Introduction 

Location of Ur and other excavated Sumerian cities in ca. 4000 BC  

Map adapted from Emily Hammer and Angelo di Michele (referenced below, Figure 1, at p. 454) 

As Emily Hammer and Angelo di Michele (referenced below, at p. 455) observed, the ancient Sumerian city of Ur (located at modern Tell al-Muqayyar) stood on the Euphrates, close to the Mesopotamian marshes and the Lower Sea.  Roger Matthews and Amy Richardson (referenced below, at p. 131)  highlighted its: 

1. “... immense significance ... through the obscure centuries at the transition of the 4th–3rd millennia BC and beyond.” 
   

However, this impression is largely based on the evidence for its cultural history that emerged from Sir Leonard Woolley’s famous excavation of the so-called ‘Royal Cemetery’ (see below) in 1922-34: we have relatively little evidence for its political history until the late 3rd millennium BC, when it became the political capital of Ur-Namma, the founder of the so-called ‘Ur III’ dynasty (which ruled over all Sumer and Akkad, as well as much of the surrounding territory at this time).  Indeed, were it not for Woolley’s work, Ur would arguably play only a minor role in our reconstruction of the history of Mesopotamia in the centuries before Ur-Namma.    

The Cemeteries of Ur  

As set out in my page on the ‘Royal Cemetery’ of Ur, the burial site that Woolley discovered below the walls of Ur contained roughly 2,000 graves distributed over three distinct layers that were separated from each other by layers of debris (which Leonard Woolley designated as numbered  ‘seal impression strata (SIS) because the debris included a surprising number pf discarded seal impressions.  Scholars broadly agree that: 

1. ✴burial in the lowest (= earliest) layer probably ended in the ED I-II period;  
   

2. ✴the graves in the middle layer probably dated to the ED III period; and  
   

3. ✴burial in the upper layer started the Akkadian period.  
   

These three strata thus constituted three distinct cemeteries.  In what follows, we are principally concerned with the burials in the middle layer, which Woolley designated the ‘Royal Cemetery’ because it contained at least 16 burials that he considered to be ‘royal graves’.  

So-called ‘Royal Graves‘ 

Locations of Leonard Woolley’s 16 ‘Royal Graves‘  

Plan from Leonard Woolley (referenced below, 1934b, Plate 273)  

My addition in blue: PG 779 (which contained the so-called Standard of Ur) and

PG 1237 (the so-called ‘Great Death Pit)  

My additions in red: graves associated with one or more ‘royal inscriptions’ 

(as defined by Douglas Frayne, referenced below, 2008, at pp. 377-408)  

Location of PG 755 (not one of Woolley’s 16) from Paul Zimmerman (referenced below, 1998a, Fig. 40, at p. 93)  

Most of the graves in this middle layer consist of a rectangular shaft or pit sunk vertically into the ground, with its single occupant laid out at the bottom of the shaft, either wrapped in matting or enclosed in a coffin.  Grave goods (which varied enormously in both quantity and quality) were placed around the occupant and, in cases in which there was a coffin, they were usually placed both inside and around it.  However, he identified 16 burials in which: 

1. ✴the person for whom it had been built (usually referred to in these cases as the ‘primary burial’) was laid out in a stone or brick burial chamber within the burial shaft; and
   

2. ✴he/she was accompanied by a number (sometimes a very large number) the ‘retainers’ who had almost certainly been ritually killed as part of the burial ceremony, some of whom shared the burial chamber while others were laid out in an associated ‘death pit’.
   

Amazingly (as we shall see), the largest of Woolley’s ‘death pits, PG 1237,  contained the remains of 74 retainers.

The great majority of these burials had been looted by the time that Woolley discovered them: indeed, only one of the burial chambers (PG 800b, the burial chamber of Queen Pu-abum) was found in tact.  Nevertheless, as we shall see, a number of the artefacts that Woolley discovered here (particularly in the burials marked in blue or red in the plan above) greatly enhance our understanding of the history of Ur in the ED III period.   As we shall see, most of the evidence from the cemetery the potentially illuminates the political history of Ur in the ED III period is epigraphic.  However, we shall start with one of the exceptions to this rule: the magnificent narrative imagery on the so-called ‘Standard of Ur’.

