Looking back as one can now do over a long period of time spent at the British Museum, it is clear that a major contribution to the development of the Research Laboratory was made by Leonard Woolley not only on account of the quantity and diversity of the material that he produced for study and treatment year after year, but by the stimulating influence of his presence as a co-worker. Indeed, without this, the annual task which confronted a small and devoted laboratory staff would have been well-nigh impossible.

The first rumour of his return was quickly followed by the arrival of dozens of boxes, petrol tins, containers of any and every sort and a selection of these reached the Laboratory and duly gave forth many hundreds of match boxes, tins and cigarette packets all carefully labelled, all very dusty, but all containing treasures that meant something, at least to the excavator. And so the hospital cleanliness of the Laboratory inevitably suffered a change and rooms took on the aspect of that partially-organised chaos wherein someone can always claim to know where objects have been put. In the midst worked Woolley in the deepest concentration—and he was a whale for work—but always with a ready smile for the right kind of interruption.

Leonard Woolley directed the dig at Ur for twelve seasons which began in 1922 and ended in 1934. During that time he had many assistants on his staff which only once amounted to more than five in all, an astonishingly small number for the control of a labour force which often consisted of between 200 and 250 men who were unearthing not only substantial architectural remains, but also large numbers of small objects—about 20,000 of them were entered in the Expedition's catalogue. Woolley himself served on every one of those twelve expeditions and only his quickness and prodigious industry, supported by a well-trained family of Syrian foremen from Jerablus, enabled him to carry through tasks for which the more elaborately organised expeditions of today would require at least three times the number of supervisors. It is my privilege to have served Woolley for six years—1925–1930—longer than any other of his assistants, and it has therefore fallen to me on this occasion to recall memories of the man and the kind of life we led at Ur. I must also mention, very briefly, some aspects of the work at Ur, which are now the subject of active investigation and controversy, as well as others which are in danger of being forgotten, but still offer tempting rewards for research.

The publication in 1955 of the fourth volume of Sir Leonard Woolley's Ur Excavations series set a coping-stone upon the remarkable edifice of recorded research which he and his collaborators in the “Combined Expedition” have achieved. This volume deals finally with the pre-Third Dynasty discoveries, other than those connected with the Royal Cemetery. But, having in the sequence of publications given precedence to Volume V (The Ziggurat and its Surroundings), its appearance has been long delayed, and, as explained in a foreword, it has now proved necessary to publish the original text as prepared for printing in 1935, almost without reference to the bearing which subsequent work in the same field has had upon its contents. Clearly its usefulness will be greatly enhanced if this omission can gradually be repaired; and though an attempt can hardly be made to do so with a standard of thoroughness comparable to that of the original work, the following notes are intended as a small contribution. They concern the discoveries connected with the Al ‘Ubaid period at Ur and the light thrown upon them by subsequent finds, particularly at the sites of Tell ‘Uqair and Tell Abu Shahrein (Eridu).

Sir Leonard Woolley's excavations at Ur, and his meticulous publication of the results, made available to Mesopotamian archaeologists a vast body of information on a great many topics, and the subsequent investigations which his work inspired have in no way detracted from its importance. He pointed the way to the solution of many major problems, the existence of which had not hitherto been realized; and in particular, his account of the prehistoric periods in Southern Mesopotamia may justly be said to have inaugurated a new field of research. The importance of his original contribution, both in material and in ideas, to the study of this vital phase in the development of Mesopotamian civilization cannot be overrated. The evidence of the Flood made a spectacular appeal to popular imagination, but his discovery in the same pit of an occupation level with al ‘Ubaid pottery marked a great advance in knowledge. It is, however, no criticism of Woolley to say that, like all pioneers, he raised more questions than he could solve; and the body of new information which has emerged from the recent excavations conducted by the Iraq Directorate-General of Antiquities at the nearby site of Eridu makes it appropriate and useful on this occasion to review the evidence as a whole and attempt to answer some of these outstanding questions. It is a tribute to Sir Leonard Woolley that the excellence of his publication makes such a reappraisal possible.

