Private ownership in the Ancient Near East

by koot van wyk (DLitt et Phil; ThD)

Kyungpook National University

Sangju Campus

South Korea

conjoint lecturer Avondale College

Australia

6 May 2010

Among the Ancient Near Eastern nations, ownership was known.

Scholars are trying to guess that the first legal book originated in the city of Sumer, Lagash. The reason we mention the law book, is because the law book or laws, protects the rights of people and serves, with the interpretations of the king or kingly orders, as the way  private rights were protected. That it is the first legal book is not correct. The reason Ham was punished, was because he broke a law of God that children should honor their father and mother. That law existed during the whole of Noah's life and he taught his children about it. Ham was fully informed. He chose to reject God and His requirements and that is why he was cursed. Thus, after the flood in 2521 BCE, and after the building of the Tower of Babel, the people moved away across the globe. There were no Africans in Africa, Japanese in Japan, Koreans in Korea, Chinese in China, Russians in Russia, Germans in Germany, British in England or Americans in America. Not even Indians. 

Sumerians

The kingship originated shortly after the flood. The first king of Nippur after the flood was Enmebaraggesi (Kramer 1963:49). The first king of  Ur (Ur I period) was Mesannepada.

Between the flood in 2521 BCE and the fall of Ur in 2004 BCE, there were five burnings of Tummal of Nippur. Nippur was the religious city of Sumer during the Ur III period and Ur was the administrative city. Tummal was the name of a district consecrated to gods of Nippur. True religion is not interested in power. Politics and power do not play any role in the worship of God. The true religion of God has place for religion to grab power and turn events and people to their own purposes. God operates on the freedom of the will of the individual. The individual can worship or reject to do so. There is a free choice. In fake religions, there is no freedom and all are corporately forced to participate, ostracized in the refusal to do so.

The earth divided

Genesis 10:25 states that it was during the days of Peleg that the earth was divided. What exactly is meant by the expression "divided" is not clear but any date or time between 2420-2181 BCE the earth was divided. Is it continental drifts? Is it a case of nations occupying empty spaces as they migrated from one central point in the Levant? We can assume that he got his name because of the division and that the division occurred when he was born since that is the time parents normally allocate a name. Thus, the division would have happened in 2420 BCE. Whether name giving was also later, like a nickname for example, is also possible. Then our first date of the division of the earth as 2395 BCE is not impossible. The Bible is also a source of data necessary to calculate history. 

Kramer allocated the dates for the Kish dynasty between 2500-2350 BCE, but that is too early. The earth was divided in 2395 BCE or 2420 BCE.

The Ur I period came to an end  with an Elamite war by Awan. The Kish 2 period then started and came to an end by another Elamite war by Hamazi. Erech 2 period then started and was followed by the Adab period where Lugalannemundi was "king of the four quarters". This is a very interesting expression. It reminds us megalomania or of a dictator with a high self-image. A real problem for private enterprises.

It appears that directly after the Flood in 2531 BCE, when we do not know, Mesilim was king of Kish. He was then later followed by Ur-Nanshu of Lagash (a semite?) followed by Akurgal who in turn was followed by Eannatum. We can calculate Eannatum's reign as between 2422-2392 BCE. When he came to an end, the earth was divided. Eannatum became ruler of Lagash in 2422 BCE. Lagash is surrounded by other cities, Kish, Umma, Uruk, Ur and Elam. The Sumerians called it the "great net of Enlil". Eannatum was not satisfied about situations and he fought with Uruk and also with Ur. Lagash also fought the Elamites in the wooded mountains. It was Eannatum who created the monumental piece of art "Stele of Vultures" (Kramer 1963: 55). He created a second canal which means that he was keen to help the farmers with irrigation systems. We must remember that Peleg died in 2181 BCE (Genesis 11:19)  when Abraham was already born in 2229 BCE. Peleg was born in 2420 BCE.

