A STYLISTIC ANALYSIS *

This final part of the chapter focuses on the style of the 'Ain Ghazal plaster statuary excavated in 1983 and 1985. The analysis includes: (1) a definition of the genre; (2) its evolution between 6750-6500 B.C.; (3) contrasting the figures with parallel material at the site; (4) a comparison with contemporaneous assemblages in the Levant; (5) an assessment of the origin of the PPNB statuary. The paper also assesses three interpretations for the statues-- ancestors, ghosts, or deities. (7) Finally, the conclusion evaluates the significance of monumental plastic art.
 
 

As fully documented above by Carol A. Grissom and C.W. Tubb, the 32 statues of 'Ain Ghazal were located in two separate caches. Cache 1 (6750 +/- 80 B.C.), found in 1983 (Rollefson and Simmons 1985: 48-50), yielded 25 pieces including 13 full-size statues and 12 one-headed busts, of which three statues and four busts are now restored (Tubb and Grissom 443-447). As for Cache 2, excavated in 1985 (Rollefson and Simmons 1987: 95-96), five of its seven statues are now back to a good state of repair (Grissom 1996). The collection consists of two full statues, three two-headed busts, and two fragmentary heads. This second cache is estimated to date about 6570 +/- 110 B.C. or possibly somewhat later. In the first part of the paper, I identify the basic characteristics of the 'Ain Ghazal PPNB statuary. I lay out the features that remained constant from 6700 to 6500 B.C., the two centuries separating the two caches.
 

The 'Ain Ghazal statues share the following traits:
 

• All are anthropomorphic. They consist either of full figures or busts. The latter may be one- or two-headed (figs. 1-6).
• They belonged to identical archaeological contexts and were carefully laid in a pit visibly dug for the sole purpose of their disposal. The two caches were buried beneath the floors of long abandoned houses. In other words, they were not under habitation floors but were segregated from the living.
• Their general orientation was east-west. (except for busts of Cache 1 laid crosswise below the statues).
• They were seemingly in a good state of preservation when they were buried (except for two broken pieces in Cache 2, perhaps damaged in antiquity).
• The surface of the statues consists of plaster. Otherwise utilized to cover house walls and floors (Kingery, Vandiver and Prickett), for tokens (Iceland, unpublished), and in the funerary custom of modeling skulls, lime plaster used for statuary in the round was an innovation.
• Their manufacture involved a reed armature. Head(s), torso and legs were built around separate reed bundles tightly bound with twine and covered with a thick layer of fresh plaster. Then the parts were assembled for the final surface modeling.
• They are large. Compared to the contemporaneous Neolithic, minuscule human clay or stone figurines found at the site, the 35-100 cm high statues may be termed monumental.
• Their thickness is about 5-10 cm. In other words, the figures are flat, almost two dimensional. The back is straight except for slightly projecting buttocks .
• The full statues are balanced in order to stand up. The busts have a stable, flat base, except for one example from Cache 2 that is rounded.
• The genitalia are systematically omitted, except perhaps for one figure that might be depicted with pudenda. (fig. 2) Breasts are sometimes shown.(fig. 1 b and 2)
• The head is emphasized. It represents about one-fifth of the total size of the earlier statues, one-sixth in the later ones, and two-fifths of the 1983 and one-fifth of the 1985 busts respectively. The neck is oversized.
• A recessed feature is set above the forehead.
• The visage is treated with ochre and given a silky finish. The stylization involves manipulating the proportions of the human face (fig. 7). The high forehead is about half the size of the head. The eyes are placed far below the brows. The cheek bones are low compared to the base of the nose. The brows, nose, labial canal and mouth are arranged in a T-shape. The mouth and the base of the nose are the same size. The ears are high, close to the eyes and sometimes above their level.
• The facial features are striking. The nose is conspicuously short and upturned, exhibiting long, thin nostrils. The minuscule mouth has no lips.
• Lastly, they have the same arresting glance. The eyes are disproportionately large--twice the size of base of the nose and many times that of the mouth. They are set far apart. The globe bulges slightly, surrounded by a deep, oval ridge filled with black bitumen. The lids are not portrayed.
   

