The Prehistoric Period
1. The Prehistoric Period (c.8500–3000 B.C.) across the Near East
B. Catalogue
This section opens with examples of the sculptural use of clay amongst the earliest settled communities
in the Near East (Pre-Pottery Neolithic) both to replicate the features of human beings over detached
skulls cleaned down to the bone and to create highly stylized free-standing monumental anthropomorphic
statues often without explicit indications of their sex (nos 1–3). These are from the Kenyon excavations
at Jericho (1952–58). Miniature clay representations of animals and human beings of the same or slightly
later date are represented by nos 4–6, also from Jericho. In Neolithic Anatolia, a highland zone, stone was
recurrently used for human figurines from an early date as illustrated here by nos7*–9*, though there was
also extensive, closely related production at this time in clay both of anthropomorphic and zoomorphic
(nos 10–11) figurines.
The succession of Neolithic through into Chalcolithic cultures in Iraq and Syria (east of the Euphrates),
traditionally defined by distinctive styles of painted pottery, are represented here by a characteristic series
of female figurines from the Halaf Culture (nos 17–22) excavated at Tell Chagar Bazar. Unfortunately, the
significant Samarra to Ubaid anthropomorphic terracotta tradition is not well represented in this collection
(nos 13–15). By the late prehistoric Uruk (IV) and Jamdat Nasr (Uruk III) periods in Iraq (nos 24–27) it
would appear from the present archaeological evidence that terracotta figurine manufacture was
considerably reduced in scale and scope. Nos 28–32 illustrate animal forms in the Levant late in prehistory.
A small group of animal figurines from Chalcothic and Early Bronze I sites in the southern Levant
completes this section (nos 28–32) at a time when clay anthropomorphic figurines appear to be relatively
rare.
(i)
Pre-Pottery Neolithic: Palestine
1.*
Plastered human skull; skull of adult male without the mandible (probably
removed before deposit); an artificial chin was provided to give the face a
natural appearance. Built up in clay and plastered with a smooth surface,
coloured brownish-red (iron oxide, probably ochre). The plastering does not
extend over the cranial vault, perhaps originally provided with some other
material to simulate hair. The core for modelling the flesh cover and features
has been severely damaged so that only the eye and the nose fillings with parts
of the cheek and artificial chin fillings survive. The skull shows signs of
deformation tabulae obliquae. This is the only modeled skull from Jericho at present
in which the eyes were represented by cowrie shells (Erosaria sp.) set horizontally rather than by bivalve
shells set vertically.
ANAN1955.565; Jericho: 1953 season of excavation: skull D III (Reg. 534) from square D. I, stage
XVI–XVII: phase xlii–xliii). H: 15.2cm. W: 16.7cm. L: 22cm. Kenyon 1953, 86–7, pl. XXXVII.2; Kenyon
and Holland 1981, 77, pl. 50b, lower, extreme right, 57(c); Kurth and Röhrer-Ertl in Kenyon and Holland
1981, 437, 439, pl. VIIId; Moorey 1969, pl. 2; 1987, pl. 14; 1994a, pl. 14; Goren and Segal 1995, 157–8, pl.
1; often illustrated in popular and general studies.
This skull was one of seven (D110–116), all reported as female save one (D 115), found together in 1953
in a “tumbled heap, at all angles... They had obviously been thrown into the fill without any care to
preserve them... Perhaps the conclusion to be drawn is that the skulls were preserved only for a short time,
possibly only for a generation while their owners were remembered, and that they were then discarded”.
Two other plastered skulls were found in the same vicinity in 1956 (D117–118) (Kenyon and Holland
1981: 77, pl. 58b) and one more (E.22) in Square EIII, Phase NNi, in 1958 (Kenyon and Holland 1981:
-31-
ANCIENT NEAR EASTERN TERRACOTTAS
310–11, pl. 57). Kenyon herself only refers to ten skulls with features restored in clay and plaster; but
doubts have arisen over whether two more (E20–21) were so treated (cf. Kurth and Röhrer-Ertl in
Kenyon and Holland 1981: 436–7, 492) and over exactly where they were found. In reporting skull E.22
Kenyon simply stated that there were also “a number of fragments of crania... there was no evidence to
show that they were parts of other plastered skulls”. Two skulls were reported with painted decoration
alone.
Goren and Segal (1995, 157–8, table 1–3, No. 49–52) sampled this skull, testing the inner material filling
the arches above the cheekbones (49), the outer plaster in the same place (50) and the artificial chin (51),
and the filling of the palatal arch (52). Samples 49 and 52, core materials, belonged to their material group
A: “a silty marl mixed with sand of spherical limestone grains together with some flint and other less
common components. This sand may have originated in some wadi channel, as indicated by the sphericity
of its grains”. It had not been exposed to heat nor mixed with burnt lime. Sample 50 is composed of their
material group B, whilst sample 51 combined A and B; both are surface samples. B is “purer marl, mixed
to some extent with burnt lime but probably as a very minor constituent.” The analysis suggested that the
materials were available in proximity to Jericho. In short, the core material was a natural marly loam with
some local wadi sand added as filler, whilst the painted surface (“skin”) included purer marl with less filler,
but very small quantities of burnt lime to give a whiter colour and to make the raw material more plastic
and the final surface harder. This conclusion differs from the analysis and interpretation of samples from
the build-up and surface of skull D.115, now in the Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto (Kingery et al 1988,
231–2), which was reported to make more use of lime plaster. Goren and Segal (1995) argue that each site
may have employed its own technology and locally available materials. For example, the Kfar Hahoresh
modelled skull, unlike AN1956.565, is a “genuine lime plaster artifact”. At least one of the Jericho skulls
has surviving painted decoration, perhaps hair, in black manganese dioxide (Kingery et al 1992, 50).
At Jericho the find spots of the plastered skulls offer no clear guidance as to their role in contemporary
society. By Pre-pottery Neolithic B so-called skull cults had been sporadically evident from the Natufian
Period through Pre-pottery Neolithic A in Palestine (Hatoula; Jericho; Netiv Hagdud), Syria (Tell
Mureybet) and Mesopotamia (Qermez Dere) (cf. Cauvin 2000, 113–115). Such cults strengthen the social
cohesion of extended families or groups of families and their properties inside and outside settlements.
At Tell Ramad in Syria some detached skulls may have been set on headless seated statues of women, 25
cm. high, made of clay which was plastered and painted (Cauvin 2000, 115). Such composite statues closely
approach the figures entirely of clay and lime plaster represented by the following finds from Jericho, also
paralleled at other sites in this period.
