Cambridge Archaeological Journal 1:2 (1991), 171-189 Of Priestesses, Princes and Poor Relations: The Dead in the Royal Cemetery of Ur Susan Pollock Archaeological discoveries of dead individuals, usually in the form of burials, have frequently captured the imaginations ofpublic and professional audiences alike. In addition to the allure of exotic artefacts and seemingly bizarre funeral rites, burials offer rich possibilities for investigating myriad aspects of past social, cultural and even individual life. This discussion focuses on one of the more renowned archaeological excavations of an ancient cemetery, the Royal Cemetery of Ur. Consideration of who was and who was not buried in the cemetery suggests that cemetery burial was the prerogative of those people who were closely attached to 'public' institutions. This leads to a number of observations on Sumerian treatment of the dead and attitudes toward death, as these can be approacfted from archaeological and textual sources. One of the most celebrated findings from Sir Leonard Woolley's 12 years of excavations at Ur is the Royal Cemetery. In the five field seasons that he devoted lo the Cemetery, Woolley excavated and recorded approximately ?.(K)Q graves, spanning the Early Dynastic III, Akkadian, and Post-Akkadian periods (Fig. 1). Thanks to the nu merous popular accounts of his work which Woolley produced (for cvample, Woolley 1954) as well as more technical reports (Woolley 1934), the Cemetery immediately attracted the attention of a wide audience, including both archaeologists and the general public. Two seemingly unique features of the graves were responsible for capturing this attention: the incredible wealth of some of the burials, including the liberal use of gold, silver, bronze, lapis lazuli, and camelian in finely worked objects of a distinctively Sumerian style IFigs. 2- 4); and the evidence of human sacrifice in a small number of the gra ves. The wealth of information from the Royal Cemetery and the ca rc with which Woolley excavated, recorded, and published this material enable us to address almost limitless kinds of questions using the Royal Cemetery. In this article the discussion is confined to two issues: first, I pose the question of who was buried in the Cemetery, and suggest thai in order to reach an answer we must also consider who was net buried there; and secondly, f consider the ways in which the dead were treated, as such treatment may bear upon Sumerian conceptions of death and the afterlife. To begin, lei mo set the stage through abrief background sketch. Background The Royal Cemetery'was in continual use as a «metery for approximately 500 years, from c. 2600 to 2100 BC, a period of lime divided archaeologically Into Early Dynastic (ED) HI, Akkadian, and Post-Akkadian periods. The best-known of Ow graves - those famed fortheirwealthand human sacrifices ■ datetolheED IUperiod(c2600-2350BC>.EDrJIhasbeen characterized as the classic period of Sumerian city-states. Each city-state comprised one or sometimes a few large urban centres, in which much of the population resided, surrounded by a rural hinterland in which agriculture and pastoralism were the predominant pursuits. The city-states of southern Mesopotamia were mutually interdependent economically, socially, and culturally. Nonetheless, they were politically distinct entities, although individual states frequently attempted to gain control over their neighbours, leading to much 171 Susan Pollock ether Early Dynastic sites is proved by the ccr.remporaneous textual data. A late Pre-Sargonic uM-.-i from Adab records the furnishings that were deposited in the graves of the chief-administrator of Kesh and his wife (Foxvog 1980; re-edited by Celb et al 1991, 91-103). These objects, which included a mule-drawn chariot or wagon, beds, chairs, weapons, garments, and assorted jewellery, match very closely theassembUgcs unearthed at the cemeteries of Urand Kish (Steinkeller 1980). As 1 suggested elsewhere, a similar listing of funerary objects may be recorded in a tablet from Lagash, though, admittedly, the interpretation of those objects as interment goods is not beyond doubt (Steinkdler 1980; 1990, 21-9). It is interesting to note that the latter listing includes a slave-woman, which, if my explanation of this text is correct, would cons u'tutcUieonlycunciform reference to human sacrifice a t funeral in ancient Mesopotamia. Reply from Susan Pollock I would like