Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Code of Ur-Nammu

The is the oldest known surviving law code, inscribed in on clay tablets during the reign of , founder and king of the Third Dynasty of Ur (r. 2112–2095 BCE), circa 2100–2050 BCE. Comprising a prologue that credits the king with eliminating violence and establishing equity, followed by approximately 40 surviving casuistic laws, the code addresses offenses such as assault, theft, and sexual misconduct, predominantly prescribing fines or restitution over physical penalties. Fragments were excavated primarily at and , with initial translations published by Samuel Noah Kramer in 1952 from tablets held in institutions including the Museum and the . As a foundational legal document, it underscores the emphasis on royal authority in maintaining social order amid post-Gutian instability, influencing subsequent Mesopotamian jurisprudence while highlighting early shifts toward compensatory justice.

Historical Context

The Third Dynasty of Ur

The Third Dynasty of Ur, spanning approximately 2112–2004 BCE, emerged in the aftermath of the Empire's collapse around 2154 BCE and the subsequent Gutian domination, which had fragmented into warring city-states. This era, characterized as a renaissance, witnessed a revival of , literature, and administrative practices, restoring cultural preeminence to southern after centuries of influence. The dynasty's founder consolidated power from the city of , extending control over a territory from the to northern regions near modern , thereby reestablishing hegemony through military campaigns and diplomatic alliances. Central to the dynasty's administration were key urban centers including as the political capital, as the religious hub dedicated to the god , with its ancient temple complexes, and known for its ensi governance integrated into the imperial framework. Economic vitality derived from sophisticated irrigation networks of canals and levees that expanded in the alluvial plains, supporting surplus grain production essential for sustaining urban populations and state projects. Trade flourished via maritime routes to the Persian Gulf regions like (modern ) and overland exchanges importing timber, metals, and , while temple and palace estates orchestrated labor-intensive crafts such as textile weaving and , employing tens of thousands in systems documented in administrative tablets. The shift from decentralized autonomy to a bureaucratic involved hierarchical provincial governors (ensi) reporting to , with standardized weights, measures, and taxation to integrate disparate economies under royal oversight. This centralization addressed instability from prior fragmentation by imposing uniform administrative protocols, including scribal accounting and legal norms, which fostered stability and enabled for monumental like ziggurats and defenses. Such mechanisms underscored the dynasty's reliance on codified to bind diverse subjects, paving the way for enduring structures amid environmental and external pressures.

Ur-Nammu's Reign and Motivations for Codification

ruled as the founder of the Third Dynasty of Ur from approximately 2047 to 2030 BCE, succeeding Utu-hegal of after the latter's defeat of the Gutian overlords who had disrupted Mesopotamian order following the Empire's collapse. His ascension marked the beginning of a centralized renaissance, with conducting military campaigns to subdue remaining Gutian influences and rebellious city-states, thereby unifying under a single administrative framework that extended to key centers like , , and . These efforts included expeditions eastward against Elamite threats and internal pacification, fostering economic revival through canal construction and trade regulation. To legitimize his authority amid this restoration, Ur-Nammu proclaimed divine kingship, adopting titles such as "King of Sumer and Akkad" and invoking patronage from deities like Nanna, the moon god of Ur. He initiated monumental projects, including the construction of the Ziggurat of Ur around 2100 BCE, a massive stepped temple complex symbolizing cosmic order and royal piety, which reinforced his role as intermediary between gods and subjects. Such undertakings, alongside deification in contemporary records, underscored his claim to rule by divine mandate, stabilizing society through visible assertions of legitimacy post-Gutian anarchy. The codification of laws under responded directly to the preceding era's , characterized by Gutian-induced fragmentation, arbitrary justice, and erosion of traditional precedents after the downfall around 2154 BCE. By inscribing fixed penalties and protections—emphasizing equity for the vulnerable against the powerful—the code aimed to supplant capricious rulings with written standards, promoting social predictability and administrative uniformity to underpin the dynasty's centralized control. This initiative reflected a pragmatic effort to rebuild institutional trust and causal stability, prioritizing empirical restoration over unchecked authority in a region scarred by internecine strife and foreign domination.