The modelling of defleshed skulls with plaster features, sometimes painted and ornamented with sea-shells
are a distinctive feature of Pre-pottery Neolithic B settlements in the Levant. They have been found, often
in groups, buried in pits below the floors in the north of the region (Tell Ramad) and in or near the Jordan
Valley at (Ain Ghazal, Beisamoun and Jericho (Garfinkel 1994, 165–72; Cauvin 2000, 89–90). In some
cases they were associated with large anthropomorphic statues constructed of plaster, over a reed
framework, with features painted on it in ochre (Garfinkel 1994, 162–4; Grissom 2000). A slightly
different treatment is evident in the Nahal Hemar Cave in the Judean Desert, where six human skulls were
covered with strips of asphalt in a net pattern (Arensberg and Hershkovitz 1988). At Kfar Hahoresh in
Galilee, in an enigmatic series of buildings and animal bone deposits, what may be a fragment of a
plastered human skull had been decorated red with Anatolian cinnabar (Goring-Morris: personal
communication). Analyses of the technology of “skull modelling” in the southern Levant indicates that,
although they all share a common technology there are marked differences between individual sites in the
fabrication processes. It would appear that they were locally produced, both on iconographical and
technological grounds. This may indicate that those remodelling the surfaces were locally based, working
in a powerful on-site craft tradition, but within an oral system of spreading pyrotechnical and ritual
information.
-32-
PREHISTORIC PERIOD: CATALOGUE
At this time in the Levant there was considerable diversity of body treatments post mortem, involving adults
of both sexes and children. They range from simple interment, through skull removal, daubing of the skull
with pigment, application of “skull-caps” and plaster modelling of features. Special treatment of detached
unplastered skulls is also widely evident at this period, most spectacularly in the “Skull Building” at Çayönü
in Anatolia (cf. Özbek 1988). Decorated skulls are so far unknown in the Pottery Neolithic, when gravegoods are generally absent (cf. Gopher 1995).
2.
Head and shoulders of a human figure (restored); highly stylized; hand-made;
spade-shaped head with no features so that it is not absolutely clear which is the
front and which the back; the front may only be distinguished from the back by
a slight swelling at chest level; both shoulders are damaged; solid core with yellowcoloured surface. The surface has been analysed (Goren and Segal 1995, 157,
sample 43, 163: material group A). It is “a silty marl mixed with sand of spherical
limestone grains together with some flint and other less common components.”
There was no sign of heating or mixing in of burnt lime.
AN1958.771; (Jericho: reg. no. 3663; Field JPD 402.1) H: 29cm. W: 25cm. Th.:
9cm.
3.
Fragment from the torso of a human figure (restored); highly stylized; handmade; solid core of “clay” coated with a red-coloured surface surviving only on
the front and on part of one side; the torso expands downwards to a flattened
but rough surface at the bottom (as restored); perhaps the original base line.
Analysis (Goren and Segal 1995, 157, 161) showed that the surface material
belonged to the same group (“A”) as no. 2 above. The Museum has a number
of tiny fragments from these two (or other) anthropomorphic statuettes of this
type from Jericho accessed as AN1958.773–5 (Jericho Registration Numbers 3760–1, 3769; field number
JPD 400.26, 402.1) and AN1964.698a–e. These provided sample numbers 37–46 in Goren and Segals’
(1995) analyses; AN1958.774, AN1958.775 and AN1964.698a, and 698d had previously been sampled by
Kingery et al (1988, 229, 232–3), who described them as “lime plaster”. In Goren and Segal’s analyses all,
save AN1964.698 (sample 45) and AN1958.775 (sample 37), were material group A (as above). Sample 45
(“outer plaster”) and 37 (“outer plaster”) were material group B: “purer marl, mixed to some extent with
burnt lime but probably as a very minor constituent”. Two of these pieces (3761o = AN1958.773; 3760g
= AN1958.774d) both with red slipped surfaces, retain marks suggesting an original reed core.
AN1958.772; (Jericho: reg. no. 3776; field no. JPD 400.26. H: 17cm. W: 25cm. Th. 11cm).
Kenyon found all these fragments in square DII (Phase XXXVI–XXXVII), in the highest surviving level
east of the stone tower attributed to Pre-pottery Neolithic B (Kenyon 1960, 4 pl. XIIA; Kenyon and
Holland, 1981, 290, pl. 72). Her discovery had been anticipated during Garstang’s earlier excavations at
Jericho. At the northwest corner of the tell he reported finding, in 1935, two groups of very fragmentary
bodies of plaster sculptures. He only retrieved a male head and what were believed to be fragments of its
legs and feet (Garstang 1935, 166–7, pl. LIIa–b, LIII; finds nos 190, 195). The surviving pieces are in the
Rockefeller Museum, Jerusalem, together with photographs of some of Garstang’s improbable attempts
at restoration. Rollefson (1983, 37; 1990, 49), however, believes that he was correct in referring to the
likelihood of different generations being represented amongst the fragments he recovered. Plaster feet
with six toes were recovered both at (Ain Ghazal (Rollefson 1983, 37, pl. IV 3) and by Garstang at Jericho
(cf. Barnett 1986–7).
The head recovered by Garstang has since become well-known, regularly reproduced in textbooks. Its
expression is remarkably like the faces of the (Ain Ghazal statues. It has been analysed both by Kingery
et al (1988, fig. 10; 1992) and by Goren and Segal (1995), who identified samples from the surface and the
inside as their material group B (see above). Kingery et al (1988) reported that “the surface layer consists
of limestone particles bonded with a white lime plaster. About 5mm below the surface, the mixture is
more heterogeneous, consisting of limestone fragments and quartz particles in clay, bonded with lime
plaster”. Goren and Segal (1995, 163) see nothing in the samples they took and examined to substantiate
the view that lime plaster was used; rather, natural raw materials from local sources. On the Garstang
Jericho head, which is flat and disk-like (cf. Kingery et al 1992, fig. 9: x-radiographs), with shells set into
-33-
ANCIENT NEAR EASTERN TERRACOTTAS
sockets to represent the eyes (ibid. fig. 3) and with greater surviving use of paint to represent features and
hair (ibid. figs. 1, 4), the features are very finely modelled (ibid. fig. 2) in contrast to the crude stylization
of nos 2 and 3 here, allowing that in their case much painted detail may have been lost. Kenyon believed
that her finds were chronologically later than Garstang’s.
The significance of these statuettes from Jericho was not fully apparent until many more were found in
a Pre-pottery Neolithic B village at (Ain Ghazal, on the outskirts of Amman, in Jordan. In 1983 a cache
of 25 statues (c.90cm. high) and busts (45cm. maximum height) were uncovered there, packed into a pit
beneath the floor of an abandoned house (Rollefson 1983; 1986; Tubb 1985; Tubb and Grisson 1995).
