ANIMAL FIGURINES

by

Denise Schmandt-Besserat

Animal figurines are a familiar find on Near Eastern sites from the 9-3rd millennium BC from the Levant to Iran. Their function, however, is still enigmatic. This paper presents the animal figurine assemblage from 'Ain Ghazal: the species represented, the style, manufacture, the context in which they were recovered, their place in the iconography and finally, the role animal symbolism may have played in ancient Near Eastern thought.

 

There are 151 zoomorphic figurines in the 'Ain Ghazal assemblage. The most remarkable feature of the collection is its homogeneity. During the 2000 years of occupation at the site, the same animals were made again and again in the same style, using the same coarse material. Bulls with prominent withers, are most frequent. (fig. 1) Other species include goats, rams, and gazelles, which are easy to distinguish by their horns. (fig. 2) One long snouted boar (fig. 3 - left) and two large tailed creatures, possibly lizards, are unique in the collection. (fig. 4 above) (Rollefson, Simmons et al. 1985: 86-88)

The style is also remarkably uniform. The quadrupeds are invariably represented standing still, the legs parallel. Activities such as grazing, resting, sleeping, walking, running or rearing are not portrayed. The figurines usually measure about 7 cm, and are occasionally as large as 15 or as small as 3 cm. (fig. 1) The stylistic treatment is consistent. Particular sets of features are either emphasized, reduced or altogether ignored. For example, eyes, nostrils and mouths are systematically excluded and the skin or coat is not depicted. The sex organs are always omitted. On the other hand, the animal's foreparts are exaggerated. The heads, large sweeping horns, powerful necks, withers and shoulders bulge in front contrasting with the small, tapering rear ends. (fig. 5) The dorsal spine pinched along the back was sometimes extended into a curious crest.

The horns reflect a great concern for verisimilitude. (fig. 6a-6b) They are faithfully portrayed with the characteristic cross-section, length and curvature of a specific species. Bovine horns are represented as stocky and curving frontward; those of wild goats are accurately indicated by a marked anterior spine and sharp curvature. Ram horns are semicircular while those of gazelles, elegantly sweeping backwards. In contrast, the tails defy nature: bovines are portrayed with a short appendage when, in fact, they are endowed with a long one; goats have a hanging tail, which should be upturned. (fig. 2) The most stylized feature, however, are the legs. Reduced to minute pointed stumps, they lack any indication of thigh, knee, ankle, forelock or hoof. (fig. 7) Moreover, the limbs are barely projecting below the belly and are grossly disproportionate to the rest of the body. Finally, it is noteworthy that, although the little creatures are often totally asymmetrical, one side being far thicker than the other, they stand firm on their tiny legs. This suggests that, whatever the function of the figurines might be, they were meant to stand up.

The figurines were mostly modeled in a coarse, unprepared, yellow-brown clay with large gravel and pebble inclusions, which is locally available. (fig. 8) They were manufactured cursorily modeling a clay coil into a neck and a head, pressing the other end against a hard surface to shape a flat rump, pinching legs and tail, and finally attaching the horns which were made separately. Some figurines exhibit puzzling features. The most enigmatic are two animals each stabbed with three flint bladelets in the throat, abdomen, the chest or the eye. (Rollefson, Simmons 1986: 150) (figs. 9a and 9b) Others display pieces of flint or pebbles, in some cases oddly placed under the tail. A single figurine bore a set of four parallel incised lines along the side. (fig. 8) Lastly, two animals were intentionally truncated when the clay was still moist. Despite their modification, the animals were still able to stand. In one case, the neck of an animal severed behind the forelegs was extended to form a peculiar but steady tripod. (Rollefson and Simmons 1985:43) (fig. 10a and 10b)

The figurines do not exhibit grey cores or any other evidence of intentional baking. However, black or red marks and bits of charcoal on the surface indicate that the animals were exposed to fire, possibly in an open hearth or brazier, which would generate a partly oxidizing and partly reducing atmosphere. (figs. 2 and 8) The fact that the figurines are often mixed with ashes in trash deposits suggests that they may have been disposed of in a fireplace. This would also explain why the surface of the figurines often shows cracks and the animals are usually badly damaged. None of the figurines is complete. Heads, legs, tail, rump and especially horns are mostly broken off, with many examples reduced to the fore- or back parts.

