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 of so-called ‘Royal Cemetery’ (see below) in the early 20th century: 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 play only a minor role in our reconstruction of the history of Mesopotamia in the centuries before Ur-Namma. 

So-called ‘Royal Cemetery’ of Ur

As Aubrey Baadsgaard et al. (referenced below, at p. 28) observed, although Woolley became aware of the existence of this cemetery at the start of his work (in 1923), he initially focused on the nearby ziggurat of Ur-Namma and other public buildings from the Ur III period.  However, the cemetery occupied his attention for most of the period 1926-34.  In his report on this work (see Leonard Woolley, referenced below. 1934 a and b), he recorded 1850 graves (and he was to uncover another 260 in his subsequent campaigns). 

So-called ‘Royal Graves‘  

Location 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 Syandard of Ur  

My additions in red: graves in the ‘royal cemetery 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)  

As William Hafford (referenced below, at p. 198) observed, Woolley’s:  

1. “... famous ‘Royal Cemetery’ of Ur is only one part of a large and very deep burial ground in the middle of the ancient city.  The site’s initial excavators divided this burial ground ... into three primary layers or periods of burial that might be considered discrete cemeteries within it.” 
   

He pointed out that: 

1. ✴burial in the lowest (= earliest) layer probably ended in the ED I-II period (ca. 3100 -2600 BC); and 
   

2. ✴burial in the upper layer started the Akkadian period (ca. 2334–2154 BC).
   

However, we are concerned here with the middle layer, which, as Hafford pointed out, contained some 750 burials that mostly date to to the ED III period (ca. 2600–2334 BC).  

Leonard Woolley (referenced below, 1934a, at p. 33) identified 16 of these 750 burials that: 

1. “.. stand out from all the rest, not simply because of their richness (and, indeed, most of them have been plundered and their wealth must be taken on credit), ... but for peculiarities of structure and ritual.”
   

He explained that, while most of the  graves, ‘whether or poor’ were, in structural terms, relatively the simple, his 16 ‘royal graves’ all;

1. “... include a building of one or more [burial] chambers constructed in stone or brick, and the burial [the burial process seems to have involved]... ceremonies in which a great part was played by human sacrifices.  ... [Although] we find almost as many variants [among the 16] as there are tombs, ... in all those that are well preserved, the outstanding features of:
   

2. ✴a built [burial] chamber; and
   

3. ✴a number of human victims;
   

4. are present.”  
   

Aubrey Baadsgaard et al. (referenced below, at p. 28) observed that, in these ‘royal’ burials;

1. “The [built] chamber was reserved for ‘the principal royal burial’ [= the person for whom the grave had been prepared,  who was] sometimes entombed with personal attendants.  The bodies of other retainers were found on the floor of a pit outside the chamber or in a subsidiary pit adjacent to it.  Woolley called these ‘death pits’, the largest of which, [PG 1237], contained the remains of 74 retainers.” 
   

On the basis of their scientific examination of two skulls  (one of  a young female from grave PG 1237 and the other of a young, mature male from PG 789, both of which are now in the Penn Museum), these authors established (see pp 38-9) that these two:

1. “... court retainers were violently killed by means of blunt force trauma.  Since the two [skulls] ... come from two different ‘royal tombs’, it is reasonable to assume a similar cause of death for the majority of attendants buried in other graves.”
   

It certainly seems that, during  a (possibly short) period of time in the ED III period, some (presumably rich and powerful) men and women at Ur went to their respective graves with a number of attendants who, as Aubrey Baadsgaard et al. (referenced below, at p. 38) argued, had been:

1. “... killed, preserved and dressed, and their bodies purposefully arranged in a tableau mort in the [allegedly] royal tomb, to continue [in the service of their erstwhile master or mistress] in the netherworld.”  
   

Since the analysis that follows is focussed on the political history of Ur in this period, I will concentrate mainly on the five of them (all highlighted in red in the plan above) that are associated with one or more ‘royal inscriptions’ (as defined by Douglas Frayne, referenced below, 2008, at pp. 377-408) and have also included PG 755, which Woolley catalogued as a private (= non-royal) grave because it was not associated was of ‘simple construction’ and seems to have housed only a single corpse, despite the fact that: 

1. ✴the corpse in question was that of  a young warrior who (as we shall see) was probably called Meskalamdug (a known ‘royal’ name at Ur); and
   

2. ✴he had been buried with one of the richest collections of grave foods found in a single grave in the cemetery. 
   

PG 779: Find Spot of the So-called ‘Standard of Ur’ 

As illustrated in the plan above, the two largest of Woolley’s ‘royal tombs, PG 779 and the nearby PG 1236, share another common characteristic: in each case:

1. ✴an outer door to the stone structure led into a long narrow chamber (Chamber A) running along its whole width;
   

2. ✴a second door in this chamber led into two adjoining square chambers (Chambers B and C) that each occupied half the building's width; and
   

3. ✴these opened into another long  chamber (Chamber D) that took up the whole back part of the building. 
   

Leonard Woolley (referenced below, 1934a, at p. 59) recorded that:

1. “On the slope below the steps [that led down to Chamber A], there were ten copper spears in a row ... and below them (but so decayed as to be scarcely recognisable) were the bones of the soldiers of the guard; there seemed to be five bodies, but it was impossible to be sure.”
   

The chambers within had been looted, but Woolley noted that enough survived in Chamber A to suggest that it had:

1. “... apparently [been] a burial chamber, and an important one.” 
   

Chambers B and C were also  essentially destroyed, although Woolley guessed that a human skull in the latter had belonged to a female attendant.  However:

1. “In Chamber D, there were the remains of at least four human bodies, [although] they were represented by very scanty fragments and even the skulls of two were lacking.  Beads were, as usual scattered over the floor, [along with a number of precious objects, including] a gaming-board of engraved shell plaques with lapis-lazuli borders, set in silver ... At the south-west end, there were remains of two more bodies, one very fragmentary; the better preserved had its head in the corner of the chamber, close to the south-west wall ... Above the man's head and slightly to the right of it, against the stones of the tomb wall, [were the remains of] the so-called 'Standard' of Ur’.”
   

Although looters had effectively cleared almost all of the tomb, this southwestern corner of Chamber D had fortuitously escaped their depredations. 

‘Standard of Ur’

So-called Standard of Ur from Chamber D, PG 799  (as reconstructed in 1973)  

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

This object had originally been a wooden box with a rectangular base and two narrow trapezoidal sides separating a pair of wide, rectangular panels.  As Dorota Ławecka (referenced below, at p. 337) observed, in its original state, each of the four faces of the box was:

1. “... covered with geometric and figurative mosaics made of pieces of shell, red limestone and lapis lazuli set in bitumen [in three horizontal registers].” 
   

Leonard Woolley (referenced below, 1934a, at p. 61) recorded that:

1. “The wood which had been its core had vanished (traces of its grain could be distinguished on the bitumen afterwards) and the bitumen in which the tesserae were set had gone to powder, so that the tesserae were loose and kept in place only by the soil.  With the decay of the wood, the main panels had been telescoped together, with the result that the triangular ends had been pushed out and broken ...” 
   

He named the precious object the ‘Standard or Ur’ because it had apparently been located near the shoulder of the dead man, suggesting that he had carried it on his shoulder like a battle standard.  Having described the intricate way in which the excavators had preserved the mosaic designs that had once decorated the four sides of the box, he observed (at p. 62) that:

1. “Taken as a whole, the standard is unusually authentic and, considering how peculiarly liable to destruction it was, wonderfully perfect.”
   