There can be no doubt that the two sets of statues--which shared location, orientation, material, technique and style--are parallel manifestations of the same monumental statuary that prevailed at 'Ain Ghazal from 6750 to ca. 6500 B.C. The figures departed from the former anthropomorphic figurines of the Khiamian (PPNA) culture (Bar-Yosef 1980) by using perishable vegetable material and plaster instead of stone and, especially, by their monumental size.
 
 

This section focuses on the developments that took place in the statuary over two or three centuries. I point out the traits that distinguish one set of figures from the other.

The two caches vary also in the types of statues they held. The introduction of the two-headed busts constitutes the most significant innovation of Cache 2 (fig. 6).

There is a notable trend towards standardization. The figures of Cache 1 have individual facial features and assume varied positions. For example, one figure has straight arms (fig. 3), whereas others bend theirs in different ways (fig. 1a and 2). In contrast, the figures of Cache 2 have almost identical faces and posture.

The torso became more schematic. In Cache 1, the shoulders are carefully modeled, sloping gently. The waist is clearly marked and the pelvis and buttocks are sensitively rendered, including in one figure a light bulge suggesting fat around the thighs (fig. 1 a). One statue of Cache 1 has breasts placed low in the center of the chest (fig. 1b), and a second displays udder-like features (fig. 2). But in Cache 2 the torso is reduced to a rectangle, the figures have straight, square shoulders and the breasts are never displayed (fig. 4).

The arms, small and withered in the statues of Cache 1, fully disappear in those of Cache 2. One figure of Cache 1 has arms that are like sticks, with no indication of elbows or wrists, and they are fully disproportionate to the torso (fig. 3). A second, which will serve as an important clue for the function of the figures, bends her arms to hold her breasts (fig. 1 b). Her skimpy upper limbs are devoid of forearms and end in fan-shaped hands. The same gesture is repeated by another figure, although more schematically (fig. 2). Here, the arms are reduced to thin, crescent-shaped stumps curving towards the breasts. In this last instance no fingers are indicated, but in the two statues described above, digits are sloppily cut in the plaster by straight slashes. The number of fingers seems not to matter. One statue has four on the left hand and five on the right (fig. 3) and another has a right hand with seven fingers (fig. 1 b). The statues of Cache 2 have no arms or hands (fig. 4).

Painting, widely used in the earlier statues, is reduced in the later ones. The statues of Cache 1 were treated with ochre before being smoothed. One head had sets of three stripes on the forehead and on each cheek. One figure is covered in front with a pattern of red, vertical lines along the thighs and legs that ends in a black, horizontal, broad band circling over the ankle (fig. 3). Another bears traces of a similar red design around the stomach and legs (fig. 2) and, in addition, these two statues were painted around the shoulders. In both of these figures, the intention may well have been to feature pants and bodices. Traces of pigment are limited to the face in the other set. There is no paint on the rough torsos of Cache 2.

The busts underwent the same stylization. Whereas in Cache 1 the single head extends naturally from a carefully smoothed, human-shaped torso (fig. 5), in Cache 2 the two heads project in front of a quasi-pyramidal, rough base. (fig. 6).

Contrary to the rest of the body, the visage remains unchanged except in details. The statues of Cache 2 have almond-shaped eyes, sometimes slanting inwardly (fig. 4); a more pointed nose in the shape of a tetrahedron; ring-shaped ears; and a cleft chin (fig. 7). Those of Cache 1 have rounder eyes painted with a thin filament of an intense green pigment, with the surrounding black-bitumen ridge often left open at the corners; a blunt nose; lug-shaped ears; and a round chin. The most singular shift is in the treatment of the iris. In Cache 1 it is round--as it is in nature. Indeed, although all human races are characterized by a specific eye shape, they share an absolutely circular iris and pupil; likewise, whereas each individual has facial features that make him or her unique, all humans have a perfectly circular iris and pupil. But the 'Ain Ghazal figures of Cache 2 have a diamond-shaped iris or pupil. While their bodies are anthropomorphic, their eyes are not.

