123

RoyalGravesatUrinMesopotamia

PublicTranscriptsExpressedinTheatresofCruelty:theRoyalGravesatUrinMesopotamia

D.BruceDickson

TheinterpretationoftheRoyalGravesatUr,Mesopotamia,bytheirexcavator,SirLeonardWoolley,haslongbeenaccepted.Woolleyimpliesthatthepeoplesacrificedalongwiththedynastswentwillinglytotheirdeathsoutofloyalty,devotion,andfaithinthedeadmon‑archs;butotherinterpretationsareplausible.Oneisthatthesegravesaretheremainsofdramasportrayinga‘publictranscript’playedoutinapublictheatreofcrueltystagedbyrulersclaimingdivinestatus.Statepowerunitedwithsupernaturalauthoritycancreateextraordinarilypowerful‘sacredordivinekingdoms’;but‘sacred’or‘divine’kingsneedcontinuouscontactwiththesupernaturalandaffirmationoftheirdivinity.Theyareobligedtopractiseactsofpublicmystification,ofwhichtheRoyalGravesappeartobeexamples.Ur’skingsmayindeedhavebeenstrongandtheirsubjectsloyal,butitisequallylikelythattheywereweakandvulnerableandthattheypractisedritualsacrificetoterrorizearestivecitizenryandconvincethemselvesandothersoftheirrighttorule.Otherexamplesofpublictranscriptsmademanifestinstate‑sponsoredtheatresofcrueltyconfirmthattheRoyalGravesatUrarenotuniquebutrepresentaphenomenonofwiderhistoricalgenerality.

‘AllélitesbuBresstheirrulewiththeatre’(Colley1992,177)

Anyrosteroftheworld’smostsignificantarchaeologi‑calsitesinvariablyincludesthe16‘RoyalTombs’and‘RoyalDeathPits’datingtoc.2500BCthatwerefoundinthegreatcemeteryatUr,theancientSumeriancityonthefloodplainoftheEuphratesRiverinMesopota‑mia.Therearemanyreasonsforthisbutchiefamongthemistherichprovisioningofthesegravesandthelargenumberofhumansacrificesthataccompaniedthe interments (Pollock 1991, 171). The number ofsacrificial burials in these tombs and death pits isquite extraordinary. In the view of their excavator,SirLeonardWoolley,humansacrificeisthepreroga‑tiveofthegodhead,andsacrificeonthescaleseenatUrisclearindicationofthedeificationofroyalty.Itwashisviewthattheroyalgravesheldtheremainsof‘sacredordivinekings’whowereregarded,inthewordsoftheSumerianKingList,ashavingassumed

thekingshipthathad‘beensentdownfromonhigh’(Woolley1934,41).

Woolleywasbothanaccomplishedfieldarchae‑ologistandaprolificandtalentedprosestylist.Notonlydidheproduceacomprehensivemulti‑volumetechnicalreportoftheworkatUr,buthealsowovehisarchaeologicaldataintosomeofthemostartfulandwidelyquotedinterpretationsofancientlifeintheliteratureofarchaeology(Woolley1929;1953;1954).Hisvividandcompellingwritingsuccessfullymadethecasethat theroyalgravesare ‘snapshots’of thepastasitwaslivedatancientUr.Thesenseofsheeractualitygiventhesesnapshotsinhisproseleadsusreadily to the conclusion that the royal graves arewitnesstoasocietywherepeoplewentwillinglytotheirdeathsoutofloyalty,devotionandfaithintheirmonarch.Ofcourse,thisinterpretationmaybecorrect.Itistheargumentofthisarticle,however,thatwecanbynomeansbecertain.Whatiscertainisthattheroyalgravesarenotneutralsnapshotsatall.Rather,theyare

CambridgeArchaeologicalJournal16:2,123–44©2006McDonaldInstituteforArchaeologicalResearchdoi:10.1017/S0959774306000084PrintedintheUnitedKingdom.

124

D.BruceDickson

the remainsof carefully stagedandchoreographedpoliticaldramasthatportrayonlytheofficialor‘publictranscript’oftherulersofthatcity‑state.ThegravesthemselvesarepartoftheeffortmadebyUr’srulerstoestablishthelegitimacyoftheirgovernancebydem‑onstratingtheirsacred,holyandnon‑ordinarystatus.Thisalliancebetweenstatepowerandsupernaturalauthoritycreatedthe‘sacredordivinekingdoms’ofhistory, extraordinarily powerful forms of ancientgovernancethatLewisMumford(1967)preferstocall‘Mega‑machines’.Yet,mightyastheywere,sacredordivinekingdomshaddeepstructuralweaknessesorlimitations;theirgod‑kingsneededbothcontinuouscontactwiththesupernaturalandconstantaffirma‑tionoftheirdivinity.Theserequirementsobligedtheirrulersceaselesslytopractisetheatricalritesofpublicmystification,includingactsofcalculatedcruelty.His‑torypresentsuswithnumerousinstancesworldwide

ofsuchstatetheatresofcrueltystagedinthepursuitofpowerandlegitimacy.TheRoyalGravesatUrappeartobebutonesuchexample.

We can never knowwhether or not the rulersofUrsuccessfullytranscendedtheselimitations.Ur’skingsmay,infact,havebeenasstrongandstableandtheirsubjectsasloyalanddevotedastheorderedar‑raysofbodiesinthedeathpitsaremeanttosuggest.Withequaljustification,however,wemightconcludethatUr’sleaderswereweakandvulnerableandthattheirpracticeofritualsacrificeonaprofligatescalewasmeantatoncetoterrorizearestivecitizenryandtocon‑vincethemselvesandothersoftheirrighttorule.

Ur’sRoyalCemetery

Woolley’sexcavationswereundertakenaspartofanexpeditiontoUrsponsoredjointlybytheBritishMu‑

Figure1.MapofMesopotamiashowingthelocationofUrontheEuphratesRiver.

125

RoyalGravesatUrinMesopotamia

seumandtheUniversityofPennsylvaniaMuseumofArchaeology&Anthropology.Woolleydirected thisprojectoverfullytwelvefieldseasons(Fig.1).Duringfive seasons, between 1926 to 1932, he concentratedworkinthecemetery(Woolley1934,6–8).Althoughthisfieldworkresultedintheexcavationofatotalof1850,16‘royal’gravesfoundintheearliestportionofthecem‑eterystoodoutfromalltherest(Fig.2).Woolley(1934,33)insiststhattheiruniquenessisnotsimplyduetotheirriches;fourteenofthesixteenhadbeenplunderedinantiquityso‘theirwealthmustbetakenoncredit’.Rather,itisthepeculiaritiesoftheirstructuresandthegrimritualsthatmusthaveaccompaniedtheburialsthatdistinguishesthesegravesfromalltheothers.Tenof thesixteencontain large,substantiallybuilt stoneand,or,bricktombswithoneormorechambers.ItwasthesetenthatSirLeonardlabelledthe‘RoyalTombs.’The sixothergraves lacked tombs sohe referred tothesesimplyasthe‘RoyalDeathPits’(Fig.3).None‑

theless,itwashisopinionthatthesesixDeathPitshadalsooriginallycontainedtombsthatgraverobbershaddestroyedlongago.Hepresentslilledirectevidence,however,tosupportthisview.

Thetenremainingtombseachcontained—orhadoncecontained—theremainsofacentralorprimaryindividualwhohadlainwithinthetombchamber.Theremains of one ormore additional skeletonswithinmostofthesetombsindicatedthattheprincipalindi‑vidualhadnotbeeninterredalonebutthatsacrificialvictimshadbeenplacedinthetombatthesametime.Additional individualswereburiedintheunroofed,sunkencourtyardthateithersurroundedthetomborwas built adjacent to it.1 Skeletal remainswere alsofoundintheshansleadingdowntosomeofthetombs,suggestingthatsacrificescontinuedtobemadeasthetombanddeath‑pitcomplexwasrefilled.

Almostfromtheoutsetofthediscovery,Woolleyappearstohaveregardedthesixteentombsanddeath

Figure2.MapoftheRoyalCemeteryatUr(Woolley1934,pl.273).

126

D.BruceDickson

pitsasthegravesofroyalty,andmuchofwhathelaterwroteofUrwaspredicatedonthispremise.Nonethe‑less,tothisdaytheidentitiesoftheputativedynastsintheso‑calledroyalgravesremainanopenquestion.

IntermentsingravesPG789andPG800

OfalltheRoyalGraves,Woolleyseemstohavebeenparticularly impressedbyPG789andPG800.ThestoneandbricktombinPG800was locatedatoneendofadeep, rectangulardeathpit thatmeasured4 by 11.75 metres. Beneath this pit was a seconddeathpit anda second tomb,PG789.The tomb inPG789measured4by1.8metresandwasalsobuiltofstoneandmudbrick(Woolley1934,62). Inspiteof thesuperimpositionof thedeathpits, the tombsinPG789andPG800werebuiltnexttooneanotheronaboutthesamelevel(Fig.4).Together,thesetwoburialcomplexesproducedrichgravegoodsandthe

skeletalremainsofatleast86humanbeings.

PG789Only fragments of the bones of theprincipal occupant of the tomb ingrave PG 789 were recovered. Thebulkoftheskeletonwasmissing.Thisabsence, coupledwith the disorderevidentinsidethetomb,suggeststhatthebodyhadbeenremovedandtheassociated grave goods plunderedat some time in antiquity. Woolleybelievesthattherobberymostlikelytookplaceduringconstructionofthesecond tombnext to it ingravePG800.Lootedornot,thetombingravePG 789 still yielded valuable objetsd’art.Recoveredwithinthestructurewas the celebrated ‘Silver Boat’, amodelofawatercrannotunlikethemodern Iraqi taradas (Bahrani 1995,1637),awoodenstatuecoveredwithgoldleaf,shellandlapislazuliwhichWoolley named ‘The Ram in theThicket’andconnected to theBibli‑calstoryofAbrahamandIsaac,andanumberofother,equallyextraordi‑naryartefacts.Inthehugefive‑by‑tenmetredeathpitadjacenttothetombwererecoveredtheskeletalremainsofsome63adultsaswellastwowheeledvehicles,completewiththebonesofthedrananimalsthathaddrawnthem

(Woolley1934,62–5).Woolleyconcludesthatalloftheseindividualshadbeensacrificedandinterred—alongwiththerichgravegoods,vessels,food,clothingandmusical instruments—at the time that theprimaryintermentwasplacedinthetomb(Fig.5).Werethesepeoplekilledelsewhereandthenbroughttothetombfor burial? Probably not: a careful comparative andfunctional analysis of the stone, metal and ceramicvesselsrecoveredfromtheroyalgravesleadsWinter(1999)andCohen(2000,6)toconcludethatparticipantsintheburialceremonyperformedaseriesofformallychoreographedritualsandtookpartinalargefeastorbanquetatthebolomofthegraveshanjustpriortotheirsacrificeandentombment.

PG800Unlike the tomb in PG 789, the burial structure inPG800stillhelditsprimaryoccupantandshowednosigns of having been looted. This rectangular struc‑

Figure3.GeneralplanofthecemeteryareaatUrcontainingtheRoyalGraves.TheRoyalTombsarerepresentedwithsolid,theRoyalDeathPitswithhatchedlines(Woolley1934,pl.274).

127

RoyalGravesatUrinMesopotamia

turemeasured4.35by2.8metresandwasbuiltoflimestoneslabsandmudbricks. Upon opening it, Woolleyfounditcontainedaraisedplatform,orbier,onwhich layaskeletonstillwearinganelaborateheaddress thatincluded a long band of gold, goldleaves, carnelian rings, lapis lazulibeadsandafive‑pointedgoldenbar‑rele decorated with gold and lapislazuliflowers.Ahugepairofcrescent‑shapedgoldearringsoncehungfromtheearsandtheentireupperpartofthebodyhadbeencoveredwithjewel‑lerymadeofgoldandsemi‑preciousstones(Woolley1934,84–7).

By the right shoulder of thisskeleton,excavatorsfoundthreelapislazulicylinderseals.InscribedononesealisthenamePu‑abiandthetitlenin(Woolley1934,88).Whenapplied tomortalwomen, theSumerianwordninisgenerallytranslatedas‘queen’(Moorey1977,27).Fromthis,WoolleyinfersthatPu‑abiwasthenameoftheprimaryinterment,thatshewasqueenofUratthetimeofherdeathandthatshewasmostlikelythewifeoftheprimaryintermentor‘king’buriedintheadjacenttombinPG789.ThesecondcylindersealborethenameA‑bara‑giandWoolleyinfersthatthiswasthenameofthatroyalhusband.Twoadditionalskeletonscrouchedorlayonthetombfloorattheheadandfootoftheraisedplatform.Fromtheirelaborateheaddresses,Woolleyconcludesthattheseweremaidsor ladies‑in‑waiting toPu‑abi (Woolley1934,84).Athirdskeletonlayalongsidethebier.ThesmallknivesandawhetstoneassociatedwiththisindividualleadsWoolleytopresumetheskeletonwasmale.Skullfrag‑mentsofafourthindividualwerealsorecoveredinthetomb(Woolley1934,88).