The original decorated box was reconstructed in the British Museum, where it was first exhibited in 1928.  However, it subsequently deteriorated and was completely dismantled and reassembled on a new mount in 1973. 

As Dorota Ławecka (referenced below, at pp. 337-8) summarised: 

1. “One of the long sides (the ‘war’ side, [visible in the illustration above]) shows a victorious battle of chariots and infantry (most probably belonging to an army of the city-state of Ur) and, in the upper row, conquered enemy warriors as they are brought before the king.  The other long side (the ‘peace’ side) shows men bringing animals and large bundles of various shapes [presumably to Ur].   In the topmost row, we see a banquet scene typical for art [of this period]: the king himself and other participants, each holding a cup in hand, are entertained by a singer and a lyre player. Both trapezoid end sides were decorated in the same technique, showing fantastic scenes not directly related with the main narrative.  Following Woolley’s original usage, the object is still customarily labeled [the ‘Standard of Ur’], even though there are no clues as to its actual function.” 
   

Mosaic of the ‘Peace Side‘   

Standard of Ur (peace side) 

In the uppermost register, the figure on the extreme left is damaged, but the next figure is clearly a servant who might be welcoming this person to the banquet.  The next figure who is distinguished here  by his size and by the facts that he is the only seated participant who wears a ‘tufted’ skirt and faces right, must surely be the king of Ur.  The next two figures are also servants, and they are followed by six seated male guests, each of whom is apparently ‘raising a beaker’, a man playing a bull-headed lyre and a man with long hair and crossed arms, who might well be singing. 

Dorota Ławecka (referenced below, at p. 338) described the scene in the other two registers as involving:

1. “... a group of people distinguished by peculiar clothes and coiffures (starting with the person with a sheep on the left side of the middle register), leading animals and carrying bags or heavy backpacks.”
   

Subsequently, she referred to these people as ‘tribute bearers’, and the aim of her paper (as established in its title) was to establish ‘who they were’.  She argued (at p. 348) that the way in which they were depicted:

1. “... does not conform to typical south Mesopotamian iconography, and their distinct appearance was noticed and commented on already by Woolley.  Their guise is also different from that of the other men ... depicted in the other parts of the Standard.  My assumption is that these differences are not haphazard and accidental, but rather the intended results of a calculated program of royal ideology. People in this part of the Standard are characterised by their distinctive coiffures and dresses in a deliberate attempt to set them apart from the other protagonists of the narrative.”
   

She rejected Woolley’s suggestion that the distinct headdress of the ‘tribute bearers:

:... is reminiscent of that depicted on the mother-of-pearl and slate mosaic from Kish ...”;

Rather, she argued that: 

1. “Detailed analysis of the group’s costumes [and] headgears, and the kind of animals depicted [here] lead me to the conclusion that what was illustrated was a group of tribute-bearers coming from a region even more distant than the Kish area: that is from the piedmont or the mountainous zone outside the Mesopotamian plain.
   

Mosaic on the ‘War Side’ 

Standard of Ur (war side)  

1. “He carries his royal standard, [which] is just like the ‘Standard of Ur’, shown from the side: despite its damaged and eroded condition, it clearly has the same trapezoid shape as the end panels of the [actual ‘Standard of Ur’].   Of course, it is not  [the actual  ‘Standard of Ur’, ]: it is the king’s previous standard, [and he] will soon have a new [one] made, one that commemorates the glorious victory that he won here today ...”
   

Of course, since the upper and lower panels from the original ‘Standard of Ur’ no longer survive, we do not know whether they were pierced in the way that Starr suggests.  However, in my view, this suggestion is entirely plausible (particularly if, as he also suggests, the figure facing the victorious king is the defeated ruler who, unlike the other five prisoners behind him, has been allowed clothes for the occasion of his putative submission to Ur.) 

Detail: central scene in the second register of the Standard of Ur (war side)  

The man in the second register, directly below the putative king, wields the sword with which he has just despatched an enemy prisoner whose body now lies at his feet, while his colleague to the right violently strips another prisoner, as two other prisoners look on in horror:

1. ✴the two soldiers on the left in this detail belong to a phalanx of 8 men from the army of Ur; and
   

2. ✴the two prisoners of the right are about to join the queue of enemy survivors who will presumably soon find themselves before the victorious king.
   

The bottom register depicts a battle involving four of the king;s impressive four-wheeled war chariots, each of which is pulled by a team of four equids and manned a a two-man team made up of a charioteer and a soldier who stands behind him, wielding an axe or a spear.  As Joost Crouel (referenced below, at p. 33) observed: 

1. “The vehicles are moving at [increasing speeds] across a battlefield, symbolised by the stripped and bleeding human bodies of enemies prostrate beneath the draught teams.  The position of the bodies need not be read literally since, if at all possible, equids avoid stepping on bodies for fear of injuring their own limbs.  We have here, in fact, the earliest appearance of the motif of ‘the enemy beneath the team’s hooves’ that is to return early in the next millennium and later with another type of vehicle, the two–wheeled chariot.  Wherever the motif appears, it must be taken as merely symbolic of victory.” 
   

Interestingly, we saw two equids of this kind among the tribute that was brought to the king in the third register of the peace side, and Dorota Ławecka (referenced below, at pp. 347-8) argued that they had probably been bred in northern Mesopotamia.

If we now return to the top register, we find another of these war chariots behind the king, but this one in unmanned, albeit that:

1. ✴a soldier stands behind it, holding the reigns; and
   

2. ✴a groom controls the released equid by means of a lead round its neck. 
   

It seems to me that the implication here is that this is the king’s own chariot, from which he had led his men to victory.   In other words in this top register:

1. ✴the vignette behind the king is meant to illustrate his military prowess; and
   

2. ✴the vignette in front of him is meant to illustrate the ‘territorial/political fruits’ of his victory. 
   

PG 1236: A’Anzu 

Seal of A’Anzu, from Chamber A of  PG 1236: inscription (RIME 1.13.3.3: CDLI, P418046)  

Now in the British Museum (exhibit BM 121544); image from the museum website   

According to Leonard Woolley (referenced below, 1934a, at p. 111):

1. “The tomb of [A’Anzu], PG 1236, is the largest of the stone-built tombs [in the cemetery] ..., somewhat [larger] than PG/779 9see above], which in most respects it closely resembles.  Robbers had broken into it through the roof of the outer chamber [= ‘Chamber A’] ... and had thoroughly plundered the contents.”
   

As illustrated in the plan above, this burial (like that of PG 779) was made up of four interconnecting chambers, although he only made significant finds in Chamber A. 

Grave Goods from Chamber A  

Reconstructed sceptre (?)  from Chamber A, PG 1236  

Now in the British Museum (exhibit BM 122201); image from the museum website  

Leonard Woolley (referenced below, 1934a, at p. 113)  recorded that: 

1. “In [Chamber A], there very few fragments of human bone, remains of an ostrich-shell with encrusted ornament in mother of pearl and lapis-lazuli, and a copper libation-vase. ... Scattered about the floor there were beads of gold and lapis-lazuli ... and parts of a wreath with gold leaves and gold rosettes, ... [together with the cylinder seal of A’Anzu - see below].  The most interesting object [in this chamber] was found in fragments, but these fortunately lay together, many of them in position, and it was possible to reconstruct it [see the illustration above].   Small triangles of shell and lapis lazuli inlay, shell and pink limestone rings, and small curved lapis pieces making rings of the same diameter, and bands of very thin gold leaf with impressed designs together made up the decoration of a sceptre (or handle of a fly- whisk?); one end had a mushroom-shaped cap of white shell inlaid with a rosette in red and blue, the other end was plain.”  
   