Discovery and Preservation

Archaeological Discoveries

The initial fragments of the Code of were discovered at the ancient site of during excavations conducted by the between 1888 and 1900. These two fragments, designated Ni.3191, preserve portions of the and early laws, and were first translated and published by Samuel Noah Kramer in 1952 while held in the . Additional fragments emerged from excavations at Ur led by between 1922 and 1934 under the joint auspices of the and the Museum. In 1965, identified and published two such fragments from Ur, which added significant portions including approximately 39 new legal provisions to the known text. A further tablet fragment from was documented and published by F. Yıldız in 1981, providing variant readings that contributed to the textual reconstruction. Collectively, these scattered cuneiform tablets from , Ur, and preserve elements of about 57 laws, though no complete single tablet of the code has been found, necessitating scholarly collation across museum collections including and .

Textual Reconstruction and Dating


The textual reconstruction of the relies on assembling fragments from multiple tablets discovered at sites including and . Assyriologist Samuel Noah Kramer first identified and published portions of the code in 1952, recognizing it as a law collection distinct from later codes, based on two fragments preserving the and initial laws. Subsequent discoveries of additional fragments allowed for further collation, with Martha T. Roth providing a comprehensive scholarly edition in 1997 by integrating sources such as the primary tablet (Ni 3191, now in the ) and fragments from other locations to reconstruct approximately 40 laws out of an estimated original 57.
Dating the code's composition to circa 2100–2050 BCE derives primarily from the prologue's explicit attribution to King and references to his military and building achievements, corroborated by contemporary historical records of his reign in the Third Dynasty of Ur (middle : 2112–2095 BCE). While surviving tablets represent later scribal copies from the Old Babylonian period (circa 1800 BCE), paleographic analysis of the script and linguistic features of the dialect align with Ur III conventions, supporting an original promulgation during Ur-Nammu's rule rather than a later attribution. Reconstruction faces challenges from fragmentary preservation, particularly an incomplete , and minor variant readings across copies due to scribal interpretations in the archaic dialect. These issues necessitate cautious philological joining of overlapping sections, with uncertainties in sequencing some laws resolved through contextual parallelism with later codes like that of . No complete original or autograph version survives, underscoring reliance on school or archival duplicates for the extant text.

Composition and Form

Language and Medium

The Code of Ur-Nammu is composed in the , utilizing script impressed on clay tablets. This medium, baked or sun-dried clay, offered durability against environmental degradation, making it ideal for long-term archival of legal and administrative texts in Mesopotamian society. Sumerian, an isolate language unrelated to later Semitic tongues like Akkadian, represents the linguistic tradition of the Third Dynasty of Ur, with the code's phrasing reflecting early literary conventions rather than the dialectal shifts seen in subsequent periods. The inscriptions appear as sequential lists of casuistic laws—"if" clauses followed by penalties—formatted for practical consultation by scribes or officials, unlike the monumental stone stelae employed for later codes such as Hammurabi's. Fragments of these tablets, primarily excavated from sites like , demonstrate the code's dissemination through multiple copies, underscoring its role in standardized scribal education and governance rather than singular public display.

Prologue and Epilogue

The prologue of the Code of Ur-Nammu opens by invoking the supreme deities An and , who entrusted the kingship of to the moon god , thereby legitimizing Ur-Nammu's rule as divinely ordained. It portrays the king, described as a "mighty warrior" and son of the goddess , acting in accordance with principles of equity and truth to banish "malediction, violence and strife" from the land, explicitly crediting the power of and the "true word" of the sun god Utu for enabling him to establish . This ideological framing positions Ur-Nammu not as the originator of the laws but as their enforcer, tasked with standardizing measures—such as the sila-measure, one- weight, and of silver—to ensure fair economic practices and protect the vulnerable, declaring that "the was not delivered up to the rich man; the was not delivered up to the mighty man; the man of one was not delivered up to the man of one ." The prologue thereby justifies the codification as a royal intervention to restore cosmic and social order, aligning with Sumerian notions of me—the divine decrees governing harmony—by emphasizing the king's causal role in suppressing chaos and fostering equity across classes, without claiming the laws as verbatim divine revelation. This reflects an early Mesopotamian royal theology where human kingship complements divine will through practical reforms, such as setting temple expenses at precise quantities (90 gur of barley, 30 sheep, 30 sila of butter monthly), underscoring empirical standardization as a tool for stability. The survives only in fragments due to the incomplete preservation of tablets, limiting detailed , but extant portions suggest it reinforces the code's efficacy by praising the prosperity and abundance resulting from adherence to Ur-Nammu's . In line with Mesopotamian conventions for such codices, it likely extols the king's achievements in promoting societal flourishing under the established order, serving to affirm the long-term benefits of the legal framework in sustaining economic and moral equilibrium. This concluding rhetoric underscores the ideological continuity from to implementation, portraying the code as a foundational mechanism for enduring royal legitimacy tied to observable welfare gains.

