CATALOGUE OF STATUE CACHE 2

The following catalogue records individual details for statues which are generally described in "Cache 2." Included for each statue are comprehensive measurements, a description of the statue's position in the cache, itemization of its damage, evidence of fabrication observed during treatment, and individual variations in conservation treatment.

Descriptions of reed armatures on which statues were made are particularly detailed because this evidence is no longer visible. Definitions of terms used in the catalogue to describe the armatures, as well as numbering systems used for them, are as follows:

A number of conventions have also been used on drawings and in the text. When construction drawings for statue armatures incorporate plastered sections, the plaster is shaded. Fragment identification numbers assigned during excavation are written in italics. "P.l." signifies proper left, and "p.r." signifies proper right. For measurements, brackets enclose dimensions when there was substantial reconstruction. Depth was measured relative to base blocks on which statues stood, although placement on the base blocks was primarily visual. Because the intersection of the neck and shoulders is not well-defined for statues #1, #2, and #3, their necks were measured from the chin vertically to the intersection of a line across the neck drawn between points at the sides where the slope of the shoulders began and that of the neck ended, and the measurement should be considered approximate. Weights of statues could only be ascertained after consolidation, but based on measured weight increases for some fragments, plaster weights alone were probably about 7% less than those listed. Statues had to be weighed in pieces before auxiliary support materials were added, and inevitably there were some omissions, accounting for incomplete weight totals for statues #1 and #4/8.
 

 

STATUE #1 - A Standing Figure (Figs. 11-27)

 
Figure 11. Statue #1, front view. Drawing shows fingertip and linear indentations (fig. 11a).

Figure 12. Drawing of Statue #1 with fragment identifications, front view. Shading indicates loss.

Figure 13. Statue #1, detail of face during treatment.

Figure 14. Statue #1, back view. Drawing shows impressions of a woven material on the back of the head (fig. 14a).

Figure 15. Drawing of statue #1 with fragment identifications, back view. Shading indicates loss.

Figure 16. Statue #1, p.r. view.

Figure 17. Drawing of statue #1 with fragment identifications, p.r. view. Shading indicates loss.

Figure 18. Statue #1, p.l. view.

Figure 19. Drawing of statue #1 with fragment identifications, p.l. view. Shading indicates loss.

Figure 20. Statue #1, back view, showing interior of front during treatment.

Figure 21. Drawing after Fig. 20 delineates armature evidence.

Figure 22. Statue #1, interior of back and p.l. front during treatment. Drawing delineates armature evidence (fig. 22a).

Figure 23. Statue #1, p.l. thigh during treatment showing top surface. The drawing after the photograph delineates armature evidence (fig. 23b). The second drawing shows the position of the thigh fragment on the figure (fig. 23a).

Figure 24. Statue #1, interior of p.l. lower leg during treatment. The drawing after the photograph delineates armature evidence (fig. 24a). The second drawing shows the position of the leg fragment on the figure (fig. 24b).

Figure 25. Statue #1, bottom of feet during treatment. On right, the p.l. foot shows small reed cavity; on left, p.r. foot shows auxiliary support layers added. Note curvilinear gaps in plaster at both heels, indicating final
modelling after earlier layers had dried.

Figure 26. Statue #1, bottom of feet during treatment after auxiliary support layers have been added. On left, support has been drilled for insertion of metal sleeve, and, on right, metal sleeve has been adhered in place.

Figure 27. Drawing showing stepwise fabrication of a figure in cache 1: (a) head plastered on a reed bundle while lying on a mat and back of armature fabricated; (b) head and other bundles attached at the front; (c) torso plastered; (d) several bundles put together with plaster to form the core of a leg; (e) plaster applied around the leg bundles in thigh area; (f) reeds applied to previous assembly and bound with twine; (g) final layer of plaster applied to leg; (h) legs placed upright, feet and heels modelled, and torso seated on them (cf. hand locations to Fig. 11); (i) join between legs and torso filled, buttocks modelled, tops of thighs delineated, and statue secured with cord (cf. cord location to Fig. 11). Shading indicates plaster.
 

Measurements
Statue  Torso 
H 99.2 cm (plaster only)  H 31.8 cm 
   99.4 cm (with epoxy) 
W 32.2 cm (hips)  W 31.7 cm 
D 19.3 (nose to p.1 buttock)  D 10.5 cm 
Head  Neck 
H 16.4 cm (from chin)  H 7.5 (46% of head) 
W 11.6 cm  W 7.5 cm (at top) 
  7.2 cm (at narrowest) 
D 7.1 cm (at nose)  D 4.8 cm 
Leg (proper left)  Leg (proper right) 
H 46.0 cm  H 46.5 cm 
  19.0 cm (thigh)    19.0 cm (thigh) 
  26.6 cm (lower leg)    27.8 cm (lower leg) 
W 16.2 cm  W 15.5 cm 
  11.4 cm (knee)    [11.2 cm] 
  10.6 cm (foot)    [8.8 cm] (foot) 
  8.5 cm (toes)    8.5 cm (toes) 
  5.7 cm (heel)    5.6 cm (heel) 
D 10.6 cm (buttock)  D 11.4 cm (buttock) 
  17.5 cm (foot)    18.3 (foot) 

Original plaster weight (including consolidant and some acrylic sheet) = 11,885.5g. + p.r. buttock
  Final statue weight = 19,100g

 

This statue was found lying along the north edge of the pit, tilted with its p.l. side downwards and its head slightly more face down than sideways. It was the first statue laid in the pit, followed by statue #2 which covered much of it. Probably in part because statue #2 protected it from weathering, statue #1 is more complete and less distorted than statue #2. The legs and feet exhibit the most damage, likely related to the bulldozer cut at the east end of the cache. The p.r. leg is also more damaged than the p.l. leg, attributed to its location at the top and perimeter of the cache.
 