In 1985 (Rollefson 1990) a similar cache, including seven statues, was recovered from a pit. The badly
damaged head of a plaster statue was found in another pit unassociated with any building. The second
cache included two single-headed statues, about 104cm. high, and three two-headed busts, about 88cm.
high. Both types were formed by modelling plaster over an internal framework of bundled reeds wrapped
with twine; a method different from that used at Jericho. Facial features were carefully modelled; eyes were
outlined with black paste containing bitumen and other details were painted on. Some of the 1983 group
have arms folded round to rest under the breasts. If the conventions used much later in Egyptian art are
any guide, the light (yellow) coloured Jericho figure might be female and the darker (red) coloured figure
male.
Fragments of comparable statuary have also been found in a contemporary assemblage in the Nahal
Hemar Cave (Bar-Yosef and Alon 1988). Analysis by Goren and Segal (1995) indicated that the fragments
vary sufficiently in composition and method of construction to suggest that at least four separate statues
or busts are represented. One was made of quartzite sand possibly indicating an origin near the coast of
Israel; another of quartzite sand plus vegetal tissue fragments; a third with fine fragments of hinum sp.; and
a fourth with insufficiently decalcined lime plaster. They may have been brought to the cave in the Nahal
Hemar from different places of manufacture. It is now known, through finds at Nahal Hemar (cf. Bienert
1990), that heavy painted stone masks also belong to this late PPNB cultural assemblage. Whatever the
ceremonies were in which plastered skulls, large-scale clay and plaster human statuary and human face
masks formed a part, the relative fragility of the first two groups seems to indicate a brief use, maybe in
extended funerary rites, and then burial, like corpses perhaps in areas set aside within the settlement for
this purpose.
Reconstruction of the reed and twine armatures on which some at least of the figures was made pertinently
indicated the possibility of comparable images entirely in such organic materials at this time and later.
Barnett (1989) pointed out the possible antiquity of “corn-dollies”, with particular reference to a graffito
on a stone slab from Early Bronze Age Tel Arad in Israel which he saw as representative of such
traditional, ephemeral images. Cauvin (1994, 151–2) has argued that the six-toed feet indicate that these
were meant to be supernatural beings, as Garstang had assumed earlier; but, as he notes, this is a recorded
natural phenomenon.
(ii)
Neolithic Jericho
4.
Schematic human figurine; now headless, hand modelled; lightly baked; grey surface;
crumbly buff core; free-standing on a flat base; tapers towards neck, two breasts applied
haphazardly on the chest.
AN1975.221; 4.0 x 2.1cm. (base); presented by Professor O.R. Gurney (from the
excavations of his uncle, John Garstang, at Jericho (1930–36)); level not recorded.
5.
Schematic human head; unbaked(?); badly damaged; handmodelled; clay similar to 4
above.
AN1936.448b; 2.5cm. high; from level XI (Pre-Pottery Neolithic) of Garstang’s
excavations; presented by the excavator.
This is the only recognizable piece amongst five fragments of unbaked clay figurines, three
‘indeterminate’; the other is part of an animal’s body” (6.5cm. long); others are accessed
under AN1936.459a–g; “fragmentary clay figurines(?)” from level IX (Pottery Neolithic).
One (AN1936.456), from level VIII, is described as a “leg or arm” (3.4cm. long).
-34-
PREHISTORIC PERIOD: CATALOGUE
6.
Quadruped; fragment; handmodelled; buff fabric; one leg, part of nose and
horns missing (perhaps a bull).
AN1953.713; 3.9cm. long; Jericho no. 176 (Square F.I.J.P.F. 2.1a); Kenyon and
Holland 1982, fig. 224.10 (Pottery Neolithic A).
Garstang’s (1936, 69–70) description of the circumstances in which nos 4 and 5
were found is unusually interesting. In his level XI he excavated a rectangular
building (“a developed megaron”): “inside there was little or nothing of domestic
character; but outside the entrance, and as far as and beyond the eastern retaining wall of the precincts,
there were numerous plastic clay and mud figurines representing chiefly domestic animals, among which
can plausibly be recognized the cow, goat, sheep and pig, and possibly the dog. Other models suggest a
cobra’s head, the male organs, small cones and something like a pillow. In the forecourt were a number
of tiny rooms with trap openings, which look like sheep–pens (pl. XLa)”. The association of what would
now be recognized as clay “tokens” with zoomorphic figurines, and perhaps animal pens, may indicate
how early in agricultural settlements figurines may already have been in use as a means of record. There
is no reason to believe that Garstang’s “megaron” was a temple, as originally proposed (cf. Seton Williams
1949, 77–8, fig. 1).
(iii)
Neolithic Anatolia
7.*
Headless female figurine; standing; nude; coarse grey-brown limestone with slight
traces of red pigment; prominent abdomen with folds of fat and protruding buttocks;
thick short legs only partially separated by an incised line front and back; the feet are only
indicated by a slight thickening at the base; the arms are short and fat, bent round with
the hands (no fingers indicated) placed on the body under the breasts, which are only
indicated by a slight swelling; the upper part of the back is flat. Ormerod (1912–13,
49–50), who acquired this figurine remarked that: “... the head, which from the fresh
appearance of the fracture had been only recently broken” and “the horizontal scratches
between the shoulders having the appearance of being made recently.”
AN1911.292; acquired at “Tchukurkend on the eastern side of the Beishehir Lake
between Eflatoun Bounar and Kirili Kassaba” (east of Konya). H: 5.8cm.
Ormerod 1912–13, 48–53, fig. 1B; Evans 1921, 50, fig. 13.6; Müller 1929, 24, 34, 36, pl. VI, 118–119; Bittel
1934, 38, 41, 100.
8.*
Female figurine; standing; nude; green steatite, (“serpentine”), the lower part of the
body lighter in colour than the higher; apart from a slight projection of the buttocks the
back of the figurine is flat; the top of the head is rounded with the ears rendered by
notches cut into the stone. Small incisions denote the eyes, the mouth indicated by a
gash, but the nose is omitted. The arms are folded across the chest, indicated only by
grooves above and below; wide hips taper into the legs, which are short with the feet
simply rendered by an incised line at the ankles; incised lines render the pubic triangle
and the division between the legs.
AN1911.290; acquired at the same time and in the same place as no. 7* above. H:
4.5cm.
Ormerod 1912–13, 50, fig. 1A; Evans 1921, 50, fig. 13:7; Müller 1929, 24, 34; pl. VI: 120.