Content of the Laws

Criminal Laws

The criminal provisions of the Code of Ur-Nammu, preserved in fragmentary cuneiform tablets dating to circa 2100 BCE, enumerate penalties for violent and sexual offenses with a casuistic structure of "if" (crime) "then" (punishment). These laws apply the death penalty to capital crimes including , , and , reflecting an emphasis on retribution for acts causing direct harm or violation of . Specific enactments include: "If a man commits a , that man must be killed," establishing execution as the penalty for . Robbery similarly warrants : "If a man commits a , he will be killed." is punishable by execution of both parties involved, as in cases where a man violates another man's . or deflowering of a virgin also carries the penalty for the perpetrator. Kidnapping receives a lesser but still severe sanction: "If a man commits a , he is to be imprisoned and pay 15 shekels of silver," combining incarceration with monetary restitution rather than execution. These provisions, drawn from approximately 40 surviving laws out of an original estimated 57, indicate a narrower focus on criminal matters than on civil or economic regulations, prioritizing penalties tied to evident causation of or loss.

Civil and Family Laws

The civil laws in the Code of Ur-Nammu emphasized monetary compensation for personal injuries rather than physical retaliation, establishing proportional fines in silver shekels based on the severity of harm inflicted. For instance, if a man accidentally jostled a causing her to miscarry, the offender was required to pay 10 shekels of silver to the victim's ; striking her intentionally to induce miscarriage increased the fine to 20 shekels. Similar graduated penalties applied to assaults resulting in broken bones or other bodily damage among free persons, typically ranging from 1 (60 shekels) for severe injuries like fractures, reflecting an assessment of harm that prioritized restitution over retribution. Family laws regulated , , and to maintain household stability and clarify rights, particularly distinguishing between free persons and slaves. In cases of , a man dissolving his marriage to a first-ranking owed her 1 (60 shekels) of silver as settlement, reduced to half a mina (30 shekels) if the was a , ensuring some economic protection for vulnerable women while allowing dissolution without further claims if no formal existed. contracts involved gifts to the bride's , and carried severe consequences: a initiating extramarital relations faced execution, while the partner was spared, underscoring patriarchal control over . Inheritance provisions favored patrilineal descent, with a deceased man's divided equally among his sons, though mixed-status unions introduced nuances; if a male slave married a woman, one son entered the master's service, but remaining children retained and inherited from the . Widows retained to remarry only with their children's , preserving familial continuity, while slave spouses in households could not be arbitrarily evicted post-manumission, protecting established family units from disruption. These rules, preserved in fragmentary tablets from 2100 BCE, demonstrate a legal framework aimed at resolving domestic disputes through fixed penalties and status-based equity rather than arbitrary judgments.

Economic and Property Laws

The economic and property laws preserved in the Code of Ur-Nammu focus on regulating agricultural land use, leasing contracts, and slave ownership, underscoring the centrality of temple-managed estates and irrigation-dependent farming in Sumerian society circa 2100–2050 BCE. These clauses emphasize restitution through fines in silver shekels, minas, or barley equivalents rather than corporal punishment or execution, promoting contractual stability over retributive measures. Such fines, often scaled to the damage incurred (e.g., 3 kur of barley per iku of affected field), served to compensate victims while deterring negligence in a economy where land productivity directly supported state and temple revenues from grain surpluses. Key provisions govern unauthorized interference with fields. If a man cultivates another's field without consent and lodges a , the claim is dismissed, and the cultivator absorbs all incurred costs, thereby discouraging disputes over unpermitted labor inputs. Similarly, flooding a neighbor's field requires payment of 3 kur of per iku, quantifying liability in staple crops to restore agricultural output. For leased , failure to cultivate—resulting in —obligates the lessee to pay 3 kur per iku, enforcing productivity obligations tied to maintenance and seasonal planting cycles essential to yields. Slaves, as movable integral to labor on and lands, feature in rules safeguarding ownership and value. An escaped slave's returner receives 2 shekels from the owner, incentivizing recovery without state intervention. Forcing relations with another man's virgin slave incurs a 5-shekel fine, treating the act as violation akin to or . rules further protect owner interests: a freed slave married to another slave remains household-bound, while one married to a free person must cede the firstborn to the owner, ensuring continuity of labor obligations. An insolent slave-woman claiming equality with her mistress faces , reinforcing hierarchical dynamics without alienating productive assets. Contractual breaches extend to exchanges like bridal gifts, where a father-in-law rejecting a suitor after accepting gifts must repay twofold, mirroring restitution principles to uphold in transfers amid kin-based economic alliances. These laws, reconstructed from fragments translated by Samuel N. Kramer, evidence a system prioritizing economic restitution to sustain temple-driven redistribution, where unchecked disputes could cascade into reduced harvests and fiscal shortfalls for Ur III institutions.

