IS 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, host frequently captured the imaginations of public and professional audiences alike. In addition to the allure of exotic artefacts and seemingly bizarre funeral rites, burials offer rich possibilit ies fo r investiga ting myriad aspects of pas t social, cultu ral and even ind widual 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 net 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 treatmen t of the dead and a t titudes toxvard death, as these can be approached from archaeological and textual sources. One of 9w 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 to the Cemetery, Wonliey excavated and recorded approximately 2000 graves, spanning the Early Dynastic III, Akkadian, and Post-Akkadian periods (Fig. 1). Thanks to the numerous popular accounts of his work which Wcoiley produced tfor exam pie, Woolley l954)as well as more technical reports (Woolley 1934), the Cemetery immediately attracted the attention of a wide audience, including both archaeologists and the general publicTwo seemingly unique features of the graves were responsible for capturing this attention: the incredible wealth o f some of the burials, i nrfudin g the liberal use of gold, silver, bronze, lapis lazuli, and carnelian In finely worked objects of a distinctively Sumerian style {Figs, 2-4);and thee vicer.ee of human sacrifice in a small number of the graves. The wealth of information from the Kayal Cemetery and the rare with which Woofleyexcavated, recorded, and published tins 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,IpOie the question of who was buried in the Cemetery, and suggest thai in order to reach an answer we must also consider who was not buried there; and secondly, I consider the ways in which the dead were treated, as such treatment may bear upon Sumerian conceptions of death and the afterlife. To begin, let me set the stage through a brief background sketch. background The Royal Cemetery was incontinual use a s a cemetery for approximately 500 years, frome. 2600 to 2100 BC, a period of time divided archaeologjcally into Early Dynamic (ED) III, Akkadian, and Post-Akkadian periods. Thebest-kr.own of the graves - those famed for their wealth and human sacrifices - date to the ED 111 period (c.2600-2350&c). EDUIhasbeencharacter!zed as the da ssic period of Surnerian city-states. Each city-state comprised one or sometimes a few Urge urban centres, in which much of the population resided, Siirrounded by a rural hinterland in which agriculture and pasloralism were the predominant pursuits. The city-states of southern Mesopotamia were mutually interdependent economical I y, soda fry, and culturally. Nonetheless, they were politically distinct entities, although individual states fluently attempted to gain control over their neighbours, leading to much 171 ■...—j 1 Suh>i Pollock The Royal Cemetery nf Ur I. i i: f Spur í. HfaiUxu of Ph-jW, ffti ?rú*řjtiif K0q*ni up '"frrt6 *W,171 lafi» acrirnonknii rivalry. Ut, « on* of (hew aly-iUwt isurlfiptinl In Ihese rivalries, and tile nutty of tN? mluir* hid itunmntnti oi glnty iik power. In Die subvř--|uem ArJtadiin penott Saigon oi Akkad juct-erdi*J in wirettlne, eofttrol from the individual at*-;iJto arid craning ■ tlpf^C fVi'lCCil entity which hat often bpen mtarnsJ to awn empire. F le and hi j surctJBors rrj*ii*,ed is r«jjn iocar Je^p-te el unifrícl fvl:tjc«lco hJ bj- the l!r Hi dynaity. Al ihou«Ji we kngw torneliiine. of the fortunes oi L'r Iforri ttir Eirty Qyiusrlf to the F«t-AVk»<)i*n pfffcd flora texU, v* hainrTemarljoly jittlcaiMlEtorul ji-.říím^tjoji dUjut the dty t romarchjeolo£li.al MViiríťa, l"ht Trtinni tor 1hi« .in. Jtf-Jřghťorward: Lfr WM occupied fot nearly tw,o iivíts milVnnjj.ini Inmost Of liliwOrklVoal£evconirrnLraleJon l!«-Litvr fKTÚJi. In idditinn. I he liTgi-fCilo huildlnj ptagrirm undertaken by the mien oi the Ur HI dyiujty often rvs jlted fcn the nestfuttwn of «rl wr buildings. thk» obliterating many earlier third millennium comtruethns. We do know that there wan 4 idgguni PartyDyruilicLr * asU[vd inuabfickpl.ilfgrrnon li-hKh wl i temple and around which nui service iraij With krbohřns and ivoTkthnpi: ■ and thil nrjjlw was a :hickkť4]le£ boiiďng mih cchiiiuLílon and OOMpnU S'l£íJÍStirn! that It Wit trf non-dnmc=lir (i.f. 'puWic/J character- Of the contemporary residential ín?*s. Ivinw, we have llmoit no hint. Who was burtfd In the Koyal CemetrryT - .i- i -i' : V ■■ ii t -. ... ■: disc i- .