to thank the individuals who took the time to comment for their helpful and thought-provoking remarks. In the short space available, I can respond to only a few of the points raised. Nissen questions the adequacy of the archaeological data to address some of the issues discussed in the paper. While his cautions arc well-taken, I would argue that we will never have 'enough' data. This issue. Tor me, is not so much the quantity and quality of our data - though these surely play very important roles; rather, thechal lenge is oneof phrasing new questions, proposing interpretations lhat can be partially evaluated with available data, and critically re-evaluating the assumptions and theoretical basesof our approaches. I would be the first to agree that I can only partially and very tentatively propose answers to the questions I pose in this article. Some of Moorey's remarks eonccmingthe roles of piety, affiliation, status, ideology and social structure in the realm of mortuary practices are closely related to questions of what we can hope to 'know' from archaeological data. But his comments also raise questions about the use of categories-1 fully agree that piety and proximity to the graves of beroesand martyrs may have played an important role in the placement of graves, a point which I do not adequately emphasize. But what I am less willing to accept is the notion that piety or beliefs about the afterlife are somehow independent from ideology, or ideology from political and social relations. It seems to me that our understanding of Sumerian practices of disposal of the dead and attitudes toward death will be most enriched by considering how all c: these relationships struftun-and are structured by ea;r rau-verthan by trying to treat them as distinct rca'.rrs Stone remarks that the lale Early Dynastic was a time of experimentation with new political and social orders and that the Royal Cemetery must be understood within this context. This is a critical point that I did not sufficiently stress. I might add that her comments also raise questions about how the Royal Cemetery relates to contemporary burial practices elsewhere in Mesopotamia, an issue I was only able to touch on tangentially in this article. Specific aspects of Sumerian views of the afterlife, as implied by textual sources, arc cited by Jacobsen, Steinkeller and Stone. In reading their comments, I am struck by the differences in their interpretation of the written sources. On the one hand, Jacobsen points to the continuity of households in the afterlife and the importance of bringing gifts and provisions appropriate to the status of tl»e household head, while on the other hand Steinkeller and Stone stress the cavalier attitudes of the Sumerians to their dead and the futility of worldly goods for improving the miserable conditions in the afterlife. These differences in interpretation serve as a reminder that textual sources must be analyzed as carefully as archaeological evidence, bearing in mind that texts, too, are fragmentary, partial, and "biased' accounts of the past. Furthermore, these textual citations also suggest that what we tend to distinguish as 'religious' cannot neatly be separated from political or ideological concerns. (A similar point is made by Stone.) Finally, I question whetheritisjustifiablctointerpretSumerian attitudes toward the dead as indifference, as Steinkeller suggests, or whether this is ra ther a question of dif fercnI practicesappcaringtousinourculturalcontextinthat way. Although bodies of some, even many, people may have been disposed of with an eye to expediency, hundreds of excavated Early Dynastic graves reveal that considerable effort was expended on the disposal of many of the dead. References Alster, B.,(ed) 1980. Death in Mesopotamia. Copenhagen; Akademisk Forlag Delougaz, P., Hill.H. & Uoyd, S., 1967. Private Houses and Craves in the Dn/ala Region. Oriental Institute Publication 88. Chicago: University of Chicago Press 188 - - i „ 11 3 a 8. g * t Ilitfll" - B £ G « 1 4 r 'aJ!l 3f ^.5a--'< -si M tlltl ill VB4£321ii*lll£2 Si ill mMmiimi ifunriliij IllSliitfliHIitl liljllffi InFilll *««!aiW««UI I 552 fill1 iHwittii ill pp till 3 I llillfl fJ!l!J| Slllillii i5 2 1 - § ^ S 2 i ' * ? f>* Ž ^ * - s Sílí lila *Jf SHfilii li! ifjfpffllfi nlífišÉ S 9 lí liflliífilli i ! I II! liliJsf" Bafl lfl* t i s K lUtimi S2ÍTTB. ll||||ill*IiffJ ÍÍÍfjiliiii«, iilllilcifftlf! rhfi fa §1 íř-S iHtJilíffíJfiii liijillj |f|sIf ilitIlfiSlIJlI^ fll Kil ailíJ*ÍIÍPI«"li1 íHiilIlillllřtliifli Eíl tIkíi1««?i ilniHÍ*!HL filSf Ifill Jíl iXiliksIÍSi £-3 £3frilc i t= ; 5 o > r Uíiiu Milí lis 2&"5 Ti op*2 - £ '5 £ 1111 fiíU BlfffJ 111*11 ij Jíl: i{i !!U ti lil llhtil lfltl Su*jn rolled alhf a dnrnl IiiViviiI atNV the >l*tc t>( the last MMnmi „' HVWiVy ik " '-■ uk of the ■ - --■ í no ImlMúigs and wis used asanibhUhdump. II mutt liuvr bin outside the diy proper - does not seem Jiislifiod. Other indications suggest lhát Ur may hive reached ii* full «Ueof some 30 ha at ihb lime (Wright lW,JÍ7>,ínwhkhca*e Ihe Royal Cemetery would have been well within the city limits and quit* probably near Kb cm it*. Aek n ow ledge m e n 11 The Until this paper ~ ..i (.■ l - lecture at the American Museum of Natural History (New York), in a lecture serves on Ur (February 1W1 I would ill* to thank itemhard Bernheck, Maude d* Schsucnsee. Caroline Steele, Henry Wright and the Editor lor thdr comments on the manuscript version, as well as students al SUNY-Blnghamton who commented on an oral presentation of the ankle. The article was substantially revised during my tenure a* Roe arch Fellow of the Alexander von Humboldt-SHftung al the Fnrte Untverrilil Beriirt Sasot Pilled T rpt-fr* -I i . suxr -MmImWm USA Comments From P.K.S.Moorty, Ashmolean Museum, Oxford A decade ago the editor of a set of conference papers 1« I math In Mcvipotanua remarked thai The fact that lln-l •^Mii^hl(ncdfrcqucnlly,buiihc i«val 1'itiwU at Ur vi-ry wtikun, irminds us of the iMevihMHMkalaMnMtn aámé&Jt (A! tor 1W0). 'aim-H.-n *.iiH)tl\>lliiil ItMlliitKiiiRlilvrr anjlyvd IhpplaNJMll W«l••••••l»•■•lllr•l•■•• l-i|lllirilililltlMv • rntlltH Mlum ii l.ltialKKH.I.jllK AlllalU|>,llH t*l>llt| I** upwisetoassirmmatW'oolle/se^iuvaMorarevealed lh» whole of this et*metery. subsequent wot I elsewhere taSurner certainly suggests, as Pel lock argues. i>™i ihe excavation of contemporary houses al Ur might wdl yield devnestic burials, part icuUrly.if children, as was ihe case there Uter. We ere still far from explaining the variety of Sumertan urban burial rudorrs When grave*, in in houses. It is by no means always clear whether the houM(«thatpartof'Owasorw»»nwii*abiwdaithe time. When graves concentrate In cemeteries, often over many generations, il is not yet evident whether they were Intramural or extramural and. if the torrner, whether location was hapharard or controlled by proximity to the central city shrine* (as arguably at Kish-Hursagkalama and Ur) and whether admission to such a burial place was a milter cA institutional affiliate*) or tutus, m Pollock argues, or of piety. Heroes, martyrs and taint*, and the eternal felicity conferred by burial as clow as possible to them, may be i l ■ i: -1 -. i i j In Iraq than ncurrenttyaMurrttL The relative ease with which novated grave groups may be ranked by constructing histograms of wealth scores ha* combined with a modern preoccupation with power and statin u emphasisze sod&rxi^ticaltrratificaHoniiihecxpiitK'ofrnoitujry differentials less readily quantified or less accurately recorded by excavators. How are we 10 test whether burial practices in Sumer, or elsewhere; do c do not correlate more closely with aspects of kJ-vlogy iha;i with social Structures? Pollock rightly invokes ths evidence of Six ts and renography to elucidate Sumerlan eschatology, but what hide there is serve* only to demonstrate thai local 'ihaolagics' were as prevalent as cily-states and no more coherent. Even if we accept w.ih her that r-udiry was lyriTnymous with powerlassness in life, it does not follow that It was so in cult or in death. Ubattontcetwinustra*«*itcnl^lr«>iitycrfprleMin Ihe presence of Ihe deity. Representtion* of nude or partially nude women ('goddesses! suggest thai lnanna's disrobing as she passes through the Underworld has a more subtle otitic interpretation than Pollock allows, as may the rich altlre (and presence} of attendants in the 'royal' gra.es. Indeed, Surnerian grave equipment may have had more to do with arriving in the Underworld, with the rites of passage, than with lifesiyles - past or hoped for. Canmi'i-i^lalsr^tlcsarMrtPoilcrcVhaiwlMiIy axnecnlia'td on two fundamental points no I always ■ufftrlcntlyrrxoKnlatdln recent mo r*uaryarrh*eclc£Y: i 'i" '.i ' ' ".-".'tv. !