The large statuary of 'Ain Ghazal evolved over two or three hundred years. The main changes consisted of: (1) a possible fluctuation in the number of figures, from 25 to 7; (2) the appearance of two-headed busts; (3) a greater stylization; and (4) diamond-shaped iris or pupils, which conveyed to the statues of Cache 2 an eerie, alien or feline look, distinguishing them from the more benign figures of Cache 1. The fact that the statues and busts grew taller may be the most noteworthy feature. This may mean that the size or monumental quality of the statues increased in importance over time.
 
 

Stylistically and in size, plastered skulls are the closest objects to the statues in the 'Ain Ghazal assemblage. The artifacts were made by removing the flesh and lower jaw from a human skull, covering it with plaster and modeling the forehead, brows, eyes, nose, mouth and chin. Six plastered skulls were excavated at 'Ain Ghazal: two damaged examples in 1983 (Rollefson and Simmons 1985:47); a group of three masks, no longer attached to the cranial bones, in 1985 (fig. 8) (Rollefson and Simmons 1987:94-95); and one, fairly well preserved, in 1988 (Simmons, Boulton, et al.). All belong to the PPNB period. The oldest three specimens excavated in 1985 are as early as the eight millennium B.C., since they were located below a floor dated 7100 B.C., and the latest, found in 1985, is as late as ca. 6500 B.C.

The skulls constitute important parallels to the plaster figures. Both types of artifacts share the same large size and are modeled with plaster in a comparable style. The similarities as well as differences between the two genres may prove revealing.
 
 

Excavations in the PPNB layer of the cave of Nahal Hemar, Israel, which is dated to ca. 6300 B.C., produced small pieces of lime plaster showing the imprint of reeds, and traces of paint and burnishing (Bar-Yosef and Alon: 20-21). Two were head fragments decorated with a molded net-pattern. A third piece depicts an eye, stained with green pigment and surrounded by an oval line of black bitumen. The small quantity and poor preservation of the fragments precludes an in-depth stylistic comparison with the Jordanian material. Analysis of the material showed, however, that they belonged to at least four figures apparently similar to the 'Ain Ghazal type of statuary but each differing in material composition. Surprisingly, the substances involved in one of the statues point to a possible origin on the Mediterranean coast (Goren, Segal and Bar-Yosef:127).

The 1935 and 1955-6 campaigns at Jericho, Palestine, led respectively by Garstang(1935) and Kenyon (1957: 84), located PPNB pits dated to ca. 6700-6500 B.C. with quantities of plaster pieces (Kingery, Vandiver, et. al: 233; Goren and Segal: 163) painted with red and cream stripes. Some fragments bear the imprints of a reeds reminiscent of the 'Ain Ghazal armature (Amiran:23-24), but most had a core consisting of coarse crumbly marl (Goren and Segal: 163). Diagnostic pieces, such as segments of legs and shoulders or a flat base, show that the two caches of statues excavated by Garstang yielded full figures and busts, but here also the fragments are poorly preserved, limiting the possibility for a thorough stylistic analysis. What can be said is that the fragment of a foot with six toes provides a parallel to that of Cache 1 in 'Ain Ghazal. The best-preserved piece in the Garstang collection consists of a flat head topped with a recessed feature and painted with red lines over the forehead, cheeks and chin as familiar in Cache 1 (fig. 9)(Garstang and Garstang: 66-67). The brows, upturned nose, prominent nostrils, long labial canal, cleft chin and puckered, lip-less mouth are like those of the 'Ain Ghazal statues. The eyes of the Jericho head, however, were represented by glossy shells inserted below the brows, imitating the shiny texture of the cornea.

The two sites also produced modeled skulls. At Nahal Hemar, three skulls were decorated at the back with the same net-pattern noted on the statuary fragments of the site; however, in this case, the motif was molded with a collagen substance rather than bitumen (fig. 10)(Nissenbaum). Like the head of the statue found by Garstang, the ten modeled skulls excavated by Kenyon in Jericho in 1953 used shells to represent the eyes. In this case, however, the shells were segmented to suggest a vertical pupil (Kenyon 60-64).

Nahal Hemar and Jericho did not produce the same array of well-preserved statues as did 'Ain Ghazal. Nonetheless, the two sites are invaluable in demonstrating that the monumental statuary and plastered skulls traditions were shared by other PPNB settlements. The green pigment at Nahal Hemar, and both the red designs and the foot with six toes at Jericho, tie the two Cisjordanian statue assemblages to the style of Cache 1 at 'Ain Ghazal.
 