The splendid discoveries made by Sir Leonard Woolley at Ur in the years between 1927 and 1931, of tombs with a wealth of grave-goods unparalleled before or since in Western Asia, were given a sombre aspect by the revelation that such sacrifice of material wealth had been accompanied by no less lavish expenditure of lives. The principal occupants of those tombs had been attended by a whole cohort of human and animal victims, put to death at the time in their places and attitudes and with all the equipment which had been proper to them in their lives and services. So plainly was all this revealed by the excavations that the whole scene of the funeral could be reconstructed by a modern artist in a picture which scarcely needed to draw upon the imagination.

Some controversy took place in the succeeding years upon the character of these human sacrifices, but it would now be generally agreed, I think, that they were no other than at first supposed, a dramatic example of the ancient (though late-lingering) rite of sending a deceased lord into the other world fully furnished with all the ministers as well as all the gear of his earthly state. Both written descriptions and archaeological discoveries have repeatedly attested this gruesome practice in various parts of the world, and it is no longer true that in the abundant literature of Sumer and Akkad there is no trace of such an observance—I allude, of course, to the Sumerian fragment published by Dr. S. N. Kramer and called by him ‘The Death of Gilgamesh’.

From the point of view of Sumerian cultural behaviour, the royal tombs excavated at Ur with such care and skill by Sir Leonard Woolley, were of epoch-making significance; they indicate with reasonable certainty that customarily the early rulers of Sumer were accompanied to the grave not only by some of their most precious personal possessions, but by a considerable human retinue as well. Needless to say, immediately upon this rather startling discovery the cuneiformists, and particularly the Sumerologists, began searching the documents for inscriptional verification of one sort or another, but without success. Moreover, in the past two decades, quite a number of Sumerian myths, epic tales, hymns, lamentations, and “historiographic” documents have become available, and it seemed not unreasonable to hope that one or another of these might shed light on the Sumerian burial customs relating to the royal tombs. But this hope, too, failed to materialise to any significant extent, which is not too surprising in view of the fact that the royal tombs date from about 2500 B.C., while the majority of our available literary documents were probably first composed about 2000 B.C. However, a number of the Sumerian literary works are concerned in one way or another with death and the Nether World, and the invitation to participate in the Woolley Festschrift offered an opportune moment to sift, collect, analyse and present the Sumerian ideas about death and “immortality,” in honour of the archaeologist who has done so much to make the long dead Sumerians “immortal.”

In these pages, respectfully dedicated to Sir Leonard Woolley, I should like to give a catalogue of, and some random notes on, a group of texts from Ur and el-‘Obēd which may be called, with some qualification, ‘the early inscriptions.’ This label is meant to cover all the non-economic texts of the time between the Jemdet-Naṣr Period and the Guti Dynasty.

Among the pre-Sargonid finds from several Mesopotamian sites as well ox as from Susa and Mari there are several complete or nearly complete stone vases carved with peculiar and intriguing decoration and numerous fragments of such vases. The material is nearly always a rather soft stone, varying in colour from pale bluish grey to dark brownish green, and is usually identified as steatite. Two shapes are prevalent, a cylindrical cup or vase with a flat base, the height of which is somewhat less than the diameter, and a relatively taller more graceful vase, also with a flat bottom, which is narrower at the mouth than at the base and has slightly incurving walls. We were fortunate in finding a specimen of each type in one room of Sin Temple IX at Khafajah. They are shown in Plates VIa and VII respectively.

One motif, perhaps the most common in the decoration of such vases, is obviously a representation of some sort of structure consisting chiefly of wicker-work. Sometimes it occupies the entire surface of the vessel (as in Plate VIa); occasionally it occurs in combination with other designs (as in Plate VII). It is with this motif that we are chiefly concerned here. A ubiquitous element in such representations is a panel formed by triple vertical bands on either side and a triple downcurving band at the top. Inside, at the bottom of each panel, there is what seems to be a screen consisting of a horizontal member with a crosshatched rectangle under it. Above the screen are fairly wide vertical bands which apparently are meant to be represented as being behind the screen. (In the vase shown in Plate VII they actually are carved on a somewhat deeper surface than either the frame or the screen.)