9.*
Female figurine; seated; nude; coarse marble; worn surface; the back of the head is
fractured and the face so rubbed as to be virtually featureless; the breasts are shown
close together with a roll of fat below them; the arms are bent at the elbows with hands
placed in the lap (? over the abdomen), incised lines indicate a girdle or a roll of fat
round the waist, concealed at the front by the hands; the back is flat with a deep groove
down the centre; the lower limbs are represented by a rectangular base with an incised
line making the separation of the buttocks; it would appear that the figure is to be seen
as squatting with legs folded under the body (cf. Bittel 1934, fig. 2, from Çukurkent).
AN1911.289; acquired at Adalia (Antalya). H: 5cm.
Ormerod 1912–13, 57–8, fig. 5; Müller 1929, 24, 34, 36, pl. VI.129.
-35-
ANCIENT NEAR EASTERN TERRACOTTAS
All three figures (nos 7*–9*) were regrettably drilled in the base for mounting sometime before 1939.
These were probably the first Neolithic figurines to be published from Anatolia (cf.Özdogan 1995, 47
n.11). Although their early date has long been recognized, particularly by Bittel (1934), who published
others also without archaeological contexts from Çukurkent, their full significance was not realised until
Mellaart’s excavations at Çatalhöyük, southeast of Konya in 1961–1965. No. 7* here is paralleled there by
an alabaster standing female figurine from House E.N.4 (Mellaart 1962, 57, pl. IX; with head). The posture
of No. 9* is found there on a small crudely made female figure in blackstone from level VI (Mellaart 1963,
83, fig. 19) and on a chalk figurine from the “Leopard Shrine” in the same level (Mellaart 1964, fig. 31c)
at a time when stone was more common there for figurines than later (level II). Such stone figures are
reported both from shrines and houses at Çatalhöyük. Many Anatolian Neolithic female figurines have
been described as steatopygous; but their greatly protruding buttocks are generally associated with ample
bodies, so strictly speaking the term is not appropriate (cf. Ucko 1968, 169–71, 363).
10.
Quadruped; bovid; dark fabric; lightly fired; handmodelled; the back falls away
from high shoulders to the rump in a straight line; the horns have been broken
off; the head is tapered to a flattened nose and mouth; traces of a tail; flat belly
with short legs; genitals modelled in relief.
AN1911.291 “acquired at Tchukurkend”; cf. nos 7*–8* above; H: 4.1cm. L:
6.3cm.
Ormerod 1912–13, 53, fig. 2d.
11.
Quadruped; dark fabric, lightly fired; hand-modelled; similar form to no. 10
above, though with shorter legs, now damaged.
AN1911.293; “acquired at Tchukurkend” with no. 10 above; L: 3.2cm.
Ormerod 1912–13, 53, fig. 2c.
The date of these two terracottas is uncertain; but parallels at Çatalhöyük
(Mellaart 1962, pl. VIId; 1963, pl. XVIIIa), one from outside a shrine in level VI,
may perhaps be taken to indicate that they too are bovids to be dated just before the time when pottery
came into common use in the Konya plain c.7000 B.C. If so, the combination of female figures and bovids
in a Neolithic village at Çukurkent echoed the imagery of Çatalhöyük.
(iv)
Samarra Culture: Iraq
12.
Fragment of a female torso; breasts and right shoulder only; hand-modelled;
baked; cream slip with pink core; traces of black painted lines, in dashes, on the
shoulder. When extant (cf. Oates 1969, pl. XXVIII) the hands, with fingers
depicted, are placed on the abdomen.
AN1968.1624; Choga Mami (C.M.90); H: 4cm. W: 4cm.
cf. Oates, J. 1969, 12–131, pls XXVIII–XXXc.
13.
Fragment of the feet of a figurine; broken off a standing
female(?) figurine; handmodelled; baked; cream slip with
pink core; no details indicated; the disproportionate size suggests an attempt to give the
figure a base upon which it would be self-supporting, counter-weighting the large
bottoms (cf. Oates, J. 1968, pl. XXXe–f).
AN1968.1622; Choga Mami: C.M.14; L: 5cm. W: 3.5cm. H: 2cm.
Oates, J. 1969, pl. XXXd, lower left.
The female terracottas from the village of the Samarra Culture excavated at Choga Mami in eastern Iraq
have only been published in preliminary reports (Oates, J. 1968, 5–8; 1969, 128–30) without detailed
information on their context. None is reported from a grave. They are depicted standing, in a manner
which anticipates the later standard type of the Ubaid Period in the south, or seated. They were assembled
-36-
PREHISTORIC PERIOD: CATALOGUE
from separately modelled pieces (see no. 15). Consequently they were easily fragmented. Unpainted
figurines are rare. Most have details of features and jewellery painted on, with minor use of incision. The
heads are elaborately modelled with applied horizontal “coffee-bean” eyes. They have ear ornaments, nose
and mouth studs and elaborate hairstyles of heavy plaits wound round the head, as on later Early Dynastic
Mesopotamian statuary in stone (Oates, J. 1968, 6, pl. III). The heads vary from the relatively naturalistic
(cf. Oates, J. 1969, pl. XXV–VI) to distinctive stylisations, better known in the subsequent Ubaid Culture.
The face is flattened, the nose made more aquiline and the “coffee-bean” eyes are set obliquely (cf. Oates,
J. 1969, pl. XXVII). The repertory of anthropomorphic terracottas at Choga Mami also included more
traditional small cone-like figures (Oates, J. 1969, 730). Oates J. (1978, 121) has noted that “at each of the
prehistoric Samarran sites so far excavated, however, not only is there a diversity of types but considerable
individuality can be seen among specimens of the same type”. At Tell Songor A in the Hamrin region of
eastern Iraq a seated female figurine was found in a grave (no. 247: Kamada and Ohtsu 1995, 304, fig. T.1;
pl. 1a).
14.
Quadruped (?sheep); head and rear legs missing; creamslip; handmodelled and
shaved; baked; black painted stripes on conjoined forelegs and rump; short tail.
AN1968.1625; Choga Mami (C.M.32); H: 5cm.
The excavator only briefly refers to zoomorphic terracottas as “several
undistinguished animal figurines and fragments... (mainly sheep/goat and pig).”
(Oates, J. 1969, 130). An unusually fine pig’s head was modelled in a manner akin
to the human heads (Oates, J. 1969, 130, pl. XXVIId). This animal may date to
the Ubaid Period occupation of Choga Mami.
15.
Enigmatic Fragment; handmodelled; baked; eroded surface with traces of black paint;
greenish-buff fabric; flat on one side; traces of breaks at top and bottom; pear-shaped.
AN1968.1623; Choga Mami (C.M.11) H: 5.5cm.
Parallels from the Japanese excavations at Tell Songor A (Samarra Culture) in the
Hamrin region suggest that this maybe the thigh and leg of a figurine (Fujii (ed.) 1981,
71, fig. 39: 5–7; Kamada and Ohtsu 1995, pl. 28: T7; 29: T7).
