So-called Standard of Ur (U. 11164) from PG 779  (as reconstructed in 1973)  

Now in the British Museum (BM 121201): images from the museum website      

Discovery and Reconstruction of the Standard  

Plan of PG 779: from Leonard Woolley (referenced below, 1934b, Plate 24)  

My additions in blue (Woolley’s labels for the four chambers) and in red  (S = location of the Standard of Ur)  

Leonard Woolley (referenced below, 1934a, at p. 60-1) discovered this important artefact during his excavations of the cemetery of Ur in 1927/8.  More specifically, he found in PG 779, which is one of the two largest of Woolley’s ‘royal tombs, which is made up of four chambers (as illustrated above): 

1. ✴an outer door to the stone structure leads into a long narrow chamber (Chamber A) running along its whole width;
   

2. ✴a second door in this chamber leads into two adjoining square chambers (Chambers B and C) that each occupied half the building's width; and
   

3. ✴a second door in Chamber B leads into another long  chamber (Chamber D) that took up the whole back part of the building. 
   

The roofs of all four chambers had fallen and the chambers themselves had been looted, but he established that Chamber D had originally contained at least four human bodies and evidence of the original presence high quality grave goods.  Furthermore, as he recorded (at pp. 60-1):

1. “At the south-west end [of Chamber D), there were remains of two ... bodies, one very fragmentary; the better preserved had its head in the corner of the chamber, close to the south-west wall, [in a sheltered position that the looters had apparently ignored,  There, we] found the finest object in the tomb. 
   

2. ✴The head of the man was entirely covered with thousands of minute lapis-lazuli ball beads, [which] lay over and under the broken skull and were  thick in the surrounding soil,  It appeared that he had worn [a particularly opulent beaded 'head-dress']. ...
   

3. ✴Above the man's head and slightly to the right of it, against the stones of the tomb wall, [were the remains of]  the so-called 'Standard' of Ur’.” 
   

What Woolley actually found were the shell plaques and the lapis lazuli, red limestone and shell tesserae that had been inlaid in bitumen on four sides of a wooden trapezoidal box:

1. ✴the two largest faces had been rectangular; and
   

2. ✴the two sides connecting them had been in the shape of narrow truncated triangles.
   

Woolley recorded (at p. 61)  that:

1. “The wood which had been its core [of the object] had vanished ([although] traces of its grain could be distinguished on the bitumen afterwards) and the bitumen in which the tesserae were set had gone to powder, so that the tesserae were loose and kept in place only by the soil.  With the decay of the wood, the main panels had been telescoped together, with the result that the triangular ends had been pushed out and broken ...” 
   

Nothing was left of the top and  bottom panels, which had presumably been undecorated.  Woolley painstakingly embedded the recovered decorative pieces, inch by inch, in wax, maintaining the original design as far as was possible and then managed to dispatch them safely to the British Museum.  When the trapezoidal shape of the original box became clear, he suggested that the original box had been mounted on a pole and carried in procession, although there is no evidence that this was the case.  However, nobody seems to have found a more satisfactory name for the object that he designated the  ‘Standard of Ur’. 

As Dorota Ławecka (referenced below, note 4, at p. 337) observed, after the safe arrival of the remains and their setting in a new wooden box in the British Museum laboratory, the restored object:

1. “... was first put on display in 1928 . Since it was [only] consolidated with wax paraffin, its condition worsened over time  ... Further conservation work was undertaken in 1973, during which:
   

2. •the [box] was completely dismantled and reassembled on a new mount; [and]
   

3. •the arrangement of the inlays (especially in the end panels) were adjusted [where necessary].” 
   

Sarah Collins (referenced below, at pp. 50–59) provides a full account of the stages of this process, which resulted in the reincarnated]‘standard’ that we see today.  

Sarah Collins (referenced below, at p. 15) pointed out that, from the time of the excavation of the standard, it was recognised that the mosaics on its two large rectangular faces had relayed narrative messages that allow them to be differentiated: one can be labelled the ‘war side’ and the other the ‘peace side’.  I will discuss them in this order, before moving on to the mosaics on the two triangular sides.