  This standing figure is slightly shorter and slimmer with proportionally longer legs than the other standing figure found in the cache (statue #2); its head is noticeably smaller. Fabrication of the two statues appears to have been essentially the same, but this statue is better preserved and has better evidence of construction. Based on that evidence and a full-scale replication, the figures are believed to have been made in three separate sections (the head-and-torso and two legs) which were plastered horizontally and put together only after the legs had been placed upright (see "Cache 2," section 5.64; and Fig. 27).
  The head was found nearly complete although broken on the back where plaster is thin. It had been detached from the torso just below the chin where the neck is most narrow and plaster thinnest. A large loss on the front of the neck may be attributed to thin plaster application on the front of the head-and-neck armature bundle, probably because the bundle projects in front of the shoulder bundle. Because of this loss, the 3-layer support system was added inside the neck cavity ("Cache 2," Section 6.6). While the two acrylic components were poured into the head, however, epoxy putty was extended only into the chin area because of the general soundness of the head and the relative inaccessibility of its interior.

The head was made according to the standard method described in "Cache 2" (Section 5.61). The twine-covered armature inside the head measured 7cm in width and about half that in depth, documented by Xero-radiography. The inner reed-impressed layer of plaster is missing on the p.l. interior, but if its width was similar to that layer on the other side, the reed bundle measured about 3.5cm in width. Impressions of woven material were found on the back of the head, apparently made while the head rested on a mat or similar material during fabrication (Fig. 14 and fig. 14a).

Bitumen eye decoration was found broken and poorly adhered but mostly complete. It was removed during excavation and readhered after the plaster was consolidated. No paint was found on the face.
 

The front torso was found broken at the neck and at the indentation across the top of the thighs but almost complete and aligned with the head and thighs. The break at the leg indentation probably reflects construction, the torso having been made separately from the legs, resulting in weakness prone to breakage where they were joined. However, torso plaster is also thinner than thigh plaster, and there would have been stress concentration at the thigh indentation. The torso was lifted intact during laboratory excavation with a plaster of Paris auxiliary support: when the front was inverted, a nearly complete back was found adhered to its interior surface, broken into small fragments. Probably the relatively thin plaster on the torso back had been broken during burial by the superimposed statue #2, and after its armature had disintegrated, fragments fell downwards against the front. After detachment, these fragments could be accurately reassembled by aligning reed bundle impressions on the interior. However, reassembled back fragments proved too wide for the aperture left in the torso, and it was concluded that the shoulders had been distorted backwards during burial. Cracks through the center front allowed the front to be separated into two halves during treatment, and the positions of the two halves were adjusted to accommodate back fragments. Three layers of auxiliary support were added to the interior of the torso, but a cavity remains inside.

The p.r. front torso is perforated with a rounded hole (maximum dimension 7cm) with weathered edges, angled downwards from the exterior. Plaster is also missing on the back opposite the hole although that loss is rectilinear. The hole may be most likely accounted for by post-depositional damage, to which this portion of the figure at the edge of the cache would have been vulnerable. It was tempting to consider that the hole represented the "killing" of the statue before burial in the manner of the small unbaked cow figurines found at the site or that it indicated some other Neolithic usage. However, similar holes are found on no other statues, and it is difficult to imagine how a hole through both front and back could have been made when the armature was present.

Possible finger indentations are present on the p.r. front shoulder and p.l. front torso towards the side, as if made when the statue was held from the back (Fig. 11 and fig. 11a). These may have been impressed when the torso was seated on the legs during fabrication, since the torso would still have been damp at that point (Fig. 27). Two horizontal indentations are present across the front chest and p.l. side, possibly made by cords used to secure the statue when it was seated on the legs (Figs. 11, fig. 27).

Based on examination of the interior during treatment, the torso front was originally made on 10 vertical reed bundles (Figs. 20, 21, and 22 and fig. 22a). This number includes side bundles which appear to have been portions of a single bundle bent in a U-shape, running continuously across the shoulders behind the head. The head-and-neck was modelled on bundle 6. Close twining of the head-and-neck bundles was visible about 13cm into the torso cavity, measuring from the point on the neck where plaster thickens for transition to the shoulder. Adjacent to the neck cavity inside the shoulders, three plaster applications were visible: two layers applied to model the head and neck, separated by a slight curvilinear gap from the third layer applied after the torso armature had been made; the third layer consisted of a much more substantial amount of plaster, in part to create a transition between the neck and torso. Impressions of curved ends for vertical bundles 2,4,7,8, and 9, were visible inside the shoulders, reflecting bent rather than cut bundles. Impressions of 10 horizontal reed bundles, including the shoulder bundle, were visible on the back (Fig. 22 and fig. 22a). Impressions of curved ends of these bundles could be clearly seen on the interior front at the sides, the back bundles extending wider than the vertical reed bundles. The lowest back bundle (H10) was also present underneath the torso armature, its horizontal impressions visible across the top of the thighs during treatment as well as on the front interior at the lower end of vertical bundle 1.

Tying of the armature can be deduced from twine impressions. On the interior front, mostly horizontal impressions on side bundles reflect twine used to secure back bundles, their positions on the side bundles corresponding to spaces between back bundles (Fig. 22). On the interior back, impressions of the same twine are diagonal, located 3-5cms from the ends of the horizontal bundles. A few longer twine impressions cross several bundles on both front and back at the center, apparently formed by twine used to secure intermediate vertical bundles, especially the head-and-neck bundle. Inside the shoulders, twine impressions are mostly positioned between vertical bundles. Six diagonal impressions across vertical bundles at the base of the torso on the front interior correspond with twine impressions on back bundles H9 and H10; the twine which made these impressions apparently secured the base of the torso.
 