Seal of A’Anzu 

Sketch of the seal impression above, from Laerke Recht (referenced below, Figure 6:1, at p. 167) 

Woolley named PG 1236 as the ‘tomb of [A’Anzu]’ on the basis of the  inscription (RIME 1.13.3.3: CDLI, P418046) carried by the seal that he found in Chamber A.  Interestingly, it contained only the personal name, ‘A’Anzu’, which, as Gianni Marchesi (referenced below, 2004, note 173, at p. 183) observed, should be translated as:

1. ‘The Father is (as mighty as) the [Anzu bird]’.  
   

However, as a ‘parting shot’ at the end of his description of PG 1236, Woolley observed at p. 113) that:

1. “The cylinder seal [discussed above], which is a very unusual seal with a scene of soldiers and a chariot, bears the inscription [A’Anzu], which may be the name of a king.” 
   

Gianni Marchesi (referenced below, 2004, at p. 182) also remarked on this:

1. “... very unusual design in two registers: 
   

2. ✴[in the upper register], there are a contest scene (a nude hero between two rampant lions) and a whirligig of lions which resembles the whirligig of dagger-armed men that is found on the cylinder seal of King Mesanepada [see below]; and
   

3. ✴in the lower register, a man is trampling an enemy with his [chariot] while some foot soldiers escort a naked prisoner, [in a] scene immediately reminds us of the so-called ‘war side’ of the [so-called Standard of Ur - see above].”
   

He acknowledged that is iconography potentially supports the hypothesis that A’Anzu was a king. However, he pointed out (at p. 183 ) that the lower part of the original inscription (on the left of the upper register in the sketch above) is lost, which:

1. “... means that the name [A’Anzu] was likely followed by a title, written in the second case of the inscription, and that the title in question could not be lugal (king).
   

As he explained (in note 172):

1. “LUGAL is a very long sign; if [it had been] there, its initial part would still be visible in the preserved upper part of the second case of the inscription.” 
   

He therefore concluded that:

1. “No doubt the possessor of this seal had been a high-ranking personage, but he was probably neither a sovereign, nor the principal occupant of PG 1236.”  
   

PG 800b: Queen Pu-abum 

Seal of Queen Pu-abum, from grave PG 800B: inscription (RIME 1.13.3.3: CDLI, P247683)  

Now in the British Museum (exhibit BM 121544); image from the website of the Morgan Library & Museum  

The grave PG 800b is the only one of Woolley’s 16 ‘royal’ tombs that had completely escaped the attentions of looters before its excavation (albeit that its roof had largely collapsed).  The queen’s body remained in situ, and she can be securely identified from the inscription on the seal illustrated above: this was one of three seals that she was wearing when she was buried (see below) but, although all three were clearly hers, this one is the only one that actually identifies her by inscription (as the otherwise-unknown Queen Pu-abum - see Gianni Marchesi, referenced below, 2004, at pp. 175-8).   All three seals depict an important lady (presumably Pu-abum herself) in the context of a banquet scene.

According to William Hafford and Richard Zettler (referenced below, at p. 95):

1. “The queen's remains were laid out on a bier that sat diagonally across the northwestern end of the chamber.  She lay on her back with her hands over her abdomen.  Just under five feet tall, she was roughly forty years of age at the time of her death.”
   

They also noted (at p. 94) that three attendants had been buried with her (two near her head and one at her feet), and:

1. ✴while they discounted the possibility that the ‘death pit’ that Woolley had catalogued as another part of PG 800, (which was at a higher level than PG 800b) had actually been associated with it (see below);
   

2. ✴they suggested that:
   

3. “The doorway [in PG 800b] would most likely have linked [this burial chamber] to an as yet undiscovered death pit that lay at least partially beneath PG 789 [see below], in an area that Woolley did not excavate.” 
   

I discuss the difficulties with Woolley’s identification of a death pit associated with the burial chamber PG 800b below.  The discussion here is restricted to the contents of PG 800b. 

Reconstruction of the clothing of Pu-abum at the time of her burial  

Image from the website of the Morgan Library and Museum  

Pu-abum’s corpse was famously dressed for burial in a manner that underlines her royal status.  As William Hafford and Richard Zettler (referenced below, at p. 95) observed:  

1. “The whole of her upper body was covered with beads of gold, lapis lazuli, carnelian, and agate, [which] Woolley took to be the remains of a beaded cloak.”  
   

Leonard Woolley (referenced below, 1934a, at p. 88) recorded that: 

1. “Against [her] right upper arm ... were found three gold pins ... [that] probably secured the cloak, made open on this side, as was the usual fashion.  With the pins were [a number of precious objects ... [that included] three lapis-lazuli cylinder seals, ... [one of which bears the name of [Pu-abum].  The cylinders were perhaps tied to the pins to make toggles for securing the cloak.”
   

As Hafford and Zettler (as above) observed: 

1. “Most spectacular [in the regalia] was the headdress that the queen wore in death.  At its base were twelve meters of gold ribbon still coiled in ovals as if resting on or wrapping a large wig that had long since decayed.  Various strings of lapis, gold and carnelian beads sat atop, along with four wreaths of gold leaves.  Triple willow leaves with inlaid flowers and pear-shaped pendants intermingled with broader leaves,  ... [which were] later identified as poplar.”  
   

They also noted (at p. 94 and Figure 3:7) that more than 100 other (often precious) objects had been piled up in a number of heaps around the chamber floor.  

PG 789: Woolley’s ‘King’s Grave’ 

Reconstruction of tombs PG 789 and PG 800, with the respective death pits  as designated by  Leonard Woolley:

the possible location of  a third death pit shown in dashed lines behind PG 789  

Image from William Hafford and Richard Zettler (referenced below, Figure 3:6, at p. at p. 93)    

Leonard Woolley (referenced below, at p. 72) discovered PG 789 and its death pit (which were on the same level as each other); 

1. ✴after he had discovered the death pit PG 800; but
   

2. ✴before he had discovered the burial chamber of Queen Pu-abum (PG 800b, discussed above). 
   

As Richard Zettler (referenced below, at pp. 33-4) pointed out, the burial chamber of PG 789 had been thoroughly looted and contained no significant human remains.  However its death pit, which was still undisturbed, contained a rich array of grave goods and the corpses of no fewer than 63 men and women.  Furthermore, he pointed out (at p. 36) that PG 800: 

1. “... presented a scene similar to that of PG 789.” 
   

Richard Zettler observed (at p. 35) thatit was while Woolley was excavating the burial chamber PG 789, that he discovered the very similar and contiguous burial chamber of Queen Pu-abum (see PG 800b above).   At this point, the close similarity between the two contiguous burial chambers probably led Woolley to ‘name’ PG 789 as the ‘King’s Grave (see, for example, Leonard Woolley, referenced below, 1934a, at p. 62).  As Paul Zimmerman (referenced below, 1998b) observed: 

1. “Based on their architectural similarity and their spacial juxtaposition, we can assume, as Woolley had, that these two tomb chambers are close in time and [could have belonged] to a king and queen.”  
   

Unfortunately, the evidence that the burial chamber PG 789 had been built for a king is purely circumstantial: as Peter Moorey (referenced below, at p. 31) observed:  

1. “Without either a primary body or an inscribed seal, we shall never know whose burial this was.  Nor may we be absolutely certain that this was a male primary burial ... ” 
   

Furthermore, as Paul Zimmerman (referenced below, 1998b) pointed out: 

1. ✴the floor of the burial chamber PG 800b was 40 cm lower than that of the burial chamber and death pit of PG 789; and 
   

2. ✴the doorway in PG 800b (which Woolley failed to recognise as such): 
   

3. •could not have been opened without disturbing the bodies in the death pit of PG 789;  and 
   

4. •would not have provided access to the death pit PG 800, which was 1.7 meters above it. 
   