Althoughexcavatedtoadepthofsevenmetresbelowthemoderngroundsurface,thebolomofthePG800courtyardjustreachedtherooftopofthetombofPu‑abisetwithinit.Thefloorofthiscourtyardhadbeenlinedwithreedmats,anditwasconnectedtothegroundabovebyasteepearthenramp(Woolley1934,73).Asledge,withthebonesofthetwoonagersthatpresumablyhadoncepulledit,wasfoundinthiscourtyardtogetherwiththeskeletonsof26people,allofwhomappeartobeadults.Tenoftheseskeletonswerethoughttobefemalesbecausetheywerefoundtobewearinglavishheaddressesandjewellerynearlyas complex and beautiful as that of Pu‑abi herself(Bahrani 1995, 1636). Five others, associated withweaponsandwearinghelmets,were thought tobe

Figure4.SectionshowingtherelativepositionofRoyalTombPG789andPG800(Woolley1934,detailoffig.10).

Figure5.PlanofRoyalTombPG789showingtherelativepositionsofthetombandthedeathpit.ThehatchedrectangleatthetopoftheplanshowsthelocationofPu‑abi’stombchamber(Woolley1934,pl.29).

128

D.BruceDickson

malesoldiers.Thebonesoffive individuals,mixedwithornear thoseof theonagers,were thought tobemalegroomsorsledgedrivers.Threeskeletons,atleastoneofwhomwasthoughttobemale,werefoundnearalargewardrobechest.ThusWoolleyconcludesthattwelvewomen,elevenmenandthreepersonsofunknownsexwereinterredalongwithQueenPu‑abiinPG800(Fig.6).

ThesegenderalributionsrevealoneofthegreatdefectsinWoolley’swork:allbutatinyfractionofthe

skeletalmaterialsexcavatedfromthevastcemeteryatUrwerediscarded(Molleson & Hodgson 2003, 91–3).Let us set aside our regret for theinvaluablegeneticandbiometricin‑formationlostatUrandsimplynotethat,asaconsequence,thereportedsexual identitiesof theskeletons inthe royal gravesmust be regardedasprovisionalatbest.Unfortunately,such uncertainty about the sex ofthese skeletons materially affectsour understanding of the deathrituals that took place at the royalgraves. Cohen (2000, 6) notes thatcuneiform texts mention that gala,cross‑dressing lamentation singers,were frequently included amongthemournersatSumerianfunerals.Hesuggests,therefore,thatsomeoftheputativefemaleskeletonsfoundwearing elaborate headdresses andfine jewellery in the royal gravesmight, infact,bemale.Anerall,asZainab Bahrani (2001, 117–20; cf.Marcus1994)emphasizes,Mesopo‑tamiangenderedidentitymayhavedifferedinsomewaysfromourownbutwehavelillereasontosupposeitwasanylessnuanced.

Whodescendedintothedeathpits?

Woolley sees evidence that thesepeople descended into the pit anddied there, if notwillingly, at leastpassively.Accordingtohim,

one could not but remark thepeacefulness of the bodies; allwereinorder,notonlysetoutinneatrowsbutindividuallypeace‑ful;therewasnosignofviolence,not even such disturbance ofthe delicate head‑dresses of the

Figure6.PlanofRoyalTombPG800showingrelativepositionsofthetombandthedeathpit(Woolley1934,pl.36).

womenaswasalmostboundtoresultdidthewearermerelyfall;theydiedlyingorsiling(Woolley1934,35–6).

Butwhatwasthesourceofthatpassivity?Thesocialoroccupationalrolesoftheindividualssacrificedandinterredintheroyalgravesholdssomeclues.Thesepeopleseem

tobeonlytheimmediatehouseholdstaffofthebur‑ieddignitary.Thereisnoevidenceofchildrenandnoclearevidenceoftheself‑immolationofwivesat

129

RoyalGravesatUrinMesopotamia

theirhusband’sfuneral.Wheremenmaybesecurelyidentifiedamongthehumanvictimstheyareusuallyeitherarmedguards,groomsorcharioteers(Moorey1977,35).

Theclassasymmetryofthisstatusdistributionisobvi‑ous.Onlymembersofthe‘lowerorders’,presumablytheleastpowerfulmembersofsociety,descendedintothedeathpits.Pollock(1991,177)suggeststhatmanyofthesepeoplemayhavebeenmeniallabourerswho‘belonged’ to thepublic institutions like the templeorthepalaceand,inreturnfortheirlabour,receivedsubsistencerations.Molleson&Hodgson’s(2003,91)recentanalysisoftheentiresurvivingskeletalsamplecollectedbyWoolleyatUrreachconclusionsconsist‑entwithPollock’shypothesis.Accordingtothem,six‑teenskullsorwholeskeletonsinthissamplecollectionapparentlycamefromtheRoyalCemetery.Ofthesesixteenspecimens,twoappeartohavebeensoldiersand eight were presumably alendants to variouscentralfiguresburiedintheRoyalGravesanddeathpits. The skeletons of four of the eight alendants,specimensPG211,PG1573,PG1648aandPG1648d,werefoundtoexhibitextraordinarydegreesofshapealteration,robusticityandmuscledevelopmentrarelyobservedinskeletalpopulationsanywhereelse.Bonesaremostreadilymodelledbyforces imposeduponthemwhiletheindividualisstillgrowing.Molleson&Hodgson(2003)consideritlikelythereforethattheexceptionalskeletalalterationsobservedinthesefouralendantshadresultedfromtherelentlessperform‑ance—beginning inchildhood—ofactivities likecharioteering(specimenPG1573)andthecarryingofheavyloadsontheheadorback(specimensPG211,PG1648a&PG1648d).InMolleson&Hodgson’sview(2003,91),evidenceofsuchheavyandintensivelabouratsuchanearlyage‘impliesarolespecializationthatamountstochildlabour,evenslavery’.

Yet,whoeverthesealendantswere,itseemsclearwho theywerenot.AtUr,neither royal spousenorroyaloffspringseemstohaveaccompaniedthekingorqueeninthegrave;2noblecourtiers,high‑templeof‑ficials,viziersandgeneralsdonotappeartohavebeenrequiredtoalendtheroyalpersonageintheanerlife.Suchinjusticeneedcomeasnosurprise.Anerall,

theformationandmaintenanceofelites,andthenofeliteswithinelites,lieattheheartofcivilizations:inequality is fundamental ... In the most ancientcivilization,elitescontrolledmaterialandsymbolicresourcesbutwere scarcely subject to cultural re‑quirementstodisbursetheminfulfillmentofsocialobligations(Baines&Yoffee1998,234).

Or, itwould seem,wereUr’s eliteobliged tomakeultimatesacrificesorfatalbeauxgestes.

DidtheRoyalGravescontainroyalty?

Anertwelvebrilliantfieldseasons,Woolleyclosedex‑cavationsatUrin1932.Duringtheyearsthatfollowed,heandhiscolleaguesproducedamulti‑volumefinalreport.Further,inhispopularwritings,Woolley(1929;1953;1954)wovethedatafromPG789andPG800andotherroyalgravesintooneofthefinestinterpre‑tationsofancientlifeinthearchaeologicalliterature.Nonetheless, neither Woolley’s archaeological, norhiscultural,interpretationsoftheroyalgraveshaveremainedunchallenged.

In all of this writing,Woolley expresses lilledoubt that the tombshehadexcavatedatUrwerethe graves of royalty. Itwas not, however, just therichnessandthehorrorthatconvincedhimoftheirroyal nature. As noted, the seal recovered fromPG800referredtoPu‑abiasninorqueen.Woolleyalsorecoveredtwosealswiththenamesofindividualsdescribedaslugal.Oneofthese,thesealofLugal‑sa‑pa‑da,wasfoundnearoneofthegroomsinPu‑abi’sdeathpit(Moorey1977,24).TheSumerianwordlugalisgenerallytranslatedas‘king’(Pollock1985,140)but,aslumeans‘man’inSumerianandgalmeans‘great’or‘big’,theliteralmeaningofthetermis‘greatman’or‘bigman’.Inanycase,theindividualwhoheldsuchatitleprobablyexercisedacompoundofpowersandresponsibilitiesthat,inthemodernworld,wouldbeassignedseparatelytopriest,judge,warleaderandprimeminister(Moorey1977,37).

Unfortunately,thenamesofneitherofthelugalfromthesesealsappearsontheSumerianKingList,theearliesthistoricalrecordofkingshipinMesopota‑mia.TheSumerianKingListwassystematicallycom‑piledbyBabylonianscholarsfromancienttraditionsandinscriptionspreservedinthemajorcity‑statesofSumer.Itcontainsthenamesofallthekingsreputedto have ruled in Sumer following the Great Floodwhen ‘kingshipwassentdownfromonhigh’untiltheendoftheDynastyofIsinin1794BC,andthelisthasservedasalynchpininthechronologyofMeso‑potamia(Jacobsen1939).However,asHenriFrankfort(1932,6)notes,thelistis‘demonstrablycorrupt’andmanyotherscholarshavecommentedonitstenden‑tious,propagandistic,perhapsevenfictitious,nature(Michalowski1983,240,243).

Corruptornot,WoolleyrecoveredarchaeologicalandstylisticevidencethatmayaccountfortheabsenceofthenamesofthetwolugalfromtheRoyalTombsfromtheSumerianKingList.SealimpressionsbearingthenamesofMesanepadaandhiswifewho,accordingtothelist,werethefoundersofthefirstdynastyofUr,wererecoveredinarubbishstratumseveralmetres

130

D.BruceDickson

above the Royal Tombs. This stratum was labelled‘SealImpressionStrata’orS.I.S2‑1byWoolley.ThedesignsonthesesealsappeartobestylisticallylaterthanthetworecoveredfromtheRoyalTombs.ThisstratigraphicandformalevidenceisconsistentwiththehypothesisthattheoccupantsofthosegreattombsprecededtheMesanepadadynastyonthethroneofUr(Pollock1985,140).

Yet,determiningwhethertheoccupantsoftheroyalgraveswereUr’sroyaltymayhingeonestab‑lishingaproperchronologyforthetombsthemselves(Nissen1966,107–18).Mostcommonly,thesearchaeo‑logicalfeaturesaredatedtoc.2500BCandplacedintheEarlyDynasticIIIAor‘Fara’period(Poradaetal.1992,100).Radiocarbonassaysofmaterialsfromthetombsreturneddatesbetween2600and2500BC.Basedonthesedates,Moorey(1977,24;1994,177)concludesthatthevariousgraveswereconstructedbetween2650and2500BC.However,anerarecentre‑analysisoftheentirequestion,Reade(2001,18)usestherecentlycon‑structed ‘Ultra‑LowChronology’of southwestAsiatoproposethattheoldestoftheUrroyalgravesisnoearlierthanc.2390standthatthelastandyoungestofthemisinplacebyc.2280BC.ItishisviewthatsomeofoccupantsofthesetombsareinfactkingslistedintheSumerianKingList.Forexample,ReadeproposesthatthebuildingofthePG789/800complextookplacelateenoughinthesequenceoftombconstructiontoallowtheoccupantoftombPG789tobeMesanepadahimselforperhapsMeskalamdug,anotherearlykingontheSumerianKingListwhosecylindersealwasfoundintheshanofPG1054.Reade’sre‑analysisofthedataleadshimtorejectWoolley’sviewthatA‑bara‑giorsomeotherunknown,unrecordedroyalpredecessoroccupiesPG789(Reade2001,21–2).Ifheiscorrect,Reade answers the objection that the occupants oftheroyalgravescannotbekingsofUrbecausetheirnamesdonotappearontheSumerianKingList.

The difficulty of connecting the occupants oftheroyalgraveswiththeSumerianKingListisnotthe only source of disagreement betweenWoolleyandhis critics.Anumberof scholars,mostnotablyAntonMoortgatandHenriFrankfort,rejecttheroyaldesignationforthetombsaltogether.

Moortgat(1945)suggeststhatthetombscontainnotthekingsandqueensofUrbut‘actors’sacrificedinadramaticreligiousceremonyliketheNewYearceremony(AkituinAkkadian,ZagmukinSumerian)knowntohavebeenpractisedinBabyloninhistorictimes.IntheAkituceremony,thegodDumuzirosefromthetomb,therebyguaranteeingtheharvestandinsuring the fertility of humans and their animals.However,atleastasregardstheburialidentifiedas

Pu‑abiinPG800,thisinterpretationseemsunlikely.ThebonesofPu‑abiwerecollectedduringtheexcava‑tion.Subsequentosteologicalanalysisrevealedthemtobethatofawomaninher40s,surelyanoddchoiceas a surrogate for a fertility goddess as Moortgatsuggests.Moretellingstill,humansacrificewasnotapartoftheAkituceremonyand1500yearsormoreseparates itspractice inBabylonfromtheevents intheEarlyDynasticcemeteryatUr.

HenriFrankfort(1948,400)dismissesWoolley’sinterpretationwithasinglefootnote.Weddedtothetheory that kingship in Egypt and Mesopotamiawereprofoundlydifferent,largelybecauseprimitivedemocracyprecededtheemergenceofmonarchyinthelalerregion,FrankfortisapparentlyunpreparedtoacceptevidenceofthepresenceofsacredordivinekingsinSumerasearlyas2500BC. Inhisview,theprimaryinterments intheRoyalGravesatUrwerenot true royalty but merely ‘substitute’ kings andqueens. He arrives at this interpretation using thehistorically documentedMesopotamian practice oftemporarilywithdrawingakingfromservicewhendisasterthreatenedandinsteadexposingasubstitutetothedangerorevensacrificingsuchapersontothegodsinplaceoftherealking(Frankfort1948,264;cf.Scurlock1995).