The p.l. thigh was found in good condition, with most of the original plaster present. It provides considerable evidence that bundles were not continuous between the legs and torso, supporting the hypothesis that the torso was made separately from the legs. When viewed at the top during treatment, apertures of two vertical reed bundles (T1 and T2) were visible, as well as impressions of horizontal back bundle H10 (Fig. 23). The apertures of T1 and T2 reflect smaller bundles than those inside the torso, and they are posterior to torso bundles 1-3, whose probable front perimeters are indicated by dashed lines on (Fig. 23a and fig. 23b). H10 also crosses T1 and T2, and the bundle would appear to have covered the thigh bundles. Moreover, there is no evidence of tying between H10 and T1 or T2, as there was inside the hips for integral armatures inside figures in cache 1. During treatment the thigh broke horizontally at partial cracks at about its mid-point, and examination of the broken surface confirmed the presence of 2 (and possibly 3) small vertical reed cavities. The broken surface also clearly showed that the legs were made with multiple layers of plaster: intra-bundle plaster was visibly distinct in color from slightly more pinkish plaster which encircled the bundles, and a third, final layer was distinct in color from it. Some interior plaster was removed so that a more substantial support could be added to connect the legs and torso.

Severe damage to the p.r. leg was manifested in distortion of the p.r. buttock, probably because of the superposition of statue #2 as well as weathering not long after burial. It was found adhered to its own p.l. thigh as well as statue #2's p.r. thigh, and mechanical separation of fragments was required. Impressions of reeds were visible on the interior during treatment, but interpretation of this evidence was precluded by damage and significant loss of inner plaster. Nevertheless, bundles do not appear to correspond with those in the torso (Fig. 21). Only an approximation of the thigh's original shape could be achieved during reassembly. Three layers of auxiliary support were added to the interior, but a substantial cavity remains because so much interior plaster was missing.

The outer side of the p.l. lower leg was found mostly in place, and during reassembly continuity of leg plaster to the bottom of the foot was achieved (Fig. 24). However, the inner side of the leg was entirely missing, probably from exposure shortly after burial because of its position uppermost in the cache. Based on examination during treatment, several reed bundles seem to have been combined with plaster in between them; some of this intrabundle plaster is indicated by shading on Fig. 24a.and 24b.Ten horizontal twine impressions between the knee and bottom of the foot reflect twine which spiralled around the combined bundles. During treatment, the inner side of the leg was recreated in keeping with the foot and thigh, including considerable epoxy putty to provide support for the statue.

More than three-fourths of the p.r. lower leg is missing, and the lower leg was not in place when the cache was excavated. Some fragments found jumbled in the vicinity, however, could be joined at the knee or placed on the lower leg by alignment of reed impressions. Because of losses, few impressions of horizontal twine were visible below the knee, but those present are consistent with twine encirclement of a composite of bundles. The lower leg was recreated to match the p.l. lower leg. Considerable epoxy putty was again included to provide support for the statue.

The p.l. foot, the most complete one of four found in the cache, is made of solid plaster on the front and at the heel, and it is flat on the bottom, clearly plastered when the figure was upright (Fig. 25). The heel is small in width relative to the rest of the foot and is located towards the outside of the statue, probably to improve balance. A small curved gap on the bottom indicates that most of the heel was added after the bulk of leg plaster had dried somewhat. A single reed bundle aperture on the bottom measured 0.8 x 2.0cm, small relative to the diameter of bundled reeds in the lower leg. Because of its small size, some original plaster was removed in order to accommodate stainless steel sleeves used for mounting.

Only the front of the p.r. foot and the heel are extant, both made of solid plaster like those features on the p.l. foot. The toes (22.5G, 32.8A) were found separated from the statue in the bulldozer-damaged area, and there is no direct plaster connection to the statue. However, attribution seems correct, supported by the fact that part of the p.l. foot (32.2A) was also excavated from grid square 32. On the foot's interior, a few vertical reed impressions were visible continuing to the bottom surface, but the foot is far too incomplete to determine the size of the bundle cavity. Joins were made and losses were filled in the p.r. foot so that it matched the more complete p.l. foot.

Both feet were apparently distorted downward towards their inner sides during burial. Supports were built up under the feet to compensate for the tilt and stabilize the statue while standing, as well as to protect the bottoms of the feet from abrasion during display. Thus, acrylic and epoxy layers partially cover original plaster (Fig. 26). At least one stainless steel sleeve was shortened prior to installation.
 
 

STATUE #2 - A Standing Figure (Figs. 28-40

Figure 28. Statue #2, front view.

Figure 29. Drawing of statue #2 with fragment identifications, front view. Lighter shading indicates loss; darker
shading indicates some uncertainty that the fragment belongs on the statue.

Figure 30. Statue #2, back view. Drawing shows impressions of a woven material on the back of the head (Fig. 30a).

Figure 31. Drawing of statue #2 with fragment identifications, back view. Lighter shading indicates loss; darker
shading indicates some uncertainty that fragments belong on the statue or that their locations are correct.

Figure 32. Statue #2, p.r. view.

Figure 33. Drawing of statue #2 with fragment identifications, p.r. view. Lighter shading indicates loss; darker
shading indicates some uncertainty that the fragment belongs on the statue.

Figure 34. Statue #2, p.l. view.