■■ ■ I g 1*J0s, there hai been much SfTtuUtinm about the identities of 1h( ptoph? whet Lcerebiirltd In lit* Royal Cemetery- Let tuooniideriomi of thne prupoaali. AíTiftňjj the 3tI)0itriWS there *rrl6**iWiol!ey L 173 The Royal Cemetery i>f Ur centBdered ip be dutinrtry different from the rest at J which he Turned the Royal Ton**. These \& jw«b, da; i- a to iJic E D 11 i runi hJ, fill have bwlkt cliifi iters or iUm or none and brtck, in contrart 1i> the rtimining graveswhichcontain coffin! or mat-wiapjird bnrial! Lud in an earthen prt, All yf the Koyal Ton-is have ewd*nee of Iviimfln latrlfK*' - Lne irctttirici.-ifll liilrltig el additicjul individual). frr™fi?ur or ftv* lots many i> 75, to accompany the principal toaw! person to the jrrive. The IS Royal Tombs the contained great rithc3,b«JiM Woolley noted IhU was alio trueof sum* of thectlier graves, rl-jr dkl not hive built chamberscr human jacnfkM. Woolley (lHlt)aTgued B-,lllr»p«iplt H-hswfrtr privileged lobe burled wiihi ha* i^ry Ji; nnctke rx: m p and ciicwwunce were royalty who w*re accompanied to their death by the members of their court*. The ternainiTijj graves, hii 'privale jmns', canuim.il Lhe burials pf ordinary peopl* t* comnunere of varying wealthiisdsocialposition. H«gaveseveralreasonstor Identifying the tombs » ptit*i tvhere royally were bur^-C^ the CW hand, r# expect) kir:£tindi;iiep:w Kibe trotted ins dlifcncti tch/different way frara other member* of If* comrmiiiJty (whom lie railed (he Jpri«tepHi3i(!ii<' or'commoners'). More importantly. In neutral of the icrnbs he found inscribed artefact*, ustutly cylinder swlsv which irwjjoned the ram* of a raindi woman fnlluWftl by theierm fiijr^rf.aSumeru n word triiwlated ii "Ling;, or nrn,Svrwri*n far 'queen' It would seem Jut we could rxn ilk for more! But tinfortUJiiHy. -jtue of the artefacts mentiormr. klr^ti ivert found in direct *,Hocla(il»n with lhe body of the prina pal occupant of the tomb. For ejumpV, In Roy*] Tomb lLii4 the principal c*rup»nL«tmni«>lyi woman, toy ir- herchambeJ at the -wry b*se of thp grave shaft, while thesei! iiiscribed 'Mes-kalani'duKibeluhg' was found along with twn dagger! in ■ wooden box in a chs-mbcr tiuilt anmefouT eleires up the shaft [fig. S) There is to compelling riraKjn to think tlut litis teal was tie seal of the tomb's prlneipnl oct-upim. and It n pei-liaps more likeiy that jt wu an offering ptaeed In The mm* by straieone else, Although In uras case (Koyal Tomb VXII ir*.-rLr*d vali bt«llin(j a person K nil wieiT found in direct addoeiation with the lemb'* pnnci pal occupant, n;n can alw refw simply to a hiph iiatui bdy, wiclumt nw.'euirtly linptying that Hut perm tiu a queen. Othtr Kholarj have i-Ufjuesied That the Indivtdual* in the Royal Tombs wmvHgh pnejti trJ pries.le»o, wlih thuLr reilnue* or? ataendar.b- Seme haw extended this ugumect to propose that these people were Involved Inlheso^nixf tai^rnirnagt ceremony, to eniuie ferdliiy aiid the annual cycle (cited in Woolky ^9}*, 3&40i. Howevtr, Woollty anrjad quit* convfneingly that Ihrs latter possibility wu unlikely. A* for priegti and prieUuiKa, Uierc ii neither dlrut Hipport for the identification nor any ecfliprllirig rvidenrt to countrr the ifnument My bMCTrwtotiori al the ix\jpV buried in the feyafCrtMteryrdiLjesori the rw-viiiutkiii that many inhabitants of Ur not borterf m tht CemeiMy, lA'txdVy reported approvtma!cl> 20CCjtttvi:iifrom the Cemetery, most of whlchuununvada Individual Ht further nosed dut he had tivourilered pErbapj n cnany as 4000 more graves which were so badly disturbed that he did not recuid titan (Woolley 1934, 1*5 TT^r,-incteryljayr1l^,nnpru I'yl^-jr conbined asnuny n MXXI peatiia- Atasiieofappmrfnuitefy SJ * hertares, weassume tl Jit third millennium ITrtncluded ai the very minimum HOD Jnhibituvr* at any time. negudJAia of the litres we use for nwiijr life e^pKt^ncy, it b dbftolU that far more thin hOOO peoplemii»t haveliivrd and died at Lfrdu ring the 50J yenrj that Ihe Cemetery was In use. If Ihit wot TCI In irsetf jurtk-leritlyajeivtridr^weniaUil^nolellistof Ote ajjprwimjtely 21X0 burtaU nvnried by Vroolaty, fenvr Ihin SO are children. TMiertTti children ware buned, it was not, with Ear* exceptions, Ln The C«mrt«fy.' \ It would of Course be tJesirable io supplcmenl tH? arpi rAetii by oKKidering In greater detail the age a-ij »i lfl);o«hrTwi}e Wootley ennrined himself to r*?ring those bodies that v-vre clearly sub-adiJt, 1« children. The gerderof at fctast some Individuals can he i m i aiivcly esttbiished from asptctf of their mia-tuuy trenimem. prlrwipally Oie aroompanyina; grave goods (Pollock 1991), with the. proviso thai locioculttiTalty ascribed gender rhiy not ilwayt comspond direcny ty OJoJofdea] te\ However, ai 1 have argued elsewhere (Pollock 19911, pie genderjf people of Ia«er status doe* twt «^.1bra*o beln iiwV rnitkej lo death, or *tU'asl not ins Cashion thalf his siftl'Wrn arKhk»ffitiglcjny or la at preseni a rwcigniiaH* to US. j To rehim to the queation o( the identities of (he dead buTied in the Roryal CemcKiy, [ suggest thai they were individuals who vtrm atlached r*i kOfr* wayandp iosome degree Kith? public' instltudonto/ the tempV orpalai^iClntlwb^scrfcartfnipCTarywi^ stadh people coo hi TJUgr from Jdn|>s and querns high Ihií^ayal Cernetsiyof Ur tsHPH «*Bif«0 II VfL L_Hi_i SECTION SW-NE PC.