Ennanatum followed Eannatum but he had a short reign. For privatization of businesses, it is important to see that the king dedicated a doorsocket to Ningirsu's beer brewery. It is an old wisdom that people eagerly supports something that supports their burning need. He may have been a strong drinker. It was during this time that 600 Elamites plundered Lagash and Lugalanda followed. According to Anton Moorgat, there was a tension during this time between the high priest of religion and the king. The king was taken down and Lugalanda was instated by the high priest as a religious dynasty. Moorgat calls it a "priest dynasty".

Later Urukagina or Uru-inimgina followed. It is the same name. He took Lugalanda down with the help of some priests. There was large corruption, oppression and other evils during the reign of Lugalanda (Moorgat). With Urukagina in control, he could do reforms.

Urugakina the pacifist

Urukagina or Uru'inimgina was a pacifist who did social and ethical reforms (Kramer 1963: 58). At this time we had   Uru'inimgina at Lagash who was a pacifist and Lugalzaggezi at Umma who was militant.

Urukagina reformed the country and wrote a law book in which he called on the city goddess Ningirsu. The temple ownership over land was again given back and the temple economy made sure that the distribution of necessary commodities was just. He was known as a good king. Said a text about Urugakina: "Because the Ummaite  destroyed the bricks of Lagash, he committed a sin against the god Ningirsu. He (Ningirsu) will cut off the hands lift against him. It is not the sin of Urukagina the king of Girsu [Lagash]" (Kramer 1963: 58).

Lugalzaggezi (priest ruler of Umma)

Around 2330 BCE, Lugalzaggezi was a priest of the city goddess Nisaba in Umma. Part of fake religion is its thirst for political power, using religion as instrument. After the king of Umma fell, Lugalzaggezi made himself as ensi. He conquered Lagash and brought the pacifist Urukagina's rule at Lagash to an end. He stuck the neck of Urukagina to the gate of Nippur and spat upon him.

After that, one city after the other he conquered. After he conquered Uruk he called himself "king of Uruk and of Sumer". Megalomania when they get into power and control. One of the biggest problems with nations suffering from some form of psychological minority complex.

Lugalzaggezi started to organize an espionage system or secret service so that he could remain in power and control over all these cities. They were to spy on his officials over the cities. This is 100 years before the birth of Abraham and Noah was still alive. His secret service was not able to prevent his end. Some young men of semitic origin, that were working under Urzababa at Kish, won the respect of the ruler and with his friends started to plan against the ruler. He isolated the ruler from his high officials. Sargon gained respect very fast. In a fast action, Sargon took the power away from Lugalzaggezi. Around 2396 BCE, Lugalzaggezi killed Urzababa. When Lugalzaggezi returned from his campaign, Sargon captured him and put him in chains. Sargon was a great king since 5400 men at daily before him at his table. He also visited Egypt and India and Ethiopia.

Sargon was called "king of Sumer and Akkad".

With Sargon of Akkad, we were near the birth of Abraham since Sargon lived ca. 2305 BCE. He was followed by Mamishtushu who "fought the ships as far as the silver mines". Mining was already done in those days and thus some private enterprises were going on.

Abraham was born in 2229 BCE. He was a very rich man and although nomadic, private ownership accounted for his wealth. It could be that private ownership at times could only subsist by migrating. When an oppressive ruler like Lugalzaggezi took the throne, rich owners took the road and became nomads and in essence escaped the kings greediness after the private property. We are not sure but express this opinion here.

Scholars like Hans Neumann made a study of private ownership in Sumer. He studied the problems of private ownership in the period until the Ur III period (end 2004 BCE) (H. Neumann, "Zum Problem des privaten Bodeneigentums in Mesopotamien (3. Jt. v.u.Z.),"

in: Das Grundeigentum in Mesopotamien, Jahrbuch für Wirtschaftsgeschichte Sonderband 1987, Berlin 1988, 29-48.

http://www.uni-muenster.de/Altoriental/Neumann.html. Also in H. Neumann, "Bemerkungen zu den Eigentums- und Wirtschaftsverhältnissen in Mesopotamien gegen Ende des 3. Jahrtausends v.u.Z.," in: J. Herrmann - J. Köhn (Hrsg.), Familie, Staat und Gesellschaftsformation. Grundprobleme vorkapitalistischer Epochen einhundert Jahre nach Friedrich Engels' Werk "Der Ursprung der Familie, des Privateigentums und des Staats", Berlin 1988 (= Veröffentlichungen des Zentralinstituts für Alte Geschichte und Archäologie der Akademie der Wissenschaften der DDR 16), 335-343.