Narrative Conveyed by the ‘War Side’ 

War side of the Standard of Ur   

Bottom Register

As Sarah Collins (referenced below, at p. 13) pointed out, the narrative portrayed i(n three registers) on this side of the standard begins at the right extreme of the bottom register.  Here we see a battle involving four of the king’s impressive four-wheeled war chariots, each of which is pulled by a team of four equids and manned a a two-man team made up of a charioteer and a soldier who stands behind him, wielding an axe or a spear.  As Joost Crouel (referenced below, at p. 33) observed: 

1. “The vehicles are moving at [increasing speeds] across a battlefield, symbolised by the stripped and bleeding human bodies of enemies prostrate beneath the draught teams.  The position of the bodies need not be read literally since, if at all possible, equids avoid stepping on bodies for fear of injuring their own limbs.  We have here, in fact, the earliest appearance of the motif of ‘the enemy beneath the team’s hooves’ that is to return early in the next millennium and later with another type of vehicle, the two–wheeled chariot.  Wherever the motif appears, it must be taken as merely symbolic of victory.” 
   

Middle Register 

War side of the Standard of Ur (detail): middle of the middle register  

Possible enemy standard  (see below) picked out in white 

War side of the Standard of Ur (detail): right side  of the middle register  

Possible enemy standard  (see below) picked out in white 

The scene in the middle register begins with eight soldiers (who presumably belong to the army of Ur) marching in strict formation (not illustrated here).  They are followed  (in the middle of the register) by much more dynamic scenes involving a less orderly procession in which victorious soldiers (presumably in the army of Ur) roughly manhandle enemy prisoners.  These scenes can be split into two consecutive groups:

1. ✴in the first group (the middle of the middle register):
   

2. •each of three successive commanders of Ur (including my ‘commander A’ and ‘commander B’) manhandles a defeated enemy; and
   

3. •another prisoner looks backwards in horror at what he is witnessing; and
   

4. ✴in the second group, soldiers of Ur roughly push other prisoners forward towards their fate.. 
   

Jerald Starr (in this page of his website ‘Sumerian Shakespeare’) suggests that three of the individual mosaics in these two groups each depict (or originally depicted) an enemy standard, which can be identified by its shape (which, he argues, emulates that of the ‘Standard of Ur: 

1. ✴in the group of scenes in the middle register:
   

2. •my ‘commander A’ (who is about to drive his spear into his opponent’s stomach) kicks away a now unidentifiable object that Starr suggests had originally been an enemy standard; and
   

3. •my ‘commander B’ (who holds a sickle sword in his right hand and the skirt of the prisoner that he is humiliating  over his left arm) has his right leg in front of what Starr suggests is an enemy standard that is between his victim’s feet; and
   

4. ✴in the group of scenes to the right, the third figure from the right (whom Starr identifies as an enemy prisoner) holds what he identifies as the box and pole of another yet another enemy standard.
   

I have picked out these putative enemy standards in white in the illustrations above.  Starr further suggests that the motif of an enemy standard is used here as an artistic device which denotes that the enemy commander is of royal status.   However, there are potential problems with these hypotheses:

1. ✴the object that is arguably kicked  away by my ‘commander A’ no longer survives and neither of Starr’s two other putative ‘enemy standards’ can be securely described as a rectangular box with trapezoidal sides; and 
   

2. ✴in any case, there is no surviving evidence from Mesopotamia (other than the potential evidence of the ‘Standard of Ur’) that boxes of this shape were ever:
   

3. •mounted on poles to serve as battle standards; or
   

4. •used in art to establish the royal status of military commanders.
   

Left: Detail from the ‘historical side’ of the ‘Stele of the Vultures‘ from Girsu/Lagash,

now in the Musée du Louvre (AO 50): image from the museum website 

Right: my ‘commander B‘ from the image above  

Having said that, I think that Jerald Starr is on firmer ground with his suggestion that my ‘commender B’ is a ruler (presumably a ruler of Ur): note, for example that (as he points out) Eanatum, an ensi (ruler) of Lagash in the ED III period, is depicted wielding a sickle sword in his famous ‘Stele of the Vultures’ (as illustrated above).   I hesitate to suggest that my ‘commender B’ was a king because (as we shall see) the central figure in the top register, who if generally assumed to represent a king of Ur, is depicted as the tallest figure in the composition (with his head protruding beyond the upper border).  However, Starr is surely correct that he must be a man of great authority, and that his victim in the mosaic must have been of equal or higher status.  Furthermore, I would add  that: 

1. ✴since there is no suggestion that the my ‘commander B’ is actually about to strike his victim with his sickle sword, we must be looking at a ‘timeless event (in the sense that it is meant to be remembered for generations); and
   

2. ✴the ritual submission of a powerful enemy ruler to a powerful commander of the army of Ur would indeed be an event of this kind.
   

