Step One: Documentation The first stage of the project involved documenting what was known about the "Ram" and its earlier reconstruction, both textually and visually. This included the gathering of background information about the piece from various sources, such as the Ur exhibit curators, University Museum conservation records, various publications, and the inspection of the British Museum companion "Ram." This last source helped to address one of the questions about Woolley's reconstruction: should the curve of the "Ram's" back match the one at the British Museum? Although the two statues have often been identified as a pair, perhaps parts of one object, a thorough examination of the British Museum "Ram" yielded many significant differences between the two statues, and these differences support the idea that the "Rams" are independent, albeit similar, pieces. The hypothesis that Penn's "Ram" should have had a similar profile as the British Museum "Ram" was therefore reconsidered. Photographs in the Ur Excavation Reports showing the "Ram" in situ as excavated pointed to an answer for the second question of reconstruction: where should the "Ram's" front hooves be placed in relation to the tree branches? It seemed that on the basis of these photographs, the animal was meant to rest its front hooves on the tree branches, which would have added stability to the piece. Further evidence about the appearance of the "Ram" was discovered by curator Richard Zettler and conservator Tamsen Fuller. In the Archives of the Museum, Zettler found notes taken by L. Legrain, curator of the Near Eastern collection in the 1930's and 1940's, which indicated that the "Ram" had undergone some sort of conservation in the 1940's, although no details were given. Through careful examination of and comparison between published photographs of the "Ram" in 1929 and the "Ram" today, Fuller noticed a difference in the profile. These new discoveries provided further information that could be used in the current reconstruction of the "Ram." |
|
Another part of the documenting stage involved photographing the "Ram" before its deconstruction. Numerous black and white and color slides and prints as well as UV (ultraviolet) fluorescence photographs were taken. UV fluorescence photography [in which the object is photographed under UV lights in a blackened frame] is important as another means of viewing the surface of the object. |
 Setting up for UV fluorescence photography. |
 Radiograph of the "Ram." The household screw can be seen in the "Ram's" neck, pointing at 2 o'clock. |
Another type of visual documentation already existed: radiographs of the "Ram" taken in 1982. These were used to investigate the restored internal armature and how it was put together, which would aid in the physical disassembling of the piece. They showed that a metal armature was the basis of support for the restored animal and for the arms of the tree, but that they were not attached. They also showed that modern wood was used for the tree trunk and base. Finally, it was discovered that common household objects such as a cup hook and screw were used in the reconstruction! Throughout the project, the "Ram" was photographed in its various stages so that its condition, treatment, and the technological findings were recorded. This will aid future conservators. |
|
Continue to the next stage: deconstructing the "Ram in the Thicket" background | documenting | deconstructing | reconstructing | final |
|
 |
Purchase Two Lyres from Ur from University Museum Publications |