Compensatory vs. Retributive Justice

The Code of Ur-Nammu demonstrates a marked preference for compensatory justice, mandating monetary fines as restitution for personal injuries and damages rather than imposing equivalent physical harm on the offender. This approach is evident in provisions addressing , where payments in silver or shekels serve to restore the victim economically without escalating cycles of retaliation. In contrast to the later (c. 1755–1750 BCE), which incorporates the lex talionis principle of proportional retaliation—such as ""—Ur-Nammu's framework systematically avoids such retributive measures for non-capital offenses, prioritizing victim compensation to maintain communal productivity. This compensatory emphasis aligns with the practical demands of an reliant on collective labor and resource scarcity, where corporal punishments could deplete the workforce and hinder agricultural output, whereas fines redistributed wealth without permanent loss of . Preserved fragments indicate standardized penalties calibrated to the injury's severity, reflecting a causal logic that restorative payments deterred wrongdoing while preserving social bonds essential for irrigation-dependent economies. Retributive elements appear sparingly, limited primarily to capital sanctions for grave violations like or , applied uniformly without deference to retaliatory equivalence in lesser cases, thus subordinating to systemic stability. Such a structure underscores an early legal grounded in over punitive , evidenced by the code's of fines into broader civil redress dating to c. 2100–2050 BCE. This divergence from emergent retributive norms in subsequent Mesopotamian codes highlights Ur-Nammu's role in prototyping as a tool for societal cohesion rather than mere equivalence, a pattern corroborated across surviving tablets.

Class and Status Considerations

The Code of Ur-Nammu acknowledges the stratified nature of by distinguishing between persons (lu) and slaves (arad or geme), with laws treating slaves as economic property whose value warranted compensatory fines to owners rather than equivalent personal redress for victims. For instance, forcibly deflowering another man's virgin female slave incurred a fixed penalty of five shekels of silver paid to the owner, reflecting the slave's as integral to household utility rather than an autonomous individual. Similarly, returning an escaped slave to the entitled the finder to two shekels from the owner, prioritizing the maintenance of labor control over the slave's agency. Provisions on slave marriages further embedded status hierarchies, mandating that a slave wed to a free person remained bound to the master's house upon unless explicitly released, thereby preserving economic dependencies and preventing disruption to social structures. If both spouses were slaves and one gained freedom, the freed slave did not depart the household, ensuring continuity of servitude ties. These rules lacked rhetoric challenging hierarchies, instead reinforcing them to sustain order by aligning legal outcomes with practical power dynamics and property interests. Surviving fragments show no explicit scaling of fines for bodily injuries (such as half a of silver for knocking out an eye) by the victim's precise among persons, suggesting a compensatory uniformity that mitigated but did not erase status disparities. The prologue's emphasis on shielding the vulnerable—orphans from the wealthy, widows from the powerful, and the poor from the rich—indicates an intent to curb exploitative abuses within the existing , promoting through predictable rather than egalitarian . This approach grounded protections in the causal of interdependence, where unchecked dominance threatened communal productivity.