16.
Model of a socketed hoe with two blades; handmodelled; baked; fine, light
fabric; parallel straight sides with rounded ends; pierced at the centre with a hole
for mounting.
AN1968.1619; Choga Mami: (CM 35); L: 5.9cm W: 2.5cm.
At Yarim Tepe III, in levels of the Halaf Period, a clay model hoe was found in an ash-filled pit along with
several clay figurines (Merpert and Munchaev 1993, 178, fig. 9:16:2). This appears to be a model of a stone
tool. Clay models of tools are more often associated with the Ubaid Culture in the south, where they are
best known from excavations at Tell Uqair (Lloyd and Safar 1943, 151, pl. XVIII. 2,5,7), where clay was
also used for full-scale working tools. They include “hammer-axes” and what maybe a flat axe-blade. The
evidence from Ur was more scattered in layers of debris. Consequently, the dating of individual examples
of model tools there is often less than secure (cf. Woolley 1955a, 76, pl. 16: U.14993, 14985, L. BM.56,
9–8–136). Woolley found a model “polished stone” axehead in a grave (Woolley 1955a, 87, grave PFG/F,
U.14990, pl. 14) and mentioned “one miniature sickle of painted ware” (Hall and Woolley 1927, 151, n.2).
A copy of “a chipped stone hoe blade in greenish clay” was found in a grave at Ubaid (Hall and Woolley
1927, 192, C.21, pl. XLVI.2: TO 40), where Woolley (Hall and Woolley 1927, 152) also noted “that they
(chipped flint arrowheads) were objects of some value is shown by the fact that a genuine flint might be
grudged as furniture for a grave and a clay model substituted for it (TO.38–40, 423, 424)”. Some of these
painted clay models of tools remain enigmatic: “The clay model knife (TO.530, pl. XLVIII) does look as
if it were derived from a metal prototype, though it might also have been of wood, and wood seems the
more probable original for the curious painted model (TO. 41; pl. XLVI.2) with its imitation of cord
binding” (Hall and Woolley 1927, 152).
-37-
ANCIENT NEAR EASTERN TERRACOTTAS
The critical question with no. 16 is does it copy a metal or stone prototype? Actual copper objects are still
remarkably rare in contexts of the Samarra and Ubaid Cultures in southern Mesopotamia. Yet the form
of this hoe and some of the other models of this period looks metallic. Excavations at Degirmentepe
(Malatya) between 1978–1986, before it was flooded by the waters of the Karakaya Dam, have revealed
evidence for copper-working in workshops equivalent in date to Ubaid 3 and 4 in southern Mesopotamia
(Esin 1989, 137). This is a potential source zone for any copper used in the south. The closest actual metal
parallels for the Choga Mami model double-edged hoe are single-edged hoes from Susa (cf.Tallon 1987,
172ff., Type A, nos 528–31). They are at present the oldest copper tools with shaft-holes reported from
the Near East.
As clay had been used from the outset as a material for tools as well as models of them, in southern
Mesopotamia, it is sometimes difficult to decide whether full-scale clay tools are the real thing or
substitutes, perhaps for inclusion in graves. Such is the case with some clay spoon-shaped objects
(including Ashmolean Museum AN1926.415 (GN 3014) from Jamdat Nasr) that Mackay thought were
funerary models replicating metal flat axes of a type found in levels of the Ubaid Period at Susa (Mackay
1931a, 266, pl. LXXI.29, LXXV.8 (rt.); Matthews 1990, 22, fig. 13.5). Woolley, on the other hand, assumed
them to be working tools, perhaps a spatula (“spoon-shaped”) of some kind (cf. U.14462a: Woolley 1955a,
178, pl. 16; cf. U.14933).
(v)
Halaf Culture in Syria and Iraq
17.
Seated female; handmodelled; buff fabric, yellowish-cream slip; baked; the head is pinched
to make a prominent nose; the top of the head is a flat triangle with the apex at the nose,
rising to a vertical projection at the back; the eyes and eyebrows are painted in black, with
the shape of the eye stippled in red; no mouth is indicated; the breasts are prominently
modelled, cradled by the arms; red and black lines indicate what may be necklaces and
ornaments across the breasts and shoulders; the left leg is broken off, whilst the right is
drawn up, with knee bent, the foot is entirely stylized as a point and painted overall in red,
perhaps representing a shoe; traces of other painted details; one elbow and left thigh
darkened by fire.
AN1936.90; (Tell Chagar Bazar: T.545: level 8 in area M: the “prehistoric pit” with “cache
of ‘Mother Goddess’ figurines painted and sun-dried”. H: 9.7cm. W: 5cm.
Mallowan 1936, 21, fig. 5: no. 2, pl. I, no. 3; Moorey 1987, pl. 16; 1992, pl. 16; cf. Ucko 1968, 345, fig. 179
for type, pl. LVI (BM 125382).
18.
Seated female; handmodelled; baked; buff fabric; yellowish-cream slip; head, arms,
breasts and left leg broken off; traces on the surface suggest that the arms originally
cradled the breasts as on no. 17; the right leg is drawn up with bent knee; brownish black
paint denotes a necklace, a girdle and a “shoe”.
AN1936.91; Tell Chagar Bazar: T.550: no details of source recorded, apparently from level
8, as no. 17. H: 6.5cm. W: 3.7cm.
Ucko 1968, 359, pl. LVII.
19.
Seated female (right); handmodelled; baked; badly damaged; headless body restored
from fragments burnt in a fire to a reddish black colour; same type as nos 17–18.
AN1936.92; Tell Chagar Bazar. H: 6.3cm. W: 4.1cm.
20.
Upper part of a female (left); handmodelled; baked; buff
fabric, yellowish-cream slip; top of head broken; prominent
pinched nose with eyes depicted with red paint; no mouth
indicated; right arm brought round to cradle breast; both
breasts and left arm broken; broken off at the waist; probably
seated as no. 17–19; extensive use of paint to indicate necklace
and girdle; the upper arms have encircling bands.
AN1937.180; Tell Chagar Bazar: A.738: Site A.C. H: 4.5cm. W: 3.9cm.
Mallowan 1937, 128, no. 11, fig. 9.
-38-
PREHISTORIC PERIOD: CATALOGUE
21.
Model “Stool” (Mallowan); handmodelled; buff-fabric with cream slip; baked;
drum-shaped, solid; flat, smoothed top with slightly projecting sides; the
underside is rougher and “stippled”; possibly a jar-stopper or token.