He therefore reasonably concluded that the burial chamber of Queen Pu-abum (PG 800b): 

1. ✴must have predated PG 789; and
   

2. ✴had nothing to do with the death pit that Woolley had labelled PG 800. 
   

In other words, if there was a death pit associated with PG 800b, it has yet to be excavated.   

A number of other scholars have made similar observations.  For example, William Hafford (referenced below, at p. 210) pointed out that: 

1. “Having discovered the built chamber of PG 800b, a queen’s tomb, while excavating the neighbouring PG 789, [Woolley] interpreted the proximity of the two tombs as suggesting a close relationship between their occupants.  Unfortunately, [his] romantic story of the queen who outlived her husband (presumably buried in PG 789) but so loved him that she demanded to be buried next to him when she died ... has little basis in fact.”
   

He argued (at p 211) that:

1. “Woolley’s poignant story of the loving couple that occupied tombs PG 789 and PG 800B is intriguing and perhaps still possible, but only if it was the occupant of PG 789 who wished to be buried near Pu-abum, who had already been placed in PG 800b.” 
   

As we have seen, William Hafford and Richard Zettler (referenced below, at p. 94) also discounted the possibility that that the burial chamber PG 800b and the ‘death pit’ PG 800 were associated in any way.  They suggested that:

1. “The doorway [in PG 800b] would most likely have linked [this burial chamber] to an as yet undiscovered death pit that lay at least partially beneath PG 789, in an area that Woolley did not excavate.” 
   

In short, neither the ‘royal grave’ PG 789 nor the death pit PG 800 provide any direct evidence for our present discussion.  

PG 1050: Grave of Queen Ashusikilam (?)  

As shown in the plan above, Leonard Woolley conceived of this grave as a single structure as a more or less square structure split by cross-walls into four chambers.   However, Paul Zimmerman (referenced below, 1998a, at pp.19-20) argued convincingly that there were four separate burials here at different levels, which he labelled:

1. ✴1050a (the uppermost structure);
   

2. ✴1050b (the reed coffin);
   

3. ✴1050c (the thick floor and its associated walls and burials, considered by Woolley to be PG 1050’s principal burial); and
   

4. ✴1050d (the ‘death pit’). 
   

He observed (at p. 20) that:

1. “... divorcing [his 1050c] from the rest of [Woolley’s PG 1050] solves the riddle of how this level was plundered without disturbing the upper levels.  Woolley puts the reader through a tortured explanation of how thieves, in antiquity, could have gained access to this part of PG 1050 by tunnelling in from the side., [but he] never found the thieves’ purported shaft. I find it much easier to believe that the thieves gained access [to 1050c] from directly above, and they did not disturb the upper level of the grave because it had not yet been built.” 
   

Plundered tomb chamber (Zimmerman’s PG 1050c - see below) 

From Leonard Woolley (referenced below, 1934b. Plate 48)  

My red ‘X’ indicates the distorted ‘copper cauldron’ under which seal U. 11825 was found  

On this basis, we need only discuss here Zimmerman’s PG 1050c, which Leonard Woolley (referenced below, 1934a, at p. 94) described as follows:

1. “At the bottom of of a layer of filling] there was a floor of mud brick 0.50 m. thick extending unbroken over the space between the walls; on it had been the main burial ,,, Against the south-west side were the remains of a wooden coffin ... [that] had been broken open and the bones inside it were in hopeless confusion ... On the body, which lay with the head north-west, there were some beads of gold, lapis lazuli and carnelian, and traces of silver.  By the foot of the coffin were [two vases, along with] the broken skull of a second person, presumably one of the attendants.  In the middle of the floor lay [two more vases] and to the north-east of this was a copper cauldron, ... completely crushed and broken; below it were found a little clay vase in the form of a nut as well as the large lapis lazuli cylinder seal inscribed with the name A-kalam-dug [U. 11825].  By the head of the coffin there were heaped together many clay pots ... [and], ranged along the north-west side of the pit were more clay vessels, all broken .... Also by the head of the coffin was the white calcite vase ... The whole of the centre of the pit was empty except for the few scattered objects already described.” 
   

Seal of Queen Ashusikilam

The lapis lazuli seal from grave PG 1050c, which is now in the Penn Museum (CBS 17720) carried the following inscription (RIME 1.13.4.1; CDLI, P247682):

‘Akalamdu, king of Ur: Ashusikilam (is) his wife’

According to Léon Legrain (in Leonard Woolley, referenced below, entry 65, at p. 341), the image created by the seal depicts: 

1. “Three crossed lions of royal style [attacking] an upturned ibex and a bull.” 
   

As noted above, it was found under a battered ‘copper cauldron’ in the northeastern corner of the burial chamber (marked with a red ‘X’ in the illustration above.  Gianni Marchesi argued (referenced below, 2004, at p. 178) that, although:

1. “... the seal was found [in this grave] without an associated body, ... ] the inscription clearly states the identity of the person to whom the seal had belonged.”
   

He assumed that this person was Ashusikilam, the wife of King Akalamdu of Ur, who:

1. “... was probably a queen, even if she did not bear the title of ‘queen’ (eres) on her seal.”
   

Marchesi (as above) argued (at p. 178) argued that Queen Ashusikilam was probably buried in PG 1050c.  However, as Peter Moorey (referenced below, at p. 33) had previously observedt:

1. “It is very much to be regretted that ... [PG 1050c] was so badly plundered ... [and] so ravaged that it was not [even] clear what the sex of the primary burial had been.”
   

In other words, we cannot be sure that the ravaged corpse in the wooden coffin was that of Queen Ashusikilam.  After all there is at least one other case in which the presence of a royal seal in a particular grave (see PG 1054 below) certainly does not allow us to identify the original occupant:

1. ✴the seal in question was that of ‘King Meskalamdug’; and 
   

2. ✴at the time of its excavation, the grave still contained the body of its original occupant, who was a (presumably royal) lady. 
   

PG 1054: Seal of King Meskalamdu 

Seal with an inscription (RIME 1.13.3.3, CDLI, P247679) identifying King Meskalamdu found near  grave PG 1054  

Now in the British Museum  (exhibit BM 122536); image from Julian Reade (referenced below, 2003, at p. 103) 

The inscription (RIME 1. 13.3.1, CDLI, P247679) is on the shell seal (illustrated above) that was found near grave PG 1054 and is now in the British Museum (exhibit BM 122536).  It reads:

1. ‘Mes-kalam-du10 lugal’, (Meskalamdu, the king).  
   

Given the find spot, we might reasonably assume that Meskalamdu as king of Ur.  The seal is made of shell on a core of lapis lazuli,  According to Léon Legrain (in Leonard Woolley, referenced below, entry 55, at p. 340), the image created by his seal depicts:

1. “Two crossed lions [attacking] two bulls.  [A figure that he identified as] Enkidu and a nude hunter in profile take part in the fight. Both are probably armed with daggers.  There is a small nude hunter, full face with wild locks, below the cartouche [at the edges in the impression illustrated above].” 
   

Find Spot of the Seal of King Meskalamdu 

One of two golden daggers found alongside the seal illustrated above

Now in the Penn Museum (30-12-550) 

This seal was found in a brick structure that had been built above the main burial chamber of PG 1054 (discussed below).  More specifically, it was found in what had been a wooden box that had left a ‘footprint’ of 65 x 60 cm on the floor of this brick structure.  Interestingly, this box had also contained two impressive golden daggers, the one illustrated above and another similar one that is now in the Iraq Museum.  (See Andreas Hauptmann and Sabine Klein. referenced below, at p. 87 and Figure 3) for the metallurgy on these objects.)   