Comparisons and Influences

Predecessors and Contemporaries

The reforms of (also known as Uru-inim-gina), ruler of circa 2350–2275 BCE, constitute the earliest documented Mesopotamian legal initiatives, predating the Code of Ur-Nammu by approximately 250 years. Inscribed on clay cylinders, these reforms addressed administrative abuses by elites, such as excessive fees imposed on , and aimed to restore under divine patronage of the Ningirsu; for instance, they prohibited the sale of widows' houses and limited arbitrary seizures of property. Scholars interpret these as proto-legal measures rather than a comprehensive code, reflecting a transition from royal decrees to formalized , potentially influencing later traditions through emphasis on compensatory restitution over . No complete legal texts survive from the intervening centuries, suggesting Ur-Nammu's code (circa 2100–2050 BCE) emerged amid broader oral customary law and administrative precedents in city-states, rather than direct textual inheritance. Possible antecedents include unpreserved local edicts from Early Dynastic or , where disputes over irrigation and land—core to Ur-Nammu's provisions—were adjudicated via temple or palace oversight. The absence of codified intermediaries underscores a reliance on evolving scribal practices for recording verdicts, which Ur-Nammu systematized. Contemporaneous with the late phases of Lagash's independence, (reigned circa 2144–2124 BCE) issued royal inscriptions proclaiming as a divine mandate, including edicts on fair taxation and protection of the weak, indicative of regional codification trends before Ur III's unification. These parallel Ur-Nammu's era, sharing motifs like kingship as enforcer of cosmic order (me) granted by gods such as , yet lacking the casuistic structure of Ur-Nammu's laws. Such overlaps highlight a Sumerian-wide shift toward written royal proclamations legitimizing rule through legal equity, without evidence of direct borrowing.

Relation to Later Codes like Hammurabi's

The Code of Ur-Nammu, composed circa 2100–2050 BCE during the Third Dynasty of Ur, predates the —enacted around 1750 BCE under the Old Babylonian king —by approximately 300 years. Surviving fragments of Ur-Nammu's code contain roughly 32 laws, significantly shorter than Hammurabi's 282 provisions, which allowed for broader coverage of societal disputes. Structurally, both employ a casuistic "if-then" format typical of Mesopotamian legal traditions, presenting hypothetical scenarios with prescribed outcomes rather than abstract principles. However, Ur-Nammu prioritizes compensatory measures, such as monetary fines (e.g., half a of silver for knocking out another's eye), over physical retaliation, reflecting a focus on restitution to maintain social equilibrium in a relatively stable urban environment. In contrast, Hammurabi's code escalates toward , incorporating lex talionis-style penalties like "" for equivalent offenses among equals, with variations based on intent and context to deter violations amid growing and social complexity. This shift suggests an evolutionary adaptation: Ur-Nammu's milder, fine-based system suited a renaissance of centralized but less hierarchical administration, while Hammurabi's retributive expansions addressed the need for stricter enforcement in a more diverse, conquest-driven Babylonian society prone to internal strife. Ur-Nammu shows minimal , applying uniform penalties to free persons irrespective of wealth or status, whereas Hammurabi differentiates explicitly by social rank—awīlum (), muškēnum (), and wardum (slave)—with harsher outcomes for offenses against superiors, indicating heightened emphasis on preserving hierarchical order. Influence from is discernible in 's phrasing and case selection, particularly injury laws: mandates fixed silver compensation for (e.g., 10 shekels for breaking a ), echoed in 's parallel provisions but adapted with class-adjusted retribution or fines to reinforce state authority. Yet omits 's prologue-like emphasis on restoring cosmic order, instead framing laws as divine mandates for , expanding regulatory scope to include contracts and labor disputes absent or underdeveloped in the earlier . This progression underscores causal developments in Mesopotamian , where 's concise, restorative model laid foundational precedents, but 's elaborated, punitive framework responded to intensified and inter-city tensions by prioritizing deterrence over mere victim compensation.

Significance and Scholarly Interpretations

The Code of Ur-Nammu, promulgated during the Third Dynasty of Ur (c. 2112–2004 BCE), established written as a mechanism for state administration, underpinning the bureaucratic centralization that characterized Ur III governance. This dynasty's empire integrated diverse city-states through standardized administrative practices, including legal codes that ensured uniform enforcement and resource allocation across provinces. By inscribing laws on durable media like clay tablets, Ur-Nammu's regime enabled officials to reference fixed penalties, fostering administrative efficiency in a vast territory spanning from the to northern . This innovation shifted Mesopotamian legal practice toward codified , where offenses incurred shekel-based fines calibrated to injury severity—such as 10 shekels for bone fractures or 1 mina for lost offspring—prioritizing restitution over . Such principles influenced Neo-Sumerian successors like , who expanded the code's framework to support imperial equity, and set precedents for later collections, including Lipit-Ishtar's laws (c. 1930 BCE), which adopted similar compensatory structures. Empirically, the code's model of royal-legislated statutes propagated into Babylonian systems, as Hammurabi's code (c. 1754 BCE) retained motifs like graded penalties while building on Ur III's administrative template for dispute adjudication. This continuity is evident in archival tablets from Old Babylonian sites, which reference analogous fines and class-differentiated liabilities, demonstrating causal transmission via scribal traditions rather than wholesale adoption. Assyrian legal compilations (c. 1075 BCE) further echoed this by incorporating standardized restitution in property and cases, reflecting a regional evolution from Ur III's state-centric codification that minimized ad hoc rulings.