MoortgatandFrankfortplacegreaterrelianceonthetextsthanonthearchaeologicalevidence,buttheUrburialspredatethetextsusedbythesetwoschol‑arsbymorethanamillenniumandahalf.Thus,theirinterpretationsbeginwiththeassumptionthatthesehistorically known religious and cultural practiceshadenduredessentiallyunchangedforanimmenseperiodoftime.Woolley’s—andReade’s—interpre‑tationmakesnosuchassumptionandisbolsteredbythestratigraphicandstylisticdatafromthecemeterydiscussedabove.

More recently, a revaluation of excavationrecordsatthesitesuggeststhattombsPG789andPG800may,infact,containthesuperimposedevidenceofthreegreatintermentdramas.Zimmerman(1998,39)providesanumberofcompellingreasonstosup‑posethatthisthirddeathpitlaybeneaththetwothatWoolleyexcavatedandisprobablytheoneactuallyassociatedwiththePG800tomb(butReade2001,22).Ifthisreadingofthearchaeologicalrecordiscorrect,we must reject certain of Woolley’s archaeologicalinterpretations.Forexample,ifthedeathpitactuallyassociatedwithPG800wasbeneaththetwodeathpitsexcavatedbyWoolley, thenthe intermentofPu‑abipredatesthatoftheindividualinPG789andWool‑ley’s interpretation of the relationship between theburialofPu‑abiandherputativehusband,A‑bara‑gi,

131

RoyalGravesatUrinMesopotamia

mustberevised.However,Zimmerman’sworkdoesnotfalsifyoreveneffectWoolley’shypothesisthatthetombscontainedtheremainsofUr’sroyalty.

Unfortunately,wewillprobablyneverbeentirelycertain of the construction chronology of the royalgraves,neverknowhowmanygreatburialceremonieswereheldatthePG789/800locationandneverfullydivinetheoriginalmotivesbehindtheseburialrites.What is significant for the argument of this article,however,isthatsuchritestookplaceatallwhentheydidandwheretheydid.Whatevertheirorder,numberormotive,sacrificialburialsonthescalepractisedatUrarecertainevidencethat,bythemiddleofthethirdmillenniumBC,socialformationsinlowerMesopotamiawerehighlystratifiedandpossessedofextraordinarycoercive power. These remains sharply reflect, andeloquentlytestifyto,theemergenceandinstitutionali‑zationofanewanddistinctlysinisterformofhumanaction.Giventhisreflectionandtestimony—coupledwiththerichesofthesiteandthedramaalendantonitscreation—itissmallwonderthattheroyalgravesatUrhavefoundtheirwayontoevery‘World’sGreatestSites’listfromC.W.CeramtoBrianFagan.

Siteresolution

Riches,dramaandsacrificearenottheonlyreasonsthesiteisconsideredsignificant.TheroyalgravesatUralsoconformtothepopular—andgenerallyer‑roneous—conceptionofanarchaeologicalsite.Forthepublic, archaeological sites canbe examinedasonewouldaflypreservedinamber.Thatis,sitesareimaginedtoappearascoherentremnantspresentingclear,readilyinterpretablepicturesofancienttimesandplaces.Pompeiifitsthisconception,forexample,asdoesTutankhamun’stomborthecliffdwellingsatMesaVerdeor thegreatPueblosatChacoCanyon.Unfortunately,fewotherarchaeologicalsitesarelikethoseplacesatall.Mostaremorelikegrabbagsthanflies in amber, more like grandmother’s alic thanfrozen pictures of the past. Most are admixtures,interfusionsorcompositesbecausethegreatmajorityofsitesrepresenttheaccumulatedremainsofmanyactsoreventsovertime.Theircontentshaveusuallybeendisturbedandalteredbynaturalprocessesorlaterhumanactivityorboth,andthearchaeologicalmaterial they contain is onen in secondary, ratherthanprimary,context.Thatis,thematerialisnotinitsoriginallocationorassociatedwiththeobjectswithwhichithadformerlybeenused(Schiffer1987).

Thephrase‘siteresolution’referstothedegreetowhichtheremainsatasitereflecttheancienthumanbehaviourandculturallifethatoncetookplaceonit.

Intheground,orderbecomesdisorder,anddisorderdiminishessiteresolution.Asasite’sresolutionde‑clinesovertime,itbecomesincreasinglydifficultto‘read’thearchaeologicalremainsandunderstandhowtheywereformed.Tounderstandthestructureofthepast,thearchaeologistmustrediscovertheorderthathasbeendistortedbytheforcesofdisorderorentropy.Atmostsites,thisisdifficult.Atsomesites,itisimpos‑sible.IntheRoyalgraves,itseemsalmosteasy.

IfWoolley(ratherthanZimmerman)iscorrect,theintermentsPG789andPG800followedonean‑other in fairly rapidsuccession. Initially, theearlierPG789tomb,identifiedbyitsexcavatorasthatofaking,wasconstructedatthebaseofadeepshan.Theareaaroundthistombwasenlargedtoaccommodateaseriesofritualsandsacrifices.Thetombwasthensealedandtheshananddeathpitwerebackfilledwithearth.Some time later, thisfirst tombshanwas re‑excavatedandenlargedtoformasecondrectangularpitwithaslopingramp.Thisexcavationrevealedtheking’stomb,whichwasthenbrokenopenandlooted.Asecondtombwasthenbuiltadjacenttothefirstatthefarendoftherectangularpitoppositetheramp.Someofthecontentsremovedfromthefirsttombap‑peartohavebeenre‑usedinthesecondinterment.Fol‑lowingthesecondinterment—andthesacrificesthataccompaniedit—thesecondtombwassealedandthepitwasbackfilled.Organicandinorganicdecaybegandegradingthecontentsimmediately.Fortunately,thegraverobberswhowereactiveinothergravesinthecemeteryapparentlymissedPG800.Thereaner,theroyal graves layundisturbed— likeflies in amber—untilarchaeologicalexcavationsbeganatUrintheearlytwentiethcentury.

The high site resolution of the Royal Gravesseemstoreflectancient life inaclearanddramaticmanner.Firstofall,thematerialsinthemconstitute‘grave lots,’ that is, groups of objects thatwere allburiedtogetherallowingustoinferthatthejewellery,weapons,musicalinstruments,costumes,andotherelaborate artefactswereall inuseamongmembersofUr’selitec.2500BC.Further,itisclearfromtheseremainsthatUrwassociallystratified,occupationallyspecializedandpossessedofapoliticalorganizationpowerfulenoughtocompel—orconvincingenoughtoinduce—peopletosacrificethemselvesonbehalfofthecollective.

Snapshotsofthepast?

Given the high resolution in theRoyalGraves, it isindeedtemptingtoconcludethattheyare‘snapshots’oflifeasitwaslivedatancientUr.Asnotedearlier,we

132

D.BruceDickson

might,therefore,concludethatthegravesarewitnesstoasocietywherepeoplewentwillinglytotheirdeathsoutofloyalty,devotionorfaithintheirmonarch(Fig.7).Woolleywascertainlypersuadedthatthiswasthecaseandsuggeststhatreferencetothe‘sacrifice’ofthesepeopleismisleading.Asheputsit(1934,41–2),

itappearsmorelikelythattheywerenotkilledinhonourofthedeadkingnorbecausetheirtermofservicemustendwithhislife,butweregoingwiththeirdivinemastertocontinuetheirserviceundernewconditions,possiblyevenassuringthemselvestherebyofalessnebulousandmiserableexistenceintheanerworldthanwasthelotofmendyingintheordinaryway:thedegreeoffaithwhichwouldmakedeaththegatewayoflifehasnotbeenunknowninprimitiveages.Ifitbetruethatthemembersoftheking’s courtwhowent downwithmusic into thegravedidsomoreorlessvoluntarily,thatitwasaprivilegeratherthanadoompronouncedonthem,thenitisafactmostimportantforourviewofearlySumerianreligionandculture.

Of course,Woolleymight be correct. To adopt thisview,however,wemusttaketheancientSumeriansattheirword.And,todoso,inmyopinionwouldbe

amistake.Theimagesweseeareneithercompletenorneutral.TheintentionalnatureofthesiteformationoftheRoyalGravesguaranteesthatwehavereceivedhighlyselectivepicturesindeed.Thegravesitescon‑taintheremainsofpoliticaldramasorspectacles.Theydisplayonlythoseaspectsofsocietyfavourabletothepowers thatorchestrated thedramas.The tensions,ambiguitiesandsocialconflictsthatmustsurelyhaveexistedinthecityarenotapparent.Thus,theremainsatUrconstitute‘officialdocuments’whosemessagemust, like any other historical texts, be scrutinizedwithscepticism.Intheroyalgraves,wearenotlookingatUrasitwasinsheeractuality.Rather,whatweseearethetangibleremainsofthewaytherulingpowersatthesitewantedUrtobe.TheRoyalGravesatUrare‘publictranscripts’.

Transcripts,publicandhidden

Statesocietiescontainmanyconceptionsorversionsoftheirsocialreality.JamesScol(1990)callsthesever‑sions‘transcripts’andclassesthemaseither‘public’or‘hidden’.

Figure7.Thismovingandimaginativedepictionofthemise‑en‑scèneinRoyalGravePG789justpriortothemassdeathoftheroyalretainerswaspublishedbyTheIllustratedLondonNewsonJune23,1928.Itwaspartofthatpaper’sdetailedcoverageofWoolley’sdiscoveriesatUr.Notethatwailingandgnashingofteethhavenoplaceonthiscanvas.Resignation,notfear,isevidentintheserriedranksofthoseabouttoaccompanythedivinequeenintotheaber‑life.Thusdoesthetwentieth‑centuryBritishartistportraythepublictranscriptofUrinafashionthatwouldsurelyhavepleasedandsatisfieditsancientrulers.

133

RoyalGravesatUrinMesopotamia

AccordingtoScol,apublictranscriptistheof‑ficialversionexpressedoractedoutpubliclyonritualoccasionsorinparadesandperformances.Suchpublicritualsarecommonlymeanttoconveytheimpressionoftheunanimityandloyaltyofthemembersofthesocietyandthestrengthandresolveofitsrulers.Theovertmessage of the public transcript is generally:‘This is agreat system!’.However, such transcriptsalsocarrythecovertmessage:‘Likeitornot,thissys‑temisheretostay!’.Or,moremenacingly,‘Acceptourpowerandwewillprotectyoufromworseviolence—ofwhichwecangiveyouasample,ifyoudon’tbelieveus’(Mann1986,100).

In repressive political selings, official publictranscriptshave shadowothers—hiddenversionsofsocialrealityexpressedonlysecretlyamongpeers.When expressed publicly at all, hidden transcriptsappearindisguisedoranonymousformingraffiti,ru‑mour,songs,jokes,gestures,folktalesorgossip.Thesemodesofexpressionallowthepowerlesstoinsinuateacritiqueofthepowerfulinamannerthatdoesnotcross intooutright insubordination.Theovertmes‑sageofthehiddentranscriptis‘See,understand,butremainsilentorcautious’.Thecovertmessageis‘Wearenotfooled!’.Inthefrontispieceofhisbook,Scol(1990)citesanoldEthiopianproverbthatillustratesthe spirit of hidden transcripts everywhere: ‘Whenthegreatlordpasses,thewisepeasantbowsdeeplyandsilentlyfarts’.

States,publictranscriptsandlegitimacy

StatesfirstappearinhistoryduringtheUrukperiodsometimebetweenc.3800and3200BConthefloodplainoftheEuphratesRiverinsouthernMesopotamia.There is a gooddeal of scholarlydebate regardingthenatureofthesepolities.However,itseemslikelythattheywere‘city‑states’,small,autonomousurbancentreswherekeyeconomic,politicalandreligiousfunctions were folded together in a powerful cer‑emonialcentrethatruledthehinterlandsfromwhichitdrewitssustenance(Yoffee1995,284–5).Althoughbynomeanstheearliest,Urwasapparentlysuchacity‑state.

As thesecity‑states tookshape inSumer, theybegan to found colonies in Syria andAnatolia, ap‑parentlytoobtaincertainkeyrawmaterialsthatwereabsent on the southern alluvium of Mesopotamia.Theestablishmentandadministrationoftheselong‑distancecolonialtradingnetworksappearatfirsttohavestimulatedthedevelopmentofsocialandeco‑nomic complexity in Sumer (Algaze 1989; 1993a,b;Oates1993;Pollock1992)andlatertohavestretched

theseinstitutionstothebreakingpointandcontrib‑utedtotheircollapseattheendofthefourthmillen‑niumandtheirreconstitutiononasmallerscaleearlyinthethirdmillenniumBC(Yoffee1995,288).