Figure 35. Drawing of statue #2 with fragment identifications, p.l. view. Shading indicates loss.

Figure 36. Statue #2, torso front interior during treatment, with support materials added. Drawing identifies
layers (fig. 36a).

Figure 37. Statue #2, back view, showing interior of front torso and hips during treatment.

Figure 38. Drawing after Fig. 37 delineates armature evidence.

Figure 39. Statue #2, Xero-radiograph of p.r. thigh. The drawing after the Xero-radiograph delineates twine
impressions (fig. 39b). The second drawing shows the position of the high fragment on the figure (fig. 39a).

Figure 40. Statue #2, top view of p.r. thigh during treatment. The drawing after the photograph indicates
armature evidence (fig. 40b). On the left, a narrow gap is delineated which indicates drying of lower layers of plaster before that applied to model the buttocks. The second drawing shows the position of the thigh fragment and its top surface (shaded) on the figure (fig. 40a).

 
Measurements 
Head Neck 
H 19.8cm (from chin)  H 5.1cm (26% of head) 
W 14.2cm  W 9.9cm (at top) 
D 8.1cm (nose)  8.6cm (at narrowest) 
Leg (proper left) Leg (proper right) 
H 45.0cm  H 42.8cm 
18.3cm (thigh)  19.4cm (thigh) 
[23.7cm] (lower leg)  23.3cm (lower leg) 
W 19.5cm  W 17.7cm 
[11.1cm] (knee)  14.7cm (knee) 
[11.5cm] (ankle)  [11.5cm] (ankle) 
[9.3cm] (toes)  9.6cm (toes) 
D 12.7cm  D 13.8cm 
[18.2cm] (foot)  [19.4cm] (foot) 
Original plaster (and consolidant) weight = 15,406.6g

Final statue weight = 23,500g

 

The statue was found between statue #1 and statue #3, tilted with the p.l. side downwards like those two statues, but its overall position was slightly more face down. The statue was not significantly overlaid with other statues, and loss of much of its thinly plastered back probably occurred because of exposure on the upper surface of the cache shortly after burial. Distortion of the p.r. front torso and leg appears to be related to their placement on top of statue #1. Damage to the lower legs and particularly the feet appears related to the bulldozer cut at the east end of the cache.

 

This standing figure is larger than the other standing figure found in the cache (statue #1). It is slightly taller, generally broader, and has a larger head, but its legs are proportionally shorter. Although evidence of fabrication has been much diminished by damage, what remains is similar to that inside the better preserved statue #1, and it is consistent with fabrication of the figures in three separate sections (the head-and-torso and two legs), plastered horizontally and put together only after the legs had been placed upright.
  The head was found broken just below the chin but in place. It is nearly complete although a break across the face and some plastic distortion required compromise when its two principal segments were adhered. A significant loss on the front of the neck, similar to that on statue #1, may also be attributed to minimal plaster application on the head-and-neck bundle because the bundle projects in front of the shoulder bundle. Similarly, the 3-layer support system was added inside the neck during treatment, but while the two acrylic components were poured into the head, epoxy putty was extended only into the chin area.

The head was made according to the standard method. The twine-covered armature inside the head measured about 9cm in width but much less in depth, as documented by Xero-radiography. The inner reed-impressed layer of plaster remains only on the p.l. interior of the head, but inside the torso the reed bundle measured about 5cm in width and this dimension would likely have been about the same inside the head. Impressions of a woven material were found on the flat part of the back of the head, apparently made while the head rested on a mat or similar material during fabrication (Fig. 30 and 30a).

Bitumen eye decoration was found broken and poorly adhered but essentially complete. It was removed during excavation and readhered after the plaster was consolidated. No paint was found on the face.

 

The torso was found in place and nearly complete although cracked throughout. As in the case of statue #1, the front was also broken at the neck and at leg indentations, the latter break possibly reflecting separate construction. A vertical crack on the p.l. front side is noteworthy because it has sometimes been misinterpreted as the delineation of an arm.

The p.r. half of the torso was lifted as one piece from the block, but later separated into two major sections (26.21 and 26.27). Dislevel between the two sections was apparently created as the overburden pressed the chest against the unyielding shoulder of statue #1 during burial, and it could not be ameliorated during reassembly because of plastic distortion of the plaster. Some fragments of the p.r. back were found adhered to the interior front torso when the section was inverted, and others had been clearly displaced, found enclosed within the p.r. side. For the most part adhered fragments could be gradually separated from the front (25.25-25.17, 26.26, 26.27), but one small badly damaged section (25.6C-M) was separated with a saw, the sawn area visible as a light-colored area in Fig. 37; careful cleaning subsequently exposed reed impressions on the front interior below the light-colored area. Despite some displacement, reed impressions enabled these back fragments to be reassembled. Fragmented sections of the p.l. front were lifted individually. No back fragments were adhered to their undersides, however, and few back fragments were found below them so that much of the p.l. back had to be recreated. Three layers of auxiliary support were added to the interior of the torso, but a cavity remains (Fig. 36 and 36a).

Based on examination of the interior during treatment, the torso front interior was plastered on 11 vertical reed bundles (Fig. 37, 38). This includes side bundles which appear to have been portions of a single bundle bent in an inverted U-shape running continuously across the shoulders behind the head, although damage in the p.l. shoulder makes it difficult to be sure that the bundle was bent there. The head-and-neck bundle was modelled on bundle 7, and close twining of the head-and-neck bundle was visible about 14cm into the torso cavity, measuring from the point on the neck where plaster thickens for transition to the shoulder. Adjacent to the neck cavity inside the shoulders, three plaster applications were visible: two layers applied to model the head and neck, separated by a slight curvilinear gap from the third layer applied after the torso armature had been made; the third layer consisted of a much more substantial amount of plaster, in part to create a transition between the neck and torso. Impressions of curved bundle ends (notably for 9,10), reflecting bent rather than cut reeds, were visible for top ends of vertical bundles inside the shoulders and for ends of back horizontal bundles at the sides. Although the back was badly damaged, impressions of 10 horizontal bundles could be counted, including the shoulder bundle. The lowest back bundles (H9, H10) seem to have extended across the bottom of the armature underneath the vertical bundles, visible as impressions at the tops of the legs and to a small extent on the front interior.

