Talk:Urukagina

Modern Interpretation

Urukagina's code is perhaps the first known example of government self-reform. Like the Magna Carta and the United States Constitution that followed (and like the Codes of Hammurabi, et al. to some degree), Urukagina's code limited the power of politicians. He governed government. The text describing Urukagina's reforms is also the first known use of the word freedom, in this case the Sumerian ama-gi.

This whole paragraph reads like a libertarian interpretation of the law code. I really don't know how it can be compared with the Magna Carta or even the United States Constitution. Also, there is no citation for this view. I think it would be worth removing. Ephemera (talk) 21:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

POV - a reactionary, not a reformer

As "most interpreters consider that Urukagina, himself not of the ruling dynasty at Lagash, as no reformer at all", this article needs revising — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 18:10, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Urukagina's reign has received much attention from a vast array of scholars over the years, with many different viewpoints. We can certainly assemble them all here. There are numerous scholars in the field of Sumerology who do call him a reformer who protected the weak from the powerful (as well as most books on law history). Then there are also some authors, largely of works representing modern feminist thought, who condemn him for outlawing adultery and polyandry, in particular for the harsh, cruel and unusual punishment he instituted in an attempt to abolish these. We have ample sources for both viewpoints here, and both views should certainly be expanded. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:34, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Cruel is right, if a woman spoke the wrong way to a man, her mouth was to be crushed with a brick. The adultery law only applied to women. As for reformer, what I see is a move among Sumerologists away from that description. I wouldn't expect books on law history to catch up very fast as their authors probably depend upon earlier authors of books on law history, not modern historical research. But at the moment it appears we both agree this article doesn't follow our NPOV policy. Dougweller (talk) 20:35, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I believe the line about crushing a woman's mouth with a brick, is the same one translated in specialist sources, and cited in the article, as stoning her with tablets with her violation inscribed. I think I came across a detailed translation once somewhere, that also said the 'mouth crushing' was a popular misconception in some sources. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:46, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Never mind, I must be wrong - I just looked up the source I reffed earlier in the article and it indeed has both clauses separately. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:48, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I was wrong. The detailed translation says "If a woman said [unclear text] to a man, her mouth was crushed with burnt bricks, and these burnt bricks were hung up in the main gate." Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:09, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much for this. Badly sourced, from a website and a book by Walter Wink, which might be a great source for the subject of the book but not for this. Dougweller (talk) 06:16, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I have since made a separate section entitled 'Controversy' with a wider cross section of views, as well as an External link to a relevant book by Tetlow, so hopefully it is safe to remove the NPOV tag now. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 01:42, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Polyandry causes incest

They wouldn't have a way of knowing who a father was, a severe issue in barely historic times. This needs to be addressed somehow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.96.93.161 (talk) 21:32, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Repeated information

The entire third paragraph of the introduction ("He also participated in several conflicts, notably...") is repeated verbatim in the section "Lament about the fall of Lagash to Umma" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.226.36.98 (talk) 18:22, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

The introduction is supposed to be a summary of the sections of the main article. 07:12, 9 March 2021 (UTC)Dimadick (talk)