Two sets of figurines were recovered in situ. The two stabbed animals mentioned above lay side by side in a tiny pit covered by a limestone slab beneath a floor in the corner of a room. (fig. 9c) (Rollefson and Simmons 1986: 150, 152-153) Although the building appears to have had a domestic function, in previous phases it had also held unusual burials: five funerary pits arranged around a hearth; an infant under a doorway; a cache of three adult skulls and a child's skull treated with black pigment. (Rollefson and Simmons 1986: 155) In the second case, a clay bull was recovered in a house, in a storage bin where it was associated with three Bos bones, (fig. 11) one of them bearing an incised pattern. (Rollefson and Simmons 1986:152-153)

Twenty-four clay animals recovered as a hoard in the fill, (fig. 12) together with a lump of coarse yellow clay bearing five curved incised markings (made by finger nails?), (fig. 13-left) also deserve special attention. (Rollefson and Simmons 1984: 21) Twenty three of the figurines were made by someone who had a knack for pinching the coarse yellow clay into elegant little bulls, (fig. 14 left) whereas the twenty fourth figurine, of a nondescript species, was awkwardly made of a different finer and whiter clay or perhaps plaster. (fig. 14 - right) The cache therefore suggests that 23 figurines were modeled more or less at the same time by the same expert hand and discarded shortly thereafter with the remaining unused clay. The white figurine suggests a second, less experienced individual also at work.

In sum, 'Ain Ghazal brings significant evidence on the manufacture, manipulation and disposal of neolithic zoomorphic figurines. The animals were modeled with coarse, unprepared locally available material, at least on occasion by an experienced hand probably denoting a specialist, in groups as large as 23. Their manufacture sometimes involved stabbing the animals in vital parts with flint bladelets or severing the bodies while the clay was moist. The figurines did not randomly portray the local fauna but selectively represented, over and over again, bulls and long horned goats, rams and gazelles. These animals were always shown in the same position, standing firmly on short stumpy legs. The style of modeling consistently emphasized the foreparts conveying force, vitality and dynamism. The repetitious character of the figurines suggests that they were not whimsical representations but reproduced a formal prototype. Finally, after their function was fulfilled, the figurines were disposed of either by burying them under the floor of a house, placing them with other "art" pieces in a storage bin, or burning them in a hearth, after which they were discarded together with the fire's ashes in the general household trash.

 

Cattle and long horned animals were also celebrated in early Neolithic assemblages at other sites in Jordan or Syria. Basta, Tell Aswad, and Ghoraifé are among the contemporaneous Levantine sites at which were found comparable numbers of zoomorphic fugurines featuring the same types of animals, made in the same way in the same size, material and style. (Contenson 1995: 181-182 and 321) As at 'Ain Ghazal, bulls with massive withers and long-horned caprovids and gazelle dominate, with an occasional boar. (Contenson 1995: 187, fig. 125:1) The figurines were cursorily manufactured, had oversized horns, stood steady on their dwarfed legs, bore superficial soot or reddish marks on the surface, and were repeatedly found in ancient dumps. (Contenson 1995: 20) Animal figurines continue to be a familiar feature in the late neolithic, chalcolithic and early bronze age sites in the Levant , e.g., Tell Sabi-Abyad,

(Akkermans and Verhoeven 1995: 25-26, fig. 15:14) as well as in Mesopotamia and Iran, e.g., Uruk (Lenzen 1965: 25, fig. 14c,d,f) and Hissar (Schmidt 1937: 54, Pl. XIV). They are still common in the 3rd Millennium BC, as at Tell Chuera, Syria, where bovids and caprovids were produced (Moortgat 1962: 18, fig. 12f) along with a more diversified figurine assemblage including horses, pigs and birds. (Moortgat 1975: 54, fig. 26b; Hauser 1997: 87) In fact the manufacture of clay animal figurines persisted throughout the Iron Age. They were still being created in the Assyro-Babylonian period with the only difference being that some beasts had become hybrids. (Curtis 1995: 115, no. 70-72)

Neolithic clay figurines were not the first art form glorifying bovines and long-horned animals. From the first attempt at image making in the Near East, bulls, caprovids and cervids dominated the repertory of art motifs. The entrance of Beldibi Cave featured an engraved auroch and a deer showing that these animals already played a special role in the Paleolithic hunters' world of 15,000 BC (Bostanci 1959: 140, Pl. 11). Aurochs and gazelles decorated Mesolithic tools of Kebara, El Wad and Oumm ez Zoueitina, ca. 10,000 BC (Valla 1975: Pl, 1 and II, 1,2). Bulls and deer were the subjects of mural paintings and reliefs at Catal Hüyük, 6500 to 5500 BC (Mellaart 1967: 122-124, 171-173).

