Both are easily readable with simple writing styles. It takes a little getting used to Kuhrt's method of putting references into her text but that is quickly overcome. Starr reads like a kind of standard textbook of the ancient world. Kuhrt's book is more focused and therein lies their value. I would recommend Starr as a first read because it does cover the ground, including mateiral on the "dawn" of humans. But there is a concern to raise with Starr also. The preponderance of his material is geared to Greece and Rome, it seems. He does it extremely well but it is obvious that this is where his bias lies. Kuhrt, on the other hand, does a dandy truly indepth job on the area of Mesopotamia especially. She looks at the topic from many points of view and gives a rich wealth of material and insight. I certainly appreciate the Starr book for its overall sweep of the area and the period. I prefer the Kuhrt book for the kind of detail that she is providing on the specialty in which I am interested. Both compliment each other and together make a fantastic introduction and immersion in the history, literature, culture and society of the area.

Van De Mieroop's purpose in writing this is appears twofold. First, he states several times that it is impossible to view the past without bias, conscious or unconscious. The most egregious example of this, which he mentions only in passing, is German scholars of the early 20th century using the study of Mesopotamia to further their notions of anti-Semitism. Even the early archaeologists of the mid- and late- 19th century are seen as interpreting their finds in the light of their own views of European colonial expansion. He say that because bias is unavoidable, scholars must make efforts to acknowledge their own biases.

His second purpose is to describe what sorts of written records are available in the cuneiform corpus and what can be learned from them. He is at pains to point out that the use of writing was restricted and therefore not all events or aspects of social history were written down. At the same time, he speaks of "an embarrassment of riches" with respect to the material and information available. Even if no more texts were to become available, the cataloguing and editing of those housed in museums and private collections would be enough material to keep scholars occupied for generations.

He examens the written record from four different angles: "History from above," royal inscriptions, diplomatic correspondence; "history from below," an attempt to construct a social history of the "non-elite"; economic history, particularly the role of trade and the ration system; and gender. In each of the categories, he tries to summarize a history of how that particular aspect of Mesopotamian history has been viewed. In the section on economics, he discusses Karl Marx, Max Weber, Karl Polyani and others, as he did in his concluding remarks in his book, The Mesopotamian City.

He offers at times pointed criticism of a theories, even of people's whose ideas he believes hold merit and deserve study. A case in point is Karl Polyani's view of Mesopotamian economy as "marketless."

Short though it is, the book is does pack in a lot of information. Theories, and approaches to the study of history are discussed at length, but he also takes the time to give detailed examples. The longest chapter is the one dealing with material on the elite of Mesopotamian society, as might be expected since this is where the greatest wealth of information lies. But he stresses repeatedly that the texts are often difficult to understand, to translate and to place in context. He advises against using models based on the study of classical Greece or Rome, and warns that using classical texts that refer to Mesopotamia as source material (such as Herodotus' description of every woman in Babylon being under obligation to have sex with a stranger for money at least one in her lifetime) must always be approached advisedly. The ancients were free of bias either.