Inanycase,theseearlyMesopotamianpolitieswere the first to combine the alributes that char‑acterize all later state organizations. They tried tomonopolizeforcewithintheirterritories;theydranedmenforworkandwar;theytaxedtheirsubjects;andtheyredistributedsomeofthetaxforpublicpurposes(Carneiro 1970; Dickson 1987). All states, ancientandmodern,dothese things.However, in theeyesoftheircitizens,theydothemeitherlegitimatelyorillegitimately.

Theoretically,atleast,politicalformationsmaybe ruled by pure force. In practical fact, however,‘justhowdominantanddurablearulingordercanbe depends on how far it convinces others— anditself—ofitsrighttoruleanditsabilitytorule’(Col‑ley1992,193).That is tosay,permanenceofrule isachievedonlywhenrulersandcitizensalikeconsidertheirgovernancetobelegitimate(Weber1947;1962).Inordertobelegitimate,aformofgovernancemustnotsimplybeconsideredlegal,althoughthatisapartofit.Inaddition,itsrulemustberecognizedasright,naturalandcapable.Governmentsandrulersestablishthelegitimacyoftheirrulebycivilornuminousmeansorboth.Civillegitimacyisbaseduponassertionsofroyaldescent,traditionorpublicservice;numinouslegitimacy is based upon the sacred, the holy andthe non‑ordinary. The loss or disestablishment oflegitimacyinapolityiscalleda‘legitimationcrisis’byHabermas(1975).

God‑kings

Habermas (1975) remindsus that, even in a stable,modern, industrialized nation‑state, questions oflegitimacy can render governance precarious. Thatbeingso,itiseasytoimaginehowdeeplychallengingthefirstrulersoftheSumeriancity‑statesmusthavefoundtheproblemofestablishingandmaintaininglegitimacy.Thecity‑state,anerall,wasanewformof socio‑political organization in the fourthmillen‑niumBC.Beingsuch,itsfirstrulershadto‘makeitallup’astheywentalong.Consensusonjusthowthoseearly rulers solved the problem of governance hasthusfareludedscholarsofMesopotamia.Nonethe‑less,althoughdisagreeingondetails,mostconsideritlikelythatsomeformoftheocraticrulecharacterizedthe early polities in Sumer.Adams (1966) sees thepoliticalevolutionofurbancivilization insouthernMesopotamiaasbeginningduring theProtoliterate

134

D.BruceDickson

periodwithtownsandnascentcity‑statesgovernedbyreligiousfunctionariesor‘priests’headingtempleestatesorinstitutions.InthecourseofpowerstrugglesduringthethirdmillenniumBC,heseestherulershipof priests and temples based on numinous legiti‑macyreplacedbythatoflugal(warleaders‑cum‑bigmen‑cum‑kings)andbypalaceestatesorinstitutionslegitimized,onesupposes,largelybycivilmeans(cf.Jacobsen1957,91–140;1976,77–81;Gelb1968).Nissen(1988,141),whorejectsthisformulationassimplistic,nonethelessconcedesthattextsfromthelaterEarlyDynastic period do suggest ‘that there must havebeendifferentformsofpoliticalleadership,ofwhichatleastonecanbedesignatedas“theocratic”,whereastheotherscannotbecharacterizedsounambiguously’.Nissen’scautiousformulationseemsplausible,asitisunlikelythattheseearlykingswereentirelysecularmonarchs.Rather, theyshouldbeseenas retainingelements of priestly authority and sacerdotal dutybutaugmentingthesewithgreatercivilandmilitarypower.Inanyevent,althoughthepoweroftemplees‑tateandpalaceestatewithintheSumeriancity‑statesmusthavewaxedandwanedrelativetooneanother,theconsolidationofpowerinthehandsofthelugalandthepalaceinstitutionsappearstobewellunderway at Ur during the Early Dynastic period. Thisconsolidationofroyalpowermayhavebeenspurredbytherising levelofcompetitionandwarfareoveragriculturallandandtraderoutes.Yet,whateverthesourceofthechanginglandscapeofpowerinthecity‑states,theearlylugalinthosepolitiesmusthavefacedconstantlegitimationcrises.

ThelegitimationprobleminsouthwesternAsiawascreativelysolved—partially,at least—bythedevelopmentof a curiousnew formofgovernancethatclaimedbothcivilandnuminouslegitimacy:thesacredordivinekingship.AtvarioustimesandplacesinsouthwesternAsia,kingscametoberegardedasoutrightgodsonearth,asdescendantsoroffspringofthegods,asmenuniquelyprotectedbythegodsordivinelyinspiredbythem,orasextraordinarymenchosenbythegodstoruleandthereforepossessedofadivineright tobeking.Asdivineagents, suchkings were commonly regarded as receptacles ofsupernatural power, insurers of the land’s fertility,guarantorsofthestate’ssecurity,ultimatefontsofitslawandinterpretersofthewillofthegods.AsBaines&Yoffee(1998,206)note,suchmonarchs,inrelationtoandincombinationwiththegods,offered‘acentrallegitimationthatoverrodethe ‘moraleconomies’ofsmallersocialorganizations’withinthestatesuchaskinshipgroups,tribesorothertraditionalsocialfor‑mations.Insum,thesacredordivinekingshipwasa

theoreticalclaimofinviolablesovereigntyfortheap‑paratusofthestateandapracticalcoalitionofroyalmilitarypowerandreligiousauthority.Thisisapow‑erfulpoliticalformula,anditseemstohaveworkedatUr.Perhapsaproxymeasureofthesuccessoftheideaofthedivinekinshipmaybethefactthat,anerascantthreegenerations,thepracticeofprovisioningroyalburialswithhumansacrificialvictimsnolongerprovednecessaryatUr.

LewisMumford(1967)calledthisformofgov‑ernance a ‘Mega‑machine’ because, by combiningcoercivepowerandsupernaturalauthority,kingshipswereabletoassembleandorganizemanpoweronascalefarlargerthananythingseenbeforethem.ThealliancethatforgedtheMega‑machineenabledearlysacredordivinekingdomstosuccessfullyundertakeandcompletehugepublic irrigationworksanden‑gineeringprojectsonthescaleofthegreatzigguratsandevengreaterpyramids.Italsoheightenedlevelsofviolenceandwarfareamongtheearlystates.Theinnovativefusingofroyalpowerwiththepretensionofdivinityisevidentalsointhewidespreadadoptionorrepeatedre‑inventionofthisformofgovernance.SacredordivinekingscametorulenotonlyinthepristineorprimarycivilizationsonthefloodplainsofMesopotamiaandEgyptbutalsointhesecondarycivilizationsthatsurroundedthem.Variousformsofsacredordivinekingshiparetobefoundthroughouttheworld (Claessen 1978, 556; Feeley‑Harnik 1985;Firth1981,586–90;Muller1981;Skalník1978,606–7).TheyareparticularlycommoninSub‑SaharanAfrica(Evans‑Pritchard 1964; Fagg 1970; Fortes & Evans‑Pritchard1940;Pemberton1996)butalsoemergedinChina(Rawson2002),Japan(Martin1997),SoutheastAsia(Mesick1983;Tambiah1976),andAndeanSouthAmerica(Zuidema1990).Europeknewtheinstitutionwellandfoundsanctity for it inscripture.Verses1and4ofRomans13,forexample,tellusthat‘thepow‑ers thatbeareordainedbyGod’andthat theruler‘bearethnottheswordinvain:forheistheministerofGod,arevengertoexecutewrathuponhimthatdoethevil’.EnglishandFrenchkingshealedcertainillnesswithbutthemiraculoustouchoftheroyalhand(Bloch1983)andwereconsideredtoruletheirstatesliterallyby‘thegraceofGod’aslateastheeighteenthcentury(Edmunds2002;McCoy2002;Carpenter1966,407–8).

However,whiletheextraordinaryclaimsofdivinepower,divinefavouroroutrightdivinitystrengthenedthelegitimacyofthekingship,italsolaiditopentotwoprofoundweaknesses. First, because of the extremesocialdistancethatseparatedthedivinekingfromhissubjects,consultationwithandadvicetohimhadto

135

RoyalGravesatUrinMesopotamia

beindirectordisguised(Gose1996)while,atthesametime,thelogicofthesacredordivinekingshipmadeconstant intercourse with Heaven necessary. Rulerswereled,therefore,bothtoobtaincounselandtolearnthewillofthegodsthroughthetrancesordivinationsofpriests,oraclesandspiritualists.Usingasanexamplethediplomaticcorrespondencebetweenthekingandhis agents found in the celebrated cuneiform lelersfromthecitystateofMari inSyria,Mumford(1967,176–7)pointsoutthat,

AgainandagaindependenceuponunverifiabledatafromHeaven vitiated the ability tomake rationaldecisionsinballe,forinstance,onthebasisofthelocallyvisiblecircumstances.Tooonenthesoothsay‑er’saddledcounselscountedmoreheavilythanthesoldier’sprofessionalknowledge.

Inadditiontopredisposinghimtonon‑rationalcoun‑sel,themonarch’sclaimofdivinitymadeitnecessaryforhimtoobtainwhat,inanothercontext,MaxWeber(1963,47)calls‘charismaticauthentication’.Thatis,hehadtoprovethathewaswhatheclaimedtobe.Vali‑dationoftheclaimtogodheadcantakemanyforms,allofthemtricky.Usingthetestimonyoffolklore,SirJamesFrazer(1890;Heusch1997)tellsus,inTheGoldenBough,thatthesexualpotencyofthedivinekingswascontinuallyontrial.Thiswassoonthegroundsthatonly a king whose personal bedroom performancewasintactcouldinsurethefertilityofthelandatlarge.Balles,droughtsorpestilencealsoprovidedaking’ssubjectswithapublicmetricagainstwhichtogaugehisdivinefavourorstatus.Curiously,thehistoricalrecord—atleastofthesovereignsofEuropeandofthePapacy—seemstoindicatethatpeopletendedtohaveahighthresholdoftoleranceofweakness,error,andfailurein their divine rulers (Firth 1981, 586).Nonetheless,emergent events always represented potential testsofthelegitimacyofthegod‑king’srule.Sincetheyaregenerallybeyondcontrol,suchtestsarerisky.

Alesshazardousmeansofachievinglegitimacyand authentication is throughpublic spectacle andritual. Cohen (2001) asserts that the early kings ofSumermadeparticularuseof‘deathrituals’,thatis,‘theentirecycleofactivitiesundertakeninresponsetodeath’,asameansof‘givingphysicalformtoideology’andtherebylegitimizingtheirclaimtorulership.Eventhisritualapproachtotheestablishmentoflegitimacycould not have been easy. It has been said that nomanisaherotohisvalet.Howmuchmoredifficultforamortalmantoconvincebothhissubordinatesandhimselfthatheisagod.Betweenvaletandmas‑ter, familiarityandintimacybreedsscepticismand,sometimes, contempt. Therefore, distance must bemaintained.Iftheclaimtogodheadistobebelieved,

ithastostickinthemindsofsubjectsandsubordi‑nates.Scepticismandcontemptcannotbeallowedtointervene.Thestakesinthisgamearetoohighforittobeotherwise.

Achieving such an end calls for effort that iscontinuousand,atthesametime,extraordinary,im‑providentwithtreasure,extravagantinblood.Mererepetition grows stale.As a key means of makingthecasefortheking’sdivinity,ritualsandspectacle,whatevertheirparticularovertpurpose,mustalwaysconveythecovertmessage:‘Iamagod:witnessthegodlikewaythatIamtreated!’.RobertDrennan(1976,348) calls such ceremonies ‘rituals of sanctification’whosemessageisinvestedwiththesacredinordertoensureitsacceptance.AMarxistwouldcallthisthepromotion of ‘false consciousness’. Elizabeth Stone(1991,186),alesspoliticallychargedanalyst,referstoitas‘experimentsinrepresentationofanewpoliticalreality’.Iprefertolabelitstate‑sponsoredmystifica‑tion presented in amanner intended to give it thelegitimacy of a religious authority that is ultimate,absoluteandunchallengeable.RaymondFirth(1981,584)tellsusthatreligionisreallyaformofartandthereforelikeanyart,‘asymbolicproductofhumananxiety,desire,andimaginationexpressedinasocialmilieu’. In Firth’s sense, then, the institutionof thesacredordivinekingshipcanbeviewedasthe ‘artofreligion’appliedtocamouflagehardrealityinthesocialmilieuofpolitics.

Whatever one chooses to call it, the sacred ordivinekingshipturnsthepolityintoacombinationof‘theatrestate’,organizedaroundritualsofmysti‑calself‑portrayal(Geertz1980),andterror‑machine,capableofinflictingveryrealpain.ItisCohen’s(2000,2)viewthattheRoyalCemeteryservedasastageforsuchrituals;uponit,‘thedepositionofthecorpsebe‑cameaspectacleforavastandvariedaudience’.Hebasesthisconclusionontwosourcesofevidence:first,theprominentlocationofthecemeterywithinUrand,second,hisreadingofthenatureof itstopography.AccordingtoCohen,thecemetery,

hadnoabove‑groundstructuresanditsgentleslopeswouldeasilyhaveaccommodatedcrowdsnumber‑inginthehundreds.Moreover,thisareawasvisiblenotonlyfromtheterraceandroofsoftheadjacentbuildingsbutalsofromtheresidentialareabelow.With this kind of visibility, people from all levelsof society— fromhigh rankingpublicofficials tothelowestrankingslaves—couldhaveviewedtheactivity(Cohen2000,1–2).