Theriomorphic art did not vanish with the advent of writing, but rather multiplied. Domesticated bulls and rams appeared in various media, no doubt fulfilling new symbolic needs. They were represented in monumental sculptures in the temple of Inanna at Uruk, ca 3100 BC, depicted in clay, metal and fine stones. (Spycket 1981: 39-43; Jordan 1931: 37-39, figs 25, 29, 30). They became two of the most persistent glyptics motifs from the 4th to the 1st millennium BC. Bulls and stags, rams, goats or gazelles were interchangeably associated with the sacred tree, the master of animals, or the lion. (Collon 1987: 187-190) The same is true in sculpture; at Ubaid, for instance the temple of Ninhursag (ca. 2500 BC) was decorated with monumental metal bulls and two stags mastered by the lion-headed eagle, Imdugud. (Hall and Woolley 1927: 22 and 28, Pl. V and VI) The predilection for bulls and long horned animals continued through the Assyro-Babylonian as well as the Persian period. The bull still adorned the processional way of Babylon in 600 BC.

In this perspective, the 'Ain Ghazal bull and horned animal figurines are not an isolated phenomenon. Instead, they are part of an age-old Near Eastern tradition of theriomorphic art. From the Paleolithic to the Assyro-Babylonian period, bulls and long-horned animals pervaded all forms of art, including wall engravings, glyptics, monumental reliefs and sculptures of metal and fine stones. The frequency and endurance of these motifs speak to a symbolic tradition in which these animals encapsulate some of the most profound ancient Near Eastern thoughts. (Cauvin 1994: 97) The meaning of the Beldibi, Catal Hüyük and 'Ain Ghazal animal symbols is, of course, forever lost. Nor can archaeology recover the significance of the Uruk theriomorphic sculptures that have no definite context. Therefore, we will never know whether the symbolism enjoyed continuity or suffered disjunction over time. All we know is that in the 3rd millennium BC, the prominent location of monumental bulls and horned animals at the entrance of the al Ubaid temple makes it clear that they had a religious connotation.

 

The functions of human clay figurines have been cogently discussed by many but the animal specimens have not enjoyed the same attention. Edward Ochsenschlager (1974) is among the few who put in writing the view, held by many, that the objects were childrenís toys. More recently, Postgate (1994) has convincingly argued that the key to the prehistoric clay animal figures may ultimately be provided by examples of the later periods, when texts complement the archaeological evidence. He advocated the legitimacy of using, with due caution, historical cuneiform texts to gain insights into timeless Near Eastern traditions. The new path of investigation he opened is challenging.

Bulls, rams and stags are frequently cited in cuneiform texts of the IIIrd-Ist Millennium as symbols of various concepts and personifications:

I will not dwell on the Bronze Age significance of the animals, since archaeology cannot establish the origin or antiquity of these symbols. It suffices to underline that, as soon as written evidence becomes available, the texts disclose the cosmic significance of bulls and horned animals.

Abundant archaeological data confirm the allusions in the cuneiform texts to the cultic use of clay animal figurines: 1. as ex-votos, 2. as apotropaic foundation deposits, 3. in magic rituals. For instance, clay dogs excavated in shrines of Gula, bearing dedicatory inscriptions such as "For the lady Gula, I made a clay dog and presented it to her," demonstrate that the goddess of healing received as ex-votos figurines of her sacred animal. (Postgate 1994: 176-177) Also, instruction texts prescribing the ritual burying of animal figurines to protect buildings against evil, are corroborated at several sites, in particular at Nimrud (Green 1983) and in earlier levels of Ur, where snakes, dogs and composite creatures were recovered along house and palace walls (Woolley 1926: 691).

Incantation texts, also attest to the fact that figurines were created in the course of magic rites. One such texts, from the 7th century BC Assyrian Namburbi series, refers to an ox figurine fashioned in a ritual intended to bring brisk trade to an innkeeper (Caplice 1974: 23-24). The ceremony involved building an altar to Ishtar, offering bread, and finally, creating an ox figurine. The latter was done according to a set of specific procedures as follows. First, the participant collected dirt at various places including a quay, a crossing, a bridge, the intersection of four roads, the city gate, and at the door of the Ishtar temple, that of a prostitute's and of a busy tavern; next he mixed the dirt of these various locations with water. He then spread some of the mixture at the threshold of the inn; next, he modeled an ox with the remainder of the paste. Then he uttered a spell seven times, prostrated, and finally, buried the figurine under a vat. A second text of the Namburbi series prescribes making clay figurines to counteract the bad omen of a lizard (Caplice 1974: 19). This ritual involved first sweeping the house roof, sprinkling water, building an altar and preparing (animal?) offerings. Next, a lizard was modeled in clay and placed on the altar on a specified design drawn in a bowl. Then the patient pronounced a given number of spells, while standing on tamarisk wood, and holding the hand of the priest.