Neumann looked at private ownership at Nippur during the Ur III period (H. Neumann, "Zur privaten Geschäftstätigkeit in Nippur in der Ur III-Zeit," in: M. deJong Ellis (Hrsg.), Nippur at the Centennial: Papers Read at the 35e Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Philadelphia 1988, Philadelphia 1992, 161-176.

At Umma Neumann looked at the businessman or merchant Ur-Dumuzida (H. Neumann, "Zu den Geschäften des Kaufmanns Ur-Dumuzida aus Umma," in: Altorientalische Forschungen 20 (1993) 69-86.

In 1989 H. Neumann looked at the private field contract in the Neo-Sumerian times or the Ur III period (H. Neumann, "Zum Problem der privaten Feldpacht in neusumerischer Zeit," in: J. Zablocka - St. Zawadzki (Hrsg.), Sulmu IV. Everyday Life in Ancient Near East. Papers Presented at the International Conference Poznan, 19 - 22 September, 1989, Poznan 1993, 223-233).

In 1997 H. Neumann made a comparison between Ur-Dumuzida and Ur-DUN namely a comparison between State-initiated Foreign Trade and Private Economic Activity.

H. Neumann, "Ur-Dumuzida and Ur-DUN. Reflections on the Relationship between State-initiated Foreign Trade and Private Economic Activity in Mesopotamia towards the End of the Third Millennium BC," in: J.G. Dercksen (Hrsg.), Trade and Finance in Ancient Mesopotamia (MOS Studies 1). Proceedings of the First MOS Symposium (Leiden 1997), Leiden 1999, 43-53.

H. Neumann read a paper in 1998 on the role of the metal workers of Lagash or Girsu and their role in the relationship between State initiatives and private work (H. Neumann, "Staatliche Verwaltung und privates Handwerk in der Ur III-Zeit: Die Auftragstätigkeit der Schmiede von Girsu," in: A.C.V.M. Bongenaar (Hrsg.), Interdependency of Institutions and Private Entrepreneurs (MOS Studies 2). Proceedings of the Second MOS Symposium (Leiden 1998), Leiden 2000, 121-133.

In 2004 H. Neumann looked at the contract between the pre-Sargonic period (between 2521 BCE and 2305 BCE [last the time of Sargon of Akkad]) and the Ur III period (until 2004 BCE).

(H. Neumann, "Pacht. Präsargonisch bis Ur III," in: Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie X/3-4 (2004) 167-170).

H. Neumann wrote in 2006 a very good article on private ownership in the Ancient Near East (H. Neumann, "Privateigentum," in: Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie XI/1-2 (2006) 6-7).

In an article the same year, H. Neumann also looked at debt of sin and debt of money in ancient Mesopotamia (H. Neumann, "Schuld und Sühne. Zu den religiös-weltanschaulichen Grundlagen und Implikationen altmesopotamischer Gesetzgebung und Rechtsprechung,"

in: J. Hengstl - U. Sick (Hrsg.), Recht gestern und heute. Festschrift zum 85. Geburtstag von Richard Haase (Philippika 13), Wiesbaden 2006, 27-43.

There are scholars who try to postulate that capitalism is a modern evil or developed late, but that is not correct. In an article by H. Neumann in 2007 we have ancient proof of capitalism in the words "Give me my money back". There is a claim of private ownership here (H. Neumann, "Gib mir mein Geld zurück!" Zur rechts- und wirtschaftsgeschichtlichen Bedeutung keilschriftlicher Privatarchive des 3. Jahrtausends v. Chr.,

in: C. Wilcke (Hrsg.), Das geistige Erfassen der Welt im Alten Orient. Beiträge zu Sprache, Religion, Kultur und Gesellschaft, Wiesbaden 2007, 281-299.