In thecourseof thatviewing, citizensofUrwouldhaveseenthepublictranscriptoftheirstateexpressedinitsmostawe‑inspiringritualformulation.

136

D.BruceDickson

Statetheatresofcrueltyandterror

ExtraordinaryasisthearchaeologicalrecordofUr’sRoyalGravesandDeathPits,wemustsetasidethenotionthattheseburialsrepresentsomethingexcep‑tional in history. The use of state theatre and stateterrortofosterlegitimacyisbynomeanslimitedtotheroyaltyatUr.‘Theprevailingrealityofworldhis‑tory’,assertsRandallCollins(1974,416),‘isviolence’.Infact, theubiquitousnessofpublicritualsofpain,ferocity,wilfulnessanddreadastoolsofgovernancemakesCollins’sbleakpointadmirably.Therefore,abriefexaminationofthehistoricalandethnographicrecord of public cruelty in chiefdoms and nascentstates throughout theworld is necessary ifwe arefully to appreciate and properly contextualize thecaseofUr.

AncientChinaTheatricaluseofhumansacrificeasanaccompani‑menttotheintermentofroyaltywaspartofChinesecivilizationfromitsfirstbeginningsalongtheHuangHovalleyontheNorthChinaPlainduringtheShangperiod (traditionally dated to between 1766 and1122st)aswellasduringthesubsequentZhouperiodandWarringStatesperiod(c.1100to221BC).How‑ever,suchpracticeappearstohavereachedasordidnadirfollowingthedeathofthefirstChineseemperor,Shih‑huang‑ti.Shih‑huang‑tifoundedtheshort‑livedQindynasty(221–207st)anersuccessfully,ifbrutally,ending the chaos of theWarring States period andunifyingthecountry.Theemperorexpandedtheir‑rigationsystem,allowedpeasantstobuy,sellandowntheirownland,standardizedweightsandmeasures,rationalizedtheprovincialdivisionsoftheempireandappointedprofessionalbureaucrats togovern theminstead of hereditary nobles (Garraty & Gay 1981,121).However,healsoestablishedabrutaltotalizingregimethatdisarmeditscitizens,rigidlylimitedtheirspeech,burnedtheirunapprovedbooksandsoughteventocontroltheirthought.

Then,attheheightofhispower,Shih‑huang‑tisuddenlydiedandwasentombedin210BCinahugetumuluswithinavastdouble‑walledfuneralcomplex.Although the tomb has yet to be opened, contem‑porary chronicles assert that its interior contains ahugepalacedesigned as a subterraneanversionormodelof theemperor’sdomainonearth.Starsandconstellationsgraced the ceilingsof thepalace andliquidmercurywaspumpedthroughittorepresentthegreatriversof theNorthChinaPlain (Debaine‑Franckfort1999,93).Themostcelebratedelementofthistombcomplex,avastarmyoffull‑scaleterracola

soldiers,wasdiscoveredanddisinterredbyChinesearchaeologistsasrecentlyas1974.Moregrimly,theoutercomplexalsocontainstheremainsofnumerousflesh‑and‑bloodmen,womenandhorses.Apparentlythesearetheremainsofvictimssacrificedandburiedneartheemperor’stumulusatthetimeofhisinter‑ment.Thetumulusappearstobeintact.ItmaystillcontaintheremainsofShih‑huang‑titogetherwiththeprodigious treasures thatmostsurelyaccompaniedhimintothegrave.Itmayalsocontainotherremains.Accordingtothechronicles,whentheemperor’sfu‑neralwasfinished,alltheworkersandartisanswhohadworkedonthetombweresealedinsideitalongwiththeemperor’sbody.

Theentrancetothetombwasthenblockedandhiddenandgrassesandshrubswereplantedonthemoundtogiveittheappearanceofanaturalhillside(Debaine‑Franckfort1999,135).Eveninitsdisguiseasamountain,onecanimaginethefearthattheShih‑huang‑ti’svasttombcomplexmusthaveinspiredinboththeenemiesandthecowedcitizensoftheformerQinstate.

NativeAmericaTheatricality, terror and human sacrifice were alsostaplesofgovernanceamongthecivilizationsofAn‑deanSouthAmericaaswellashighlandandlowlandMesoamerica.EventhechiefdomsoftheMississippiantradition in the southeasternUnitedStates seem tohaveemployedthem.However,thetheatreofcrueltywasbroughttoitsapogéeinscaleandinloathsomenessbytheAztecs,orMexica,ofMexico.Tenochtitlán,thegreatcapitaloftheAztecstateanditslargestandmostpowerfulurbancentre,waslocatedonanislandinthemiddleofashallowlakeintheValleyofMexico.Theisland‑citywas such amarvel that the conquistadorBernalDiazdelCastillo(1632)couldonlycompareittothefancifulcitiesfoundinthechivalricromance.The most striking feature of Tenochtitlánwas theceremonialplazacompoundorprecincterectedatthecentrewherethefourquartersofthecitymet(Brund‑age1972,93).ThepalacesoftheAztecemperorswerebuiltadjacenttothisprecinctandwithinitswallswerelocatedasacredballcourt,eightmedium‑sizedpyra‑midsdedicatedtolesserdeities,andahugerackonwhichweredisplayedtheskullsofthousandsofvic‑timssacrificedthere—BernalDiazdelCastilloreportscountingmorethan136,000.YetthecentralfeatureintheplazawastheTlacateco,atruncatedpyramidwithtwintemplesatitstop.Anenormousflightofstepsledupthepyramidtothetwosanctuaries(Bernal1963,81–3).AlthoughtheAztecsmadehumansacrificeacentralpartoftheworshipthroughouttheirempire,

137

RoyalGravesatUrinMesopotamia

nowherewasthescaleorthehorrorgreaterthanonthevastandcentrallypublicstageoftheTlacatecointheheartoftheirlargestcity.

Aztec eschatology was based on the premisethattheworldwasdoomedtoendindestructionasthegodswhogoverneditweakenedanddied.But,asthesegodswerenourishedonhumanheartsandhu‑manblood,keepingthemstrongwithsuchambrosiawasawaytoensurethattheendoftheworldcamelaterratherthansooner.Infact,stavingofftheendoftheworldbyfeedingthegodswasregardedbytheAztecsastheuniqueandnobleresponsibilityoftheirstate.Correspondingly, theymadeprovisioningthegodswith freshhumanheartsakeyactivityof thestate and the principal function of the 5000 priestslivinginthecapital.

HumansacrificewasmadeatalmostallAztecstateand religious ceremonies and at thedeath of em‑perorsandotherimportantpersons.Frequentlytheemperorwasaparticipantintheritualwhichoneninvolvedhundreds—sometimes thousands—ofvictims(Kurtz1978,184).

InTenochtitlán,thedramaofthissacrificialfeedingwascarriedoutontheplatforminfrontofthetwintemplesatoptheTlacateco.Atleastonceadayvic‑timsclimbedthehugedoublestaircaseofthemainpyramid.Atthesummit,priestsseizedthevictimsbythelimbsandlaidthemontheirbacksoverthestonealtar.Wieldinganobsidianknife,apriestwouldthencutopenthevictim’schest,pullouttheheart,smearthebloodyorganoverthestatueofthegodandthenburnit.Thevictim’sbodywasthenrolledbackdownthestaircasetotheplaza,where,BernalDiazasserts,butcherswaitedtocutoffthevictim’slimbsforlaterconsumptionwith‘sauceofpeppersandtomatoes’.Itappearsthatonaverage,some4000individualsweresacrificedontheTlacatecoannually.Onparticularlysignificantoccasions, thisnumberwasdramaticallyincreased. TheAztec emperor himself served as akindofgrimmeeeur‑en‑scèneinsomeofthegranderpublicsacrificialrites.AlthoughtheAztecssacrificedtheirownyouths, thegodswere thought to favourheartsdrawnfromenemywarcaptives.TheirmanywarsandraidsenabledtheAztecsfullytoobligethegodsinthispreference.

Many explanations have been adduced to ex‑plaintheAztecinstitutionalizationofhumansacrificeandcannibalismonsuchavastscale.Whatevertheultimatecause,theirtheatricalcrueltymostsurelyter‑rorizedconqueredfoesandactiveenemies—aswell,perhaps,astherestiveordisaffectedamongtheAztecsthemselves.Upon thearrivalof theSpanish, itwasundoubtedlytheirfearandhatredofthispublicterror

thatinducedtheAztec’ssubjectpeoplestoembraceCortés,adeviltheydidnotknow,inthehopethathewoulddestroyonetheyknewonlytoowell.

EarlymodernEuropeWheredoesonestartanexaminationofthetheatresofcrueltyofthestatesandempiresofearlymodernEurope? With their brutal military discipline andits alendant drum‑head courts, frog marches andpublicfloggings?Withtheagonyandstenchoftheirfieryautos‑da‑féoverseenbymenlikethesixteenth‑centuryinquisitor‑generaloftheLowCountries,Ru‑wartTapper,whoissaidtohaveremarked:‘Itdoesn’tmalerwhetherthoseweexecutearereallyguiltyornot.Whatmalersisthatthepeopleareterrifiedbyourtrials’(Bobrick2001,134).Orperhapsweshouldbeginwith the public hangings or evenmore har‑rowingexecutionsthatbrokepeopleonthewheelorkept themalive in tormentwhile theyweredrawnandquarteredbeforetheclamouringmob.Anerall,suchspectacleswereevidentlycommonplace.OnhisjourneyfromDresdentoPraguein1620,theEnglishtraveller John Taylor counted ‘above seven scoregallows and wheels, where thieves were hanged,some freshandsomehalf rolen,and thecarcassesofmurderersbrokenlimbanerlimbonthewheels’(Wedgewood1938,14).

Whetherbroken,drawnandquarteredorsimplyhung,peopledidnotgoquietly;ratherthey‘urinated,defecated,screamed,kicked,fainted,andchokedastheydied’allunderthegazeofthousandsofwillingandexcitedspectators(Gatrell1994,vii).Suchpubliccruelty was carried out with particularly exquisitetheatricalityduringtheeighteenthcenturyatLondon’sinfamousTyburngallows.ThoseconvictedofmurderintheCityofLondonandtheCountyofMiddlesex,

weredrawninopencarts,pinionedropesdanglingnecklace‑like from their necks, a distance of twomiles ...Aprocession leadbytheCitymarshalonhorseback,theundersheriff,agroupofpeaceofficersandabodyofconstableswithstavesaccompaniedtheconvictandhisexecutionerwhorodeintheopencart.Anumberofjavelin‑menbroughtuptherear.Ifthecriminalwaswellknown,theentouragehadtwosheriffsintheircoaches,eachholdinghissceptreofoffice.AhaltwasmadebeforeSt.Sepulchre’sChurchwhereasexton,withbellinhand,deliveredasolemnadmonitiontothecondemned.ThenthegreatbellofSt.Sepulchre’sboomedforth...ThegallowsstoodbetweenHydeParkandtheendofEdgewareRoad,whereMarbleArchnowstands.Thegallowswasapermanent triangular structure called ‘The TripleTree’. The open cart was placed underneath thegallows...Anerthefinalprayerswerefinished,the

138

D.BruceDickson

noosewasadjusted,thecapdrawnovertheconvict’sheadandface,thehangmanandhishelperslashedthehorse,setthecartinmotionandlenthecriminaldanglinginair.(Cooper1974,5)

Hugecrowdsinvariablyalended.Onmanyoftheseoccasions,themurderer’sdeathdidnotendthespec‑tacleofhispublicexecution.Aroyaledictof1752gavethejudgetheauthoritytoordereitherthatamurder‑er’sbodybeturnedovertosurgeonsforpublicdissec‑tionanerhisexecutionorthattheprisonerbehangedinchainssothatthebodymightremainsuspendedonthegibbetwhilstitdecayed(Cooper1974,1).

Alloftheseinstitutionsandbehavioursqualifyastheatresofcruelty,ofcourse,yetallpaleincom‑parisontothepublicstagingofpainthataccompaniedtheGreatWitchHuntthatgrippedEuroperoughlybetween 1550 and 1750. During that hunt, tens ofthousandsofpeople,mostlyfemale,weretorturedforconfessions,triedinsecularandecclesiasticalcourts,andpublicallyexecuted—usuallybyburning—forthecrimeofwitchcran.Whatledtopubliccrueltyonsuchascale?Surelythereweremanycausesbutfore‑mostamongthemwasthecontinent‑widereligiouswarfareofthesixteenthcenturyandthelong‑termin‑flationaryspiralthatwaswar’saccompaniment(Row‑land&Granon2002,68).Warfare,inflationandtheresultingimpoverishmentcreatedprofoundproblemsin governance and social control. The witch‑hunts—withtheirunremilingtorture,theirtrialsandtheirexecutions—appeartohavebeenoneresponsetothisturmoilmadebytheforcesofsocialandpoliticalorder(Kunze1987;Larner1981,193,198–9;Muchembled1985,235–78).Inpart,atleast,witch‑huntswereusedbystateandchurchtocurblocaldisorderandrebel‑lion,todisciplinethepopulacethroughfear,and,mostimportantly,tolegitimizetheirownrulebyclaimingleadership in thefightagainst theDemonic (Harris1974).IntheEuropeanwitchhuntsandtrials,wehaveaclearexpressionofstate‑sponsoredpublictheatre,publictranscriptsandpublicpain.

