to their own control.

At that time, Umma, Marad,GIRkal, Kazallu and Maškan-pî,

and Uṣarum,upon which in Anšan servitude was being imposed, by the might of Nanna my master their freedom , I established A copper bariga vessel , I set up and as 60 sila3 I standardized it.

see
133. ama-ar-gi4-bi

 their freedom

[brutonauta]

So does it mean freedom/liberty in the broad sense after all?
Sorry but I'm new here. I don't know if there is some place where I can verify the correct spelling but it is something that caught my attention. There is at least two varietions that can be found (on the internet anyway), the one that shulgi showed on his first post and the one that the libertarians use. Which one is correct?
Is there any clear picture of the original iscriptions?

[us4-he2-gal2]

Hello all - and also Brutonauta:





I thought I would make a small update on this thread. My intermediate Sumerian class this year ended up translating Urukagina 1, the main text used to reconstruct 'Urukagina's Reforms.' This of course gave me a chance to revisit this material and some of the problems involved. First I will link my student document, just in case anyone may want to further engage with the underlying Sumerian grammar. Occasional mistakes may occur and a few parts of my document need a little revision:

www.enenuru.net/pdfs/RIME%201.9.9.1%20Urukagina%201%20Col.%20I-IV.pdf

www.enenuru.net/pdfs/RIME%201.9.9.1%20Urukagina%201%20Col.%20V-XII.pdf



As for the notion of freedom in ancient Mesopotamia, I have been contemplating this: what does freedom mean in an ancient society? One should bear in mind that even free men, i.e. those not in some sort of slave status, were borne owing the state their service in the form of military conscription of in the form of corvee labor for the state, which they had to perform a set number of days each month (in addition to obligatoins such as ilku service!). This seems to be in contrast with our modern notions of liberty (but bear in mind mandatory military service is not unknown in Europe and that corvee labor existed in 19th century America). Just because your free doesn't mean you have personal liberty. In the context of the reform texts, it is likely that the 'amagi' , the granting of relief from debt and debt servitude, was a mechanisms of the state enacted by the king which kept socio-economic collapse from occurring - people can't pay taxes when too many have been forced into slavery due to widespread debt. In the larger picture, I still don't think the libertarians with amagi tattoos understand that the Mesopotamian state was not an example of 'small government.'


A good article I have come across on this sort of topic, and am still in the process of considering, is:


Von Dassow, E. 2011. “Freedom in Ancient Near Eastern Societies.” In Oxford Handbook of Cuneiform Culture, edited by K. Radner and E. Robson, 205–224. Oxford: Oxford University Press.