 

The material from the three sites discussed above give an insight into the origin of monumental plastic art in the Levant. 'Ain Ghazal and Jericho reveal that large statuary flourished in PPNB Jordan as early as the beginning of the seventh millennium B.C. Nahal Hemar provides the evidence that the genre continued for at least four centuries, until ca. 6300 B.C. The large statues were in use in an area of some 150 km on either side of the Jordan River and to the northeast, northwest and southeast of the Dead Sea, and as suggested by the raw material of some of the Nahal Hemar fragments, perhaps as far as the Mediterranean shores. The special material composition and stylistic features illustrated at Jericho and Nahal Hemar illustrate that communities developed their own ways for the basic manufacture and decoration of the figures(Yakar and Herskovitz; Goren and Segal: 164). Plastic art in the round seems to follow the custom of modeling human skulls since plastered skulls are attested as early as 7100 B.C. both in 'Ain Ghazal and Jericho. The limited evidence allows no more than conjecture that plaster statuary started declining by 6500 B.C., when the number of figures dwindled at 'Ain Ghazal, perhaps already presaging their complete disappearance after 6300 B.C. in the following PPNC. Therefore, the phenomenon can be connected to sedentary farming since the monumental statuary developed parallel to the domestication of plants and animals and did not survive the mixed economy based on nomadic pastoralism and agriculture in the PPNC period.

The quantum jump in size from the PPNA figurines to the large PPNB statues must be significant. It must imply that plastic art played a new role. The minuscule, Neolithic clay females belonged to homes, but the large statues suggest a public display. The well-balanced figures and the flat-based busts indicate that the effigies were not laid flat but were exhibited in an upright position. Because they had no depth, the icons were probably presented frontally. The feature above the forehead is generally interpreted as holding a headdress made of a different material than the figure (Gunther). This interpretation suggests that the custom of adding on garments to the statues may have become more popular over time, replacing the bodice and pants painted on the early figures and even substituting sleeves for the former modeling of the arms. This practice would explain why the torso and limbs became ruthlessly stylized, whereas the face and toes continued to be carefully finished. The shape or color of the garments perhaps identified the gender of the figure, accounting for the general lack of sexual dimorphism. The idea of add-on headdresses and garments is particularly appealing because the custom seems well attested in the later statuary, such as at Tell Brak, Syria (Spycket 1981: 38), and Uruk, Mesopotamia, in the fourth millennium B.C. (Spycket 1981: 36-37). A picture of the origin of monumental statuary emerges. The analysis of the 'Ain Ghazal, Nahal Hemar and Jericho figures defines the place and time when the phenomenon took place, its relation with farming, the types of statues it involved and the way the statues were displayed. Can the archaeological data also break the symbolic code and thereby gauge the significance of the new art? In other words, can we find out whom the icons with big eyes, upturned nose, long nostrils and puckered mouth stood for and their role in the PPNB communities?
 
 

A customary interpretation for the statues, namely that they portrayed venerated ancestors, may be first credited to Kenyon (1957:85). Comparing the Jericho plastered skulls to ethnographic data, she reasoned that the artifacts could be either honoring ancestors or representing slain enemies (Kenyon: 62-63). She further noted that the Jericho statues and plastered skulls had common features, such as the use of shells in lieu of eyes (Kenyon: 84). She then hinted at the hypothesis that both genres could be related to a similar death ritual. The finds at Nahal Hemar and 'Ain Ghazal strengthened the idea of a link between the statues and the plastered skulls. Thus, most follow in her footsteps in viewing the plastered skulls as featuring deceased, revered community members, and consider the statuary as another manifestation of an ancestors cult (Simmons, Boulton, et al: 109; Cauvin: 157).

