Interpreting an Historical Artifact Research Paper

Download this Research Paper in word format (.doc)

Note: Sample below may appear distorted but all corresponding word document files contain proper formatting

Excerpt from Research Paper:

Standard of Ur, Scenes of War/Peace, 2700 bce

The Standard of Ur is an artifact, which Charles Leonard Woolley discovered in the late 1920. It was in the Royal Tombs of Ur in ancient Mesopotamia, which was close to Baghdad presently known as Iran about 2600 BCE. Leonard was a London-based excavator who had gone to Ur in an effort to discover artifacts including archeological elements. Apparently, when he found it, he was not sure what it was; therefore, he assumed that it was a flag used back then in 2600 BCE. In addition, other people were also not sure of what it was, and some of them assumed it was a type of emblem of a king, others suggested it was a musical instrument covering.[footnoteRef:2] [2: Wolley, Leonard. Excavations at Ur: A record of twelve years' work. (London: Routledge) ]

In this regard, the British Museum has favored this concept, where the box is currently placed. Nonetheless, the real use of the Standard of Ur remains a mystery for historians, archeologists, which explain the diverse findings on its use. Scholars have gone further to theorize that it was a box intended for the collection and holding civic funds. The Standard of Ur is, other than being an artifact, an 8.5x19.6-inch trapezoidal box, which shows how life was in times of war and peace in Sumerian society.

Historical literatures state that the Standard of Ur got the name standard because the excavator who found it supposedly found it in the corner of a room, lying close to the shoulder of a person who may have held the box on a rope.[footnoteRef:3] For this reason, Woodley called it a standard, but there is no proof, which links the box to being a standard. Although there is a current form of the box in some of the world's renowned museums, literature asserts that the current depiction, is only a try of reconstructing the original artifact. Notably, the original artifact had stayed buried for a very long time, which contributed to the fragmentation and disintegration of some of its parts. [3: Sailus, Christopher. "Standard of Ur: Definition, lesson and quiz," http://education-portal.com/academy/lesson/standard-of-ur-definition-lesson-quiz.html#lesson (accessed 23 April 2014)]

In addition, when the excavators found it, literature asserts that some of the mosaic pieces managed to retain their form on the soil. Therefore, the excavators carefully uncovered the broken sections of the artifact and covered them with wax in an attempt to maintain their original form.[footnoteRef:4] Later on, they managed to lift the original designs, which contributed to the reconstruction of the artifact to the present state. It was made of lapis lazuli, which literature describes as an expensive stone that was in use at the period. In addition, limestone is another rock, which constitutes the box, and as literature asserts, limestone was an essential component for Sumerians as it featured in structural art.[footnoteRef:5] [4: The British Museum. "Standard of Ur: From Ur, southern Iraq, about 2400-2600 BC," http://www.britishmuseum.org/explore/highlights/highlight_objects/me/t/the_standard_of_ur.aspx (accessed 23 April 2014)] [5: Christopher. "Standard of Ur: Definition, lesson and quiz,"]

Ur in Context

Notably, there has been an evident confusion concerning the Ur, which is central to the Standard under research. However, the context of Ur is that of the ancient city of Sumer, Mesopotamia. In addition, the same city is also Ur of the Chaldea. Interestingly, this same Ur, is the one referred to as the home of Abraham as per the Bible. It was a crucial center of the Sumerian culture, and the prior literature comment that it was discovered in the 19th century. After the excavations, which saw to the discovery of the Standard of Ur, it became apparent that the city was a commercial center even before 2500 BC.[footnoteRef:6] [6: The British Museum. "Standard of Ur: From Ur, southern Iraq, about 2400-2600 BC,"]

The most important remains found in the city reveal a luxurious material culture, particularly due to the royal cemetery, which had harbored the Standard. There was also the temple of Ninhursag, which bore inscriptions of the various kings. The city had over three dynasties, which often crumbled due to regular warfare from neighbors. In this context, it had rules, even others mentioned in the Bible such as Nebuchadnezzar. As time passed by, there were various dwellers in the city, which included Arabs. However, the city later crumbled, and has not been heard, but owing to the Standard of Ur, the city will remain remembered. In the Bible, the city is mentioned in the books of Genesis and Nehemiah.

Interpretation

The Standard of Ur has two sides, which historians have labeled "war" and "peace." In addition, a number of prior literatures have asserted that the Standard of Ur represent events that occurred in the past. In this context, the "war" side of the box represents the chronological beginning. The top row on the "war" side represents the end of the war. The king of Ur, is drawn in a noticeable figure, appears to be accepting the surrender from the enemy. The king appears to have many of the enemies as prisoners of war. In the second row, the box shows Sumerian soldiers who are in full battle armor.[footnoteRef:7] [7: Gansell, Amy Rebecca, and Winter Irene. Treasures from the royal tombs of Ur. (Cambridge, Mass: Publications Dept., Harvard University)]

At first, the soldiers are marching, and then one can see them slaying their enemies on the field of battle. On the other hand, the bottom row has shown to be arguable due to the many diverse interpretations provided. Some historians suggest that it showed an attack on the Sumerian chariot, whereas others suggest it is an after the battle convoy, whereby, the king's chariot is on the front leading the army to Ur. Apparently, the Standard of Ur has received attention and this explains the different points-of-view provided by scholars, archeologists, and historians. It is, therefore, understandable mainly because history is often a complicated phenomena and a case to study.[footnoteRef:8] [8: Sailus, Christopher. "Standard of Ur: Definition, lesson and quiz," http://education-portal.com/academy/lesson/standard-of-ur-definition-lesson-quiz.html#lesson (accessed 23 April 2014)]

At the backside of the Standard of Ur, or rather the "peace" side, it shows the preparation and a celebration characterized by royalty. Similar to the "war" side of the box, the "peace" side then portrays an actual event, which took place after the Sumerian war. Therefore, the feast shown on the back side possibly took place as a commemoration of the "war" side, which the Sumerians had won.[footnoteRef:9] On the top row, the depiction is that of the king being feted and congratulated by the people, who supposedly are of equal caliber to him, and facing the king. In the background, there is playing of lyres. [9: Shannon, White. "Treasures from the Royal Tombs of Ur: A Traveling Exhibition of the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology," Near Eastern Archaeology 67, no. 4. (2004): 229.]