Twine impressions are similar to those of statue #1 but are much more limited in number because of damage. Twine impressions on the side-and-shoulder bundle apparently reflect twine used to secure back bundles to the side and vertical bundles at the shoulder although many are unclear. A few longer impressions similar to those across the center of statue #1 were present on the interior front, but clear twine impressions on the badly damaged back were almost non-existent. Twine impressions towards the bottom of the vertical bundles on the interior front apparently reflect twine used to secure them to the lowest back bundles.
 
 

The p.l. thigh was nearly solid and generally in good condition although apparently flattened during burial. When viewed across the top during treatment, only one vertical reed bundle aperture (T1) was present, its position providing evidence that bundles were not continuous between the legs and torso and that those parts were made separately (Figs. 37, 38). Moreover, impressions of H10 across the top of the leg suggest that the bundle would have covered the top of T1. Xero-radiography showed the presence of additional thigh cavities just below the top of the leg, and impressions of several bundles could be seen near the exterior surface at the p.l. knee, bound together with twine. T1 was filled with the three layers of auxiliary support material, connecting lower leg support to torso support.

The p.r. thigh was more badly distorted than the p.l. thigh because it lay on top of the thighs of statue #1. This may also account for its present position behind the p.l. leg, instead of the legs being side by side as was probably the case when the statue was made. Much inner plaster is missing, and armature impressions on the top surface of the thigh are poor (Fig. 40, 40a, 40b). Nevertheless, cavities of several vertical reed bundle were visible towards the back and side of the statue (together identified as T2), providing further evidence that bundles were not continuous between the torso and legs: these cavities are too far back to be continuous with torso cavities. Faint impressions of H10 also suggest that the bundle was a barrier between T2 in the leg and vertical bundles 9-11 in the torso. Despite its damage, the p.r. thigh provides some of the best evidence of twine binding. Xero-radiographs document a large internal area bound by a continuous spiral of twine (6 loops), apparently around composite bundles, as well as a small inner cavity with its own twine binding (Fig. 39, 39b). Reed impressions corresponding with the larger bound area were visible about 1cm from the surface around the entire circumference of the leg at the knee, in some places represented only by a narrow gap between plaster applied to inner bundles and the outermost layer of plaster. Apparently a thin reed layer was applied over the composite of bundles, probably so that the ensemble could be wrapped with twine (this thin reed layer was not observed inside the legs of statue #1, perhaps omitted because of their smaller size). Another gap visible on the top of the leg during treatment indicates modelling of the buttocks after the legs, probably when the torso was seated on them (Fig. 27). Replication demonstrated that the buttocks could be satisfactorily modelled at this point. During treatment, the thigh was not completely filled by auxiliary support materials towards the knee because so much inner plaster is missing.

Much of the p.l. lower leg was in place when the statue was excavated, although portions had become distorted during burial. Fragment 23.25D, larger and more solid than it seems on the surface of the statue, was apparently flattened during burial, and when the lower leg was reassembled, there was an unavoidable surface discontinuity between the fragment and adjacent plaster lower down the leg. Unfortunately this has led to some misinterpretation of the dislevel as marking the top of a boot or stocking. During treatment, good impressions of a single length of twine encircling reed bundles in the legs were visible below the mid-lower leg where inner plaster was absent. The pattern of twine impressions is also reflected in horizontal breakage around the lower leg. The remaining cavity in the lower leg was entirely filled with auxiliary materials, especially epoxy putty, in order to provide support for the statue.

Except for the foot, the p.r. lower leg was not in place, and losses are substantial although some leg fragments were found which could be attached. Examination of the interiors of the thick fragments just below the p.r. knee (13.12D and 14.12C) showed inner plaster covering reed bundles separated from exterior plaster by a narrow reed-impressed gap similar to that above the knee. Fragments lower down the leg, 14.9C and 13.12E, exhibited only broken plaster on their interior surfaces. Much of the leg was recreated to match the p.l. leg, and it was made solid with auxiliary materials, especially epoxy putty, in order to provide support for the statue. The stainless steel sleeve in the p.r. leg was shortened by approximately 3cm to prevent protrusion through the back of the distorted leg.

The toes of the p.l. foot were almost entirely missing but continuity of plaster to fragments at the outer side of the foot established the length of the leg. Most of the foot was recreated to match the p.r. foot. Only the toes and inner side of the p.r. foot are extant, and there is no direct plaster connection to the lower leg. The foot was found in alignment with the p.r. thigh, but there was initially some concern about its attachment to this statue because its location was also plausible for statue #1. Ultimately the larger size of the foot compared with the other p.r. foot made its attachment to this statue convincing, and it was positioned so that the leg matched the p.l. leg in length. Like other feet, the front of the foot had been made of solid plaster. Reed impressions on the interior at the inner side of the foot were relatively close to the exterior surface and crossed by 3 horizontal rows of thick twine impressions, apparently from continuous wrapping around combined leg bundles.

 

STATUE #3 - A Small Two-headed Bust (Figs. 41-50)

Figure 41. Statue #3, front view.