Parmi les magnifiques objets que Sir Leonard Woolley a découverts dans la nécropole royale d'Ur, il y en a un qui semble ne pouvoir s'expliquer sans l'Egypte. Trouvé avec des pointes de lances aupres des gardes sacrifiés à l'entrée de la tombe du roi Abargi, c'est une applique de bronze, probablement une pièce de renforcement d'un bouclier disparu. Au-dessus d'un bossage du type de l'umbo romain s'étale une plaque rectangulaire, sur laquelle se profilent en léger relief deux lions divergents. Sous la ligne de terre où ils marchent, deux hommes nus sont étendus tout déjetés, face vers le bas. Allégorie de victoire un peu gauchement rendue. Les vaincus devraient être foulés aux pieds, et non pas relégués sous la ligne de terre. Et les lions devraient en triompher avec d'autant plus de fougue que l'art sumérien se complaît aux effets d'énergie heurtée. Au lieu de quoi ces lions-ci s'éloignent l'un de l'autre du pas le plus égal et le plus calme. Et leur silhouette même est d'un calme allongement.

During the summer of 1955 in the process of relocating the Ur collection in the University Museum my attention fell on a single animal tooth (Museum number 29–22–1) catalogued in 1929 as “of one of the asses from the tomb of Shub-ad.” My interest in the history of domesticated animals led me to send this specimen to Dr. George G. Simpson of the American Museum of Natural History in New York for further identification. The specimen was particularly exciting since it was generally believed at the time that no remains of these animals had been preserved. After examining the tooth Dr. Simpson wrote:

In the years which have passed since Sir Leonard Woolley published the two magnificent volumes devoted to the Royal tombs in 1934, much that has been found in Western Asia throws light, not only on Early Dynastic craftsmanship but also on its relationship to other centres of manufacture where inter alia fine jewellery was produced. At the time that Sir Leonard was writing little was known about Asiatic jewellery of this period. His superb material seemed a relatively isolated phenomenon, and, with the exception of the Troy treasure the succeeding periods down to the 8th century B.C. had yielded little evidence for a continuation or development of the extraordinary technical ability shown by the Sumerian smiths. The picture today is very different; and two points should be stressed when attempting to re-assess the importance of the Ur finds in their relation to later discoveries. First, the great conservatism of jewellery workers both in matters of design and technique. This can perhaps be explained by the fact that while there seem to have been very few technical methods unknown to Sumerian craftsmen, it is now possible to trace the development of these methods right through the succeeding Sargonid and Third Dynasty of Ur periods and into the Second and First millennia B.C. It is also possible to compare the goldwork of the Early Dynastic period with the products of later phases in Mesopotamia, and thus a continuity can be established which relates not only the different Asiatic centres together but also shows their influence all over the Eastern Mediterranean area, the Aegean, and as far west as Italy.

Sir Leonard Woolley's finds of cylinder seals at Ur include the beautiful example (Pl. XV, 1), made in the time of the dynasty founded by Sargon of Akkad (c. 2340–2160 B.C.), and perhaps more precisely during the reign of King Shar-kali-sharri (c. 2224–2199 B.C.). As in the well-known cylinder seal inscribed with the name of one of Shar-kali-sharri's officials, in the De Clercq Collection, there is in Fig. 1 frequent and adroit handling of overlapping details which convey some idea of space. Moreover, the De Clercq cylinder also furnishes the first dated example of the posture in which a figure kneels on one knee—the so-called Knielauf—in other than contest scenes. In Fig. 1 the posture is used to reduce the height of the nude bearded guardian with a gatepost (here a figure of minor importance), without reducing its scale. Such a device was of importance only for artists concerned with a measure of naturalism, a tendency which characterizes the style of the Akkad dynasty and which, to judge by the dated seals and impressions, increased until the time of Shar-kali-sharri. At the same time, the incipient schematization of certain details such as the wings flanking one of the ascending gods in Fig. 1, may also mark a relatively late date within the Sargonid dynasty. In the absence of more dated glyptic material of this period, however, these remarks remain highly tentative.