According to Peter Moorey (referenced below, at pp. 32-3):

1. “Next to this [box] was the body of a man in a wooden coffin; in Woolley’s words [citation needed]:
   

2. ‘... the furniture with it was by no means of the type which one would expect with a royal person’. 
   

3. Beneath was a succession of clay floors with offerings in clay vessels and simple subsidiary burials, which Woolley associated directly with a stone-vaulted primary burial beneath them.”
   

In other words, although the seal of King Meskalamdu and the two golden daggers are surely important ‘royal’ objects: 

1. ✴the occupant of the wooden coffin in this brick chamber does not seem to have been the king who presumably owned objects such as them; and 
   

2. ✴the brick structure in which they were found was not directly related to the primary burial chamber PG 1054: as Paul; Zimmerman (referenced below, 1998a, at p. 20) pointed out:
   

3. “... [although] there is no evident architectural interrelationship between the two structures, Woolley seems to have considered them to be part of the same grave simply [because] ... the upper[brick]  structure [seemed to be] directly above the [primary burial chamber].”  
   

Primary Burial Chamber PG 1054 

Gianni Marchesi (referenced below, 2004, at p. 162) described this structure as:

1. “... [a] stone-built sepulchral chamber, [the main occupant of which] was a high-ranking woman [who had been] buried together with four male attendants].” 
   

Peter Moorey (referenced below, at p. 33) quoted Woolley’s vivid account of the excavation of the stone-vaulted primary burial beneath the brick structure as follows [citation needed]: 

1. “The stone blocking of the door was pulled away, and inside, beneath the remains of rotten wood fallen from the ceiling, lay five bodies, four of them those of men (servants, judging from their poor equipment) and the fifth was that of a woman; she had:
   

2. ✴the golden headdress of one of high rank;
   

3. ✴a long curved golden pin such as we had not seen before, [which] fastened her cloak;
   

4. ✴... a fluted and engraved tumbler of gold [in her hands]; and
   

5. ✴... a golden cylinder seal, the first we have ever found, [by her side].
   

6. This clearly was a queen.” 
   

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. “... 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.” 
   

Akalamdu (Son of Meskalamdu) 

According to Douglas Frayne (referenced below, at p. 389):

1. “Meskalamdu was apparently succeeded by his son Akalamdu as king of Ur.  While no inscription of the king himself is as yet extant, a seal inscription, [CDLI, P247682], from a royal tomb at Ur, [PG 1050], mentions his wife Ashusikilan.”
   

It this is correct, then we must assume that, for whatever reason, Akalamdu was soon succeeded by his brother or half-brother Mesanepada.

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’.

Seal of Mesanepada (RIME 1.13.5.2; CDLI, P431204) from he Royal Cemetery

Now in the Penn Museum (Sealing 31-16-677), image from museum website  

A second royal inscription of Mesanepada (RIME 1.13.5.2; CDLI, P431204) is on a clay sealing (illustrated above) that was found in a ‘spoil’ stratum in the ‘Royal Cemetery’.  The inscription on this seal reads:

1. “Mesanepada, King of Kish, dam nu-gig (husband of the nu-gig)”.
   

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

1. ✴the name of one of Mesanepada’s actual wives; or
   

2. ✴the name of: 
   

3. “... 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: 

1. “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).  

Nintur, Wife of Mesanepada 

Lapis lazuli seal of Nintur, wife of Mesanepada (RIME 1.13.5.3; CDLI, P247685) from Ur  

Now in the Penn Museum  (exhibit CBS 16852; image from Julian Reade (referenced below, 2003, at p. 103)  

Mesanepada is also named in a seal of his wife, which was found in loose soil in the stratum above the royal graves in the Royal Cemetery: this inscription (RIME 1.13.5.3; CDLI, P247685) reads:  

1. “Nintur, the queen, the wife of Mesanepada”. 
   

Douglas Frayne (referenced below, 2008, at pp. 394) reasonably argued that she was also the lady identified in an inscription (RIME 1.13.5.4; CDLI, P2476856) on three objects (a copper bowl and two seal impressions) found in the Royal Cemetery as:

1. “Nintur, the queen”.
   

Importantly, while the seal impressions were found in a ‘spoil’ stratum, the copper bowl (which is now in the British Museum: BM 121663b) was found with a number of other prestigious objects in PG  755, which belonged to a young warrior who was apparently named Meskalamdu (as discussed below). 

Meskalamdu

Electrum helmet from grave PG 755 in the Royal Cemetery of Ur, 

which belonged to a warrior who may have been called Meskalamdu: now in the Iraq Museum (IM. 8629)  

Image (of a copy of the original helmet) from William Hafford (referenced below, Figure 8.9, at p. 225)

A  complication in our search for the ‘historical’ King Meskalamdu is that it seems that one of the most impressive of the graves in this cemetery, PG 755, apparently belonged to a man of that name (see below).  The grave contained the body of a man who, according to Sir Arthur Keith (in Leonard Woolley, referenced below, at p. 403), was under 30 years of age at the time of his death.  As Willian Hafford (referenced below, at p. 226) observed, this grave also contained: 

1. “... many spectacular offerings that are only paralleled in the [so-called ‘royal tombs’ in the cemetery].  Some of the grave goods also had explicit royal connections, including several metal vessels bearing the names of, [inter alia], Meskalamdu [see below]. ... The bones inside [the coffin] were those of a robust young man who wore a silver-plated belt from which hung a gold dagger and a whetstone made of lapis lazuli: 
   

2. ✴an electrum helmet made in the form of an elaborate wig [illustrated above], a form that is sometimes associated with Early Dynastic kings, was set near the man’s skull; and
   

3. ✴two electrum axes, a gold lamp, a gold bowl, and many beads were also found near his body. 
   

4. Outside his coffin were many more offerings including copper, clay and stone vessels, as well as daggers or short swords, axes, and arrowheads.  The overall impression is not solely of wealth but also of military might.” 
   

Douglas Frayne (referenced below, 2008, at p. 401) listed the metal vessels in PG 755 carrying the name Meskalamdu mentioned above:

1. ✴three are objects made of gold, all of which were found inside the coffin and are now in the Iraq museum
   

2. •two bowls (IM 8270-1); and
   

3. •a lamp (IM 8273) and
   

4. ✴the fourth is a copper bowl (presumably from outside the coffin). 
   

They carry the same one-word inscription (RIME 1.13.7.1, CDLI, P431212): ‘Meskalamdu’, which was presumably the name of the deceased.  (As noted above, the grave goods also included a copper bowl inscribed with the name of ‘Nintur, the queen’.)

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:

1. “... 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:

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

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

3. “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:

1. “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. 

A’anepada 

A’anepada is the only son and successor of Mesanepada who is known from surviving inscriptions, which have been  found at both Ur and Tell Ubaid (some 6 km west of Ur). 

Inscriptions from Ur 

Copper cone with an inscription of A’anepada  (CDLI, P423674) from Ur, now in the British Museum (BM 090951)

Image from Julian Reade (referenced below, 2024, Figure 15, at p. 43) 

The inscribed copper cone illustrated above had long languished in the British Museum before Julian Reade (referenced below, 2002, at pp. 250-3) recognised it as one of three objects that had been found at Ur in 1858, when John Taylor: 

1. “... had excavated a shrine foundation deposit that was still in its original position.”
   