AN1936.93; Tell Chagar Bazar. H: 1.5cm. Lower D: 3.8cm; Upper D: 3.5cm.
cf. Mallowan 1936, pl. I.1, 3 (for type); Ucko 1968, pl. LVI (BM 125382).
Nos 17–20 are examples of the standard type of Halaf Period female figurine
known from the type site itself (Oppenheim 1943, pl. 105.1–17) and also well
represented at Tepe Gawra (Tobler 1950, 163–5, pl. LXXXI, CLII.1,3,4) as well as at more recently
excavated sites in the Sinjar Plain (Merpert and Munchaev 1993, fig. 6.10:12 (Yarim Tepe II); 202, fig. 9.38:
1,2 (Yarim Tepe III) and elsewhere in northern Mesopotamia (cf. Rouault and Masetti-Rouault 1993, nos
213–15). Eastwards they are represented at Tell Hassan in the Hamrin region of Iraq (Quarantelli (ed.)
1985, no. 29, pl. 152 (colour). Mallowan (1935, 6,11, figs. 2,29) provided very little information on the
contexts of the terracottas found at Chagar Bazar. In the course of the 1934–5 excavation season a deep
pit was sunk in area M at the northwest end of the main mound to establish a sequence; a method
Mallowan had previously used at Nineveh (see no. 27 here). Level 8, at minus 17 metres, was particularly
identified by “Mother Goddess figurines” and a “cache” of them is referred to in what appears to have
been routine occupational debris. They also appeared in the higher level 7 (equated with Arpachiyah TT
6–7), where they were reported down to level 11 at minus 18.50 metres. Even less is said about the
associations and contexts of figurines from the excavations at Chagar Bazar in 1936 (Mallowan 1937, 95–6,
127–8). Some human figurines of the Halaf Period were then published from the site. Mallowan and Rose
(1935, 79–88) had earlier provided a better account of terracottas of this period from Arpachiyah, where
forty-six were reported on. Only those from TT6–10 at Arpachiyah are certainly of the Halaf Period;
others maybe of the later Ubaid Period. Ucko (1968, 359–60) analysed the finds from both sites: “these
figures include some with painted dress or tattooing, some with protruding navels (therefore, it is said,
depicting pregnancy), some highly stylized and in squatting position, many with prominent breasts, and
rare examples with modelled legs (occasionally stretched forward or raised knees)”.
In his descriptions of the Chagar Bazar female figurines Mallowan (1936, 19–20) was pre-occupied with
the idea that they wore costumes (painted on), and in one case a “turban” (modelled in clay: Mallowan
1936, pl. I.1–2, fig. 5), “precisely” like that of Kurdish women living in the area at the time of excavation.
The “turban” might well be a hairstyle (cf. Oates, J. 1968, pl. III) whilst, as Ucko implies, the painted detail
surviving on some figurines, when not jewellery, might be body decoration rather than clothing. Arms are
relatively rare on figurines from the lowlands, normally just stubs, until the Ubaid Period; during the Halaf
Period the hands are brought round and placed between the breasts, as here.
Mallowan never spells out the archaeological evidence for direct associations that might substantiate his
view that many of the figurines in seated positions were “represented as sitting upon circular stools” (see
no. 21 here; Mallowan 1936, 19, pl. I. 1–3). He went on to associate numerous clay disks found on other
sites with this idea. Even if there was firm evidence for this association, their connection with child-birth
(“birthing stools”) (cf. Mallowan 1936, 20) is hard to sustain (cf. Ucko 1968, 439–40). The female figurines
have flat stomachs; their knees and legs are often set close together; the arms placed on or between the
breasts is an unlikely posture in childbirth; and at least one in this position is male (no. 22 here). These
disks, varying in shape, may well have served other purposes; some may simply have been clay counters
or jar stoppers, as is suggested here for no. 21.
Ucko (1968, 169–71, 363) has cogently argued that there are no grounds for identifying the protrusion of
buttocks on any category of prehistoric Near Eastern terracottas with steatopygia in the proper sense. This
had been assumed in many older descriptions of these Halaf Period female figurines and in developmental
schemes. Posture, obesity, method of manufacture or style of modelling may variously account for the
protrusion of buttocks when it occurs on these female figurines.
-39-
ANCIENT NEAR EASTERN TERRACOTTAS
22.
Seated male; handmodelled; grey fabric; baked; reddish-buff slip; left side of head broken;
prominent ear and brow ridge, nose and chin; no mouth indicated; right arm extended
forward, hand broken; left arm bent round towards chest, hand broken; genitals carefully
modelled; legs broken; less amply modelled than nos 17–20.
AN1937.201; Tell Chagar Bazar: A715. H: 5.4cm. W: 1.8cm.
Mallowan (1937, 128, fig. 9, no. 16) noted the rarity of explicitly male figurines in prehistoric
contexts; but he does not make clear whether in saying this he is implying some doubt as to
its date.
Male genitals on clay figurines in the prehistoric period in the Near East are still so rare that each
individual example merits comment. One of the earliest and most carefully made, represented in the seated
position with thighs held open to display the genitals, is a finely modelled and painted example, with inlaid
shell eyes, reported from level I at Tell es-Sawwan in Iraq associated with late archaic Hassuna (Ib–II)
painted pottery (Oates, J. 1966, 147, pl. XXXVIII; cf. Strika 1998). Eyebrows and pupils are depicted in
black pigment; the body is pink slipped; a necklace, a girdle and ornamental kneebands are painted as on
many contemporary female figurines. A fragmentary seated statuette found at Tell Halaf itself (Oppenheim
1943, pl. 105.18) may be male. It is also possible that a tiny, very schematic figurine from Arpachiyah is
intended to be male as a modelled projection might be a phallus (Mallowan and Rose 1935, fig. 47.16; cf.
Ucko 1968, 359). Male figurines from the later prehistoric periods in Iraq have been reported from Eridu
(Safar et al 1981, 234, figs. 68, 115a,b, 116: 3; Hall 1923, pl. XXXVII.2), Gawra (Tobler 1950, 165, pl.
CLIII.10) Ur (Woolley 1955a, pl. 21, P.CBS 17199: bearded torso) and Uruk (possibly male: Jordan 1932,
pl. 21c). It is possible that this figurine dates to the third millennium (cf. no. 48 here). The archaeological
context was not explicitly reported.
Caution, however, is needed with regard to any statements about male imagery and symbolism based on
the evidence of clay figurines alone, since phalluses, in various materials and forms (amulets; pestles), are
recorded from the earliest settled communities and have never been statistically assessed in relation to the
occurrence of male and female statuettes (cf. Goff 1963, 21). Moreover, as Ucko (1968, 357) pointed out,
with reference to the Hacilar figurines, “it may have been just by the size of the breasts that males and
females were distinguished”. Account must also be take of the numerous terracottas from prehistoric
contexts where the gender is not made explicit.