■■ iiv.ir*; lopr.inlca H'|**->dTitiUv<* -..implr t*f the loe.il population; and The Royal Cemetery of Ur Itoi marked variations in Ihe treatment of the dead : re tt much to be exported wit tun as between cultures. F;..a»Thorklld Jacobin, Bradford, New Hampshire Dr Pollock's paper raises interesting and relevant odestions about the Royal Cemetery al Ur and offers sBmulatirg suggestions for answering ihem. A few comments based on textual evidence may be added. Dr Pollock points out that the cernetery could have acccnnmodafcdonly a frectkxneaTUi'Spopubtton after death and su-^gests that It was reserved for burial olTempleand Court personnel only. Other Inhabitants of Ur may have been bur Jul in their houses or in off-Site cemeteries, exposed to the dements, or disposed of in river* Of these possibilities, thai of exposurecan probably be rhtcountcd given theSumeriini' intense gW-cirenceio: ^jv!'gbodlcsBeuril-!jr1ed.e«enLhi>sc ofencn^.Thcothm.srcalt vmbleand one mightadd that of drowning or ^.-Irlng lost in the marshes. Of these various possibilities. Ihe one most likely to have accounted for large numbers, of bodies would seem to be that of additional off-site ccmrteries. at I hue Is no necessity to assume thai cernrtuties were res meted on a t-aslsof mstitutlonordasf Of In Mot for ■. n. ■ ■ . burial are UruKAgina's Refc-nm Teats from the end ol ED 111. They show that tradition had established standard fees foe funerary services as follow* The ban- of a rorpse (o» | to t V carrietary wa»t*v*ri fan, ■' ■] lour hundred and twaniy. OaM hundr^indi™e-y*^n»o(ha-abirVy.oriar SarHif til* away. The beer and bread of the corpse are dearly to go into the grave. Other texts suggest that the furniture men Honed was apparently used in the final rite* The nut lo Bo wing section in the decrees begins 'After a man had gone into Enki'sreeds'. that H. was lost in tlx! marsKes.lt lists the same costs as those for burial in the cemetery, which seems uncalled for with no corpse U rest on the bed or use Ihe chair. UruKAgina, accordingly, cancelled all demands for furniture in this case. Relevant for seeing the Royal Tombs in context is nrhutagemtheUlc TheDca ih of Cilgarnesh' published by Kramer. I think il is possible lo get a little further than did Kramer in his very careful and cautious pioneer translation With slight emendation of the reading of two damaged signs I should translate it as follow* i Ms bdoved tpo-jw, h a Ns'j w-d dUU hit Belcnvd fint wife and lhw> v«i»ir eoncubinr. his muHcian and cvpbcararrtn, -■> l--lr> ~i barber, his wfiongingi Of\ hit bcHuvrl] tcrvanH t't) in atundsnre in the palMe. hit btloved _ ttung* had bat* Uld do~n in thatlf pbuca t» ihe palace foundad or t-onctn themid*;;o( L'iuk.d*lC' i"- .! ritual . ■ifiUom. Adifteteveisthal In ihe Cllgamesh passage his family follows him In Jcjlh; suehsenms not 10 ha ve been inecasealUr.Also, while some of the objects found In the Royal Tombs may have constituted greeting gifts, there Is no way to demons irate this. Theratlier ful'er picture given by theCilga'nejh passage helps greatly to clarify how the Su merians in ID 111 saw the death and burial of a king or queen In death the king moved with lusfamlly and household to another city-state - thai of Ereshkigal - to settle there- Acconalrtx^yhebiough'ijTmngglfu.sUndarf procedure for calling on people of importance and earohal for establishing proper relations with the dignilariesof the Nether World in wheh he expect* to be accorded a position consonant with his rank. Crlga mesh wastradeapidgeln the Mc-thor World, and so was Ur Nammu Lastly, I musi admit that explaining the hc«isetic>ld Wlowirxgir^rmaticrinckaihaievidence of'coasting, pww-greedy insiitutlonsi-fihcttm pit and the palace... displaying to th*m-*lves. eacbother and the rest of Ihe populace their ahmty to control their Mibjnls' srrikts me as anachronou* The Suttee ts a better comparison From Hans J. Nissen, Seminar fur Votdeiasiatische Aliertumskunde. Berlin The sensational dtscox-eey of the Royal Tombs al Ur occurred only a few years after the even more senaalional find of Tulankhamun's tomb In Egypt with its tremendous wealth of precious ob)ect* Both cases displayed a host of object* of both artistic and materia] value which had arcomparacd the drad on i-t f 'PtifiíPtf nimtf Iii mm mil ifjliiHüiiluiil filililiiintli] i ľ ÍHUm i i? Si \ s "1 IfľiilillIWľl I >|ii|iii||jn řiiíí lili litUA g • h ifilflíij1 liliu I b SBsrf f-fr* nil Iii III j ami trail* til tili Itili'lljiililui mjisH|ti{|ffl!]}j |K*I~124f «Jl l*f III j MiililJlilSilfli iiiUhliliiiUliiji liliUliíliKlSitHi iililtmíli"""1 ji! Lil liliu