These incantation texts are invaluable in giving specific information on the making of the clay animals used in the rites, their manipulation and disposal. It is evident that, in the ritual contexts described, the quality of the clay was of no concern but the location where the dirt was collected was important; and that the value of the objects derived from the simple act of creating them rather than from careful craftsmanship. These texts likewise present a scenario in which the manufacture involved as many as three actors: the patient, a priest, and sometimes his attendant (Reiner 1958: 4). The figurines were made in prescribed numbers, varying from a single object to large groups; the manipulation of the objects was limited to a brief presentation on an altar; and their disposal was immediate and consisted of burying them at a given location; throwing them in the river or burning them (Abush 1990: 12).

To turn back through the millennia to the 'Ain Ghazal material, what might have been the function of those animal figurines? Simple logic suggests that the pair of animals, each stabbed three times in vital parts and buried in a specially prepared cavity in a corner of a room, cannot be explained as toys. The figurines are also unlikely to represent surrogates for offerings, since we know that in later periods the main purpose of sacrificing animals was deriving omens from the behavior of the live beast as it was led to slaughter, extracting its entrails for divination, or collecting its blood for purification (Leichty 1993: 239-42). Could the Neolithic zoomorphic figurines be related to magic as described in the cuneiform texts? The evidence at hand certainly warrants the question (Postgate 1994: 176-84) .

Late texts unquestionably reveal that, in the 1st and 2nd millennium BC, magic pervaded every day life and religion and that animals, endowed with a cosmic significance, played a role in the rites. Why, as proposed by Postgate, is it legitimate to apply knowledge derived from the late historical period to the Neolithic period? Because it is attested by the Fara incantation texts that magic was already practiced in the early 3rd millennium BC (Krebernik 1984). And there is no reason to doubt that the same was true before literacy. In fact it is commonly assumed that the Fara texts transcribed a long-lived oral tradition that had its roots in prehistory (van Dijk et al. 1985: 1). This assumption is plausible, first, because magic is universal (Ellen 1993: 8, Brown 1997: 122). Second, to the extent that the effectiveness of spells is thought to depend on the precision of their execution, (Connerton 1989: 57-58) magic practices, have little potential for modification change and reinterpretation and thus tend to be slower to change than most other aspects of culture (Kertzer 1988: 12).

The idea that the Neolithic zoomorphic figurines could be related to magic is supported by the 'Ain Ghazal assemblage, (Rollefson and Simmons 1986: 150) and in particular by various characteristics of the collection:

If, indeed, some of the Neolithic figurines of 'Ain Ghazal played a ritual role, the objects can no longer be dismissed as trivial. The clay animals were metaphors of the forces of nature that fostered consciousness of the place of humans in the universe. By expressing the numinous, they facilitated the elaboration of a cosmology that bonded individuals of the same culture (Braun 1990: 71-72). Moreover, magic enhanced important cooperative social acts as it brought people together in the pursuit of common goals. Finally, the ceremonies in which the figurines were created, could have promoted the rise of leadership by showcasing an officiating figure deemed to steer cosmic powers. In fact the Neolithic magic ceremonies that involved animal symbols to express cosmic powers presaged fundamental characteristics of the Mesopotamian temple, the first Near Eastern public institution.

 

 

PHOTOGRAPHIC CREDIT
 Photographs by Yousef Zobi, courtesy of the Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, Yarmouk University, Irbid, Jordan.

Photo 10b by R. Henry Cowherd.
 

BIBLIOGRAPHY
 

Abush, Tsvi

1990. "An Early Form of the Witchcraft Ritual Maqlu and the Origin of

Akkermans, Peter M.M.G., and Marc Verhoeven, Biggs, Robert Black, Jeremy and Anthony Green, Bostanci, Enver Y. Braun, David P. Brown, Michael F. Caplice, Richard I. Cauvin, Jacques Collon, Dominique Connerton, Paul Contenson, Henri de Ellen, Roy Green, Anthony Hall, H.R. and C.L. Woolley, Hauser, Rick Kertzer, David Krebernik, Manfred Lenzen, Heinrich Mellaart, James Moortgat, Anton Moortgat Anton and Ursula Moortgat-Correns Postgate, J. N. Reiner, Erica Rollefson, Gary O., and Allan H. Simmons Rollefson, Gary O. Allan H. Simmons, Marcia L. Donaldson, William Gillespie, Zeidan Kafafi, Ilse U. Koehler-Rollefson, Ellen McAdam, Scott L. Rolston, and M. Katryn Tubb Schmidt, Erich F. Spycket, Agnès Valla, Francois van Dijk, J. , A. Goetze, M.I. Hussey Wiggermann, F.A.M. Woolley, L. C.

Animal Figurines