Debates on Originality and Purpose

Scholars debate whether the Code of Ur-Nammu constitutes a true systematic law code or rather a compilation of administrative precedents, casuistic statements outlining conditional penalties, or a of fines for judicial compensation. Its fragmentary nature, preserved on tablets from and containing about 40 provisions in "if...then" form, suggests it may represent model cases or standard royal edicts rather than a comprehensive, binding corpus applied uniformly in courts, as no of exists. S. N. Kramer, for instance, questioned its attribution to himself, proposing possible later authorship under his successors like , though subsequent paleographic and contextual analysis from the Ur III period (c. 2112–2004 BCE) supports its origin under Ur-Nammu's reign as a purposeful royal inscription. Despite these critiques, the code's structured prologue and epilogue frame it as an intentional promulgation of norms, distinguishing it from mere records. The code's purpose appears pragmatic, aimed at legitimizing Ur-Nammu's rule and restoring following the Gutian interregnum's (c. 2150–2112 BCE), rather than enacting utopian reforms or universal . The prologue describes Ur-Nammu's rebuilding of temples, elimination of enmity, and establishment of "truth" (me) and to bind the land, reflecting a restorative that reinforced hierarchical stability amid post-Akkadian fragmentation. Class-differentiated penalties—such as lower fines for elites versus slaves—underscore this , prioritizing cosmic and equilibrium over egalitarian , countering modern interpretations that overemphasize intent without accounting for embedded asymmetries. Post-2000 linguistic studies affirm the code's originality as a innovation, with its unadulterated syntax and vocabulary lacking () loanwords or structures evident in later codes like Hammurabi's (c. 1750 BCE), debunking diffusionist claims of derivation from hypothetical pre- prototypes. This analysis, drawing on , positions the code as evidence of indigenous Mesopotamian legal evolution during the Third Dynasty of Ur's bureaucratic centralization, rather than borrowed tradition.