Gábor Zólyomi (referenced below, at p. 85) translated the inscription on the cone  as follows: 

1. “The dwelling AB.IGI.BUR, the sanctuary, the mountain of snakes, where? Inanna ..., the Abzu (whose) god no crown (i.e., ruler) would disobey, its owner, the god of A’anepada, Enki, the father who created him, made his (= A’anepada’s) lordship apparent.  He (= A’anepada) (then) established the AB.IGI.BUR for him (= Enki), called its name for him, and fashioned his crown for him.” 
   

Nicholas Kraus (referenced below), who had produced a translation that was slightly modified by Gábor Zólyomi (above) commented (at p. 59) that: 

1. “Based on the inscription, the [cone] appears to commemorate laying the foundations of a structure known as the AB.IGI+BUR by A’anepada, along with the fashioning of a crown for Enki.” 
   

Julian Reade (referenced below, 2024, at p. 44) suggested that the AB.IGI+BUR might be an early version of esh-bur, which was a shrine dedicated to Inanna Ninkununa and built or restored by the king Ur-Namma  (see: RIME 3/2.1.1.15; CDLI, P432125; and RIME 3/2.1.1.16; CDLI, P432126).  

Douglas Frayne (referenced below) was unaware of the inscription above (or perhaps doubted its authenticity).  However, he did publish another inscription of A’anepada from Ur (RIME 3/2.1.1.15; CDLI, P432207, which is now in the (UK) Birmingham Museums and Art Gallery, (BCM 1103-052).  This inscription, which is on a fragment of calcite bowl apparently found under the pavement of rooms 16–17 of the Enunmah (Moon Temple) reads: 

1. “To [DN]: A’an[epada], king of Ur ...”    
   

Inscriptions from Tell Ubaid

Tablet  from the temple of Ninhursag  at Tell Ubaid with an inscription (RIME 1:13:6:3; CDLI, P431208)

recording its construction by A’anepada,: now in the British Museum (BM 116982); mage from the museum website   

As discussed in my page First Dynasty of Ur: Tell Ubaid, the most informative (and thus the most important) inscription of A’anepada found at Tell Ubaid (RIME 1:13:6:3; CDLI, P431208) is on a stone foundation tablet that is now in the British Museum (BM 116982), which records that: 

1. “For the goddess Ninhursag: A’anepada, king of Ur, son of Mesanepada, king of Ur, for the goddess Ninhursag, he built (her) temple”.   
   

Three other inscriptions of A’anepada were found nearby:

1. ✴the inscription (RIME 1:13:6:1; CDLI, P431206), on a hollow gold bead that was found closer to the facade (at location number 39) reads simply: 
   

2. “A’anepada, king of Ur”: and
   

3. ✴two fragmentary inscriptions (RIME 1.13.06.04; CDLI, P431209; and RIME 1.13.06.05; CDLI, P431210) on bowl fragments found near the temple, each of which probably recorded the dedication to Ninhursag (by Inimzi and Nanna-ursag respectively) for the life of A’anepada, the builder of the temple.  
   

4. “For the goddess Ninhursag: A’anepada, king of Ur, son of Mesanepada, king of Ur, for the goddess Ninhursag, he built (her) temple”, (RIME 1:13:6:3; CDLI, P431208).  
   

A’anepada: Conclusions

Since, when A’anepada is given a title in a surviving royal inscription, this title is either:

1. ✴A’anepada, king of Ur; or
   

2. ✴A’anepada, king of Ur, son of Mesanepada, king of Ur. 
   

We may therefore reasonably assume that:

1. ✴by the time of his death, Mesanepada had cease to use the title ‘king of Kish and was once again known simply as ‘king of Ur’; and
   

2. ✴this was the title that then passed to A’anepada, his son and successor.  
   

Meskalamdu, Mesanepada and the Kingship of Kish

We can now consider the significance of the fact that both Meskalamdu and Mesanepada used the titles king of Ur and king of Kish, starting with the facts that:

1. ✴as far as we know, neither of them ever held both titles at the same time; and
   

2. ✴in the inscription on the bead from Mari (in which both men are named), Mesanepada is described as ‘king of Ur, the son of Meskalamdu, king of Kish’. 
   

Hypothesis of Gianni Marchesi

Gianni Marchesi (referenced below, 2015, at p. 145, Uruk entry 6) argued that, in this period, Meskalamdu (and subsequently Mesanepada) used the title ‘king of Kish’ in order to signify that he actually ruled at both Uruk and Ur (rather than at Kish itself):

1. ✴as he noted (at pp. 144-5, Uruk entry 4), he based this hypothesis on the fact that an earlier ruler named Lugalnamnirshumma had been described (in a votive offering at Girsu) as ‘king of Kish’; and 
   

2. ✴since
   

3. •he believed that this votive object had been found in the same architectural context as another such object dedicated by the chief lamentation priest of Uruk; and
   

4. •‘foreign’ dedications at Girsu were unusual;
   

5. then Lugalnamnirshumma had probably ruled at Uruk (in which case, king of Kish’ was an honorary title). 
   

However, as I discussed above, Sébastien Rey (referenced below, at p. 209) pointed out that: 

1. ✴a number of scholars have been misled by an early, flawed description of the find-spot of this spear-head of Lugalnamnirshumma within the complex archeological site of the temple at Girsu; and
   

2. ✴the problems that this has raised have been: 
   

3. “... compounded by the theory that kings of Uruk might perhaps have assumed the ‘catch-all’ title king of Kish ...” 
   

He pointed out (at p. 210) that, once it is understood that the spear-head of Lugalnamnirshum: 

1. ✴had not been buried in the same archeological context as the votive offering of the chief lamentation priest of Uruk; and
   

2. ✴it had actually been buried in the same archeological context as the votive offering as the famous mace-head of King Mesalim of Kish;
   

it becomes clear that Lugalnamnirshum was:

1. “... one of Mesalim of Kish’s successors, and, therefore, in all likelihood, another foreign overlord of Girsu [and Lagash].”
   

Thus, pace Marchesi, there is no particular reason to assume that Lugalnamnirshum had ruled at Uruk, and that, by extension, Meskalamdu and then Mesanepada used the title of king of Kish to signify that he ruled at both Ur and Uruk. 

Likely Significance of the Title ‘King of Kish’ 

Marchesi (as above) assumed that the putative post ‘king of Uruk’ would have been more prestigious than that of ‘king of Ur’.  He therefore argued that:

1. “... after occupying the more prestigious post of king of Uruk, Meskalamdu gave Ur to his son Mesanepada to rule.  Upon the father’s death, Mesanepada ascended the throne of Uruk, as is revealed by the title ‘king of Kish’ on his seal,”
   

Clearly this suggestion must be modified if it is accepted that there is no evidence that the title ‘king of Kish’ ever meant ‘king of Uruk.  It is, of course, possible, that:

1. ✴at some point in his reign, Meskalamdu retired in order to allow Mesanepada to rule at Ur, at which point he himself adopted the honorary title of ‘king of Kish’; and
   

2. ✴Mesanepada subsequently followed his example by retiring to make way for one of his sons and adopted the honorary title of ‘king of Kish’. 
   

However, as we have seen, the only known son and successor of Mesanepada, A’anepada, is referred to in his surviving inscriptions only as:

1. ✴A’anepada, king of Ur (RIME 1:13:6:1; CDLI, P431260); or
   

2. ✴A’anepada, king of Ur, son of Mesanepada, king of Ur (RIME 1:13:6:3; CDLI, P431208). 
   