Í05V '„ , , ,|i n ■--->*1T*I Fijurí 5. iurtiliUJtiUKíA fayl TerKb IftH, Thf ^niií^lfepTBCfBÍ(«iiptttí íotutíí tu [heífcainirrijf l>--ebat pf Http**! f« tor omtaimsf li* iagpn mi At íssrrSW umí tettí toumi in Ifef rfwnfcr Staří ^ up in f *f j«*/i. !?6 finest* and f*l*5ieM*3> '0 menial Labourers who bplatt[;.'rt' to these ihsiitiitlons »nd received ivtHlML>n«ntloAiln>iihjni(DrthtiT]iteur, Helwrfh thew «Wim was a wide range of pwpte wha were partially attached to institutions and reitiwd radons according lo Ihr typt and amount* al Uhanr they provide} (Gelb 1?7». imniviEi^i wer pirJfjviS-im^fM^iffiTiT)' ifffli A-?, rambled with their kin group*. There are cndscatTO^ From a rang« of sources itral during the (h-ff nvlJenriium SC (he power and irbdepriideriei> of S* jjrcirpi was Hi^ projjresEavely eroded by the palasc and, fenpfe lntfttubtmavUnt ol the rnost obvkiui (bn» Ö*»t mir tüofc iTO rhc sroamutatl™ nf ta^e" tracts of b nd by offlcUK thertby rendering many* fumflfce bmtiar» (Celt 197?-. Zagardl 1986). TT«, inarrprcuticn pul forward he? e I» that ihe pniwioal burials ji lha ttoj al Tomb >>» peopls from ihr moct elite facial putfiloti;, whether these wnc Vinjiand queens, high prints and pri«te*Sri.Of other high statu* potitlCHH of which tve are unaware. Ind€^, the emsider able c-arab'liryanK-i^ Uw Roval Tombs - in ttnurucliaji, plan, number and iyr»s ni 'saciftc^l nciios', and Accompanying crave goods (J^j»-64r7) - iruybepartlyaHribut.jhtehjdi'frTmrt»-Jn the rulas that this* peopk playrdin tibe. Iurihefrnnrp. tlujii'iaipfeunuripivipu^iliiUiruf^JivitluiiIii'jr.rd in tin* private (raves' ol »he Cemcttry mclitde tlie ringt at other propSe atia-S^d to ifrt'pleand palace lr.»rin;|Jcin». Again, these burials exhibit a tremendous diversi ly, from those with no grave £0Od«, 1 lev: ctajr pots ur ■ airing af beads, to those thai curtain a wealth of DbjedSAitd rival the Royal Totnl» jrt rkhnes Itor exannplt, the graveof MfJta!mdag'J K< 'ftSh.Surh vartaBon, whicfi doariy indkatci thai '.he Cnrwhny jno!cidLaively u5njby the wrdthy oocuputaef dwdry.iinbeatrribiisd ho fte direr* ntikeHjpnflh* perxmncl aiiathrd la 'publn:- Inttltutfont. WTut ol the renal nlng pcopk.tlioie who did not rrcriiK turiaL in tru» Koyal CemetetyT A1 lean »TW of IV* f*jj>lcmayh*vi bwiburicd ndchLnirveirhoutn-Trie reinon for juggMtng vrllMn-home burial is dul Mich a prank* I >itie<;iKl a a Tuimbwe^conteniporiry Übe» [Abu SjJ.fcit.k. Marlin *l ol. I«S; l\>ilSals Khifi|ah: DeJctftii e: ol. Fan-- Nlarün iMa K Al nn Early I^nafitic^tpif then; unAJim'OCalevidfTice of bufialboth CKemcleHHafid wi Ullri houw».tut neither arc Irnrffvf rkHrJbwrial« nany mbe to account forth* number of people who miwtavelii-t^anddirdthrri; (Steele IKK!). Burial beneath the floor of the htaiie i mpllKrlLiM'arici üwited»*eassociation wtththchause, ) (yraboüt bend of wme importanqr If iheie peopje i**re rndcKnJoäaertirgth*iiheirprt«iajyÖt«wtre sli!h-lo íieir hin groupti ntihu thafl (o public triiltulton* Thit may »I» be whtre tnany of ihe diildren wete biLfied who dird befoni rc*f hiiMj adullhúůd. DfL-^i«,biji»|HncrnbettH«andw|iJim1iOuae» docs not cxhjrast th* po«ibl» methoJt ol dispersingol the iea J, Off ilie remeteríea, dltpoul af Bodies in ihe n-Tr^w bLi:iply e*posirtg themto iheelementj could all ruwe tro practiied. and some of these melltwb mc^dd leave no nuhaanlogical traeei. Such practifr* Truit havebeenťott^monip the pmt^ding aatlua^Aluni, linre onlyji handfui of h-jriali riavebef n iounfl initrttiegender., wMl;h,aiTdKi^tiraiid^rflhe(lta«^5ed(acc,anvirj^ ethere, Woelley líií: Moorey 1*77; l'oüocfclSOJWl). White thore Is enormoua soope fnr euplon^g ihe mlaUinä.hip between Ihe (reapnam □! ihe dcad and their tender, vvealrh, and stviil positioiv I wlsh in the present dÍKnsriOn to steer a raiher diffétent L'Oürse. My cunoem herr tf how the trejtrrwn! of the dcad related tu So-neran be!i«f»atiiiiii dtutli and Hie t fler death. As vva chaü te*, SurnerUn liierary srr.srces reLating io *rr* «ibpca - of «Wh ihcreare only a limited niimber - offer In^i^hLs lhal iteof pcH hfflp lrtiinierrvcriiig llvlí^Tha^^^lOJfel*v^dcí^^v■, H-it at thtr lamfr Eime, atthieology offen glimpaej of cuitonu; ěnd beiiffs tor whith ihe tř.iruil so iure» in nu way prekäre ui The Surrttrlinstenviiioiied the UnderworU, Lhe place «o H-hitti (roiiils descendei at ttiei: death, jí a dílna] plaoe. Accprdrng tf Th* Eplc ofGBgamtlli'.St was a ptace nhmďirt m thrir driJiL t>jM »pod o of clay, vihtrt, lltiea Wid, ifcary wtoí gajjrcjrtiofbiuth^.iJiJlI^h! LUMutk H^tt^ydH^tnEhaaaric.aiHlufiu.