On the other hand, the bottom two rows represent the preparation of the feast by the common people, who appear to be collecting the sacks of grain, cows, sheep, which they will use to feed the king and his visitors. This, somehow represents the difference, which was in the Sumerian society, and seen in the current society. In this regard, there are people of high social status, and those of low status. In addition, the people of the low status in the society are to serve the people of high social status.[footnoteRef:10] Historians suggest that the common people perhaps collect the food, and animals, which were spoils of the war. [10: Christopher. "Standard of Ur: Definition, lesson and quiz"]

It is undisputable that the elements depicted by the Standard of Ur present a unique piece of artwork. In addition, the elements appearing on the box have provided insight on the way of life of the Sumerians. This was in regards to the chariots and weapons, supposedly used during war times. Therefore, the box qualifies as a representation of the Sumerian army, and the subsequent activities, particularly after they had won the battle. Apparently, there is archeological evidence, which supports the use of the weapons, such as helmets during the Sumerian war.[footnoteRef:11] Some of the archeological evidence that coincide with the artwork includes the Gold Helmet of Dug and some other weapons found such as spears, axes, and swords. [11: Christopher. "Standard of Ur: Definition, lesson and quiz,"]

Other items or vessels, which appear in the "peace" side of the box, which include the cups and bowls, have been found in the Royal Graves at Ur.[footnoteRef:12] Apparently, although there are arguments, put forward by a group of historians, concerning the relation of the box to being a musical instrument, some of the elements depicted by the box do not show any musical instrument. In this context, it can be conclusive that the box were not related to music, despite the possibility of the King's visitors who appear on the "peace" side, some of them being musicians. [12: White, "Treasures from the Royal Tombs of Ur: A…[continue]

Cite This Research Paper:

"Interpreting An Historical Artifact" (2014, April 24) Retrieved December 8, 2016, from http://www.paperdue.com/essay/interpreting-an-historical-artifact-188452

"Interpreting An Historical Artifact" 24 April 2014. Web.8 December. 2016. <http://www.paperdue.com/essay/interpreting-an-historical-artifact-188452>

"Interpreting An Historical Artifact", 24 April 2014, Accessed.8 December. 2016, http://www.paperdue.com/essay/interpreting-an-historical-artifact-188452

Other Documents Pertaining To This Topic

  • Anthropology Historical Foundations of Anthropology

    Gift giving creates a bond between the giver and the receiver. Mauss felt that to reject a gift, was to reject the social bond attached to it. Likewise, to fail to reciprocate is viewed as a dishonorable act in some cultures. Gift giving is a means to create social cohesion among the group. What Distinctive contributions did Weber make to social theory? Weber used his work to attempt to understand the

  • Civil War Archaeology Annotated Bibliography

    Nobles, Connie H. (2000). Gazing upon the invisible: Women and children at the Old Baton Rouge Penitentiary. American Antiquity, 65(1), 5. Archaeological investigation of the Old Baton Rouge Penitentiary includes studying artifacts to determine the conditions of the children and women who were housed there as prisoners. "There were a total of 1,310 artifacts collected from this site. Five major categories of items include: 1) ceramic goods, 2) glass vessels, 3)

  • Archaeology Is One of the

    In this way, material culture and social paradigm were embedded in the cultural mythology of any given time in the past. This once again emphasizes the inaccuracy of the Christian myth as the sole archaeological paradigm of research. The recognition of myth and indeed the "other" in the past provides the archaeologist with a fresh view of the past, which is much richer and wider than might previously have been

  • Jamestown The Buried Truth by

    These types of insertion provide both an interactive relation with the reader and a more digestible means of absorbing historical information. This type of narrative style can be very efficient. In the case of Dr. Kelso's book this attitude provided the subject a much more approachable side and therefore the reader was not intended to have previous experience in artifacts or archaeology in general. The style used by the author

  • History of Religion Historians of

    As Tapper (1995) points out, the three major approaches of Western social theory are each "flawed by their commitment to positivism, objectivity, and scientific detachment," (p. 186). Some may wonder how it could be possible to study religion with scientific detachment, since scientific detachment is partly defined by the absence of religious sentiment. If a historian is too detached, he or she cannot come to terms with the language

  • William Foxwell Albright

    William F. Albright A Study of W.F. Albright and How Biblical Archeology Helped Shape His Worldview William Foxwell Albright was first and foremost a believer in the religion of Christianity, a fact that greatly influenced his role as a Biblical archeologist, or "historian of religion," according to critical scholars like J. Edward Wright and David Noel Freedman. Yet Albright himself never claimed to be anything more than dedicated to interpreting "the unfolding scroll of

  • Christianity Why Should Christian Theology Be Contextual

    Christianity Why should Christian theology be contextual? Explore this by referring to four important issues such as culture, liberation theology, feminist theology, and queer theology. Christian theology should be contextual because religious expression is dependent on culture. Historical and cultural context have continually impacted the development of Christian theology. Biblical allegories and the gospels are contextual in that they refer to the life and times of Christ, with additional references to Hebraic


Read Full Research Paper
Copyright 2016 . All Rights Reserved