Furthermore, this second inscription suggests that Mesanepada was using the title ‘king of Ur’ at the time of his own death (which presumably coincided with A’anepada’s accession).  In short, the most likely scenario is that:

1. ✴Meskalamdu actually captured Kish, at which point:
   

2. •he became ‘king of Kish’; and
   

3. •Mesanepada adopted the ‘lesser’ title ‘king of Ur’; and
   

4. ✴on Meskalamdu’s death, Mesanepada became king of Kish, but subsequently lost control of that city, at which point he reverted to the ‘king of Ur’, the title that he duly passed on to his son, A’anepada.  
   

That leaves us with the ‘extravagant burial practices’, which are indeed in evidence in the case of:

Pu-abum (PG 800 B), whose Akkadian name might suggest that she came from Kish; and

Meskalamdu (PG 755), who, as noted above, was certainly a warrior and might well have been

the son of Mesanepada; and

recognised as the crown prince at the time of his extravagant burial. 

In other words, it is possible that:

Pu-abum was queen at a time when Meskalamdu and Mesanepada belonged to ‘the Kish royal line’; and

the warrior Meskalamdu (who was buried in PG 755) had died in battle, perhaps when Mesanepada was driven from Kish. 

However, it seems to me that the best evidence for the hypothesis that: 

Meskalamdu, the father of Mesanepada captured Kish;  and

Mesanepada inherited from him the title ‘king of Kish’ but subsequently lost it;

is found in the epigraphic evidence (discussed above) that Mesanepada was simply ‘king of Ur’ at the time of his death and the accession of his son, A’anepada.  

Mesanepada, A’Anepada and the Kingship of Ur

Of course, this begs the question of what evidence (if any) might support the hypothesis that:

1. ✴Meskalamdu actually did conquer Kish and was able to pass on the title ‘king of Kish’ to Mesanepada, his son and successor; and
   

2. ✴Mesanepada was subsequently expelled from Kish but was at least able to pass on the title ‘king of Ur’ to A’anepada. 
   

Petr Charvát (referenced below), who assumed that:

1. ✴both Meskalamdu and Mesanepada belonged to ‘the Kish royal line’ (see p. 197); and
   

2. ✴Meskalamdu (rather than his homonymous grandson) was buried in PG 755 in the Royal Cemetery (see 196);  
   

argued (at pp. 196-7 and note 38) 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:
   

2. ✴the cessation of those extravagant burial practices; and
   

3. ✴[the] renewed superposition of administrative-discard layers over the cemetery deposit, displaying the Mesanepada documents over the last stratum of the ‘royal graves’.
   

4. ...  Needless to say, in a short time, Ur was also reduced to ashes by enemy action, [as evidenced by RIME 1.9.1.6b - see the discussion below], and the wheel of wars and devastation continued its motion with an awe-inspiring regularity until the beginning of the Old Akkadian period.”
   

Actually, the ‘dumping’ of Mesanepada’s seal above the royal graves tells us nothing about the date of his reign: the seal might have remained in its original location for a considerable period of time before it was dumped. 

As we shall see, this body of evidence points to what was probably a relatively short period of prosperity and political self-confidence at Ur in the ED IIIa period, which seems to include the period of what we know as the Ur I dynasty (the subject of this page).  However, as Douglas Frayne (referenced below, at p. 381) pointed out, the so-called Ur II dynasty, which is recorded in the Sumerian King List (SKL), is probably a phantom. 

Likely Date of the Reign of Mesanepada 

As discussed above, it is arguable that Mesanepada:

1. ✴inherited the title ‘king of Kish’ from his father; and  
   

2. ✴subsequently lost control of Kish but was still ‘king of Ur’ at the time of his death. 
   

Furthermore, the evidence discussed so far arguably supports the hypothesis that Mesanepada:

1. ✴ruled towards the end of  what might well have been a relatively short period of ‘extravagant burial practices’ in the Royal Cemetery; and
   

2. ✴might well have buried one of his sons (a warrior named Meskalamdu) in one of these extravagant graves (PG 755) before his own death. 
   

Thus, if we can establish the period in which these ‘extravagant burial practices’ were used, we can also date the reign of Mesanepada. 

It is therefore at least possible that Mesanepada’s putative loss of the kingship of Kish had something to do with the activities of the so-called Kiengi League, a military alliance of six city states of Kiengi (= Sumer), that is known principally from two administrative texts (WF 92; CDLI, P011049 and WF 94; CDLI, P011051) from Shuruppak (modern Fara):

1. ✴these documents belong to a large collection of administrative, lexical and literary texts from Fara (the so-called ‘Fara texts’) that all apparently date to the ED IIIa or Fara period (ca. 2600 - 2450 BC); and 
   

2. ✴they describe the mobilisation of troops from six Sumerian cities (Uruk, Adab, Nippur, Lagash, Shuruppak and Umma) in an alliance directed against an unnamed enemy. 
   

I  discuss the possibility that this campaign was directed against Mesanepada, King of Kish and Ur, after considering the surviving evidence for the date of the reign of his son and successor, A’anepada, which relates to his documented construction of the Ninhusag temple at Tell Ubaid.  

Rise and Fall of Meskalamdu’s Dynasty at Ur

In the sections above, I suggested that:

1. ✴Meskalamdu and his son Mesanepada ruled at Ur in the ED III period, when the city experienced a time of prosperity evidenced by the ‘extravagant burial practices’ adopted in the ‘Royal Cemetery’;
   

2. ✴this prosperity was probably associated with Mesklamdu’s conquest of Kish;
   

3. ✴Mesanepada:
   

4. •inherited the title ‘king of Kish’ from his father;
   

5. •subsequently lost control of that city, perhaps at the hands of the Kiengi League; 
   

6. •was predeceased by his son, the warrior Meskalamdu who was buried in PG 755 (and who possibly died in battle ??); and
   

7. •passed on the title ‘king of Ur’ to one of his surviving sons, A’anepada; and
   

8. ✴A’anepada:
   

9. •built or rebuilt the Ninghursag temple at Tell Ubaid;
   

10. •was subsequently defeated by Uruk, at which point:
    

11. -Ur fell to Uruk; and
    

12. -Tell Ubaid and its Ninhursag temple passed under the control of Uruk’s ally in this campaign, Ur-Nanshe (who was, by this time, now installed as king of Lagash).   
    

In what follows, I will attempt to find further support for this hypothesis. 

Did Mesanepada Lose Kish to the Kiengi League ? 

As discussed above. the Kiengi League is that it was a military alliance that included the cities of Uruk, Adab, Nippur, Lagash, Shuruppak and Umma.  Until recently, the general view was that Kish led this alliance against Ur. 

Thus, for example, Xianhua Wang (referenced below, at p. 236 and notes 642- 3) observed that:

1. “The difficulty historians have in elucidating the history of southern Mesopotamia during the transition from the ED Period to the Sargonic Period [are probably] due to the complexity of the process of the reshuffling of regional powers.  The regional power that began the process after the Hexapolis [= Kiengi League] was likely Ur from the south, excluded from the Hexapolis, when the Royal Cemetery evidenced the growth of royal power in the city.  The disbanding of the Hexapolis may be the achievement of Meskalamdu or Mesanepada ... ” 
   

In this scenario, Meskalamdu or Mesanepada, as king of Ur, had defeated the Kiengi League (which was presumably deemed to have been led by Kish), thereby experiencing a ‘growth of royal power’ that was evidenced by the short period of extravagant burials in the Royal Cemetery at Ur.