Figure 42. Drawing of statue #3 with fragment identifications, front view. Shading indicates loss as well as gaps
left by distortion.

Figure 43. Statue #3, back view.

Figure 44. Drawing of statue #3 with fragment identifications, back view. Shading indicates loss.

Figure 45. Statue #3, p.r. view.

Figure 46. Drawing of statue #3 with fragment identifications, p.r. view. Shading indicates unfilled gap.

Figure 47. Statue #3, p.l. view. Drawing shows locations of flnger depressions (fig. 47a).

Figure 48. Drawing of statue #3 with fragment identifications, p.l. view.

Figure 49. Statue #3, bottom view.

Figure 50. Drawing illustrates construction of statue #3. Shading indicates plaster used to model the heads,
incorporated in the torso, and the dotted line indicates the statue perimeter.

Measurements
Statue  Torso
H 45.8cm (with base placed flat)  H 27.6cm (with base placed flat) 
W 29.1cm 
D 11.8cm 
 
Head (p.r.)  Head (p.l.)  Neck (p.r.)  Neck (p.l.) 
H 13.2cm  H 13.8cm  H 4.8cm  H 5.5cm
W 7.6cm  W 8.7cm  (36% of head)  (40% of head) 
D 7.3cm W 6.0cm  W 5.7cm (at top)  W 7.4cm (at top) 
(at nose)  (at nose)  W 4.9cm (least)  W 5.2cm (least)
 

Final statue weight = 8,000g

 
 

The bust was found tilted with its p.l. side downwards, the heads slightly more face down than sideways. It was the third statue stacked in the pit after statues #1 and #2, but its p.r. side only slightly overlapped the p.l. side of the large statue #2. Fragments of the torso of statue #5/6 found on top of the bust probably protected it from weathering. The bust is the most complete statue found in the cache, with only a few small pieces missing. Its preservation may also be related to the relative thickness of its plaster and its small, compact shape.
  This is the only small bust found in the cache. It has two heads, and the heads are nearly identical, differing mainly because of damage. The bust's construction varies from that of large two-headed busts: on the exterior, the bottom surface is enclosed with plaster smoothed by hand while the bust lay horizontally; and on the interior its armature was made with horizontal bundles sandwiching vertical bundles across the base as well as the shoulders.
  Both heads are essentially complete, and they were found in place although broken at the necks. Both left cheeks are badly damaged, apparently deformed by laying on large rocks found when the cache was excavated in the laboratory. The p.r. neck was uppermost during burial and was badly fragmented. To reinforce it, the interior was coated with a thick solution of acrylic resin, and remaining space was filled with plaster of Paris reinforced with cheesecloth. In contrast, the p.l. neck was in good condition and received no auxiliary support.

Both heads had been made according to the standard method. Based on Xero-radiography, the twine-covered armatures inside them measured about 5.5cm in width, while reed bundles alone measured 3.3-3.5cm in width; depths of bundles were considerably less. The close twining which characterizes head-and-neck bundles is visible in a Xero-radiograph; it extends about 6cm into the torso cavity for the p.r. head.

Bitumen which decorates the eyes is fragmentary, and the p.l. pupil/iris of the p.r. head is missing altogether. Bitumen was removed from the p.l. eye of the p.l. head during excavation and readhered after the plaster was consolidated. Otherwise bitumen was consolidated in place with methylcellulose prior to consolidation of the plaster. Patches of orange-red pigment were found, particularly on the p.l. cheek of the p.r. head. The paint darkened somewhat when the plaster was consolidated.
 

Based on examination of the interior during treatment, the torso armature was constructed with 6 vertical bundles : 2 bundles on which the heads and necks had been plastered, 2 bundles between them, and 1 bundle on each side (Fig. 50). Curved impressions of both ends of bundles were visible in the plaster during treatment, those of bottom ends about 3cm from the base of the bust. In front of and behind the vertical bundles, horizontal bundles were placed across the shoulder and base areas, possibly made by a single bundle bent around the armature. Impressions of a shoulder bundle remain visible after the reassembly of the bust: they can be seen by examining the interior of protruding fragments at the p.r. side. The lower edge of H2 was 5-6cm from the bottom, several centimeters above the ends of the vertical bundles. Many oblique impressions of twine were found crossing impressions of horizontal bundles (16 on the underside of the shoulders), apparently from twine used to secure the juncture of horizontal and vertical bundles. Several remain visible at the gap in the statue on the p.r. side. The bust appears to have been plastered while horizontal. Its base is rounded and closed, apparently having been smoothed by hand rather than pressed against a flat surface (Fig. 49). While the base is slightly deeper than the rest of the bust, this appearance is likely a result of compression of the central armature cavity during burial. Finger indentations were noted on the p.l. side near the shoulders (a silicone rubber impression was made), apparently impressed when the statue was picked up from the front (Fig 47, 47a). Similar indentations may be present on the p.r. side, but damage makes these less certain.

Despite its relative completeness, the torso is badly distorted. The p.r. side seems to have broken free of the rest of the bust and been pushed downwards as the statue lay buried on its side so that several centimeters of plaster now overlap below the p.l. head on the back and somewhat less at the center front. The upper part was also skewed to the p.l. side during burial, apparently plastically deformed. Protruding fragments on the upper p.r. side seem to have broken off early on and were not distorted, and they may now more accurately reflect the original width of the bust. The statue's present form is to some extent related to its construction on reed bundles: some interbundle crests on one face now nest in bundle cavities on the other, resulting in decrease in depth at the center of the torso. No auxiliary support was used inside the torso because the bust was believed to be sufficiently strong on its own. The protruding section, however, remains vulnerable to breakage.

