Although the “Royal Cemetery” at Ur remains among the best-known archaeological discoveries ever made in Iraq, it still offers many complex and teasing problems of chronology and interpretation. These have to be resolved before the evidence it offers may confidently be used to illustrate particular aspects of Sumerian custom and society in the third millennium B.C. On present reckoning this concentration of hundreds of superimposed graves, cut into successive levels of rubbish, extended over at least 600 years from about 2650 to 2050 B.C. In Woolley's view it included two groups of “royal” burials. The earlier, of the archaeological period Early Dynastic III A, is the better known of the two, comprising sixteen shaft-graves or “death-pits”, with multiple burials. They were separated by an interval of between four and five centuries, and by numerous single private graves, from the rather less well-known building complex described by Woolley as the “Mausolea” of the Ur III kings (c. 2112–2004 B.C.). In 1977 I attempted to elucidate the status and social function of the people buried in the Early Dynastic “royal” graves, suggesting that it was too soon to assume that all the rulers of Sumerian city-states at this time had been buried in this particular way. Not only is it to be doubted whether the men (?) buried in the three tombs 1618, 1631 and 1648 were of the same high rank as those in the other thirteen “royal” tombs, but they may even have been of men, and more particularly of women, whose status and special privileges had more to do with the character of the cult of the city-god of Ur than with any secular authority such as kings and queens in the modern sense.

Situé à l'extrémité sud-est des ruines de l'antique ville de Kish, le tell A reste célèbre dans l'histoire de l'archéologie. Les fouilles anglo-américaines dirigées par Stephen Langdon et Ernest Mackay y mirent au jour, lors des campagnes de 1923 et 1925, cent cinquante sépultures présargoniques creusées dans les ruines d'un palais sumérien. Ces deux découvertes, sans équivalent à l'époque, furent à l'origine de la publication immédiate des travaux sur le tell A. Actuellement, ces données s'intègrent mieux dans nos connaissances sur le troisième millénaire mais la masse d'informations sociologiques que représente le cimetière A n'avait fait l'objet que de rares études.

Or, il est acquis depuis les travaux de Lewis Binford et Arthur Alan Saxe que les pratiques funéraires véhiculent des renseignements “potentiels” sur la société qui les produit. En s'appuyant sur des exemples ethnographiques, ces chercheurs démontrèrent que l'hétérogénéité des rites funéraires d'un groupe précis était liée au degré de complexité de l'organisation sociale, et que chaque traitement contenait implicitement les caractéristiques sociales (âge, sexe, type de décès…) de l'individu défunt auquel il se rapportait. C'est dans cette optique que nous tenterons de réinterpréter le cimetière A de Kish.

Il convient toutefois de s'attarder sur la documentation disponible. Le rapport de fouille d'E. Mackay présente d'importantes lacunes. Les limites exactes de la fouille ne sont pas connues. On ignore la position et l'étendue du cimetière. Mackay notait à plusieurs reprises que des objets semblables à ceux des tombes jonchaient la surface du tell A. Ne disposant d'aucun plan, nous en sommes réduits à supposer que les 150 sépultures découvertes ne constituent qu'une partie représentative de la nécropole et que de nombreuses tombes ont subi l'action de l'érosion (ou du pillage) alors que d'autres n'ont pas encore été fouillées.

Numerous studies addressing Mesopotamian historical geography have been written under the influence of a hypothesis according to which the Ekallatum monarch Išme-Dagan conducted his military actions only in the region to the east of the Tigris. Initial inquiry enables one to understand just how such a hypothesis could emerge. After all, Išme-Dagan's correspondence, found principally in the Royal Archives of Mari, is replete with references to his wars against the Turukkeans, a bellicose tribe who occupied and often controlled much of the land between the Tigris and the Zagros foothills, thus constituting a perennial threat along the Transtigridian frontier of Išme-Dagan's hegemony.

However, evidence gleaned from a closer inspection of all Išme-Dagan texts refutes this hypothesis. It is the purpose of this essay to attempt to demonstrate that such an investigation will disclose the fact that the dynast participated as well in noteworthy military actions to the west of the Tigris. As a consequence, a number of sites which traditionally have been situated to the east of the Tigris must now be localized in the Jezirah, that is, in the “island” of land bounded on the west and south by the Euphrates, on the east by the Tigris, and on the north by the Taurus mountains.

Modern discussion of what identifiable astronomical phenomenon lies behind the biblical story of the so-called Star of Bethlehem was effectively begun by the astronomer Johann(es) Kep(p)ler (1571–1630), mathematician to Rudolph II, Holy Roman Emperor 1576–1612. In the years 1604–5 a supernova appeared in the constellation Ophiuchus and excited considerable discussion in Europe. Kepler kept a detailed record of his observations of the star. In the preceding year, 17 December 1603, at Prague he had also witnessed a conjunction of the planets Jupiter and Saturn with Mars moving into the vicinity soon after, which interested him in his capacity as court astrologer. The supernova appeared in the neighbourhood of these three planets. In medieval times the conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn, known as the “great conjunction” (recurring only once every 19·86 years on average), was regarded as of great astrological significance. Kepler calculated that a similar conjunction with Mars moving into the vicinity soon after had occurred in the year 7 B.C. = Julian year 39. On that occasion the conjunction had been a triple conjunction, a very much rarer event than the normal single conjunction.

I try to show here that we do not at present have any substantial evidence for fixing the absolute value of any Assyrian capacity unit. This situation is likely to remain so until epigraphist-philologists and archaeologists recognize the need for common effort to solve this problem. Departure point of the present study was the discovery that, in a group of twenty-one documents from Nimrud dated in the period 699–652 B.C. which derive ultimately from the temple of Nabû, eighteen have common patterns from which one can deduce a few basic facts about metrological practice and terminology in the Neo-Assyrian period. To what extent they can be generalized must be decided by specialists in Neo-Assyrian on the basis of more evidence than I have at my disposal.

In his very useful treatment of Neo-Assyrian measures, J. N. Postgate called attention to ND 5457, which contains the phrase ina KAL-ti, i.e. ina sūte dannate, “in the heavy sūt”. He further observed that a calculation in the text indicates that this “heavy” sūt is twice the size of another (unspecified) sūt in the same text and went on to draw parallels between the well-attested light and heavy Assyrian weight norms, which stand to one another in the relationship of 1: 2, and with the Nimrud wine vessels, which were thought to show a similar pattern. He then identified this heavy capacity norm with an emār of 184 litres, deduced by the excavators of Nimrud on the basis of marked jars found there. There are, however, several points that still need clarifying.

Pottery is the most common archaeological artefact: indeed sites are often designated as “pottery” or “pre-pottery” on the basis of whether or not sherds have been found. The fabric of pottery is examined to see how it is made and where the various constituents came from. Shapes and any patterns or designs painted, impressed, carved or scratched on the surfaces, are studied. It is used as a chronological and a cultural indicator. But the purpose for which the pot was made is often overlooked. There are few processing activities which do not require the use of a vessel or vessels: oils and dyes are used in weaving, aromatic oils and salves are mixed in perfume-making, food preparation requires containers for a multitude of purposes. Many other activities could be added, for instance, tanning and metal working and religious ritual.

This wide range of uses makes it more difficult to pin down the actual function of a particular pot. The same shape can be used for a number of purposes. More information is required.

The exact provenance of the pot is important. Was it in a shrine, a house, outside a building, inside a building? Was it near an oven, an altar, beside a hoard of metal goods? The position is by no means conclusive. Vessels used in preparing food may have been kept inside a house while the oven was outside in a courtyard. However, the find-spot can be a guide.