-ilb« door trrf tu* iaa dua. js, we tin begvi 10 uiuJer-iiuiJ ir--> n 4> .i> 11 r. t ■. ■ -.' n ,1 i-- .- ■.: i! ■/. ■ i. : with rt«*ls of KbW sort, whether o/ clay, stone, 01 metal: they scrvixl ttconialrir/rs for feud irrf drink. Sn -*-r ...isi;. remains of food - h' jh n? irvnnmal bc-Tscs. * grain, leFHtwi, date t lories - wervrtwdlflveisstjin the Rrj%« OVooHey ISM, 141; EFJistn it of. 19Wc ftoth in (Seilh and in life, the Surnertms viewed rukftlrww h fyntmyinaui with powrritwness. In ivoiiograpedc representations, captives are Shown rmkisJ where** their ciptors ire ihvivs dressed (forma rhple on rtw Standard of Wnjlley ID3I, pi. »?!. M t literary lent entitled Iflamu's S>*scenE to lite Nether rVcfld'fKiaafletl SSft IKJ), ttxgitKWess Insm pi makes* journey u> the- Meatier Waritf in an attempt to extract fauna* tromhei j^erihiqbeeiL To prepare for tit* lrtp%sried:e»cs;n her iiT-crt clothes xit! tewelsi Tbe v.'.; jurra, the crown of iht pt*n, the put upon her Iwsa. Lork» (of hair) ihe ilaed upon liar Sorehead, Pit Bieasintne, reel UMI lifll tf lapil lazuli l.'ie i;- iy^i M her Band, *7iuU UpltTszul! stones «1-9 :«l item H* Kit, Tw*n SjUfl w-*Wm** the faj^r-rfd "a her 3i*«ir A rlrwj ihs pal about har hasd, Llebian ptitc "M jrnoom oootJ' iTaUiLinJ abuut her breast, Wil h Ibt pali-garr-iim, no gjnuani irflerfysUp, she o>v*red twe Vidy, The pintrrwnl Ha tLha nun] ihaJi iedflrt, }< ph4ll vorw.afctdjuiei on her eyes. (Kruncr19S1.^ Er»iI?-3S> AssheparWStfcfOugh thf irvrn gain thalltiad through the NcllwrVS'ortd. she bsysttmd UeeJLy Slipped of her dothes jndh*rfew«ll«iy- KinaHy. rii»i(brr>ughtl»foi* live i^i inn, ruled and •!» fomilt-ii. This cnetaphsf whtdiconciitsriikodnesjiJyJ po^rteant^i^OiWngdi«*rt^B^»«^l«rift ihu4 po-werful ran hdp ujto Lin^tors-Ijsnd many d 'comb*' by Wnnflcy) of gold Of llSvef with in'.jJJ iwtlci thai «(W worn Jl the hack of rh* head (Flf. 8^ HiTe*of impnrtanrcilEtluddUAincLhirhicid^rHj, inrliiicas^ uiuallyi bUln^of thr« Isrge f;irga1«dl biddiiiiachri K> gold <*rjdH*rciiaiM whk-.H-^nrwtmnround iSr farchaad.MahtsalKh^punlry wort adorer pr trJfe jr thr wakAiand might <£rry an inetriTi the hlTfl'Se|, o- *Vhilc tSiii picture is ncmwrily o^*cn4mplifHd and homogciuMd, it serves to tl!LStrite the 'ulnds of arhrfactrthat wcjt commonly tmrad wi Ih tfwdemmt 9onv of thiMf, luch as eomfx**titj of the rlatoraht headdresses, have nev«r or only rarely bem found In contcmptimTy tmrisls nlspwhrr? [ 5uga«t that *in» of these objects may have been prfquiiltes of 11 ,i 11 t-j r !l.-nj L bitathmrnt and cenwtery burial, specilkilly dnlgried hj «wt people gaSytHtot reteHotlllifp t>f ^Tcjlflr dr-p#-j:Lli"ri.v 0:1 ll-.r-.i-inirllnrJcitQ, /ost as enilightertinj art the kind; of thiriga. t3*t anr rat plated with Ihf dead Boval Cemetery pi whether rkh at poor, «lrnojf K^e^ttftlVirHt Ji,Jfti*1alfi*J5!nliV1'! D' pastnraT'tJtJkl'^'iirjsi L'cTiipm.'nt, at irteftcu Bsrxkited m" iTunoj's(^ure.yetthe4(wenrih»actriiri^| Ihc battbnuV irf the Sunvrl^n rmricWiyl4l^eil#1 luj> .j^'-.jr,-' work, a fwrson's nuniul occupation, waa> opt »pprttp™t» or Teksi«*Mt-,*la^iih: what w« - impcnant kit their ritual or potiiiraS pnthlm. One of ihe mf*i famed aspects at ifcatKoyit CenKrlery Is frs evidence for the prKtics of what Woollcy ralfcd humaa) Mcrific*- Thri involved the ap^r^tJyddhL^i'eitJUrt^rrfaiiunifjrrofindlViJuals to acctrnpairy the prinnpal occupant of each Rny»t Tombtt the (tart- The delitseralmcw of the Idlktltt • wfcnrwr cuerctxJ or "voluntajy" - Is if gued ftr by the large nurnhec r«vond*ry Ktrlal, it it likely ntri bodies of people who had died earlier were 'sa.V4.