23.
Forepart of a quadruped (bovid); handmodelled; coarse dark fabric; lightly
fired or sun-dried; smooth surface; barrel-shaped body with rump broken off;
forelegs conjoined in a featureless projection; massive horns, now broken;
pinched head with eyes pierced right through; hole through the body below the
horns.
AN1934.128; Arpachiyah. H: 6.5cm. L: 6cm. (as extant).
Among the animal figurines from Arpachiyah in northern Iraq, for which no
contextual details were reported, cattle were common (Mallowan and Rose 1935,
88, fig. 48: 1–5), as indeed they are generally amongst prehistoric Near Eastern animal figurines. Most
from Arpachiyah are of the Halaf Period; but, like some of the anthropomorphic terracottas, some may
be from the following Ubaid Period. They differ in no significant way from the bovids elsewhere. The
purpose of the hole below the horns is not self-evident; but it might indicate that bovids were already
subject to the yoke. Indeed, they may have been much earlier as there are signs of harnessing on bovid
terracottas at )Ain Ghazal (cf. Rollefson 1986, pl. II.5). The earliest explicit indication would appear to be
the yoked oxen modelled inside an open bowl from near Tell Farah (North) in Israel. Grigson (in Levy
(ed.) 1995, pl. 3.3) dated it to the later fourth millennium B.C.
-40-
PREHISTORIC PERIOD: CATALOGUE
(vi)
The Uruk/Late Chalcolithic Periods in Syria
24.
Fragment of an eye-idol; handmodelled; baked; coarse buff fabric with traces of
burning; one eye only survives.
AN1939.144; Tell Brak. H: 6.2cm. W: 5.2cm.
Cf. Brak: Mallowan 1947, 154, pl. XXV.10–11; Gawra: Tobler 1950, 171ff, pl.
LXXXVIa, CLVI–II, figs. 59–67; Choga Mish: Delougaz and Kantor 1996, 113, pl. 31
Q,Z; Grai Resh: Lloyd and Safar 1940, pl. 3, fig. 7:1.
“Hut” or “eye” symbols were found in large numbers and various sizes in the
foundations of the so-called Eye-Temple at Brak (Mallowan 1947, 33–8, 118, 150–9,
198–210). The great majority are of stone or occasionally bone. A few, generally larger, are of terracotta
like this fragment. This may be an example of the type referred to as “spectacle-topped” (Brillenidole) by
Mallowan, who regarded them as the earliest. Their most common form was two circles, not always
perforated, joined by a curving frame, set on a rounded body with flat base. Eye-idols have subsequently
been found widely distributed across eastern Anatolia, Syria and Mesopotamia, (including Khuzistan in
modern Iran) during the Uruk Period (cf. Woolley 1955a, pl. 15: U.17836; Delougaz and Lloyd 1942, 28–9,
fig. 24: 268, 269, 274). At Tepe Gawra (Speiser 1935, 99–100, pl. 44c: Gawra IX; 14.5cm. high) some large
stone examples have a definite neck between the loops and the base. Terracotta examples from this site,
some larger still, are abbreviated versions consisting of neck and loops (Tobler 1950, pl. 86: 1–4, 8–9
(Gawra XI (XIA)). In eastern Anatolia, at Arslantepe and Haçinebi, they appear in levels preceeding
intensive southern contacts indicating they may have been a local northern phenomenon adopted by the
southern Uruk intruders (cf. Becker 1993, nos 8–15). They appear in exclusively Uruk settlements at
Sheikh Hassan and Umm Qseir in Syria even in the absence of material evidence for local inhabitants there
(cf. Stein et al. 1997, 120). Eye idols appear on stamp seals of northern type, re-inforcing perhaps the case
for their northern origin (cf. Buchanan and Moorey 1984, no. 164).
The imagery of these eye-idols, in their various manifestations, has been extensively discussed since they
were first discovered without any well established, agreed solution being reached (cf. van Buren 1955,
164–175; Goff 1963, 149–153). They were originally associated particularly with the now discredited idea
of a universally worshipped “Mother Goddess”, which owed something to Andrae’s (1930) suggestion that
the form of these idols derived from the type of buildings made with bundles of reeds, including the
“loop” insignia of the goddess Innana-Ishtar, in southern Iraq. If the image indeed appeared first in the
north, then this hypothesis would be invalidated. As Goff (1963, 153) has pointed out, pairs of eyes were
significant symbols painted on pottery at Jemdet Nasr (cf. Field and Martin 1935, pl. XXXI) and they were
also cut on cylinder seals in late prehistory (cf. Frankfort 1955, pl. 84.880). Breniquet (1996) has drawn
together some of the finds of terracotta “eye-idols” as part of her argument that the larger examples had
served a practical purpose in spinning and twisting cords of vegetable fibre (cf. Breniquet 1996, fig. 7).
This example does not show signs of abrasion where it might be expected, if it had served for such a
purpose. Even if some did, the symbolic role of the pair-of-eyes is not thereby elucidated on the many
small or tiny examples that are clearly amulets.
(vii)
The Jamdat Nasr (Uruk III) Culture in Southern Mesopotamia: late fourth millennium
B.C.
25.
Quadruped; buff fabric; handmodelled and shaved to give the animal a regular
profile like no. 14 here; sun-dried or lightly fired; conjoined feet front and back;
stubby tail.
AN1926.414; Jamdat Nasr (GN 3116). L: 6.4cm.; H: 5.6cm.
Mackay 1931a, 278, pl. LXXIV; Matthews 1992, fig. 13.15.
Mackay only published one terracotta bull’s head and three possible “dogs”
(including this example) from his excavations at Jemdet Nasr in 1925. Matthews
(R,1992, 24) refers to “some numbers” of animal figurines in his survey of finds from this and Watelin’s
-41-
ANCIENT NEAR EASTERN TERRACOTTAS
subsequent excavation at the site in 1928. His own excavations (Matthews R.1990, 36, fig. 11) yielded only
a fragmentary terracotta pig and a ram (?). A stone figurine of what clearly is a dog with a collar from
Matthew’s excavations (Matthews, R, 1989 244, fig. 11) is markedly different from this quadruped. The
distinctive profile of its legs, with their shaved surfaces is also evident on Early Dynastic clay figurines
from Kish (cf. Watelin 1934, pl. XIII: 3) and on animals from Nineveh (3–5) (Campbell Thompson and
Mallowan 1933, 147, pl. LXXII: 11, “dog”).
26.
Boat model; handmodelled; greenish-buff fabric; simple open boat with a
slightly raised, square-topped bow and stern of equal height; very narrow flat
bottom with curved sides.
