Talk:Standard of Ur

Biblical quote ??
Not only is the text of verse 9 repeated in verse 10 in this quote but the reference is certainly incorrect. Does "King 2 9-10" refer to "1 Kings" or "2 Kings" or chapter 2 of either? Here is KJV from 2 Kings ch12 v8-10

12:012:008 And the priests consented to receive no more money of the people, neither to repair the breaches of the house.

12:012:009 But Jehoiada the priest took a chest, and bored a hole in the lid of it, and set it beside the altar, on the right side as one cometh into the house of the LORD: and the priests that kept the door put therein all the money that was brought into the house of the LORD.

12:012:010 And it was so, when they saw that there was much money in the chest, that the king's scribe and the high priest came up, and they put up in bags, and told the money that was found in the house of the LORD.

How is this relevant anyway? Is there a hole on the chest? Top for collections, bottom for pole? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MikeYates (talk • contribs) 10:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Help: formatting
I'm pretty clumsy with the pics & text. Please feel free to modify. Ex0pos 02:42, 27 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Some brief cue should be added at Ur so that readers will find this article. --Wetman 10:13, 27 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Done. Thanks for the suggestion. Ex0pos 21:38, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

But we are not even close to being done.

Image
Unless someone objects, I am going to replace Image:Standard_of_ur1.jpg with Image:Standard of Ur - peace side.jpg. Dar-Ape 17:08, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * That's fine with me. But would you mind if, at some point after you upload, I slightly edit the image with photoshop to enhance the colors and bring out the details?  Ex0pos 22:17, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Standard of ur1.jpg
Image:Standard of ur1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

inlaid mosaic of what??
I am guessing with some conviction that inlay was made of shell and not hell, so am making the change. If I am wrong, don't hesitate...Amity150 03:57, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Sumerian lyre.jpg
Image:Sumerian lyre.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

animals depicted in the standard are most definitely horses
Although Aryan debate assumes that horses were only restricted to central asia before being imported into south of asia in the 2nd millennium BC, which i think is most definitely wrong and evidently agenda based. There is no reason to believe that donkeys or their cousins onagers were ever deployed for war purposes, it is infact very stupid to believe. According to one theory trousers were first made by iranians to ride horses, again, these theories are archaic and very agenda based, mesopotamian, indus art work clearly show people wearing pants or trousers thousands of years before introduction of central asian horses. There is also no reason to believe that those were central asian horses rather than arabian or non central asian horses.

The reason why i think the standard depicts real horses not donkeys is because one matching horse artwork with a gap of two thousand years, one originating in thrace, and one originating in jiroft, south eastern iran.

Thracian plate

Jiroft art work from 3rd millenium BC

clearly jiroft artwork and thracian artwork are the same, so there is reason to believe that jiroft artwork shows real horse, i dont think this lancer is riding a donkey, which would be quite stupid and after two thousand years thracians imitate jiroft artwork by replacing donkeys with horses, just to satisfy aryan theories.

horse bones from indus civilization have been already verified as horse bones by a prominent hungarian expert on horse bones. so its pretty clear that horses were well known in ancient civilizations of fertile crescent. 115.135.130.182 (talk) 21:27, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello again! References, please. From books. Johnbod (talk) 21:47, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * you people ask references, then reject them which doesnt suit you which doesnt conform to european views, just make excuses, that sholar is not good, that one is fringe scholarship doesnt agree with rest of scholarship embrasing aryan migrations, start cherry picking scholarship, then you people post without providing references and reject any other reference, if i show you sandor bokonyi references, you will object it, which i already know, but i think i need to atleast make some point in the talk page against this horse politics, declaring every horse figurine, imagery as onager, wild ass as it doesnt suit aryan perspectives of european scholars. 115.135.130.182 (talk) 18:46, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Personally I'm quite sympathetic to the view that they are horses, but you need references relating to this object saying so. Really India is pretty irrelevant as the Domestication of the horse is generally condidered to have happened well before either IVC or Ur, but on the steppes somewhere. They aren't thought to have reached Mesopotamia (or probably India) till later than this object. Johnbod (talk) 02:58, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * horses in arabian peninsula were already domesticated 10,000 years ago, the central asian horse theory is infact now outdated. Horse DNA from indian/ south asian horses like marwari horse have indicated they are part arabian, part himalayan pony. Sandor Bokonyi's identificaion of sharma's six horse bones from surkotada has strengthened that horses were present in south of asia well before the given period by western scholars115.135.130.182 (talk) 08:29, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The first of these is the most relevant. As you know, we follow WP:RS, and it is early days for these, following these recent discoveries. Johnbod (talk) 13:29, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * , can you access this book? Think that some more information can be added from the book. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:15, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't have that one - the series are good introductions by specialists, c. 60 pages long, & pretty cheap. Johnbod (talk) 15:03, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I notice the 2010 museum description used in the article specified "donkeys", but the current one doesn't. Johnbod (talk) 16:53, 27 August 2021 (UTC)