References

  1. [1]
    The Ur-Nammu Law Code, the Oldest Known Legal Code
    It was written in the Sumerian language Offsite Link c. 2100-2050 BCE. Although the preface directly credits the laws to king Ur-Nammu of Ur (2112-2095 BCE) ...
  2. [2]
    Code of Ur-Nammu - World History Encyclopedia
    Oct 26, 2021 · The Code of Ur-Nammu (c. 2100-2050 BCE) is the oldest extant law code in the world. It was written by the Sumerian king Ur-Nammu (r. 2047-2030 BCE)
  3. [3]
    [PDF] Code of Ur-Nammu - Mr. Evans' Website
    The first copy of the code, in two fragments found at Nippur, was translated by Samuel Kramer in 1952; owing to its partial preservation, only the prologue and ...
  4. [4]
    Ur-Nammu Law Code - Cuneiform Digital Library Initiative
    Kramer, Samuel N. 1954. “Ur-Nammu Law Code.” Orientalia NS 23 (1): 40–51. · Kramer, S. N. (1954). Ur-Nammu Law Code. Orientalia, NS 23(1), 40–51. · Kramer, S. N. ...
  5. [5]
    Ur-Nammu Establishes a Code of Law | Research Starters - EBSCO
    Ur-Nammu's establishment of a code of law in ancient Mesopotamia marks a significant milestone in the history of legal systems and governance.
  6. [6]
    Map of the Third Dynasty of Ur - World History Encyclopedia
    Mar 3, 2022 · This map illustrates the rise of the Sumerian city-state of Ur following the collapse of the Akkadian Empire (reign: circa 2334 - 2154 BCE).
  7. [7]
    Ur and the Neo-Sumerian period - Fabrizio Musacchio
    Jan 1, 2025 · The Neo-Sumerian Period, often referred to as the Third Dynasty of Ur (Ur III, ca. 2112–2004 BCE), represents a remarkable resurgence of ...
  8. [8]
    Third Dynasty of Ur: History & Facts
    Oct 17, 2024 · The economy of Ur III was centered on agriculture, but trade and craft production also played important roles. The state controlled large ...
  9. [9]
    Third Dynasty of Ur - (World History – Before 1500) - Fiveable
    Under the rule of Ur-Nammu and his successors, the dynasty implemented irrigation projects that significantly improved agricultural productivity. The famous ...
  10. [10]
    Third Dynasty of Ur for Kids
    It existed from about 2112 BC to 2004 BC. This dynasty was based in the city of Ur, which is in modern-day Iraq.
  11. [11]
    A Concise History of Mesopotamia (5): Ur III (2100-2000 BC)
    Mar 25, 2018 · A Concise History of Mesopotamia (5): Ur III (2100-2000 BC) At the end of the Old-Akkadian period the Akkadian empire dissolved into a number ...
  12. [12]
    Ur-Nammu - The 3rd Dynasty - Swartzentrover.com
    The 3rd Dynasty. of Ur. (2112-2004 BC). The Third Dynasty of Ur refers simultaneously to a Sumerian ruling dynasty based in the city of Ur and a short-lived ...<|separator|>
  13. [13]
    Ur-Nammu: Founder of the Sumerian Renaissance
    Jun 16, 2014 · In the year 2030 BCE the Gutians rose again against the cities of Sumer, and Ur-Nammu led his army to meet them.
  14. [14]
    Ur-Nammu: The Founder of the Third Dynasty of Ur
    Feb 13, 2025 · Ur-Nammu overthrew the Gutians and consolidated his rule over Sumer and Akkad. He was coronated in Nippur and expanded his control through ...
  15. [15]
    Ur-Nammu - Wikipedia
    Ur-Nammu founded the Sumerian Third Dynasty of Ur, in southern Mesopotamia, following several centuries of Akkadian and Gutian rule.
  16. [16]
    Ziggurat of Ur - Smarthistory
    The ziggurat at Ur and the temple on its top were built around 2100 BCE by the king Ur-Nammu of the Third Dynasty of Ur for the moon goddess Nanna.
  17. [17]
    [PDF] Sumerian King List - Institute for the Study of Ancient Cultures
    its kingship to Ur was carried. In Ur Ur-Nammu(k) (became) king. 10 and reigned 18 years; divine Shulgi, son of divine Ur-Nammu(k), reigned 46 (emend to 48) ...
  18. [18]
    Centers of Progress, Pt. 5: Ur (Law)
    Jun 18, 2020 · The Code of Ur-Nammu, as the oldest surviving legal code, helped to redefine how people conceptualized justice. The Code of Ur-Nammu listed ...
  19. [19]
    The University of Pennsylvania Excavations at Nippur 1889-1900.
    The project “Nippur Digitized” aims to make available in digital format the copious records of the University of Pennsylvania excavations at Nippur in 1889- ...
  20. [20]
    Kramer of Sumer - Saudi Aramco World
    In 1965, two new fragments of the Ur-Nammu law code were recognized among the tablets excavated by Leonard Woolley at Ur. These added 39 new laws, many of ...
  21. [21]
    The Ur-Nammu Law Code: Who Was Its Author? - jstor
    (AS 16, 1965) entitled "Two Fragments of Sumerian Law," that included copies, transliterations, and translations of two fragments excavated by Leonard.
  22. [22]
    [PDF] No. 46 - Institute for the Study of Ancient Cultures
    the switch to Sumerian accounting during the Ur III period. Granted, we have little or no documentation from the time of Ur-Namma and the earliest years of ...<|control11|><|separator|>