-d' until the death ol o paramount figure. Kwther burislev^dertfetrorriothcTsilesTiOf tevts offer us cofnpojaeJc practices or an enpla^aiion for IJtem. tt Is possible that the practice was confined ton relatively tJioM period of time, early- in £P HI fNlssen S9&S; Foiltxk HBSl.and toonlyoneelly.Ur^lituuijh Htinet ruteavl llw ptwiWiiyitsatsiTralartflinbsal other sites hjvj simply MCipcd. aichjeulogit'al discovery. It wsukl seem |H«( the pracu'is Is best L If-ujuTe njrvfUtiyfMmi) oif fketafyif rxtcj lb ma^/rM^rnihj«rj™ry fcrrarJi pr fcyvi Tumi Anms triftrr i'fer** wit * f)U Ira) tiTmlK jdU rlhtfti*, laigtgaUtttnnt$.n«iii»4ci irnrf j pi*. «1 Mt*J» í. cTfjjitíi jmrn R^J Ttmk If7i, notify aaadili4 Knih (V píneinař wínpinl, inrJuJyií f,-uj kit ofJaitnittx fitií^Mr i*' iirye ierfj and fiiJ .-Asms, ami a ""S^rr understood a* 4 short-lived and entrant farm of display of the power a( cwwirtn individuals - in rheir upjfltytsW^winyngniiiiiSfraojpulilc-ltiiiiturtiir.i • rw^itelivwof olfcefi. Theidea Ihat lha»aihcrd>na«j srnricd iji ihesc tomii were viewed Fn bowl-re spec ft a 5 merely another variety of lite grave sjood* wOnvhich IS* tomb* vm liberally endrord his already been soj>gcrird by Um Ikry himsril i19j4, Ml, Indeed, Chi* F racttos mtJKtbei lurther Indication of -,be ler-gths In which the leaders of (fe eamprting, power-greedv ■nsllhrBoniof the imfCcand palace were viSlnj Id go in dlsptayuiartoihrrrnseJw^to each orherand 1o the rwfofthepepulK* *iititt|i(y (oMtilrol Iheiritb^cuL A« WooJltjf deulydcstrilwJ, the RoyalCi.-mj|]try w« located m j fiirtiusB dump. This it ha.- IK ilv place where we would erpect people to be buried, eipedaJly people whose bu rial jo volrtd much pump ■mil tTrruTOUnrt, not mention wealth. Nor. moss probably, wis thn simply in abandoned dump; mbbi* continued in be thrown there it shortly with them.' Thettiti that wc htve do not oif«r m uiy cft»t!Stitiilhem»nLrtjofthiipri«H-t rJulaiiiiudeslo garbage - pefrjptparfciilarkindsofijaaiuge - met/ w at-Uudes be dejih in Sumtsrian itnwi must detrty havebeeri slgnííjcintty dNFftrentfram Ours! Another phpnonwnon tor which iht r«u. d n n;-t spcdflcally prepare and whithfuruDMinbertciow ailftirally-boiind assjrnptiortsabouf treairneritiif the iead is grave diitarWce, In the Royal Cctrwtety, and inanolhffoonteriipariryocineteriisand house burtatt. * proportion at the burials wet difturhed in intnp way in antiquity Thh usually gnm in have involved removs': ofof theebxiccspU;ed jn the JF j vr, and so hdibtm termed by erchaet?lr>gii,s grave lrwhFijj «■ TDDhing. In Sůrr* rase* Ihe di:turbjnci appear* 1» hare occurred when an řarliírpavt hh rncotiiniirrd in the dissinj oi 3 tatw dm, while in other* ft wh apparteitlji meet dttberak (Woallay 1SJ4, ;^19ilntht(oun»(JihFdfltuitaftae,Mndesiierf aójetíífítrřiujiipte. day pí*4>»ndí-.pn S.vlici -*-.-n oftrn tOi»d aild* In ion* cites, all or pirUolbodm an ť!oinplet*ly ratisJag and wrr» psrhips renwtved with ihtrir \emOny or oihar obJKit Kill Oil thf m, Wtiili 1* fart ot the dlsmrtan« and removal of oblete set>mt undeniable, Ihí coíinolilions of this behavior ar* opm 10 quniiorL We can begirt by ^uesdcnlnghow easy It w-ould be tocovenly nob large gnvřs ln'aicdJ nWlln ■ and perhap* oultř úmiiíJíy within ' thealy.*lf IhH n p& in iisrff sofSciCTitiy unHkefy^ the pheivmenon dÍ ^rive-dutiubance in homw tnalies iht pracpor «VTn mcae prtolernartc- In. ai least mnte cases, for exairtbie Grave 134 at Abu SalabitJi (Matthews & Postdate 5987; &tce!e 199m., a ]«»[l wa» Interred below the ft»rof a hcuieand the grave mtnLL|-.iiTMly 'robbed' with no apparent cessation in Iht occupation >J Ihe hdu^e. If, as tcaia n'.iM ; - . • rt-erebuj ed i-vr: . - <• m nhic'i tlwy ard Itrir fari:liri:why rabíJ-ai jraic of uix.-'i own. km? 1 í; nnot preiHid to have a iWiniríve aruwtr to ■hi) oaue of grave disturbinct Hc^itr, it may bs useful «0 rephrase thetruesbon en 11 rely and btgin with the assumption that iMi was ntit mbblng or looting In the *eme that we think oř It at all Instead, the ob|et« pliicd with the dead nMyhaufbeenlheieomtnan.iq help ihe iiiJlrtdaais neepual? iHoir entrance to the Undmworid, Aftorscme píriůdi(irtírnoroíijXtt osmM be remind by the living ifti returned 10 oilier u:íj, probably including tarerittme bf the Hrirg, Thi» is rot to say that bonowin^' barV from the dead, was CoMMercd ideal; rather the praitke may I jvc been accepted: even though not pardculariy dcaltabl*. hidrriJ. It ivqoit^ea^y toin^agUiehowsuiha pracTtop CuuM have been abuscd,npedally Mncc wit heat f rain Hie teirtenti Jed The Refnrms nr Ununtmpna' tSteiWe 198?J thai prlesia had been abuainsj ibeii prero^ahves by OKrru:idlng rhorhit^nt pay fgr their KTvfeea al funerals. ConcJsdlne ntnarfcs, A mrnprehetiilTeinterpTetation o( t>*RO)-*l Cffflttery is mi beyond the scope of a shoft essay such as dus í nil requircf attention to many more attributes of the d*m*»ěé, *#lf (rtatmenl. arid5njrTirrianSiVii^y-. — generally thi.1 have bwn touched upon here. Wha! I haw irked IcnJo i sto show some oi the ways In which (hi fitoya] Cemetery hunak ean he undcTitnnd as evpnessions of atvj responses le .