It is particularly noteworthy that the most outstanding figures of the two caches are perfectly familiar in the traditional Near Eastern pantheons. Namely, the two-headed busts find multiple parallels in the long iconography of twin gods or goddesses from Neolithic times to the third millennium B.C. (fig. 11). For instance, twin figures are featured as small statues and large reliefs in Neolithic Catal Hüyük (Mellaart:109, 111, Pl. 70-71). They are part of the assemblage of Hacilar I (Mellaart: 141). Alabaster figurines of Tell Brak warrant that, in the fourth millennium B.C., two-headed icons were part of the temple (Mallowan 1947: 133-136 and PL.LI: 19 and 42). Idols with two heads are known in Anatolian (Amiet 1977:389 fig 455) and Cypriot assemblages of the third millennium B.C. (Karageorghis 1976: fig. 36). Deities with two, three and four faces are common features in historic Mesopotamia (Amiet 1977: p. 383, fig. 431; p. 353, fig. 221; p. 210, fig. 84). Finally, there are late textual references concerning the two heads of the greatest of the Babylonian deities: Marduk. The following verses, describing the creation of Marduk in Enuma elish, make it clear that two heads were used as a metaphore to express infinite beauty, omnipresence and wisdom.
 

In another translation: "When Ea who begot him saw him, he exulted, he was radiant, light hearted, for he saw that he was perfect, and he multiplied his godhead ... with four eyes for limitless sight and four ears hearing all..."(Sandars 1971: 75-76.) Denning-Bolle further notes the importance given to the four ears, the seat of intelligence in Mesopotamia. The following verses of Enuma elish convey that the god's omniscience depended not only of his four-eyed vision but also the acuteness in hearing of four ears:
 

The most persuasive evidence that the statues may represent deities is the exceptional female emphatically exhibiting two clearly modeled breasts. (fig. 1 b) She folds disproportionately small arms, devoid of forearms, to reach the chest. She stretches her hands in a fan-shape to frame the bosom. The movement is awkwardly rendered. The arms are skimpy, the seven fingers of the right hand are cut sloppily, but nevertheless, the woman revealing her breast while staring sternly at the viewer makes a potent statement.

The female is not unique in executing the striking gesture. It is repeated by two other statues from 'Ain Ghazal, also from Cache 1. The head and entire left side of the first is destroyed, but a small hand is clearly visible at the chest (Rollefson and Simmons 1985: 30 fig 13; Rollefson 1983: 31, Pl.I:1). In the second, the schematic treatment of the limbs and chest compromise the effect. (fig. 2) The figure curves her arms across the torso, but the limbs are reduced to thin, crescent-shaped stumps that fail to reach the breast; there are no fingers pointing to the bosom, finally; the breasts are thin and minimal. Although the message was probably meant to be the same in the two figures, the first spells it out loud and clear, but in the second it remains ambiguous.

The 'Ain Ghazal statues may not be the earliest examples of the eye-catching symbol. This distinction may be deserved by two small PPNB Jericho clay figurines of women holding their breasts, found by Kenyon in a shrine (Kenyon:59). The Jericho examples are precious in bringing the evidence that the motif was already a popular one in the PPNB. After the Neolithic period, the gesture was to enjoy a lifetime of some five millennia in Near Eastern iconography. It is repeated from the Mediterranean Sea (Badre 1995: 459, figs. a,b; 460, figs. a, c-e, g; 461, figs. a-d; 463, fig. c; 466, figs. a-b, g-h; Karageorghis fig. 103) to the Zagros Mountains (Spycket 1992: 70-71; 157-179; ) in innumerable figures until the first millennium B.C. (fig. 12) (Badre 1980: 387 fig. 32, Pl. LX: 32). The gesture of a female revealing her breasts is generally interpreted as a symbol of nurturing and fertility. It is regarded as the hallmark of Near Eastern goddesses (Badre 1995: 465). The figurines could conceivably represent An's consort, the goddess An/Antum whose breasts were deemed to be the source of the rain beneficent for vegetation (Jacobsen 1976: 95). The images of females holding their breasts, however, are generally viewed as personifying the goddess of love and fertility revered through the ages under the names of Inanna, Ishtar, Asherath, Astarte or Tanit ('Amar: 117). This tradition is supported by hymns preserved in cuneiform texts. Some praise Ishtar as "... the mother of the faithful breast..." or the goddess "... nourishing humanity on her breast..."(Langdon: 60 and 64). Particularly telling is also the following prayer of a king to Inanna to give him her breast, from which he will drink as a symbol of the fertility of the land.
 