WestAfricaTheatresofpaincentringonhumansacrificewerealsowidespreadamong the indigenous earlykingdomsandstatesofWestAfrica.Detailedaccountsofroyalfuneralsinvolvingtheliveburialofservants,concu‑binesandfamilymembersalongwithkingsarefoundinearlychroniclesoftheregionwrilenbothbyArabandEuropeanmerchanttravellers(Law1985,61–2).However, thepracticeapparentlydisappearedovermuchofnorthernWestAfricafollowingthespreadofIslam.Bythenineteenthcentury,humansacrificesatroyalfuneralsandotherpublicoccasionswerelargely

limited to the indigenous African polities locatedalong theGulf ofGuinea (referred tobyEuropeantradersfromnorthwesttosoutheast,respectively,astheIvory,GoldandSlaveCoasts).Fromthesixteenthto the nineteenth centuries, these coastal regionsservedastheAfricanterminusofthatinfamoustrafficinhumanmiseryknownastheAtlanticSlaveTrade.Bythenineteenthcentury,theyweredominatedbygreatAfricantradingkingdoms,mostnotablyDaho‑mey,Ojo,Abeokuta,BeninandAsante.Itisimportantto recall,however, that these indigenouskingdomswere not self‑sustaining political entities. Rather,theywere part of an international economic ordercentredontheNewWorldslaveplantationsengagedinproducingtropicalstaplecropsforcommercialex‑change.TheindigenouskingdomswereenrichedbyaninternationaltradethatwasultimatelycontrolledfromEurope.

Lateinthehistoryofthetrade,theSlaveCoastfell largelyunder the swayof theKingdomofDa‑homey,ahighlystratifiedandbureaucraticabsolutemonarchythat,byvirtueofitsstrategiclocationandlarge, well‑armed army, had grown rich throughthe traffic in humanbeings. The army successfullyguarded and expanded the borders of Dahomeywhilegatheringwarcaptivesasslaves.TheseslaveswereeitherexchangedforsuchEuropeantradegoodsasfirearms,liquorandcloth,orputtoworkontheroyal plantations to raise food for army and court.TheDahomeanarmyalsohadalargecorpsoffemalewarriors,celebratedbytheEuropeansas‘Amazons’,whoservedassoldiersandasbodyguardsandwivesoftheking.

ThekingofDahomeywasheadofthebureauc‑racyand,backedbytheforceofhisarmy,governedthekingdomlargelybymeansofthisinstitution.Inaddi‑tion,thekinghadahugeretinueofadvisors,servants,guards,entertainers,cooksandslaves.Hewasalsothekeyfigureinthestatereligiousandceremonialcycleandservedasthechiefpriestoftheelaboratecultofhisroyalancestors.

At Dahomey, the state theatre of cruelty wasperhapsneveringreaterevidencethanduringtheso‑called‘AnnualCustom’or‘WateringoftheGraves’attheroyaltombsinthecapitalcityofAbomey.Inthiscommemorativeannualevent,largenumbersofmalewarcaptivesandcriminalswerepublicallysacrificedtotheking’sancestors,ostensiblytoaugmentthereti‑nuesofthesedeadpersonagesintheanerlife.Largenumbersoffemalevictimsweresacrificedinprivateatthesametime.Aneyewitnesstotheceremonyof1864wasnoneotherthantheredoubtableVictorianexplorer andwriter,CaptainSirRichardF.Burton.

139

RoyalGravesatUrinMesopotamia

According toBurton (1893, 15), between78 and80menandwomenweresacrificedbyKingGaleledur‑ingtheCustomhealended.PublicsacrificewasnotlimitedtotheAnnualCustom,however.Thenecessityofappraisingtheancestorsoftheactionsoftheirde‑scendantsonEarthextractedanevengreaterannualtollinhumanlife.AccordingtoBurton,

HowevertrivialanactionisdonebytheKing,suchasinventinganewdrum,beingvisitedbyawhiteman,orevenremovingfromonepalacetoanother,itmustbedutifullyreportedbysomemaleorfemalemes‑sengertothepaternalghost(Burton1893,16–17).

Based on his inquiries about this practice while inAbomey,Burtonestimatedthateveryyearupwardsof500peopleinthecityweresacrificedtotheancestorsorsentasmessengerstothem.Intheyearswhentheextraordinary‘GrandCustom’washeld,thenumberofvictimsprobablyreached1000(Burton1893,17).Thesenumbersleaptdramaticallywiththedeathofaking,ashisburialceremonieswouldentailthesacrificeoflargenumbersofwivesandretainers.SimilarpracticesandsimilarnumbersarereportedfromAsante,BeninandtheotherslavetradingkingdomsontheGuineaCoast(Law1985;Williams1988;Wilks1988).

InterlacustrineEastAfricaIn the late nineteenth century, the highland regionofEastAfricabetweentheGreatRinValleylakes,inwhatistodayUganda,wasunderthedominationofthethreemajorBantu‑speakingkingdomsofBuganda,Nkore (orAnkole) and Bunyoro. Buganda, locatedalongthenorthernshoreofLakeVictoriawas,atEuro‑peancontactinthelatenineteenthcentury,thelargestandmostpowerfulofthethree.FoundedinthelatefourteenthcenturybytheGandapeople,BugandawaslocatedinsomeofthemostfertileandproductivelandinEastAfrica(Wrigley1957,71).Itwasacentralized,bureaucratic statewith a large andwell‑organizedarmy.Fromthemid‑eighteenthcenturyonwards,thearmyappearstohavebeenusedasapredatoryforcetoenrichthestatebygeneratinga

constantinfluxoflootedlivestock,capturedwomen(valuedbothasconsumergoodsandas factorsofproduction)andmaleslaves.Warfarewastheactiv‑itywhichdominatedthelivesofmostmaleGandaand the distribution of its proceeds did much tostrengthenthenexusofsociety(Wrigley1957,72).

The statewas ruledby apowerful, autocratic kingcalledtheKabaka.Locatedattheapexofthissystemofmilitarypredationandciviltaxation,theKabakawasimmenselyrichandimmenselypowerful.LocalchiefswereappointedbytheKabakaandowedtheirposition and allegiance strictly to him.Conversely,

likelyvillageboyswerebrought to the capital andenlistedinacorpsd’élitethatsurroundedtheKabakaand served him as a kind of PretorianGuard. TheKabakahadcompletepoweroflifeanddeathoverhissubjectsandappearstohaveusedhiscorpsd’élitetoexercisethispowerarbitrarilyandonen.TheBugan‑danstatewasthusakindofironicmeritocracywherethemeritneededtosucceedappearslargelytohavebeenawillingnesstodotheKabaka’sdirtywork,noquestionsasked.

The Bugandan public transcript promulgatedtheviewthat,asdeathstrengthenedthestate,state‑orderedkillingwasdoneforthepublicgood.ItwasthispublictranscriptthatlaybehindtheinstitutionknownastheKiwendo.When,fromtimetotime,theKabakaorderedaKiwendo,

several score, probably hundreds, of peoplewereseizedontheroadsandclubbed,strangled,burned,drownedorhackedtopieces for thehealthof thekingdom.There isnosuggestionofallormostofthevictimshavingcommiledanoffence,otherthanthatofbeinginthewrongplaceatthewrongtime.Typically,theywerepeasantsbringingsuppliesintothecapital;andkiwendomeanssimply‘makingthenumberup’(Wrigley1996,244).

Sometimesthecrueltywasmorefocused.AccordingtoJohnRoscoe(1965,334–5),mensuspectedofplanningrebellionagainsttheKabakaweretakentoalocationthoughtsacredtotheNilecrocodilesontheislandofDamba.Theretheywerepresentedtoamediumwhoenteredanalteredstateofconsciousnessinordertodeterminetheirguilt.Whetherrebelsinfactorfancy,theprisonerswereinevitablyfoundguilty.Theirlegsandarmswerethenbroken,andtheywerelaidoutinarowonthebeachfortheconvenienceoftheresidentcrocodiles.Allofthisisterrorpureandsimple,anditishardtoimaginehowtheordinarysubjectsoftheKabakacouldfailtograspitsmeaning.

Publickillingwasalsousedasatoolinforeignrelations.Forexample,whentheAmericanadventurerand Egyptian officer, Charles Chaillé‑Long, visitedtheBugandacourtin1874,theKabakaMutessahadthirtymenseizedinthecapitalandpubliclyexecutedin the envoy’s presence (Chaillé‑Long 1876, 106–7).ThisKiwendowasnorandomactofpubliccruelty.TheKabaka knew full well that Chaillé‑Long wason amission fromGeneralGordon, the newly ap‑pointedgovernor‑generaloftheEgyptianSudanandamanwithpoliticaldesignsonhiskingdom.KabakaMutessa no doubt meant for the public killing hestagedforChaillé‑LongtodemonstratethathispowerinBugandawas complete andunchecked (Wrigley1996,241,243).And,foratime,itwas.

140

D.BruceDickson

ItisimportanttonotethattheKabakawasnotadivineking.Rather,hewasa secular rulerat theheadofasystemofbureaucraticrulethathadgrownoutofandreplacedamoretraditionalkin‑dominatedsystem of governance familiar throughoutmost ofEastAfrica.AccordingtoBasilDavidson(1969,226),Buganda’searliestkings:

hademergedaselectedleadersofcouncilsofchiefswhowereeachother’speers.Notuntilthe15thking,accordingtoGandatraditions,wasroyalauthorityabletostandoutsideofandabovethelineagenet‑work.Butthen,byacontinuedtakingofnewpow‑ers,thesekingsbecamestrongenoughtomakeandchangelawandcustomwhich,atleastintheory,theancestorshadlaiddownasimmutable.Bythe19thcentury,theGandakingscouldevenbedespotic.

Inthissense,theBugandastatewasaninnovationandanexperimentingovernment.Itisplausible,therefore,thatthecrueltydealtoutbytheGandarulerstotheirown subjects and the then and enslavement theyinflictedonsurroundingpeoplesweresymptomsofthe vulnerability andpotential illegitimacyof theirautocracy.Ifso,itmaybestillanotherexampleoftheuseofpublicterrorandtheatrebyastate’srulerstobulresstheirshakyholdonpower.

HawaiiHawaiifirstbecameknowntoEuropeanswhenCap‑tainJamesCooklandedtherein1778.Cookwasalate‑comer,ofcourse.Polynesianvoyagersperhapsarrivedthereasearlyas|}400.Althoughthesevoyagerscamewithoutwriting,metallurgy,ceramicsordomesticatedanimalsbeyondthepigandthechicken,theachieve‑ments of their descendants on these islands wereimpressiveindeed.CookandlatervisitorsfoundinHawaiiwhatMarshallSahlins(1958,13–19)classedasaGroupIPolynesiansociety,thatis,aseriesofstrongandcompetitivepolitieswithlargepopulations,ex‑tremesocialstratificationmarkedbysumptuarylawsandbehaviourrestrictions,full‑timepriestsandcrans‑menandarigidpoliticalhierarchyunderthepowerfulhereditary leadership of ‘paramount chiefs’. Theseparamount chiefsdeeply impressedobserverswiththeirwell‑armedandvigorousbandsofretainers,theirdespoticbehaviourandthelifeanddeathpowerstheypossessedoverthoseoflowerrank.Ifnotakingdom,thenHawaiiwassurelythelargestandmostcomplexchiefdominallofOceania(Kirch2000,246–50).Cer‑tainlyforhispart,CaptainCookhadnodoubtthathewasinthepresenceofroyaltyuponmeetingthegreatparamountchiefKealakekua.Kealakekua,anerall,wasadivinerulerregardedasholdingswaybyvirtueofbeingthetemporaldescendantofgodsand

demi‑gods.Assuch,hewasthesuprememediatorbe‑tweenthegodsandthepeopleunderhisrule.Onlytheparamountchiefandhispriestscouldcontactthemostimportantgodsdirectly.Itwasalsoboththeprivilegeandthedutyoftheparamountchieftoconsecratethesupremesacrifice,thesacrificeofhumanbeings(Valeri1985,140–42).Humansacrificesonbehalfof—andsometimes at the hands of— the paramount chiefwerecentralfeaturesofthemostimportantritualsinpubliclife.Suchritualkillingwasthedeeplyexpres‑siveemblemofthepowerandvigouroftherulersofthoseislands.