So-called ‘Standard of Ur’  

So-called Standard of Ur (U. 11164) from PG 779  (as reconstructed in 1973)  

Now in the British Museum (BM 121201): images from the museum website      

To Follow

This brings us to the identity of this ‘Meskalamdu’.  Gianni Marchesi (referenced below, 2004, at p. 184) reasonably argued that, he is unlikely to have been the Meskalamdu who was the father of Mesanepada, since, had this king died before he was 30, it is unlikely that his son would have been able to succeed him as king of Ur.   It seems to me that the absence of a royal title in any of the relevant four inscriptions discussed above suggests that he was did not have one, albeit that, as Marchesi observed, the presence in his grave of a bowl inscribed by Nintur, the wife of Mesanepada opens up the possibility that he:

“... was one of her sons or, in any case, a member of the royal household.” 

He suggested (at p. 185) that the Meskalamdu who was buried in PG 755 had indeed been a son of Mesanepada and Nintur [and this named for his grandfather), but that he had still been only a ‘crown-prince’ at the time of his death.  Furthermore:

Douglas Frayne (referenced below, 2008, at pp. 401-2) catalogued his inscriptions as those of ‘Meskalandu, (the prince)’; and 

William Hafford (referenced below,  at p. 226) similarly argued that:

“The young man buried in PG 755, an apparent warrior prince whose name may have been Meskalamdug, ... is not, however, the king of the same name [who was the father of Mesanpada]. ... , although it is possible he was related to that king.  If he died prior to being crowned, this might explain the absence of the sacrificed retainers that seem to have accompanied full royal burials.”

Note however the contrary view recently taken by Petr Charvat (referenced below, at p. 196). 

Douglas Frayne (referenced below, at p. 387) argued that:

“The fact that [Pu-abum’s] seal was found in the tomb beside that of Meskalamdu [= PG 789] almost certainly means that she was a (second) wife of that king.”

The assumption here seem to be that the high-ranking woman who was buried in PG 1054 had been Meskalamdu’s first wife, but it is not clear that this was the case. 

PG 1236: Grave of A’Anzu ?: Conclusions

In fact, we have two separate questions to answer here:

1. ✴how likely is it that A-Anzu, the owner of the seal, was a king?; and 
   

2. ✴does the presence of his seal in PG 1236 suggest that this was his grave? 
   

On the first question, as we have seen: 

1. ✴Leonard Woolley thought that he might have been a king;  while
   

2. ✴Gianni Marchesi argued that, while he was ‘a high-ranking personage[, he was probably not a king. 
   

On the second question:

1. ✴Leonard Woolley opened his  account of this grave by describing it as the grave of the owner of this seal (now identified as A’Anzu); while
   

2. ✴Gianni Marchesi disagreed.
   

Interestingly, Léon Legrain (in Leonard Woolley, referenced below, 1934a, entry 54, at p, 340) argued that A’Anzu was probably the king who was buried in PG 779 (along with the ‘Standard of Ur’). 

I wonder whether:

1. ✴the king who commissioned the Standard of Ur was both: 
   

2. •the principal occupant of PG 779, where the Standard of Ur was found (as I suggested in the section above on this grave); and
   

3. •the ‘mighty father’ of A-Anzu; and
   

4. ✴the relief in the lower register of A-Anzu’s seal commemorates his part in the famous victory commemorated in his father’s Standard of Ur. 
   