-axnaallve attlludes concerning:death- At the wme time, -.hetiinali rbrmed part of the poww Uruggkes among varleti! sectors of Sumerian society, itrugjjlea which themselve* dtoobtless contributed to the shaping of normative attiiudm.Thuv for eiampla, ■ nilruraldkrurn lhal lo wWi pt)wernwrjriisibeapi™prtaie^df»s5eJiria^ lirvieritatvlabW many of ihe ob)nrts with which the Royal Cemetery dead were provided; it also Indicate* > meaivs by which peopie couM be manipulated thjfju gh their eoopriurt by poweiful ImiihjrJoris which, irr^aig other things,, offered to provision Chan with certain ties rest rnjicrWs al cntical luncturcj in Iffr -uirhaa death. The Koyaf Cemetery ha^ ler'-rJ as J v,urcc nf mmyof our Kleasaboutearly Surcren an ctvilizabcmvat thewrneHmeaiithasbernieenata uniqi«*wcrvtry. This somewhat eoniadla&fy atrirudehighlighls some rmportant prints. On Ihe on* hand, there are n«Aihie dmllanties between the treatment of the dead in the Itayal Cemetery mi at orl-*r c onleriipcwary lite v [or ijtimr'-e i n the pos.tio:.; ng and lreatment of the body ai4 in the catrgorif* nf otjectj that accompany ihe deceased. Yet, while recognising these sinuUriSrs (whkhiwdoubl reflect the participation. o# Ui in the brgerwcial and culniral (fhere of merand Akkad l wernustrKrtlaitrorecopiiieihetrnlqucchaniclorlilks or the Cemetery. Moorey (1977,39) ha* cOtremMed with insighl that some of the ieaturcs thai mark the C«netery at di*1ir«:t, moil notably charai-uriatira of the Royal Tomb burial*, mijf beaspectsofa local cvlt, ptrhapi tpacrRc id hiimna, 1 he motm god it>J pa&íit dctry of Ur That the cult of Nanna. waa an Irnporlant tradltkm al Ur has been strongly argued by Winter ítín)?J in a consideration tuhe art historical evidence, reusing thc«arguirumtiofffT» wi poaiiWeavrnut toward lovwttpnirtg the paitlcwtar, local differences between city-saates, rather than view; ng all of Ěumer as one hemogenpua whole. Neiea i. ii feviff course, půi!jí>le tr-j I chlldten rig,ur«d among the graves Itul were not rmsmircl by WrmUcy. CampjJliiinswLlliOlheTEDsiLes.hciwtjvcr.suejiral that children are roaS.-eiy unJer-nrpresented in mravatec! burial populilioni (eg. Kiih: MaCkay ES2S; Abu $aUbi»Ju $aeete 1994». I, Wooiley believed that a signifťant period oi time rJlpsod between Ihe use of the area tor a cemetery and the next episode of rubbish disposal {kVooflcy ■934. Ii8-17l. |l Is jnyl deiiT ihat ihti muai be so, hn-K. r\ rr. il it unforfunaie lhal Vťoolles/i reporting of the deiai:: iiid s.'!jti^rjphyofthe rubbish heaps bnotall that il might be. He was alvunflucnced by hn own feelings jhout the relationship between garbage and burial: ... it is a moral probablU ty that i»ueh des*xn(i(rnoFv^oidgTa^^iT]asKinvc4ved i ii tin; use j| L! as a mbbish-dump only look place 1« !fil nWtffi PoBoek sftUT * dn'rnl IHlrlVlH ^IH V- tlV dalC Ot Ittt |UI Inktlnnil. 'Wail-Dry ITU, ;>:»» < 11» !■■ ttifci.i •■! tl«- luay.d I Vtsii'ta-ry retallve to the icahal the 11 ly t< |«444iitb(k'. Wcanllcy cock palm to >lnl .ml tliil 1 VmHiTy'i apparent location tfl iiiaiiiivilalr i'lutliulty tu the much laler Temerias •ira ami r»a| Iuvq ;my iIi'ttcI «liaiOn«>iip U» ICS ,.-,!.!. ■ i' - y I'l;, 'v ! W1((WoftlI*y 19M I a 14}. Iliiwi'ver, Warjllcy'i dsautraptlcvi - that SO »"ajt j»n lln! Hie 01 the CSlT^iflv ilTilllcd ™> I ikjIiIj.-i^i i ret waSused If 4 nrftbirJi dump, it trsult I in va-Uln auislJe Ihf-dly proper - does not seem justified. Other indtcarddh* tu££**jt thji; Ur may hove reached its ful] e odiur of a set p) cciaferetice pepen IMI >™th in M(-tnprta.irómnaricpd that 'thefact thai tl«*( .dgauu-tM tVav^rru'nlKifinifrrvq^ntly,bul lha ■ '•val ItiUala at Uf VTy aai'hnn, remind* ut caf the KaahV a li t.lla^ llul a.hl| i r-iaw In lllfaiiu'ii' (At ■ Jpr 1 W0> ■JlvHU'fl '.awaiiIVII.„ L Im>lliutaik^dlytr jn.l1yaa'il • lav Hi ■val I HaHn Ml I lťr|W i-iUI a Hv in1a-ll|al the |«HtaMv apanOaaiah amaai Nil llir i hli Hra |tn|la Mf'la; a'iaalaH«(4aai> Uaa-iii^ai.jiii Atil.ia.