AN1926.478; Jamdat Nasr (GN 2798). L: 14.8cm. H: 5.4cm. W: 7.7cm.
Not in Mackay 1931; Salonen 1939, pl. XI.4; Moorey 1978, Fiche 4: B09, 10.
As might be expected from the nature of the river and canal networks in Sumer,
boat-models are particularly distinctive of the region (see also nos 44 and 99). They had appeared there
already by the Ubaid Period, notably at the typesite (Hall and Woolley 1927, pl. XLVIII.532), but also at
Uqair (Lloyd and Safar 1943, pl. XVIII.13), and Eridu (Safar et al. 1981, 230, fig. III). They are also
reported in the Hamrin region of Abada (Jasim 1985, 66, fig. 63), where one painted with brown bands
is like the modern balam of the region, whilst the other has the incurved ends of the mashoof (cf. no. 44).
A sealing of the Jamdat Nasr Period from Tell Uqair shows a high-prowed boat carrying human figures,
including one with a hair-bun, being punted by two of the passengers. Outside the boat are human figures
carrying a pole, and a large quadruped which is possibly pulling the boat (Matthews in Englund 1996, 31,
pl. 21: 37). Contrary to Salonen’s (1939) assumptions, the ancient boat builders of Iraq almost certainly
used the “shell-of-planks” technique, not the much more recent “skeleton of keel and frames” technique,
when building a boat. Casson (1971, 25–8) in his reassessment of Salonen’s translation of key terms in
Sumerian boat terminology argued that they indicate craft made with a square bow and stern as on this
model. Such models are usually more canoe-like in form with turned over ends (cf. no. 44). Göttlicher
(1978) has listed many of the earliest boat models from Mesopotamia. They vary little in shape. Boat
models are still being made in clay in the Seleucid Period in Babylonia (Karvonen-Kannas 1995, 113–114,
nos 729–43, pl. 91; Wrede 1990, 291–2).
(viii) Nineveh 5 Culture in Northern Iraq: earlier third millennium B.C.
27.
Quadruped; legs missing; handmodelled; coarse grey fabric, lightly fired or sunbaked; surface left rough; ears and traces of horn bases indicate a bull or ram.
AN1932.1105; Nineveh: K4. L: 6.2cm H: 4cm.
It was not until Mallowan excavated the so-called “prehistoric pit” at Nineveh
(cf. Campbell Thompson and Mallowan 1933 pl. LXXI–II) that chronological
contexts were provided for the miscellaneous zoomorphic clay figurines, like this
one, previously found there in Campbell Thompson’s earlier excavations (cf. Campbell Thompson and
Hamilton 1932, 93, pl. LXVII). The closest parallels to this example are in Nineveh 5 levels (cf. Campbell
Thompson and Mallowan 1933, 147, pl. LXXII.11).
(ix)
Chalcolithic Period in Israel: first half of the fourth millennium B.C.
28.
Quadruped; handmodelled; greyish-brown fabric (“mud”); sun-dried or lightly
fired; rear end broken off; horns (or ears) broken off; stubby tail.
AN1930.552a (Wadi Ghazzeh: Site D1 (Hasanieh): lower levels). L: 2.2cm. H:
2.1cm.
MacDonald 1932, 5, pl. XXI.10–12, XXVII.83–5 as “dogs”; this example may
be pl. XXVII.84.
-42-
PREHISTORIC PERIOD: CATALOGUE
29.
Quadruped; handmodelled; coarse greyish-brown fabric (“mud”); sun-dried or
lightly baked; legs on left side missing; head damaged (including horns or ears).
AN1930.552b (as no. 28 above) L: 3.2cm. H: 2.8cm.
30.
Quadruped; hand-modelled; coarse greyish-black
fabric (“mud”); sun-dried or lightly fired; legs
missing; head and rump damaged; solid substantial
body.
AN1930.552c (as nos 28–9 above) L: 4.1cm. H: 4.2cm.
These figurines were recovered with domestic rubbish from one of a series of
occupation sites in the Wadi Ghazzeh (lower Nahal Besor) investigated by
excavation in 1929–30 (MacDonald 1932). Roshwalb (1987) subsequently argued
that site D, whence they came, presented the major stratigraphic evidence for separating the Late Neolithic
from Chalcolithic Period in this area; but this remains debatable. All the objects came from pits which
could, at least in some cases, have been pit-dwellings, where occupation may have been seasonal. Clay
figurines of humans were not reported. The excavator identified these animals as dogs, but some at least
show traces of horn bases. It is more likely that they represent sheep, goat or cattle; pig bones were also
found at these sites. MacDonald (1932, 5; pl. XXVII) reported that: “Minute toy pots and dishes of mud
were common in the lowest levels. Mud dogs (1932, pl. XXI.10, 11, 12) were made at the same time,
growing in popularity as the toy pottery diminished; indeed the two highest levels alone contained seven
of these model dogs”.
At the major site of Shiqmim in the valley of Nahal Beersheva in the Chalcolithic Period, where domestic
animal bones make up 95% of the total recovered (Levy 1995, 231–2), a few dog bones were reported,
but none of pigs. The contrast, if any, between the animal husbandry of the Late Neolithic and the
Chalcolithic in the southern Levant is still under investigation; but cattle, goats and sheep are all illustrated
in Chalcolithic art and among local fauna (cf. Grigson 1987, 229, fig. 7; 1995).
(x)
Early Bronze I in Jordan: later fourth millennium B.C.
31.
Quadruped; handmodelled; sun-dried or lightly fired; orange-buff fabric; horns,
tail, legs damaged; horns curve round as on a ram.
AN1983.198 Jawa: J734. L: 4.8cm; H: 2.9cm.
Helms 1991, 162, fig. 203.734.
32.
Quadruped; handmodelled; sun-dried; fabric like no. 31 above; forepart only,
badly damaged; head shaped like no. 31 above, but horns missing.
AN1983.199 Jawa: J.735 L: 4.1cm. H: 3.3cm.
Helms 1991, 162, fig. 203.735.
Helms (1991, 162) noted that all the figurines excavated at Jawa were in the same
locus (805) in the lower settlement; but it was not clear whether this was where
they were made, used or discarded together. One head (Helms 1991, fig. 203.739)
was that of a bovid, whilst the others, as here, seem to be goat or sheep, perhaps of the fat-tailed variety;
all were represented in the faunal remains at the site. Although the precise dating of the occupation
whence these figurines came at Jawa is debatable, it is currently placed within Early Bronze I, somewhere
in the second half of the fourth millennium B.C., contemporary with the late prehistoric period in Syria
and Mesopotamia (Uruk IV–III). No human figurines were reported from these excavations at Jawa.
-43-