Modify this template page by removing this paragraph and replacing the sample image and text but do NOT remove the title, section headings (in bold) or the questions in bulleted points included in the...

Modify this template page by
removing this paragraph
and

replacing the sample image and text but do NOT remove the title,

section headings (in bold) or the questions in bulleted points included

in the template. Remember to cite all your sources both with in-text

parenthetical citations and a Works Cited section at the end. This

extends to the textbook. To modify a page, rather than creating a new

one, click the

Edit Wiki Content

button.

To distinguish between the three sections these ideas may help:

The

"text' section is about describing the artifact; this is easily done by

responding concretely to the questions shown in the model below. The

context analysis should not be about the object itself and all its

physical features (that’s what the “text” analysis does) but about how

the culture (ideas, attitudes, customs) of the people who built the

artifact are reflected in it. The subtext analysis is about how you

relate to the deep or broad themes you identified in the object. In sum,

• 
  the “text” analysis is about the artifact
  


• 
  the context, about the people who made/used it and the time period in which it was made/used
  


• 
  the
  
  subtext, about the deeper meaning of it, involving here connections
  
  with other periods (preferably the present) and the reactions of the
  
  “researcher”
  
  

Name of artifact and figure
caption:Fig.3.24. Back of
Tutankamun's Golden Throne from Sayre, Henry M.The Humanities: Culture, Continuity & Change. 2nd
edition. 1. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2012. 88. Print.


Image from
online
source and caption



:










SCALA/ART RESOURCE.
Tutankamen's Throne from Thebes
. 2006. Photograph.
ARTstor, Florence/New York. Web. 6
Sep
2012. http://library.artstor.org/library/welcome.html>

[NOTE:

For your choice of artifact, obviously you cannot select the one I used

as a demo, not should you use any of the artifacts you have used as

examples in discussion forums.]







"Text"
[In this section, simply respond to the questions below, in the manner I did in the example below.]

• 
  
  
  Whatis the artifact?
  Royal throne; furniture
  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  Whomade the artifact?
  Egyptian civilization, New Kingdom
  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  Whenwas it made?
  ca. 1335 BCE
  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  Wherewas it made?
  It was found in
  Tutankamun’s
  tomb in the Valley of Kings, Western Thebes.
  
  
  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  Whywas it made?
  As
  
  an item in the royal treasure, this artifact had a ceremonial purpose
  
  as well as being part of the display of power and luxury meant to
  
  accompany the king in the afterlife.
  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  Howwas it made (process or technology, materials, style, etc.)
  ?
  
  Carved and decorated; gold, semiprecious stones, wood, and glazed earthenware;
  Amarna
  style
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

Context
[Again, here, describe briefly the historical and cultural setting of the artifact.]

This work of art is in the
Amarna
style,

which focuses on realism. Egyptians focused more on realism than

perfection or idealism in these times. Their belief in the perfection of

their gods has changed, so they used realism in their art instead of

the formerly used idealism (Sayre 3.4). In this carved image,
Aten, the sun god, shines down on King
Tutankamun
and

his wife (Sayre 2.4). This means that the king has been blessed by the

gods and that his kingdom will be safe. This image shows that Egyptians

believed that their gods blessed and protected them. It also shows that

the king was under the protection of the gods that he worshiped.




Subtext/Symbolic (Metaphorical) Thinking
[Here,

write about what YOU think the object may represent at a deep level,

and your reaction to it. Write in first person, as I did in the second

paragraph of this section.]





This

artifact reinforces the fact that Egyptians believed in

supernaturalism. It represents a direct connection between divine power

and royal power. Through this connection, the temporal power of the

Egyptians rulers (their political sway exercised in the earthly sphere,

so to speak) is expanded to a supernatural dimension, as it is

sanctioned, bestowed, and backed by a god figure,
Aten,

in this case. This linkage can go as far as to confer divine status on

the ruler himself. Furthermore, the symbolic effect of the throne, by

itself an icon of exalted position in numerous cultures throughout

history, is, in this example, lavishly augmented with the visual

language of wealth and dominion, including the materials (gold,

semiprecious stones), the lion heads, and the garments worn by the human

figures. The fact that the throne was found in the king's tomb

establishes yet another relationship with the theme of supernaturalism,

as it reflects the Ancient Egyptians' conception of the afterlife, a

cornerstone of their complex belief system

To

me, as a cultural detective, this piece of evidence represents a

finding of exceeding value for our case. I believe it allows us to peek

into the life of characters central to our understanding of this

civilization through a snapshot of familial dynamics that speak both of
tradition
and significant
change.

It is precisely that strong paradoxical aspect what makes this artifact

so special for our research. The feminine hand reaching out and

touching a royal shoulder is certainly a most eloquent signal of quite a

singular historical moment.

Work Cited

Sayre, Henry M.The Humanities: Culture, Continuity and Change.Tulsa Community College Custom 1e ed., combined vols 1 & 2, Pearson. Electronic.