Le temps nous a manqué pour rédiger une étude de quelque envergure, en hommage à la mémoire de notre collègue Woolley, qui fut pendant plusieurs années notre voisin de chantier: de 1930 à 1933 en effet, nos chantiers d'Ur et de Lagash, distants de moins de cent kilomètres l'un de l'autre, furent ouverts en même temps, tout au long des hivers mésopotamiens, froids et pluvieux. Sir Leonard nous recevait toujours à Ur avec la plus grande courtoisie, le même accueil toujours souriant. Ce n'est ici qu'une courte note. Qu'elle ne soit pas jugée sur sa brièveté, mais qu'on y voie en tout cas le signe matériel d'un sincère attachement, par delà la mort, à la belle figure d'un collègue estimé. Ce n'est qu'un tout petit rameau, qui vient tout simplement s'ajouter à quelques grandes fleurs.

Au cours des dix campagnes de fouilles menées à Mari, de 1933 à 1954, la vision d'Ur, capitale sumériennee ne nous a jamais quitté. Dans les deux grandes périodes définies à Mari: celle d'abord contemporaine de la dynastie d'Ur et des “tombes royales”; celle ensuite parallèle aux grands jours de la dynastie d'Ur III. Dans les deux cas, la documentation n'a jamais cessé de présenter des caractères communs ou la situation politique de poser des problèmes.

In dem letzten Jahrzehnt ist vor allem durch die Arbeiten von A. Falkenstein, C. J. Gadd, Th. Jacobsen, F. R. Kraus, M. Lambert und E. Sollberger eine ziemlich umfangreiche Literatur über die Könige der III. Dynastie von Ur entstanden. Ich will in meinem Aufsatz auf die Einzelheiten, die aus den verschiedensten literarischen Quellen gewonnen wurden, nicht näher eingehen. Aus all den vorgelegten Arbeiten wird es deutlich, dass das Herrschergeschlecht der Könige der III. Dynastie von Ur in Uruk beheimatet ist. Ich will keine Stellung nehmen zu der Auffassung E. Sollbergers, dass Urnammu möglicherweise als Sohn Utuhegals von Uruk angesehen werden darf. Auch ohne diese allernächtse Verbindung bleiben genügend nahe Beziehungen der Könige von Ur zu Uruk übrig. Man denke nur daran, dass Urnammu und sein Nachfolger Šulgi Ninsuna als ihre Mutter, Lugalbanda als den Vater und Gilgameš als ihren Bruder bezeichenen. Alle drei sind aufs engste mit Uruk verknüpft und in Uruk verehrt. Es kann deutlich gemacht werden, dass der Kult der Ninsuna erst mit Urnammu nach Ur verpflanzt worden ist. Eine unmittelbare Verbindung zwischen Ur und Uruk besteht auch unter Šusin, der den beiden Naditu Priesterinnen im Heiligtum der Innin in Uruk, Ababašti und Kubatum, wertvollen Gold-Achatschmuck schenkte; und diese Kubatum wird in einer Hymne an Šusin neben der Gemahlin des Königs als Herrin und Königin bezeichnet.

Auch wenn sich dieser Beitrag zu Ehren Sir Leonard Woolleys nicht L. unmittelbar auf Ergebnisse bezieht, die wir seinen Ausgrabungen in Ur verdanken, so hätten vielleicht diese wenigen Zeilen doch auch sein Interesse gefunden, gelten sie doch einer sumerischen Dichtung, die uns in etwa die grosse Herrscherpersönlichkeit Šulgis, des zweiten Königs der III. Dynastie von Ur, näherzurücken geeignet ist.