Ferocityasgovernance

Astheforegoingexamplessuggest,thepublicritualsacrificeofpeopleasanactofgovernance—whatIhave called state‑sponsored theatres of cruelty andterror—canbefoundincomplexchiefdomsandearlystatesthroughouttheworld.Ofcourse,itispossibletointerprettheseactsinthemannerofWoolleyatUr,tosuggestthattheyinvolvedpeoplewhowentmore‑or‑lessvoluntarilytotheirdeaths.Itisalsopossibletoclaimthatthesesacrificeswereexpressionsofgenuinereligiousorfilialpietyorwererelativelyrareactivi‑tiesthatconsumedonlylimitednumbersofvictimsorwereactuallyexecutionsofcriminalsorcouldhavebeenworseandsoon(forexample,cf.Davidson1961;Isichei1977;Wilks1988;Wrigley1996,242).3However,todosoistoparticularizethephenomenonandne‑glectitswidespreadandnearuniversalnature(Cronk1999,126–9).Worsestill,suchinterpretationspreventusfromrecognizingsuchbehaviourforwhatitisandcomingtoanunderstandingofit.MartinAmis(2002,92)tellsusthatthehistoriesoftheholocaustandtheSovietgulag‘arefullofterriblenewsaboutwhatitistobehuman.Theyarouseshameaswellasoutrage’.Somethingsimilarcouldbesaidoftheforegoingex‑amplesofstate‑sponsoredpubliccruelty.But,ifitisanyconsolation,FelipeFernández‑Armesto(2001,220)assuresusthatsuchritualsofterror—togetherwithoraclesandwar—are‘allgamblers’meansofpower,vulnerabletothelurchesofluck’,andthereforereli‑anceonthemrendersthefoundationsofstatesshakyindeed.Andso—eventually—theyprovetobe.ButletusreturntoUr.

Thenatureof thesacredordivinekingshipatUr isevident in the ‘public transcript’ found in theRoyalGravesthere.Thistranscriptmakesitclearthat,despiteitsadvanceddevelopmentandhighculture,theUrkingshipwassteepedinblood,sanctifiedbyviolenceandcapableofbolomlessbarbarity.4Incom‑panywith theexamples fromChina, theAmericas,

141

RoyalGravesatUrinMesopotamia

Europe,AfricaandthePacific,theUrDeathPitstellusthat,asatoolofgovernance,publicritualcrueltyisancient,ubiquitousandrevered.Theseexamplesnicely illustrate Charles Tilly’s (1984, 12) mordantobservation that, themore closely we study socialhistory,‘themorecoercionbyofficialsresemblesco‑ercionbycriminals,stateviolenceresemblesprivateviolence,authorizedexpropriationresembles then’.Thisisnotsomethingthatwereallywanttohearbutwearestuckwithitandthat,forErnestRenan,ispre‑ciselytheproblemwithhistorical(andarchaeological)investigation.Inevitablysuchresearch

digsuptheactsofviolencethatoccuratthebegin‑ningofanypoliticalunit,eventhosewhichhavehadthemostbeneficial consequences.Unity is alwaysachievedbrutally(Renan1882,citedinForrest1991,34,author’stranslation).

And,lestweimaginethatcontemporarynationsarebuiltandgovernedmorehumanely,letusrecallthatthe former domain ofUr’s kingswas, until yester‑day,ruledwithunremilingcrueltybytheregimeofSaddamHussein.Themurderouslegacyofthisregimeincludesthejudicialmurdersoftensofthousandsofpeoplebeginningin1979andthegenocidalmassacresofKurdsinthe1980sfollowedbythatofMarshArabsandotherIraqiShiitesinthe1990s(Galbraith2004,42).TheDeathPitsofancientUrpaleintoinsignificancewhencomparedtothemorethan30,000bodiesuncov‑eredinasinglemassgravenearHillainsouthernIraq.Ofcourse,theUrsacrificesenteredtheDeathPitsinwhatwemaypresumetohavebeenpublicview,whilethefillingofthegraveatHillawascloakedinsecrecy.Ferociouscrueltyisstillatoolofstateformationandstate governance in the contemporary world; it issimplynolongerpartofwhatRandallCollins(1974,436)calls‘thedominantceremonialorder’.

Mega‑machineunmasked

Comparativeandcontextualissuesaside,twoques‑tions particular to Ur remain. First, do the RoyalGravesandDeathPitspresentuswithanarchaeologi‑cal‘snapshot’ofastrong,rich,andstablesociety,asisonenpresumed?Or,rather,dotheritualizedsacrificesin them reflect a vulnerable leadership reduced toaffirmingitsdivinestatusbyterrorizingandkillingitscitizens?Ifthelalerinterpretationiscorrect,Ur’srulershadseizedonthegambler’smeansofpower.Butthen,whyshouldnottheyhavechancedtouseit?Anerall,asSteveBiko(1978)assuresus,‘themostpotentweaponinthehandsoftheoppressoristhemindoftheoppressed’.

Second,didthecitizensofUr—likesomany

whohavecomeanerthem—yieldbeforethisweap‑on?Weretheyconvincedorcowedandmadedocilebyit?ThehiddentranscriptofUr’scommonpeopleisnotrecorded.Thescaleoftherobberyevidentintheroyalgravesissuggestive,ofcourse(Woolley1934,18–19;butcf.Pollock1991,183;1999,215;Sürenhagen2002,330),butwewillneverknowwhetherornottheordi‑narycitizensofUrhadpenetratedtheirstate’sfiercemystifications.Nodoubt,eveniftheyhad,standingintheshadowoftheRoyalGraves,theycouldonlymaintainacautioussilence.We,however,arenotsoobliged.WecanrecognizethattheghastlyobsequiesstagedintheRoyalGravesneitherconveyedthewholestorynorprovidedaneutral‘snapshot’ofit.Rather,theywerebutexpressionsofasadandrepellentpublictranscriptactedoutinatheatreofpubliccruelty.AtUr,thefulltruthrestedelsewhere.Andelsewhereandelsewhereandagainandagain.

D.BruceDicksonDepartmentofAnthropology

TexasA&MUniversityCollegeStation

Texas77843‑4352274USA

Email:dickson@tamu.edu

Notes

1. DietrichSürenhagen(2002)raisesthepossibilitythatnotallofthebodiesfoundintheRoyalGravesandDeathPitswereburiedtogetherandthatsomeofthemate‑rial,mostnotablytheskullsfoundwithoutassociatedpost‑cranialskeletons,weresecondaryburials.

2. Gilgamesh, that most famous of kings in the Sumerian

literary canon, was accompanied in his grave by ‘his

beloved spouses, his beloved children, his beloved first

wife and (his) young concubine’ as well as members of

his palace staff (Jacobsen 1991, 185; but cf. Moorey 1977,

39).

3. The apparent willingness of so many scholars to ‘forgive’

or explain away the public cruelty found in prehistory,

early history or among non-Western peoples is deeply

troubling. Encountering such expressions, one is re-

minded of George Santayana’s observation that, ‘since

barbarism has its pleasures it naturally has its apologists’.

In fairness, however, we must recognize that this willing

forgiveness stems from the recognition that prehistoric

and barbarian horrors fade into insignificance when

placed besides those perpetrated by modern, purport-

edly civilized, people at places like Verdun, Bergen-

Belsen, Nanking, Hiroshima, Rwanda, Srebrenica or on

the many islands of the gulag archipelago.

4. The phrase, a ‘combination of advanced development,

high culture and bottomless barbarity’ is Martin Amis’s

(2002, 92) characterization of Nazi Germany.

142

D.BruceDickson

Acknowledgements

I am grateful to my wife, Mary Ann Dickson, for her assist-

ance at every stage in the writing of this manuscript. Her

critical analysis sharpened and focused its argument and

her editing acuity mended its grammar. I am also greatly

indebted to Beebe Bahrami of the University of Pennsyl-

vania Museum of Archaeology & Anthropology, Reinhard

Bernbeck of Binghamton University, David Carlson of

Texas A&M University, Lee Cronk of Rutgers University,

Frank Hole of Yale University, Thomas Lynch of the Brazos

Valley Museum of Natural History, Timothy Matney of the

University of Akron, Sharon Steadman of the State Univer-

sity of New York, Cortland, Susan Pollock of Binghamton

University and June Wagner of College Station, Texas. All

of these scholars gave this manuscript a close reading, help-

ful criticism and warm encouragement. Andrew Cohen

of Brandeis University also read this work in manuscript,

suggested references and kindly supplied me with copies

of his dissertation and of an unpublished paper on the Ur

cemetery. I would like to sincerely thank all of these scholars

for their kindness, patience and collegiality.

References

Adams, R.M., 1966. The Evolution of Urban Society: EarlyMesopotamiaandPrehistoricMexico.Chicago(IL):Al‑dinePublishingCo.

Algaze,G., 1989. TheUruk expansion: cross‑cultural ex‑changeinEarlyMesopotamiancivilization.CurrentAnthropology39(5),571–608.

Algaze,G., 1993a.Expansionarydynamicsof someearlypristinestates.AmericanAnthropologist95(2),304–33.

Algaze, G., 1993b. The UrukWorld System. Chicago (IL):UniversityofChicagoPress.

Amis,M.,2002.KobatheDread:LaughterandtheTwentyMil‑lion.NewYork(NY):Hyperion.

Bahrani,Z.,1995.Jewelryandpersonalartsinancientwest‑ernAsia,inCivilizationoftheAncientNearEast,vol.III(8),eds.J.M.Sasson,J.Baines,G.Beckman&K.S.Robinson.NewYork(NY):Macmillan,1635–45.

Bahrani,Z.,2001.WomenofBabylon:GenderandRepresentationinMesopotamia.London:Routledge.

Baines,J.&N.Yoffee,1998.Order,legitimacy,andwealthinAncientEgyptandMesopotamia,inArchaicStates,eds.G.M.Feinman&J.Marcus.SantaFe(NM):SchoolofAmericanResearch,199–260.

Bernal, I., 1963.Mexico before Cortez: Art,History, Legend.Translated byWillis Barnstone. GardenCity (NY):Doubleday.

Biko,S.,1978.IWriteWhatILike.London:Bowerdean.Bloch,M.LB.,1983.Lesroisthaumaturges:étudesurlecaractère

surnaturelaeribuéalapuissanceroyaleparticulièrementenFranceetenAngleterre.Paris:Gallimard.

Bobrick,B.,2001.WideAstheWaters:theStoryoftheEnglishBible and theRevolution it Inspired.NewYork (NY):Simon&Schuster.

Brundage,B.C.,1972.ARainofDarts.Austin(TX):UniversityofTexasPress.

Burton,CaptainSirR.F.,1893(1864).AmissiontoGelele,KingofDahome,inTheMemorialEditionoftheWorksofCaptainSirRichardF.Burton,vol.IV,ed.IsabelBurton.London:Tylston&Edwards,1–57.

Carneiro,R.L.,1970.Atheoryoftheoriginofthestate.Sci‑ence169,733–8.

Carpenter, E. (ed.), 1966.AHouse of Kings: theHistory ofWestministerAbbey.London:JohnBaker.

Chaillé‑Long, Col. C., 1876. Central Africa: Naked TruthsofNakedPeople, anAccountofExpeditions to theLakeVictoriaNyanza and theMakrakaNiam‑Niam,West oftheBahr‑el‑Abiad(WhiteNile).London:SampsonLow,Marston,Searle&Rivington.

Claessen,H.J.M.,1978.Theearlystate:astructuralapproach,inTheEarlyState,eds.H.J.M.Claessen&P.Skalník.TheHague:Mouton,533–96.

Cohen,A.,2000.TheRitualContextofMortuaryPractices:aMesopotamianCaseStudy.Unpublishedpaperpre‑sentedatthe100thAnnualMeetingoftheAmericanSchoolsofOrientalResearch,Nashville,Tennessee.

Cohen,A., 2001. Death Rituals and the Development ofKingship inEarlyDynastic III Period SouthMeso‑potamia.UnpublishedDissertation,Department ofClassicalandNearEasternArchaeology,BrynMawrCollege,Philadelphia,Pennsylvania.

Colley,L.,1992.Britons.NewHaven(CT):YaleUniversityPress.

Collins, R., 1974. Three faces of cruelty: toward a com‑parativesociologyofviolence.TheoryandSociety1,415–40.

Cooper,D.D.,1974.TheLessonoftheScaffold:thePublicEx‑ecutionControversyinVictorianEngland.Athens(OH):OhioUniversityPress.

Cronk,L.,1999.TheComplexWhole:CultureandtheEvolutionofHumanBehavior.Boulder(CO):WestviewPress.

Davidson,B.,1961.BlackMother:AfricaandtheAtlanticSlaveTrade.Boston(MA):LilleBrown.

Davidson, B., 1969.The AfricanGenius: an Introduction toAfricanSocialandCulturalHistory.Boston(MA):Lit‑tleBrown.

Debaine‑Franckfort,C.,1999.TheSearchforAncientChina.NewYork(NY):HarryN.Abrams.

DiazdelCastillo,B.,1957(1632).TheBernalDiazChronicles:theTrueStoryoftheConquestofMexico,trans.&ed.A.Idell.NewYork(NY):Doubleday.

Dickson, D.B., 1987. Circumscription by anthropogenicenvironmentaldestruction:anexpansionofCarnei‑ro’s (1970)Theoryof theOriginof theState.AmericanAntiquity52(4),709–16.

Drennan,R.D.,1976.ReligionandsocialevolutioninForma‑tiveMesoamerica,inTheEarlyMesoamericanVillage,ed.K.V.Flannery.NewYork(NY):AcademicPress,345–68.

Edmunds,M.M.S.,2002.PietyandPolitics: ImagingDivineKingshipinLouisXIVChapelatVersailles.Newark(NJ):UniversityofDelawarePress.