^tat pi|aMl| I* the wholeof this cemri»Ty,B4™qtimi| wot*; elsewhere in Sumer certainly iue^esls, asPctlock argue*, třmi Hie excavation caf cotitttnpwíry hfuttt it Ur might well yield dksnwstieburiiH particularly of (Mldnw. a* «« the cnae uVra; Inter. We sre still far from rxplaiiMng the vanety of Muraerian urban fjjrial ruplems. Vťrapn BjavH are In houses it la by no means always dear whether iha> JtoanHjar thitpartof«) rmt vrwat net in habitedal the time. When (ravet eona>ntT>rlf in ťínyrajriea, often Over rruny ^eraerutignt. It fj not a/Li evxleT*t wlii,Třafí ihvy were inrrf íputíiI cr extramural and. If i he tenner, whether IfjtJtitWl wit haphaUrd. Or CnntreJIcd lay pnwlmily bo lliefiTilMl city ?lirirart drgu^y at lOíVHunagkalarna i nd LVlaiad avliether ddmisvinn to Such a burial place wis j. mitrcr (A iraajitol lonrtl -■■■i ir)c i .'■ .:••>.,. i, 1Kb itjajtv di ..: p..,. ,-. HeroeJ, martyr* and! Mints, and the eternal felvlly confetrifd fey b.ir1itl aicloierí pttibliHř ta rhena. rniy beoUcrprwnunaeiu In Ttnqlhaq tvcumrrtiiy j«ijna3tL The relativ* ease with which eniawred grave r.rrupa maybe rar.lxd by CDn*lrjrtlrighia*ogriatn*of wealth score* ha* combined with a mcdem preoccupation with power and starui D empha$i*» «odo-po"(icalf rratafkratjonat l>a?í*peii*cof mor tuary differential* lew MdUy quant Jied or lets accurately recorded by excavators. How are we to test wraether burial practice* in Surraer^ or elsewhere, do or do not correlate inore closely v» i th lípecli m *Jji/Lity thia with *rxia] *trbtrhjre¥? Pollock rightly anvokestheeviderueeaf tcitsand Kv-nrjgraphy toelutklpte Sutnerian t^chilolDgy, but what htbe there Is serves fdily fo dernontinte -,hal Local 'licasrJngin' wen: aji pmvalrnt ai cily'lt^tcaarad no more coherenL £ven K we aířepl w:th liťr thai nudity yras !}Tarniviiioiit witti pnwf rlassraesa in life,il doct not Jollow that it wis so in cult or in dutfa. Utaiion xeiiti lllunrate she ritml nudJuyoi priests In i he pnsence ol [he deity. rte|>rewaHr>rai of nud* or partially naadg- women ('goddrtactl stfjest that iJiaima'i Jisrobing a* she passtj*. ihrough the L'raderwcirld his. a more subtle cttltii irrlerprc'tfliKmi than PoLlpck allciw*^ as fmy the rich al+lftf {and presence} oi attendauti in the 'royal' ejraa-es. lnda$«dr Sumerian graaae equipment may nave had more to c)o with arriving in the Underworld, with the rftan of parage, than with lifestyles - pis! or hoped for. Con mrveaniai ípeeific* ípart, 1*0(1 oci ha* uicoiy cTMicpr.iiattd on two fundanvejiial point* not always wllarlroilyrKCf^iedlnftwrftiiipr^^ i i>i r ■. >, i.—.i-irr,- rr .-i-.- hr r.:v.. ify v;:« r.t.v i ».|*.-«iit.ltH™< <,iia-.ji|n iJ the kv,-lt population; and Thai KoyoJ Cemetery of Ur lha: matltad vuiaSfan* ifi IV tte» tmrn' oi tfvr-dead are au much to be CipaxtcJ iwithln u bartaa«en culture*, F.-omThurkild larohun, ftirfhiTiJ, Htm rlarnpshlre \X Pollock'* paper tafc*et intertnirajj and rrtcvint qupitkanit i tout the Royal Cemetery at Ur and offer* ■„:i.!j i - c, ■■ i ' 1 ■ 'i:r j -i' ■■■■■ ■'< cominent* based on textual evidence may be added. Dr Polhck poirits out that the cemetery could, hirtacronajtvidateid only * fraa^OTofUr*»po^ajbricira after dtsalhand it,^gr?sis ti-Jlitwas reserved icrrburtti a^TaŤmpfeai)daZi^pei*ňnríiwly.& of Lr may havtř been tiijf k'd in lli«r hiiu*c*orin otf-salé«I«tcrLfa, eupcacd Id the ricťťaíltr*. Oř datposed oí in Ttv*H.Of lltese paKsaMfj'tJet, lluat of «pasuiu can probably berliíctiunljrfgivíTt rrař Sumera«nť inwtte ablaoarenie (Oí hivl'ijtadleiLieiaisburied.es-eilthJae OíenKiiies, The orhcrf sre-all v-iflHeaaidtaoemifihladtd Ihatof druavnin^rir ^ liir g lest ua ilac rrurřSM. Of Oitse various r»MibiliLie*, Lbe one -non hMy to have acccKtrated for la-ge min-bcr* of ivadies wcijld Iterfl to be thai of additional efl-iite itrnrterapa, m rinse Is na ru-cesiJty lo jssitnv.' thai oime'.l-raes were restricted ona basis ot nastitulion or dafS Of InletEit for cenv-X'ty burial ajar tJruKA^na'* Reform Text* from the end ol ED 111. They show that 11 ad .lion had ettaWtshed standard fvc» (of fiaři«4jy service* a* fe4lew4: The baser 6f i r«tp« j^OafiaJ to (V (wraptary waa aeVen jart, the toav«t iour Kand iwattity. Oasa hurttfraal tj>J rmntyiauMttof lia-a hi rlty^liacVatii, pra> rtattirast, oae bed and one chtlr dsd ■he ^haaA-guiie' Wrtcian;) take may. Stay qjJItt *eA'ant for swing llwItoyalTorrte aoaMgciPthelalcTlvensalhnfCil^ by Kramer. 1 thiri it ts possliie La gel a Utile further than did KramCT in his v«iy caniul and cauttou pioneer translariearL With illgfct etrvervdatinn of the reading of two damaged signs 1 should tracriLite at as follows' When Ms bvkraaad tpoasei, ha belirad rdiikl^K Mf stuavd fint svite and Ibra) VPiafis, concubine. Ms iMataeiin and evpbnnr flřlr >ib belnved bartwr. hi* baflongings <7)1 hi* baHutad) acrvanta Cn in aHeradancc In tfee palace, hit balovtd — ibinja had .■■ I,, .: . i ..fl , : i' - i i .j i : i.. .nli j:.!