(I discuss Starr’s assertion that the powerful enemy ruler t  must be the king of Kish in my page on the first dynasty of Ur.)

Top Register

War side of the Standard of Ur (detail): right side of the top register       

We should probably continue the ‘narrative’ by following the procession of prisoners of war  from the middle to the top register, where it reaches the majestic figure at its centre.   Although this figure is very damaged (see below), his superior status is underlined by the fact that his head protrudes beyond its upper decorative border: as Sarah Collins (referenced below, at p. 24) observed, he:

1. “... is no doubt a ruler, probably a king of Ur.”
   

He is also clearly the man who holds the fate of the enemy prisoners of war in his hands.  

War side of the Standard of Ur (detail): left side of the top register       

As Sarah Collins (referenced below, at p. 26) pointed out, if we now look at the mosaics behind and including this putative king of Ur, it seems that all of these figures (human and animal) are motionless.  She suggested (at pp. 27) that:

1. ✴the three soldiers behind the king, each of whom holds a long spear and an axe, could be his personal bodyguard or perhaps members of his family; and
   

2. ✴the chariot on the left as the king’s chariot, which is a larger version of those seen un the bottom register. 
   

However, this chariot is unmanned, albeit that:

1. ✴a soldier (presumably the king’s charioteer) stands behind it, holding the reigns; and
   

2. ✴a small figure (possibly a groom) controls the released equids by means of a lead round their necks. 
   

It seems to me that the implication here is that this was the chariot in which the king (or, perhaps my ‘commander B’, if he is not the king) had led his men to victory.

Figure of the King of Ur in the Top Register   

War side of the Standard of Ur (detail): middle of the top register   

image from the standard as reconstructed in 1973   

War side of the Standard of Ur (detail): middle of the top register   

Watercolour by Mary Louise Baker of a photograph of the standard as constructed in 1928,

which was reproduced by Leonard Woolley (referenced below, 1934b, Plate 92)

As we have seen, the figure at at the centre of the top register, whose head protrudes through the decorative border, is generally taken to represent the king of Ur.  Jerald Starr (in this page of his website ‘Sumerian Shakespeare’) argued that the object in his left hand is:

1. “... his royal standard, [which] is just like the ‘Standard of Ur’ [itself when seen] from the side.” 
   

Interestingly, Sarah Collins (referenced below, at p. 26 and Figure 17), who referenced the image painted by Mary Louise Baker that is illustrated above) suggested that this object: 

1. “... part of a what looks like a large ceremonial spear that he is holding out in front of him.” 
   

She also observed that, based on this image:

1. “...he was originally holding a weapon in his right hand that extended above his right shoulder”;
   

and Jerald Starr suggested that he had probably originally carried a sickle sword in this hand. 

Sarah Collins (referenced below, at p. 26) characterised the two men in front of the king (who lead the procession of prisoners) as two Sumerian soldiers, and it certainly seems that (as illustrated above) Mary Louise Baker painted both of them as figures wearing helmets (= Sumerians).  However, Jerald Starr argued  that the figure nearest the king would have been the defeated enemy commander, who had been given back his clothes for the surrender ceremony.  It seems to me that:

1. ✴the first prisoner to be presented to the king must have been the most senior of the surviving prisoners of war, who was probably the man who had been captured and humiliated  (in the middle register) by my ‘commender B’; but
   

2. ✴this man might well have been the between these two soldiers and the soldier on the right in the image above. 
   

It is also possible (as Jerald Starr suggested) that the second figure in front of the king (who is recognised by both authors as a Sumerian) is depicted carrying a rolled up battle standard under his left arm (and perhaps its pole in his left hand).  

Narrative Conveyed by the ‘Peace Side’ 

Peace side of the Standard of Ur    

Top Register  

The most important figure on this side of the standard is the third figure from the left in the top register, who is seated and presides over a banquet attended by six seated guests.  This important man is distinguished here by the facts that he is: 

1. ✴the largest of the seated figures (as emphasised by the position of his head in relation to the decorative border above); and
   

2. ✴the only one of them who wears a ‘flounced’ skirt and faces right.   
   

He must therefore be the victorious commander who is depicted at the centre of the top register of the war side, and the banquet that he hosts must represent a celebration of his recent victory.  Furthermore, it is hard to escape the conclusion that he is the king of Ur. 