The bust cannot sit upright by itself, probably because of burial distortion, but it probably could have when made. A brass bracket made by Bob Fugelstad supported the bust for display against a wall but was modified in Paris for 3-dimensional viewing.
 

 

STATUE #4/8, a Large Two-Headed Bust (Figs. 51-62)

Figure 51. Statue #4/8, front view.

Figure 52. Drawing of statue #4/8 with fragment identifications, front view. Lighter shading indicates loss;
darker shading indicates some uncertainty that the fragment belongs on the statue or that its location is correct.

Figure 53. Statue #4/8, back view.

Figure 54. Drawing of statue #4/8 with fragment identifications, back view. Lighter shading indicates loss;
darker shading indicates some uncertainty that the fragment belongs on the statue or that its position is correct.

Figure 55. Statue #4/8, p.r. view.

Figure 56. Drawing of statue #4/8 with fragment identifications, p.r. view. Shading indicates loss.

Figure 57. Statue #4/8, p.l. view. Lighter shading indicates loss, and darker shading, that there is some
uncertainty the fragment belongs on the statue.

Figure 58. Drawing of statue #4/8 with fragment identifications, p.l. view. Lighter shading indicates loss; darker
shading indicates some uncertainty that the fragment belongs on the statue or that its position is correct.

Figure 59. Statue #4/8, bottom view during treatment. Front surface is at bottom of photograph.

Figure 60. Statue #4/8, Xero-radiograph of head #4. Inset drawing shows fabrication elements (fig. 60a).

Figure 61. Drawing showing stepwise fabrication of head #4, based on Xero-radiograph (Fig. 60): (a) reed
bundle formed by bending reeds to the desired length; (b) first layer of plaster applied to bundle, with extra
plaster where the sides of the head would be; (c) twine applied on top of first layer of plaster; and (d) second
layer of plaster applied, features modelled, and bitumen applied.

Figure 62. Statue #4/8, back view, showing interior of front during treatment. Drawing delineates armature
evidence (fig. 62a).

Measurements
Statue  Torso
H 83.5cm (plaster only)  H 57cm (plaster only) 
84.0cm (with epoxy)  57.5cm (with epoxy) 
W 40.2cm [40.6cm]  W 40.2cm [40.6cm] 
D 14.4cm (nose to back)  D 11.4cm 
Head #4 (proper left)  Head #8 (proper right) 
H 16.9cm  H [16.4cm] 
W 11.5cm  W [11.6cm] 
D 7.2cm (at nose)  D [ 7.6cm] (at nose) 
Neck #4 (proper left)  Neck #8 (proper right) 
H 10.8cm (64% of head)  H [10.2cm] 
9.6cm (original) 
W 8.2cm (at top)  W [8.7cm] (at top) 
6.3cm (at narrowest)  [5.3cm] (at narrowest) 
D 3.8cm
  Original plaster weight (and consolidant) = 8,991.3g + fragmentary head #8

Final statue weight = 18,600g

 

The p.l. head and torso were found lying directly face down in the pit. The upper right portion of the torso lay on top of fragments from the torso base of statue #5/6. The lower portion of the bust lay partially on top of torso fragments which have not been attached to any statue, probably bust fragments for statue head #7 or #9, and otherwise directly on the bottom of the pit. The lower back of the torso which was uppermost in the cache during burial is missing, probably because of ancient weathering; the bulldozer cut at the east end of the cache would also have exposed it to recent weathering. A significant portion of the p.r. side is also missing. Apparently damaged by water, torso armature impressions are eroded on the interior, and the surface of torso plaster is generally coarse.

While the p.l. head was found complete and in place adjacent to the torso, no head fragments were found above the p.r. neck hole, only jumbled fragments of the torso of statue #5/6. The only head fragment with features of size similar to head #4 was a p.l. eye identified as head #8, found on the opposite side of the head #4. Although the possibility remains that the eye fragment was for another head, the decision was made to reconstruct a detachable head around the eye, matching head #4.

 

This large two-headed bust is smaller than the other one found in the cache (statue #5/6), but head #4 has a longer neck. Fabrication was essentially the same for the two large busts, but statue #5/6 is better preserved and has superior evidence of construction. Based on construction evidence and a full-scale replication (Fig. 77a, 77b, 77c, 77d) the large busts are believed to have been plastered horizontally, then placed upright levelled with the addition of a small amount of plaster ("Cache 2," section 5.62). Reeds extended to the base but probably not below the bust to serve as anchors when the bust was displayed, based on more complete evidence provided by statue #5/6 and the replication. The back of the base is missing so that the extent of solid plaster on the base is unknown.
 
  Head #4 is well preserved. Fragments from the upper back of statue #5/6 were found well adhered to the face but could be removed. Probably because the neck is so long and thin-walled, it was broken horizontally in several places. No epoxy putty was used to support the interior of the head and neck, in part because of inaccessibility. Instead acrylic resin solutions were poured into the neck aperture, then acrylic/microballoon slurries, until at least 0.5cm thickness had been built up. Evennesss of deposition was checked by Xero-radiographing the head and neck filled with lead shot. The long neck remains vulnerable to breakage, especially at the juncture with the torso which serves as a pivot point. Indeed it snapped there during transport from Paris to Amman after treatment, but the join was easily repaired. Bitumen eye decoration is in relatively poor condition, and portions are missing. Traces of orange-red paint were visible on the face.