-.! or stone in the aiidst Caf IJrifk4cfid Calgatraiih. Hraof NI;r>at»4V;b.! greeting gift*. »>in.t>rd procedure for calling on people of trnporuoice and rwntii] fnr es.tabE*hirg proper telabons with th* dlgnitartcssif the Nltther World In whstii he ea-pecir, tp be accorded a poiition cjanwnsnt vvfth hi* rani, fjalgansesh wi s rradea ftdge in the Nether World, and k waaUr^Namitivt. Lasily, t must admit lhal explaining the >oai*ebcrld foliowinglhrrir maatertn death atevi dence eí "cjĎíripettrig, pewer-greedy iiistitutloraofihaictiiphl and (he pe-lacc-d^rJayiii^ B uvtiiiielves. each olhft ind the res! of lbe populacpiha™ ahirity (OrttitrOt thrir sutjavls' strikn m a* anrachjurauus. The oarUCC t* a better CL™part5cn From Hini J. Na**en,. Seminar fur Vordetasioitlsťhe AlieTtiifn*a:v.Tidc, Berlin The sensalkanal dhcovxry of me Royal Totnhs at Ur occurred only a few years afier the even more tenaalioruil Brad of Tutaraldurnun't tomb in Egypt w líh its trertviiulijiis wealth of earecicus oojco*. Both case* ditpiayed a hoit of Object* of both artistic and material value tvhieh hid iccornparwd the Jratd on Susan Pollock ether Early Dynastic sites is proved by the ccr,;emporaneous textual data. A late Pre-Sargonic tat'et from Adab records the furnishings (hit were deposited in the graves of the chief-administrator of Kesh and his wife(Foxvog 1980; re-edited by Gelbelal. 1S91,9M0J), These objects, which included a mule-drawn chariot or wagon, beds, chairs, weapons, garments, and assorted jewellery, match very closely the assemblages unearthed at the cemeteries of Ur a nd Kish (Stcinkeller 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 (Steinkeller 1980; 1990, 21-9). It is interesting to note that the latter listing includes a stave-woman, which, if my explanation of this text is correct, would constitute the only cuneiform reference to human Mrrificeatfuneral in ancientMesopolamia. Reply from Susan Pollock I would like to thank the individuals who took the time to comment for (heir helpful and thought-provoking remarks. In the short space available, 1 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 tlw paper. While his cautions arc well-tajten, J would argue that we will never have "enough" data. This issue, for me, is not so much the quantity a nd quali ly of ou r data ~ though these surely play very important roles; rather,thechatlengeisoneof phrasing new questions, proposing interpretations that can be partially evaluated with available data, and critically re-evaluating the assumptionsand theoretical basesof our approaches, I would be the first to agree thai I can only partially and very tentatively propose answers to the questions I pose in this article. Some o t Moorcy's rtma rks conccmingthe roles of piety,a ff iliation,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 questionsabout I he use of categories.! fully agree that piety and proximity to the graves of heroesand martyrs may have played an important role in the placement of graves, a point which 1 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 lo me that our understanding of Sumerian practices of disposal of the dead and altitudes toward death will be most enriched by considering howali Mfie reiitJonships structure and arc structured by ea ;>.; :rsr. re -Jver than by trying It) treat them ,is distinct nylrr-s Stone remarks that the late Early Dynasuc was a time of experimentation with new political and social orders and thai the Royal Cemetery must be understood within this context. This is a critical point that! did not sufficiently stress. I might add that her comments also raise questions about how the Royal Cemetery relates lo 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, 1 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 the 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. Fu rtherrnOre, 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, 1 question whether it is justifiable to mterpretSumerian arti tudes to ward the d ead asind i f f erence, a sSteinkel I er suggcsls,or whether this is rather? question of d if/erent pra dices appearing to us in ou r cultural context in that way. Although bodies of some, even many, people may have been disposed of wi Ih an eye to exped iency, hundreds of excavated Early EJynastic graves reveal tha t considerable effort was expended on the d isposa I of many of the dead. References Atster, B..{ed) 1980.OMfhmMffi^:ariJui.Cor>?nhagea Akadcmisk Forlag Dclougaz,P., Hill, 11. & Lloyd, S., 1967. Private 1'loitsa and Grouts in the DiyaJn Region. Oriental Institute Publication 8&. Chicago: University of Chicago Press 183