Based on iconography, the 'Ain Ghazal "monumental"statuary may well have featured mythical protective figures, responsible for life and fertility (Kafafi). The 'Ain Ghazal statues are testimonies to the everlasting endurance of symbolism. In particular, the two-headed icons and the females clutching their breasts provide the evidence that the forceful images of all-seeing beings and goddesses nursing mankind had their roots in the Neolithic, as early as 6500 B.C. In fact, the symbol of the motherly nourishment may be viewed as a creation typical of the beginning of agriculture. There is little doubt that fertility acquired a new pressing significance when the survival of sedentary populations depended on the production of fields and orchards. It is therefore to be expected that new deities emerged in the farmers pantheon, followed by new rituals that were meant to insure bountiful harvests and prosperous flocks. The gesture of the female exhibiting her breasts was a potent symbol fostering a new ideology (Bar-Yosef and Meadow:80) that already presaged the cult of Inanna. Further traits that persisted in statuary through the ebb and flow of religions from prehistory to history are worth repeating here: large figures with add-on headdresses and garments, two-headed gods, goddesses presenting their breasts, and finally, dying deities as being the key to fertility.
 

Except for satisfying our curiosity, whether the statues stood for deities, ancestors or ghosts is, in fact, almost inconsequential. The uniqueness of the statuary is its monumentality. Its true significance is in revealing a major step in the manipulation of symbolism: from domestic figurines to public statues. Since symbols are instruments of thought allowing people to conceive and share ideas, the size of the group they impact is of crucial importance. Whereas the former, modest PPNA figurines of the Khiamian culture were experienced by few, the statues reached multitudes. Their large size, stylized features and, probably, bright add-on garments made it possible for the icons to be seen by an entire community and, consequently, for an entire community to partake actively in common rites. In other words, the monumental statuary was instrumental in the shift from domestic to public ritual.

* The paper was first published in The Bulletin of the American School of Oriental Research, Vol. 310, 1998, p. 1-17, and is reprinted here by kind permission. The study was funded by a fellowship from the American Center of Oriental Research, Amman, Jordan and a grant from the Near and Middle East Research and Training Act. I thank Pierre Bikai, Director, The American Center of Oriental Research, Amman, for his most helpful suggestions. I also thank Ines Rivera for research.  
 

  ILLUSTRATIONS

Figure 1 a.
Statue of a woman revealing her breast, 'Ain Ghazal, Cache 1. Photo by Hussein Debajah, courtesy Gary O. Rollefson, the 'Ain Ghazal Institute.

Figure 1 b. 
Detail of the statue of a woman revealing her breast, 'Ain Ghazal, Cache 1, photo by Hussein Debajah, courtesy Gary O. Rollefson, the 'Ain Ghazal Institute.

Figure 2. 
Statue, 'Ain Ghazal, Cache 1. Photo by Hussein Debajah, courtesy Gary O. Rollefson, the 'Ain Ghazal Institute.

Figure 3.
Statue, 'Ain Ghazal, Cache 1. Photo by Hussein Debajah, courtesy Gary O. Rollefson, the 'Ain Ghazal Institute.

Figure 4. 
Statue, 'Ain Ghazal, Cache 2. Photo by John Tsantes, courtesy the Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Figure 5. 
Bust, 'Ain Ghazal, Cache 1, photo by Hussein Debajah, courtesy Gary O. Rollefson, the 'Ain Ghazal Institute.

Figure 6.
Two-headed bust, 'Ain Ghazal, Cache 2, photo by John Tsantes, courtesy the Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Figure 7.
Heads, 'Ain Ghazal, Cache 2, photo by John Tsantes, courtesy the Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Figure 8.
Plaster masks, 'Ain Ghazal. Photo by Patricia Griffin, courtesy the Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Figure 9.
Head of statue from Jericho, courtesy Photo Archives, Israel Antiquities Authority.

Figure 10.
Modelled skulls from Nahal Hemar after Regita Yakar and Israel Hershkovitz, "Nahal Hemar Cave, The Modelled Skulls,"'Atiqot English Series, Vol. XVIII, 1988, PL. XXIV: 1.

Figure 11.
Two-headed statuettes, designed by Lamia Salem el-Khoury.

Figure 12.
Females presenting their breasts, designed by Lamia Salem el-Khoury.