  23. [23]
    The Code of Ur-Nammu: When Ancient Sumerians Laid Down the ...
    Sep 14, 2021 · Fragments were also discovered in another Sumerian city, Sippar, though with some slight variants to the text. The Sumerian Seven: The Top ...
  24. [24]
    [PDF] Law Collections from Mesopolamia and Asia Minor
    the Ur fragments in the British Museum", the tablets are now in Baghdad. at the Iraq. Museum, and have not been recollated. Introduction. The law collections ...
  25. [25]
    [PDF] HISTORY BEGINS AT SUMER
    HISTORY BEGINS AT SUMER. Page 5. Page 6. HISTORY BEGINS AT. SUMER. SAMUEL NOAH KRAMER. Clark Research Professor of Assyriology. Curator of the Tablet Collection.
  26. [26]
    [PDF] The Ur-Nammu law code
    Apr 21, 2014 · The Ur-Nammu law code is the oldest known, written about 300 years before Hammurabi's law code. When first found in 1901, the laws of.
  27. [27]
    RIME 3/2.01.01.20 (Laws of Ur-Namma) composite (P432130)
    Official or display artifact excavated in Nippur (mod. Nuffar), dated to the Ur III (ca. 2100-2000 BC) period.
  28. [28]
  29. [29]
    M2 – 2. Ancient Sumerian, Babylonian, and Hebraic Law Codes
    The ancient Sumerian Ur Nammu Law Code provides for various forms of punishment for crimes of murder, kidnapping, practicing sorcery, etc. Among the surviving ...
  30. [30]
    World of Patterns - Project MUSE
    Ur-Nammu's laws, drafted in Sumerian, contain 57 legal rules, of which about 40 have survived, as below (where the numbering corresponds to that on the clay ...
  31. [31]
    5 Ancient Laws That Still Influence Today's Legal System
    Oct 1, 2025 · The Code of Ur-Nammu, for example, favored monetary compensation over bodily retribution, a stark contrast to the later lex talionis, or “an eye ...
  32. [32]
    Ur-Nammu and Hammurabi: Pre-Mosaic Codes of Law - Medium
    Jun 3, 2022 · ... Code of Hammurabi and the earlier, lesser known Code of Ur-Nammu ... It also uses monetary compensation to punish physical assault and damage ...
  33. [33]
    Solved: Compare and contrast the Code of Ur-Nammu and the Code ...
    The Code of Ur-Nammu emphasizes restitution and compensation to the victim as the primary goal of justice, while the Code of Hammurabi leans towards retribution ...
  34. [34]
    Codes Of Ur Nammu: World's Oldest Known Law Code
    Mar 11, 2016 · The codes were composed by the Sumerian King Ur-Nammu and date back to around 2100-2050 BC. The period when the laws were written was called, “ ...Missing: excavations | Show results with:excavations
  35. [35]
    Tablets of Justice: Legal Codes in the Ancient World
    Jun 8, 2020 · The first copy of the code, in two fragments found at Nippur, was translated by Samuel Kramer in 1952. These fragments are held at the Istanbul ...
  36. [36]
    MESOPOTAMIAN LAW CODES the HUMAN ROOTS OF MOSES ...
    Ur-Nammu The code of Ur-Nammu of Ur, although often now ascribed to his son, Shulgi, includes references to the gods' participation in his acquisition of ...
  37. [37]
    [PDF] THE SUMERIANS - Institute for the Study of Ancient Cultures
    Samuel Noah Kramer. THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO PRESS. Chicago & London. Page 4 ... The Ur-Nammu law code was originally inscribed no doubt on a stone stele ...
  38. [38]
    [PDF] Mesopotamia: Myth and Reality - Journal.fi
    The "reforms" came too late. Urukagina's position was weak and after a few years he was conquered by Lugalzagesi, the ensi of. Umma, the mortal enemy of Lagash.
  39. [39]
    Full article: Why the rule of law? A historical perspective
    Nov 9, 2024 · Mesopotamia. Ur-Nammu was not, then, establishing the rule of law, that his rules would constrain his own power or that of his successors. But ...Missing: motivations | Show results with:motivations
  40. [40]
    [PDF] Mesopotamian Legal Traditions and the Laws of Hammurabi
    This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarly Commons @ IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Chicago- ...
  41. [41]
  42. [42]
    (PDF) MESOPOTAMIAN LAW CODES the HUMAN ROOTS OF ...
    Jun 20, 2019 · This paper will consider the law codes of ancient Mesopotamia and compare them with the Moses' Law Code and Jesus' pronouncements at Gethsemane.<|separator|>
  43. [43]
    THE OLDEST LAWS - jstor
    Now the code of Ur-Nammu, a far more important ruler than Bilalama, takes us back at least 100 years earlier. THE ANCIENT scribe who set down. Ur-Nammu's laws ...<|separator|>
  44. [44]
    [PDF] Myth in Restorative Justice History - Utah Law Digital Commons
    Jan 15, 2003 · For example, the code of Ur-Nammu, the oldest of the ancient Mesopotamian ... and restore order within a community.350 All evidence points to a ...