In other words, I wonder whether he is depicted in the lower register of his seal as the man who walks in front of a chariot and ushers a presumably important prisoner towards the fate that lies ahead of him.   If this is accepted, then A-Anzu might have become king on the death of his father.  Unfortunately, since:

1. ✴the grave had been thoroughly looted, to the extent that even the sex of its main occupant is unknown; and
   

2. ✴the precise find-spot of the seal was variously recorded;
   

it is not immediately obvious that A’Anzu was actually buried here.  However:

1. ✴the evidence of an object that might have been a royal sceptre in Chamber A and the presence of fragmentary remains from oft other objects made of gold, lapis lazuli and/or carnelian in Chamber D might indicate that this was the grave of a king; and
   

2. ✴the stylistic similarity between PG 779 and PG 1236 offers some support for this hypothesis that these were the graves of (respectively);
   

3. •the ‘mighty king ‘who commissioned  the ‘Standard of Ur’; and
   

4. •his son and successor, who arguably reflected scenes from the ‘Standard of Ur’ in his seal ( and perhaps provided a precedent in it for the ‘whirligig’ of dagger-armed men’ on the cylinder seal of King Mesanepada).
   

5. 
   

   A’Anzu].

Léon Legrain (as above), in his detailed report on the seal, observed that it: 

1. “... opens the series of royal seals [from the cemetery.  The relief that it carries depicts a] heroic hunting [scene] and [a] war scene in two registers:
   

2. ✴The war scene [on the lower register is] directly borrowed from the famous mosaic [Standard of Ur from PG 779, see above, and] may help to identify the owner of the seal.  He is probably the king buried in the four-room grave where the standard was found. 
   

3. •Both [images] have the same four-wheel chariot and team of asses, the same details of wheels, curved pole, rein-rings surmounted by a mascot, splashboard, quiver, driver, and spear man, the fleece hanging from the collar of the animals, even the nude enemy prostrate on the ground.
   

4. •The same Sumerian soldiers with spear, adze, helmet, flounced skirt and shawl, drive the same stripped prisoner with hands bound behind his back.
   

5. This is the royal triumph.  
   

6. ✴Above, the nude hero, full face, stands between two lions, [one]  crossed  with a stag and [the other crossed with] a bull.  He has profuse locks of hair in royal style but no beard.
   

7. The chain of four crossed lions intertwined [to the right in the upper register] is a new and bold motive.  It is found again on the seal of Mesanepada [see below], transformed into a chain of four armed men each catching the other's foot.  
   

PG 800b: Queen Pu-abum: Conclusions  

There is no reason to doubt that PG 800b was the burial chamber of a queen called , although the inscription on her seal (discussed above) is her only appearance in our surviving sources. As we have seen William Hafford (referenced below, at p. 210) pointed out that it is possible (or perhaps even probable) that the burial chamber PG 789 had been built so close to PG 800b because its main occupant  had wanted to be close to Pu-abum for eternity, and it is entirely possible that he was a king of Ur and that she had been his queen (or one of them) at the time of her death.  However, even if this were the case, we know no more about him than we do about her.   

PG 1054b: Grave of a Queen ?: Conclusions   

It seems to me that the lady who was buried in PG 1054b (along with what was presumably her ‘official’ seal) was probably a queen (as Leonard Woolley suggested).  Paul Zimmerman (referenced below, 1998a, at pp.20-1) argued that:

1. “The jewellery found in 1054b is very similar to [that] found in 800a, and hints at temporal affinity between these two tombs.“
   

If this is correct, then the unknown queen of PG 1054b would have postdated both Queen Pu-anum and the unknown occupant pf PF 789.  There is no particular reason to associate this burial chamber (PG 1054b) and ‘burial C’ above it (PG 1054a).

The presence of the seal of ‘ Meskalamdu, the king’ and the two golden daggers that were found together in the box in PG 1054a is extremely perplexing.  These are surely important ‘royal’ objects, all of which might well have belonged to a king of Ur of this name (probably the father of King Mesanapada).  However, I find it impossible to imagine why or how such ‘royal’ objects found their way into PG 1054a, which seems to have been the burial chamber of a a low-ranking man, and I wonder whether they had been stolen from another grave, ‘stashed’ here by robbers and subsequently forgotten. 