The two men between the king and the first of his guests are clearly servants, and the man standing behind him (who is clearly a third servant) seems to be welcoming a now-lost figure who has just arrived.  Sarah Collins (referenced below, at p. 36) observed that, since this damaged figure was relatively large and facing in the same direction as the king, it might have represented a queen.  The man behind the last of the guests plays a bull-headed lyre and the long-haired man behind him might well be singing.  

Lower Two Registers 

Middle register: red = probably not Sumerian’, asterisk = probably an official with a religious function  

Bottom register: red = probably not Sumerian’, asterisk = probably official with a religious function    

Sarah Collins (referenced below, at p. 30) argued that: the men in these two registers:  

1. “... are evidently part of one long procession , bringing animals and goods towards the banquet.”  
   

She also argued that: 

1. ✴five men in these registers (marked with black asterisks above) hold their hands in a particular manner that might indicate that they are praying or that they have responsibility for religious aspects of the banquet; 
   

2. ✴the bald men in the middle of the middle register who are bringing bulls, goats and fish (also labelled in black) are also probably Sumerian’; and.
   

3. ✴the two men behind them in this register and and most of those in the bottom register (three with a large backpack three withe goods in a sack and two that each leads a team of four equids), all of whom are labelled in red) are probably not Sumerian (judging by their hairstyles and/or the way they are dressed). 
   

Furthermore, the ‘goods’ being carried or driven seem to fall into three groups: 

1. ✴the bulls, goats and fish are perhaps destined for consumption at the banquet; while 
   

2. ✴the heavy goods in the backpacks and sacks are probably tribute (perhaps booty from the recent war or from other rulers who seek the friendship of the victorious king); and 
   

3. ✴the teams of equids are almost certainly intended to pull the king.s chariots (and may have been captured during the recent battle).  
   

First gift brought by a non-Smerian: image from  Dorota Ławecka (referenced below, Figure 2a, at p. 339)  

In the image of the middle register above, I labelled the three animals walking after the fist bull as ‘goats’ (following Sarah Collins), but Dorota Ławecka (referenced below, at p. 345) argued that the they are, more precisely:

1. “...  a flock of two fleeced sheep and one goat, walking calmly on their own.”
   

She then argued (at p. 346) that:

1. “... the first person in the ... group of the tribute bearers  [illustrated above] holds with both hands a sheep which is smaller than the free-walking ones, and [also] non-fleeced.  In my opinion, the animal looks different not because it had been sheared or plucked, as [others have suggested], ...  but because it was the intention of the artist ... to make it look different.” 
   

Having considered various possibilities, she concluded that:

1. “... although it cannot be established with certainty,there is a good chance that our sheep ... comes from the hilly country.  The way it is being handled by the person leading it [to Ur] may indicate that a
   

2. depiction of a wild animal was intended, in contrast to the flock of domesticated sheep walking unattended.”
   

She also suggested (at p. 348) that the equids in the bottom register (and those on the war side) probably came from the region around Subartu, in the area north of Sumer.  In relation to the way in which men that I have labelled in red were depicted:

1. “... does not conform to typical south Mesopotamian iconography, and their distinct appearance was noticed and commented on already by [Leonard] Woolley.  ... People in this part of the standard are characterised by their distinctive coiffures and dresses in a deliberate attempt to set them apart from the other protagonists of the narrative.”
   

She rejected Woolley’s suggestion that the distinct headdress of the ‘tribute bearers:

1. “... is reminiscent of that depicted on the mother-of-pearl and slate mosaic from Kish ...”.
   

Rather, she argued that: 

1. “Detailed analysis of the group’s costumes [and] headgears, and the kind of animals depicted [here] lead me to the conclusion that what was illustrated was a group of tribute-bearers coming from a region even more distant than the Kish area: that is from the piedmont or the mountainous zone outside the Mesopotamian plain.”  
   

Main Panels of the Standard of Ur: Conclusions    

Sarah Collins (referenced below, at p. 5) began her invaluable monograph on the Standard of Ur by characterising it as:

1. “... a remarkable work of ancient narrative art.”
   