Evans‑Pritchard, E.E., 1964. The divine kingship of theShilluk of theNilotic‑Sudan, inSocial AnthropologyandOtherEssays,byE.E.Evans‑Pritchard.NewYork

143

RoyalGravesatUrinMesopotamia

(NY):TheFreePressofGlencoe,192–212.Fagg,W., 1970.DivineKingship inAfrica. London:British

Museum.Fortes,M.&E.E.Evans‑Pritchard(eds.),1940.AfricanPoliti‑

calSystems.London:OxfordUniversityPress.Feeley‑Harnik,G.,1985.Issuesindivinekingship.Annual

ReviewofAnthropology14,273–313.Fernández‑Armesto,F.,2001.Civilizations:Culture,Ambition,

andtheTransformationofNature.NewYork(NY):TheFreePress.

Firth,R.,1981.Spiritualaroma:religionandpolitics.Ameri‑canAnthropologists83(3),582–601.

Forrest,P.,1991.Qu’est‑cequ’uneNation?Lieératureetiden‑titénationalde1871à1914 (TextesdeBarrés,Daudet,R.DeGourmont,Céline).Paris:PierreBordasetfils,éditeur.

Frankfort,H.,1932.Archaeologyand theSumerianProblem.(StudiesinAncientOrientalCivilization4.)Chicago(IL):OrientalInstituteoftheUniversityofChicago.

Frankfort,H.,1948.KingshipandtheGods:aStudyofAncientNearEasternReligionas the IntegrationofSocietyandNature.Chicago(IL):UniversityofChicagoPress.

Frazer,SirJ.G.,1890.TheGoldenBough:aStudyinComparativeReligion.2vols.London:Macmillan.

Galbraith,P.W.,2004.HowtogetoutofIraq.NewYorkReviewofBooks51(8),May13,2004.

Garraty,J.A.&P.Gay(eds.),1981.EarlyChina,inTheCo‑lumbiaHistoryoftheWorld.NewYork(NY):HarperandRow,107–21.

Gatrell, V.A.C., 1994.The Hanging Tree: Execution and theEnglishPeople1770–1868.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.

Geertz,C.,1980.Negara:theTheatreStatein19thCenturyBali.Princeton(NJ):PrincetonUniversityPress.

Gelb,I.J.,1968.OntheallegedtempleandstateeconomiesinMesopotamia,inStudiinOnorediEdoardoVolterra,vol.6.Milan:Giuffrè,137–54.

Gose,P.,1996.Oracles,divinekingship,andpoliticalrepre‑sentationintheInkastate.Ethnohistory43(1),1–32.

Habermas, J.,1975.LegitimationCrisis.Boston(MA):Bea‑con.

Harris,M.,1974.Cows,Pigs,WarsandWitches:theRiddlesofCulture.NewYork(NY):RandomHouse.

Heusch,L.de,1997.Thesymbolicmechanismsofsacredkingship:rediscoveringFrazer.TheJournaloftheRoyalAnthropologicalInstitute3(2),213–32.

Isichei,E.,1977.HistoryofWestAfricaSince1800.NewYork(NY):Macmillian.

Jacobsen, T., 1939. The Sumerian King List. (Assyriologi‑calStudies11.)Chicago(IL):UniversityofChicagoPress.

Jacobsen,T.,1957.EarlypoliticaldevelopmentsinMesopo‑tamia.ZeitschriffürAssyriologie52,91–140.

Jacobsen, T., 1976. The Treasures of Darkness: a History ofMesopotamianReligion.NewHaven (CT): YaleUni‑versityPress.

Jacobsen,T.,1991.CommentonPollock(1991).CambridgeArchaeologicalJournal1(2),185.

Kirch,P.V.,2000.OntheRoadoftheWinds:anArchaeological

History of thePacific IslandsBefore EuropeanContact.Berkeley(CA):UniversityofCaliforniaPress.

Kunze,M.,1987.TheHighroadtotheStake:aTaleofWitchcrab,trans.W.E.Yuill.Chicago(IL):UniversityofChicagoPress.

Kurtz,D.W., 1978.The legitimationof theAztec state, inTheEarlyState,eds.H.J.M.Claessen&P.Skalník.TheHague:Mouton,169–89.

Larner,C.,1981.EnemiesofGod:theWitch‑HuntinScotland.Baltimore(MD):JohnHopkinsUniversityPress.

Law,R.,1985.Humansacrificeinpre‑ColonialWestAfrica.AfricanAffairs84(334),53–87.

Mann,M.,1986.TheSourcesofSocialPower,vol.I:AHistoryof Power from the Beginning to vw 1760. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Marcus,M.I.,1994.Dressedtokill:womenandpinsinearlyIran.TheOxfordArtJournal17(2),3–15.

Martin, P., 1997. The Chrysanthemum Throne: a History ofthe Emperors of Japan.Honolulu (HI):University ofHawaiiPress.

McCoy, R.C., 2002.Alterations of State: Sacred Kingship inthe English Reformation. New York (NY): ColumbiaUniversityPress.

Michalowski,P., 1983.HistoryasCharter: someobserva‑tionsontheSumerianKingList.JournaloftheAmericanOrientalSociety103(1),237–48.

Molleson,T.&D.Hodgson,2003.ThehumanremainsfromWoolley’sexcavationsatUr.IraqLXV,91–129.

Moorey,P.R.S.,1977.WhatdoweknowaboutthepeopleburiedintheRoyalCemetery?Expedition20,24–40.

Moorey, P.R.S., 1994.Ancient Mesopotamian Materials andIndustries:theArchaeologicalEvidence.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.

Moortgat,A.,1945.DieEntstehungderSumerischenHochkul‑tur.Leipzig:J.C.Hinrichs.

Muchembled,R.,1985.PopularCultureandEliteCultureinFrance,1400–1750, trans.L.Cochrane.BatonRouge(LA):LouisianaStateUniversityPress.

Muller,J.‑C.,1981.‘Divinekingship’inchiefdomsandstates:asingleideologicalmodel,inTheStudyoftheState,eds.H.J.M.Claessen&P.Skalník.TheHague:MoutonPublishers,239–50.

Mumford,L.,1967.TheMythoftheMachine,vol.I:TechnicsandHumanDevelopment.NewYork (NY):HarcourtBraceJovanovich.

Nissen,H.J.,1966.ZurDatierungDesKönigfriedhofesvonUr:UnterBesondererBerücksichtigungderStratigraphiederPrivatgräber.Bonn:RudolfHabelt.

Nissen,H.J.,1988.TheEarlyHistoryoftheAncientNearEast9000–2000 z{. Chicago (IL): University of ChicagoPress.

Oates,J.,1993.Tradeandpowerinthefinhandfourthmil‑lenniast:newevidencefromnorthernMesopotamia.WorldArchaeology24(3),403–22.

Pemberton,J.,1996.YorubaSacredKingship:aPowerLikethatof theGods.Washington (DC): Smithsonian Institu‑tionPress.

Pollock,S.,1985.ThechronologyoftheRoyalCemeteryofUr.Iraq47,129–58.

144

D.BruceDickson

Pollock,S.,1991.Ofpriestesses,princesandpoorrelations:thedeadintheRoyalCemeteryofUr.CambridgeAr‑chaeologicalJournal1(2),171–89.

Pollock,S.,1992.Bureaucratsandmanagers,peasantsandpastoralists, imperialists and traders: research ontheUrukandJemdetNsarperiodsinMesopotamia.JournalofWorldPrehistory6,297–336.

Pollock,S.,1999.AncientMesopotamia: theEdenthatNeverWas.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Porada, E.,D.P.Hansen, S.Dunham&S. Babcock, 1992.Mesopotamia,inChronologiesinOldWorldArchaeol‑ogy,vol.2.,ed.R.W.Ehrich.3rdedition.Chicago(IL):UniversityofChicagoPress,90–124.

Rawson,J.,2002.Thepowerofimages:themodeluniverseoftheFirstEmperoranditslegacy.HistoricalResearch75(188),123–55.

Reade, J., 2001. Assyrian king‑lists, the Royal Tombs ofUrandIndusorigins.JournalofNearEasternStudies60(1)1–29.

Roscoe,J.,1965.TheBaganda:anAccountoftheirNativeCus‑tomsandBeliefs.London:Cass.

Rowland,I.&A.Granon,2002.ReviewofWalterStephensDemonLovers:Witchcrab,SexandtheCrisisofBelief.NewYorkReviewofBooksSeptember23,68–70.

Sahlins,M.D.,1958.SocialStratificationinPolynesia.Sealle(WA):UniversityofWashingtonPress.

Schiffer, M.B., 1987. Formation Process in the Archaeologi‑cal Record. Albuquerque (NM): University of NewMexicoPress.

Scol,J.C.,1990.DominationandtheArtsofResistance:HiddenTranscripts.NewHaven(CT):YaleUniversityPress.

Scurlock,J.A.,1995.DeathandanerlifeinancientMesopo‑tamianthought,inCivilizationoftheAncientNearEast,vol.III(8):1883–1893,eds.J.M.Sasson,J.Baines,G.Beckman&K.S.Robinson.NewYork(NY):Macmil‑lan,1883–93.

Skalník,P.,1978.Theearlystateasaprocess,inTheEarlyState,eds.H.J.M.Claessen&P.Skalník.TheHague:Mouton,597–618.

Stone,E.C., 1991.CommentonPollock (1991).CambridgeArchaeologicalJournal1(2),186.

Sürenhagen,D., 2002.Death inMesopotamia: the ‘RoyalTombs’ofUrrevisited,inOfPotsandPlans:PapersOntheArchaeologyandHistoryofMesopotamiaandSyriaPresentedtoDavidOatesinHonourofhis75thBirthday,eds.L.Al‑GailaniWerr,J.Curtis,H.Martin,A.McMa‑hon,J.Oates&J.Reade.London:Nabu,324–38.

Tambiah,S.J.,1976.WorldConquerorandWorldRenouncer:a Study of Buddhism and Polity in Thailand against aHistorical Background. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni‑versityPress.

Tilly,C.,1984.BigStructures,LargeProcesses,HugeCompari‑sons.NewYork(NY):RussellSageFoundation.

Valeri,V.,1985.KingshipandSacrifice:RitualandSocietyinAncientHawaii.Chicago(IL):UniversityofChicagoPress.

Weber,M.,1947.TheTheoryofSocialandEconomicOrganiza‑tion,ed.T.Parsons.NewYork(NY):TheFreePress.

Weber,M.,1962.BasicConceptsinSociology.NewYork(NY):Citadel.

Weber, M., 1963. The Sociology of Religion. Boston (MA):BeaconHill.

Wedgewood,C.V., 1938.The Thirty YearsWar.NewYork(NY):Book‑of‑the‑Month‑Club.

Wilks,I.,1988.Asante:humansacrificeorcapitalpunish‑ment?Arejoinder.TheInternationalJournalofAfricanHistoricalStudies21(3),443–52.

Williams,C.,1988.Asante:humansacrificeorcapitalpun‑ishment? An assessment of the period 1807–1874.The International Journal of AfricanHistorical Studies21(3),433–41.

Winter,I.J.,1999.Readingritualinthearchaeologicalrecord:depositionpalernandfunctionoftwoartifacttypesfromtheRoyalCemeteryofUr,inFluchtpunktUruk:ArchäologischeEinheitausMethodischerVielfalt.SchribenfürHansJörgNissen,eds.H.Kühne,R.Bernbeck&K.Bartl.Rahden:MarieLeidorf,229–56.

Woolley,SirC.L.,1929.UroftheChaldees.London:PelicanBooks.

Woolley, Sir C.L., 1934.Ur Excavations, vol. II:The RoyalCemetery:aReportonthePredynasticandSargonidGravesExcavatedBetween1926and1931.London&Philadel‑phia(PA):PublicationoftheJointExpeditionoftheBritishMuseumandoftheMuseumoftheUniversityofPennsylvaniatoMesopotamia.

Woolley,SirC.,1953.SpadeworkinArchaeology.NewYork(NY):PhilosophicalLibrary.

Woolley, Sir C., 1954. Excavations at Ur. London: ErnestBenn.

Wrigley,C.C.,1957.Buganda:anoutlineeconomichistory.TheEconomicHistoryReview10(1),69–80.

Wrigley,C.C.,1996.KingshipandState:theBugandaDynasty.NewYork(NY):CambridgeUniversityPress.

Yoffee,N.,1995.PoliticaleconomyinearlyMesopotamianstates.AnnualReviewofAnthropology24,281–331.

Zimmerman,P.C.,Twotombsorthree?,inTreasuresfromtheRoyalTombsofUr,eds.R.L.Zeller&L.Horne.Phila‑delphia(PA):UniversityMuseumPublications.

Zuidema,T.,1990.Attheking’stable:IncaconceptsofsacredkingshipinCuzco,inKingshipandtheKings,ed.J.‑C.Galey.Chur:HarwoodAcademic,253–78.

Authorbiography

D.BruceDickson,ProfessorofArchaeologyatTexasA&MUniversity, has undertaken archaeological fieldwork inCentralAmerica,theNorthAmericansouthandsouthwestandinEastAfrica.Currently,heisstudyingPointeduHocballefield,Normandy,France.Hisinterestsincludeevolu‑tion,agriculturalorigins,cognitivearchaeology,ballefieldarchaeology and, most recently, violence, warfare andancientstates.