PG 755: Grave of Meskalamdu ?: Conclusions 

The warrior buried here, who was almost certainly called Meskalamdu, was almost certainly too young to have been the king who was Mesanepada’s father.  However, the presence in his grave of the copper bowl inscribed with the name of Queen Nintur suggest that he might well have been:

1. ✴the son of King Mesanepada and Queen Nintur; 
   

2. ✴named for his paternal grandfather, Meskalandu; and
   

3. ✴buried with his precious belongings by his parents after his premature death.
   

Thus, Douglas Frayne (referenced below, 2008, at  pp. 401-2), for example, catalogued his inscriptions as those of Meskalamdu (the prince). 

Royal Inscriptions from SIS 1-2 : Conclusions 

As Julian Reade (referenced below, 2001, at pp. 16-7) observed, the epigraphic evidence from SIS 1-2:

1. “... has been regularly treated as evidence that the long sequence of tombs (all ED III) [in the cemetery] is earlier than Mesanepada, as Woolley believed.  [However], his own characteristically lucid account makes it clear that the evidence is inconclusive.  The rubbish apparently came from a nearby building [that] was being refurbished or rebuilt.  It is entirely possible that [they had been stored there for a period before they were] deposited among other rubbish on top of the tombs.  As recognised by [Susan Pollock, referenced below, at  p. 140}:
   

2. ‘The possibility that the principal individuals in some of the later tombs [in the cemetery] are members of the Mesanepada dynasty cannot be excluded.’
   

3. There is no reason at all to exclude this possibility.” 
   

In that is accepted, then it seems to me that both Meaanepada and Nintur were almost certainly buried in the ‘royal cemetery, although it is possible that one or both of these graves have yet to be found. 

[

Having looked at some of the the epigraphic evidence from the graves excavated in the ‘royal cemetery’ we should also briefly consider that found in areas of spoil deposition that accumulated in successive strata over the site after the cessation of its use as a cemetery: as Willian Hafford (referenced below, at p. 202) observed, the many objects found in these later strata, which included archaic tablets and seal impressions: 

1. 
   

2. “... were particularly diagnostic of their time periods.  Especially in the southwestern portion of the cemetery, Woolley encountered layer upon layer of these administrative artifacts: [indeed], he dubbed these layers the ‘Seal Impression Strata’.  The study of these [strata] and their contents has helped to refine our understanding of early 3rd millennium BC administration at Ur.  The archaic texts from these layers are among the earliest known from Mesopotamia, and the sealings come from doors, jars, and other commodities sealed for protection or identification.  They were likely dumped in [the area of the cemetery] from an early temple of Nanna or other important buildings that once existed near this space.”
   

The most important of these for our purposes was a clay sealing (presumably from an administrative document) that  included an inscription of King Mesanepada, since it that an important part in the discussion below on the emergence of the only known ‘dynasty’ of kings at Ur prior to the accession of the first ‘UrIII’ king, Ur-Namma.  Petr Charvat (referenced below, at p. 196) argued that:

1. “It may be eloquent that the times of the lavish expenditure poured into the ‘royal graves’ [at Ur] came to an abrupt end with [Mesanepada], as shown by archaeological observations of the cessation of those extravagant burial practices and of renewed superposition of ‘administrative-discard layers’ over the cemetery deposit, displaying the Mesanepada documents over the last stratum of the ‘royal graves’.”
   

It seems to me that this is another example of the dangers of the ‘over-interpretation’ of the surviving epigraphic evidence from the site, since:

1. ✴as we have seen, there is no surviving evidence that any of the kings of Ur were buried in the ‘royal cemetery’ (although some of them may have been);
   

2. ✴the administrative documents that eventually found their way into Woolley’s ‘Seal Impression Strata’ were not necessarily dumped there immediately after the apparent ‘the cessation of ... extravagant burial practices’ here; and
   

3. ✴we cannot know whether the practice of ‘extravagant burials’ continued elsewhere.
   