More recently, Piotr Steinkeller (referenced below, 2024) hypothesised that Uruk led the Kiengi League and that its target was Kish.  Among his arguments for this hypothesis, he observed that:

1. ✴none in the surviving Fara sources indicates that Kish led a military alliance of Sumerian cities against anyone (see note 9, at p. 7); and
   

2. ✴the absence of Ur from the Kiengi League (and its almost total absence from the ‘Fara texts’ more generally) might simply indicate that it was directly subject to Uruk at this time, which would mean that:
   

3. “... its status would have been not unlike that [which] it enjoyed later in the ED IIIb period, when ... it was a dependency of Uruk, with Uruk’s ruler exercising a dual kingship over these two city-states”, (see p. 11).  
   

However, it seems to me that, assuming we accept that Uruk led the alliance in an engagement against Kish, we cannot rule out the possibility that this took place when both Ur and Kish were controlled by Mesanepada. 

Interestingly. Piotr Steinkeller (referenced below, 2024), who was writing before the publication of Francesco Pomponio’s paper on RIME 1.9.1.6b - see above ) had been troubled by this inscription: he observed (in note 33, at p.11) that:

1. “Given the fact that the reign of Ur-Nanshe of Lagash was roughly contemporaneous with the Fara sources, it is conceivable that Ur-Nanshe himself (or, alternatively, his son A-kurgal) participated in the postulated campaign [of the Kiengi League] against Kish.  It is otherwise known, however, that Ur-Nanshe was involved in military conflicts with Umma and Ur, [as suggested by the ‘war side’ of this inscription].  If, [as he believed], Umma and Ur ... were subjects of Uruk at that time, this would have made Lagash an enemy of Uruk.”
   

He dismissed this potential objection to his hypothesis that Uruk had been the leader of the Kiengi League against Kish with the observation that:

1. “... since political alliances must have been subject to frequent change in the south, this information [from RIME 1.9.1.6b] is of little value.  It is also likely that inter-city-state conflicts continued even in the presence of hegemonic powers, such as those of Kish or Uruk.”
   

However, as argued above, it seems to me that a more likely explanation is that Ur-Nanshe fought alongside Uruk in this campaign against the man of Lagash, the man of Ur (A’anepada ?) and the man of Umma. 

If we now combine:

1. ✴the hypothesis of Piotr Steinkeller that Uruk led an alliance of the Sumerian states that also included Adab, Nippur, Lagash, Shuruppak and Umma against Kish;
   

2. ✴my suggestion that the target of this campaign might well have been Mesanepada, king of both Kish and Ur;
   

3. ✴the hypothesis of Francesco Pomponio, that RIME 1.9.1.6b describes a campaign led by a now-unknown commander against the man of Lagash, the man of Ur and the man of Umma; and
   

4. ✴my suggestion  that the would-be usurper Ur-Nanshe played a significant part in this invasion as an ally of Uruk;
   

we arrive at the following hypothesis:

1. ✴the political stability of southern Mesopotamia was disrupted when Meskalamdu conquered Kish (possibly at a time when Kish still exercised hegemony over Lagash, Umma and Adab);
   

2. ✴Mesanepada inherited the title king of Kish from his father;
   

3. ✴Uruk and its allies in the Kiengi Leage expelled Mesanepada from Kish, thereby further destabilising the political stability of the region; and
   

4. ✴Ur-Nanshe supported Uruk in a successful campaign against Lagash, Ur (possibly by this point, ruled by A’anepada) and Umma, which paved the way for him to become king of Lagash.
   

Interestingly, Piotr Steinkeller (referenced below, 2024, at pp. 10-2) supported his hypothesis that Uruk led the Kiengi League in a successful campaign against Kish by highlighting an administrative document from Abu Salabikh (TSSh 302; CDLI, P010800, which probably dated to the Fara period and: 

1. “... which appears to be a gazetteer of the places remaining under the hegemony of Uruk.  According to its colophon (col. 6, lines 1-4), this text lists:
   

2. ‘103 territories of Uruk (under) the ensik Lumma’.”
   

Although many of these toponyms are obscure, his list of those that can be identified includes:

1. ✴Ur (col. ii, line 8);
   

2. ✴Kesh (col. ii, line 9);
   

3. ✴Umma (col. iv, line 2);
   

4. ✴Kulaba (col. vii, line 3);
   

5. ✴Nippur  (col. ix, line 1); and
   

6. ✴Larsa  (col. xi, line 6).
   

He argued (at p. 11, following Gianni Marchesi, referenced below, 2006, at p. 62, whom he quoted at note 30) that:

1. “It appears quite likely that it was this Lumma (about whom nothing else is known) who commanded the troops participating in the postulated campaign [of the Kiengi League] against Kish.”
   

He continued as follows:

1. “Assuming that these locales indeed were Uruk’s dependencies, or that they at the very least recognised some form of Uruk’s sovereignty, at the time when TSSh 302 was written down Uruk held sway over most of southern Babylonia ... In the deep south, the territories allegedly controlled by Lumma included Umma, Ur, and Larsa. ... Text TSSh 302 omits to mention either Lagash or Adab. This could be interpreted that these two city-states remained completely independent of Uruk at that time.”
   

Actually, if Uruk did control Kesh at this time, then it would presumably also have controlled the nearby city of Adab.  We can, however, reasonably hypothesise that:

1. ✴Lagash did not appear in this document because it was under the control of Uruk’s ally, Ur-Nanshe; and
   

2. ✴these were the circumstances in which Ur-Nanshe acquired control (however temporarily) over the Ninhursag temple at Tell Ubaid. 
   

However, as Piotr Steinkeller (referenced below, 2024, at p. 9) observed:

1. “What is beyond doubt is that, even if the campaign I am postulating did succeed in sacking the city of Kish, it certainly did not put an end to the territorial state of Kish.  Although it may have irrevocably weakened its power, it did not remove it from the map or even marginalise it.  It is known that Kish remained a great power until its capture by Lugalzagesi [of Uruk, who was subsequently defeated by Sargon]”.  
   

2. 
   

Other Kings of Ur Known from Their Royal Inscriptions 

Meskiagnun 

Fragment of a calcite bowl dedicated by Gansaman, wife of Meskiagnun (RIME 1.13.8.1, P431213) from Ur 

Now in the British Museum  (exhibit BM 122255; image from Wikimedia Commons 

This vase fragment was found in loose soil in the stratum above the royal graves in the Royal Cemetery.   The surviving inscription (RIME 1.13.8.1, P431213) reads: 

1. “For (the life of) [Meskiag]nun, king of Ur: Gansaman, his wife, dedicated (this bowl)”.
   

Douglas Frayne (referenced below, 2008, at p. 403) and Gianni Marchesi (referenced below, 2015: p. 140, note 13 and p. 144, Ur entry 2) accept that the name of this king can be completed as Meskiangnun.  Gianni Marchesi (referenced below, 2004, note 97, at p, 168) argued that:

1. “...  on an epigraphic basis, this king of Ur seems to be an earlier ruler than Mesanepada ...”.
   

However, Douglas Frayne (as above) placed him after A’anepada (perhaps because he is described as the son of Mesanepada in the SKL ??).  In short, the date of the reign of thus king at Ur is unknown.  

Elili 

The inscription (RIME 1.13.9.1, P431214) on two clay foundation cones of unknown provenance, one of which is now in the British Museum (BM 121343), reads:

1. “For the god Enki, king of Eridu: Elili, king of Ur, built his (= Enki’s) Abzu (temple)”.
   

Douglas Frayne (referenced below, at p. 405) argued that:

1. ✴the Abzu temple recorded here was almost certainly at Eridu and this was presumably the original location of these foundation cones; and
   

2. ✴the King Elili of Ur who built this temple was also named in the SKL (as discussed further below).