When F. R. Kraus, at that time curator of the tablet collection in the Museum of the Near East in Istanbul, collated the date list of Šulgi Ni.394 (= BE 1/2 No. 125) of that museum, he found that the three last lines of the obverse give the text of one date formula, not of three, as had formerly been believed. In the meantime this date has turned up on a tablet excavated at Nippur during the season of 1955/56; its excavation number is 5N-T490. A copy of that tablet is given on Plate XVIII. Its interest rests mainly on the date formula which leads beyond what had been known from the date list.

The following text, in form a Sumerian incantation, is written upon a tablet (11 by 7 cm., lower left corner broken off and some surface damage) excavated at Ur by Sir Leonard Woolley in the season 1926–1927, and given the excavation-number U.7734. It was found with several other tablets belonging to the same period in a burnt level over the upper (2nd period) floor of rooms 5–6 in the private house called “No. 7 Quiet Street.”

Its contents are a prayer recited, no doubt by attendant priests and followers, on one occasion or more when Rim-Sin, king of Larsa, 1822–1763 B.C., made a state entry into the “great exalted gate” of Ur. This was the building found by the excavator in the third season of his work, which was either identical with or incorporated d u b - l á - m a ḫ, the seat of justice and, presumably, of court-records, a function which accords with the usual oriental practice of sitting at judgement in the city-gate. This grand entrance led, in fact, to the whole of the “temenos” or sacred area as it existed in the Larsa period, and whether or not this included the king's own residence it certainly included also the main sanctuary itself É - k i š -Nu-g á l (line 15), where dwelt the divine couple Nanna and Ningal, waiting to receive (11 f., 44 f.) and to send out (15) messages carried by servant-deities.

Among the discoveries made by Sir Leonard Woolley at Ur during the 1930–1 season were four public chapels of the Larsa period. Since city temples and domestic shrines were familiar from his earlier excavations, these wayside shrines marked a new discovery of which, however, little note seems to have been made in subsequent discussions of Babylonian religion. The most discussed, perhaps because of its better preservation, is the building (A H House 3 = No. 1 Church Lane) at the corner of Church Lane and Straight Street, fronting on Carfax, with the main door into Church Lane (Fig. 1), called by its discoverer the ‘Chapel of Pa-sag’. The sanctuary proper bore signs of destruction which had preserved the contents in situ, thus enabling a reconstruction to be given of the arrangement of the main furnishings in the Larsa period.

In the centre of the sanctuary, blocking the visual access into a smaller inner room in a direct line with the street doorway, stood a low brick construction (Plate XXIa). This was coated with bitumen in the same way as were two plinths standing behind it on either side of the doorway leading into the inner room, so that this may also have been the pedestal for a statue rather than an altar. It is possible that the limestone figure of a goddess (Plate XXIIc) had been broken in its fall from this commanding position.

It is an honour to me to offer in memory of Sir Leonard Woolley a note on two chance finds at Ur which have recently come to light.

The white marble half-statuette (15·2 cm. high, BM.132101) which is illustrated in Pls. XXV–XXVI was presented to the British Museum in 1956, having been originally found by a naval visitor to Ur, Able-Bodied Seaman J. B. Smith, who stated that he picked it up himself. According to his report, it was found in an area which is now known to consist of private houses to the N.E. of the building named by Sir Leonard Woolley “No. 3 Gay Street.” It shows a young woman in an attitude of worship, her hands tightly clasped together. The nose is damaged and the top of the head has been knocked away, but for the rest, the figure is in remarkable preservation. Particularly interesting are the eyes, separately made out of a whiter stone than the figure, and inserted in the eye-sockets; the eyeballs, which were also separately made, are lost. But what is even more striking is the remains of colour. The hair, eyebrows, eyelashes and upper border of garment at the neck were black, though little of it survives, while her rich multiple necklace was (indeed, still is) a dull red, even at the back, and her ear caps were of similar colour. This coloration would have well set off the white colour of her complexion.