Inscribed lapis lazuli bead (RIME 1.13.5.1; CDLI, P431203) from Mari   

Now in the National Museum, Damascus: image from Jean-Claude Margueron (referenced below, at p. 143) 

The inscription (RIME 1.13.5.1; CDLI, P431203) on an eight-sided bead from Mari (illustrated above and discussed in the section below on Mesanepada) reads:   

1. “For [DN]: Mesanepada, king of Ur, the son of Meskalamdu, king of Kish, has consecrated (this bead)”, (translation from Jean-Claude Margueron, referenced below, at p. 143). 
   

Thus, it seems that Meskalamdu used the titles ‘king of Ur’ and ‘king of Kish’, although , as far as we know, he did not use both titles at once.

As Douglas Frayne (referenced below, 2008, at p. 377) observed, since:

1. “Mesanepada, [king of Ur],  was [named here as the son of Meskalamdu], ... we have, starting with Meskalamdu, evidence of a native dynasty at Ur that seems to have exerted considerable influence over Sumer.” 
   

Mesanepada

As we have seen, Mesanepada is named as the king of Ur on the lapis lazuli bead illustrated above.  As Jean-Claude Margueron, referenced below, at p. 139) pointed out, this bead was found, together with other precious objects, in a jar that was buried in the ‘sacred precinct’ of the pre-Sargonic palace at Mari.  The excavators characterised these objects as the ‘treasure of Ur’ and  speculated that this ‘treasure’ had been a royal gift from Ur.  However, it has subsequently emerged that the objects themselves are quite disparate, and the circumstances in which this particular object found its way (presumably from Ur) to Mari are actually unknown. 

Furthermore, there is some doubt about the identity of the god to whom Mesanepada dedicated this bead: for example:

1. ✴Jean-Claude Margueron, referenced below, at p. 143) found the divine name to be illegible;
   

2. ✴Douglas Frayne (referenced below, 2008, RIME 1.13.5.1, at p. 392) gave ‘an lugal-[ni]’ (to the god An, his lord); and
   

3. ✴Glenn Magid (referenced below, at p. 10) and the entry at CDLI, P431203 give ‘dlugal-kalam’ (to the god Lugalkalam).
   

Thus, the only ‘hard information’ that we can take from the inscription on this bead is that Mesanepada used the title ‘king of Ur’ at a time when his father, Meskalamdu, (who was presumably still alive) used the title ‘king of Kish’.

Glenn Magid (referenced below, at p. 6) observed that nugig could have been either: 

the name of one of Mesanepada’s actual wives; or

the name of: 

“... a well-known type of priestess.  If so, then [this inscription] would constitute the earliest evidence for a ritual that is otherwise attested only later in Mesopotamian history: the annual ‘sacred marriage’ between the king and a goddess (embodied in the person of her priestess).”

Petr Charvát (referenced below, at p. 196 and note 37) translated nugig as ‘the Lofty One’, and observed that this could have been either a reference to the ‘nugig priestess’ (a priestess of Inanna) or an epithet Inanna herself.  Pirjo Lapinkivi (referenced below, at pp. 18-20) observed that: 

“Enmerkar, the legendary king of Uruk, was the earliest Sumerian ruler who called himself Inanna’s husband. ... Even if the evidence [of the Enmerkar legend] is questionable, there are other sources that indicate an affectionate relationship between the Sumerian ruler and [Inanna] as early as the ED II period: [for example], there is a seal impression of Mesanepada ... [that] declares [him] to be ‘the husband of the nu-gig’.  The term nugig probably refers to the common epithet of Inanna ... The impression also has designs of a star and a crescent moon, which were both  common symbols for Inanna in her astral aspect (the planet Venus and the morning and evening star).” 

As we shall see, this is the earliest of a series of indications that the title ‘king of Kish’ might have been in the gift of the goddess Inanna (a suggestion first made by Tohru Maeda, referenced below, 1981, at pp. 7-9).