Although the interpretation of visual narrative of this kind is inherently subjective, I think that we can be reasonably sure that: 

1. ✴the war side of the standard ‘documents’:
   

2. •a major victory won by the king of Ur who is depicted at the centre of its top register’ and
   

3. •the formal submission to him of the commander whom he has just defeated (and presumably supplanted); and
   

4. ✴the peace side ‘documents’ the victory celebrations, as the king presides over a banquet, having received tribute in the form of:
   

5. •domesticated animals and fish from across Sumer; and
   

6. •other precious goods (including teams of equids to pull his war chariots) as war booty and/or tribute from rulers the north who wanted to receive his friendship or to acknowledged his hegemony.
   

Furthermore, although it is a relatively small object (with its rectangular panels measuring about 50 cm in length and 20cm in height), its high artistic value and the exotic nature of its components (lapis lazuli and red marble from the east and shell from the Lower Sea) speak to the economic, political and cultural prosperity that this victory (and presumably others like it) have secured.

This leaves us wondering about the nature of the ‘audience’ for this narrative.  As Jerald Starr (in this page of his website ‘Sumerian Shakespeare’) pointed out, although it was to detailed and too fragile of have served as a standard of war, it might well have served:

1. “... as a royal standard, the kind of standard carried during processions of the king.”
   

Perhaps it followed the king as he processed through his increasing domains and publicly displayed whenever and wherever he was in residence.  And, since it was found in the royal grave PG 779 at Ur, it seems (at least to me) that this must have been the grave in which he was buried.  

Postscript: End Panels  

As Sarah Collins (referenced below, at p. 40 and pp. 52-3) explained:

1. ✴given the circumstances in which Leonard Woolley excavated the standard in 1928, he knew that reconstructions of the end panels that he attempted at that time were necessarily approximate; and
   

2. ✴the further changes that were made to the arrangement of the inlays in 1973 were based largely on educated guesses.
   

She illustrated the two reconstructions, side by side in her Figures 36 and 37, and observed (at p. 40) that:

1. “Neither arrangement is likely to reflect the original intention of the Sumerian artist ... ’’
   

However, she also pointed out (at pp. 40-3) that at least two of the surviving scenes from what is now the left end of the standard (as seen from the war side) involve some important Mesopotamian imagery. 

Pair of Mountain Goats and a Flowering Tree 

Scene in the top register of an end panel of the standard:

Left: in the 1928 reconstruction, from the watercolour of Mary Louise Baker

reproduced in in Leonard Woolley (referenced below, 1934b, Plate 93)

Right: in the 1973 reconstruction  

The first of these scenes almost certainly belonged to a group of the Sumerian motif that involve a pair of mountain goats and a flowering tree, in which case, the goat on the left would originally have been mirrored by one on the right.  If this is correct, then the completions of the right part of this inlay in both 1928 (image on the left) and 1973 (image on the right) were unsatisfactory. 

Similar Images

‘Goat Statues’ from PG 1237  

Two reconstructed statues of a male goat in a flowering tree, found near ‘body 61‘   in PG 1237.   

Left: U. 12357B, from the Penn Museum (30-12-702)         Right: U. 12357A, from the British Museum (BM 122200) 

Image adapted from images from the respective museums  

 

Shell plaque (U. 10917) from PG 800b (the nurial chamber of Queeen Pu-abum

Now in the British Museum (BM 121529): image from the museum website   

Anzu Birds Attacking a Human-Headed Bull

Top: scene containing a pair of Anzu birds, each attacking a human-headed bull, flanking a damaged shell inlay,   

from the bottom register of one of the end panels in the 1973 reconstruction

Bottom; scenes in the bottom registers of the two end panels in the 1928 reconstruction,

each of which includes a motif of an Anzu birds, attacking a human-headed bull,

from the watercolour of Mary Louise Baker, reproduced in Leonard Woolley (referenced below, 1934b, Plate 93)  

Comparison of the images above shows just how unreliable were the alleged reconstructions of the end panels carried out in both 1928 and 1973.   However, it also confirms that the end panels originally contained two images of a lion-headed eagle (used as a symbol of the god Ningirsu at Lagash/Girsu and later documented these as the Anzi bird) attacking a a human-headed bull.

Similar images

Gameboard (u. 9776) from  the royal grave PG 580, with two squares that depict a a human-headed bull 

and also include (or probably included) an Anzu bird

Now in the Penn Museum (B16742): images from the museum website 

Limestone relief of  the Anzu bird on the back of a human-headed bull, from the Ninhursag temple at Tell Ubaid

Now in the Penn Museum (B15606)l image from the museum website