Head #4 was made according to the standard method, documented by Xero-radiography (Figs. 60, 60a, and 61). Its twine-covered armature measured 7.5-8cm in width, while its reed cavity measured about 4cm in width and 2cm in depth. At the exterior front base of the neck a slight change in the plaster surface indicates exposure of a small section of plaster which had been covered when torso plaster was added around the head-and-neck bundle: the juncture is similar to that observed below the neck of head #6. Xero-radiography confirmed that neck plaster is thin over much of the length, the two layers together often measuring less than 1cm in thickness.

The two fragments of head #8 were found without inner plaster layers and revealed closely wrapped twine impressions on interior surfaces. A "new" twin head in which the fragment would be incorporated was roughly modelled in dental wax, and the wax was covered with epoxy putty. After the epoxy had cured, the wax was melted out, and a hole was cut in the epoxy putty for insertion of the eye fragment. The fragment was secured with acrylic putty to the epoxy layer. The face was modelled in toned acrylic putty, sanded, and its color adjusted with watercolors. Bitumen was replicated with acrylic putty tinted black with dry pigments. The head was attached with a stainless steel screw through the back of the statue, threaded into a nut adhered to support layers with epoxy putty. Thus, it can be displayed with statue #4 or readily detached if it is decided to display the statue without the reconstructed head.
 

Because a large, sturdy base section of statue #5/6 was adhered to the more fragile front of the p.r. shoulder when found, all plaster layers in the area were lifted together from the crate by inserting a metal sheet through polyurethane foam under the ensemble. When the block was reversed, fragments of the statue's upper back were revealed. Despite their poor condition, the process enabled these fragments to be removed and correctly reassembled. After the back fragments were removed from the block, front and shoulder fragments were revealed and subsequently reassembled. This was the first statue which was reassembled in entirety, and plaster of Paris was used as the intermediate support layer of the 3-layer support system. The significant weight added by the plaster of Paris led to substitution of acrylic putty inside other statues. Missing areas of the back were reconstructed with epoxy and acrylic putties in keeping with extant plaster. A rim of epoxy putty was extended below the front bottom surface of the statue so that the statue does not rest on original plaster during display. The torso is hollow and remains open at the bottom, revealing the epoxy putty cavity (Fig. 59). Two stainless steel sleeves were adhered near the sides with epoxy putty to secure the bust during display. The surface of acrylic putty fills was given a rougher texture than comparable fills on other statues, in accordance with the texture of original plaster.

Based on examination of the interior during treatment, torso armature construction began with assembly of vertical bundles: 3 or 4 placed between the bundles on which the heads and necks had been modelled and several outside of them, for a total of 9 (Fig. 62 and 62a). Impressions of a greater number of smaller bundles are visible on the upper back, probably a separate set from the front vertical bundles for which there is better evidence inside statue #5/6. Head #4 had been modelled on bundle 3, and the other head on bundle 8. Impressions indicate that horizontal shoulder bundles were placed in front of (H1) and behind (H3) head bundles, apparently to secure the heads to the torso. Reed bundle impressions extended to the bottom or nearly so on the front interior.

At least 12 long twine impressions extend horizontally across bundles 1-3 on the front interior, incorporating the head-and-neck bundle. On the opposite side, twine impressions extend across bundles 9-7 and to some extent bundle 6, incorporating the other head-and-neck bundle. Few twine impressions are visible in the central area, probably both because of damage and because less tying was done there. Plaster on the inside of the shoulders is so damaged that evidence of the armature's construction is difficult to discern, but presumably shoulder and vertical back bundles were bound in a way similar to those inside statue #5/6.

Base plaster appears to have been dried against a flattened surface rather than having been smoothed by hand (Fig. 59). Although plaster was mostly applied to the torso armature while the bust lay flat, plaster was apparently fresh when the statue was placed upright, as it took the impression of the surface on which the bust stood.

 

STATUE #5/6, a Large Two-Headed Bust (Figs. 63-77)

Figure 63. Statue #5/6, front view.

Figure 64. Drawing of statue #5/6 with fragment identifications, front view. Lighter shading indicates loss;
darker shading indicates some uncertainty that fragments belong on the statue or that their locations are correct
(dashed lines encircle fragments which go together).

Figure 65. Statue #5/6, back view.

Figure 66. Drawing of statue #5/6 with fragment identifications, back view. Lighter shading indicates loss;
darker shading indicates some uncertainty that fragments belong on the statue or that their locations are correct
(dashed lines encircle fragments which go together).

Figure 67. Statue #5/6, p.r. view.

Figure 68. Drawing of statue #5/6 with fragment identifications, p.r. view. Shading indicates loss.

Figure 69. Statue #5/6, p.l. view.

Figure 70. Drawing of statue #5/6 showing fragment identifications, p.l. view. Shading indicates loss.

Figure 71. Statue #5/6, bottom view. Drawing shows areas of original plaster (shaded), epoxy fills (black), and
acrylic fills on bottom surface (white).

Figure 72. Schematic representation of significant parts of statue #5/6 during laboratory excavation, reflecting
positions after inversion (cf. Fig. 5).

Figure 73. Drawing of layers inside head #6, based on Xero-radiographs: (left) front view; (right) side view.

Figure 74. Neck of head #6, front view during treatment, including portion incorporated in the torso. Arrow
indicates the division between the two portions. Drawing shows position of the neck fragment on the bust (Fig. 74a).

Figure 75. Statue #5/6, back view, showing interior of upper front and shoulders during treatment. The drawing
after the photograph delineates armature evidence. The second drawing shows the position of the fragment on the
bust (fig. 75a).

Figure 76. Large drawing illustrates construction of statue #5/6. Shading indicates plaster used to model the
heads, incorporated in the torso, and the dotted line indicates the statue perimeter. Small drawing shows
fragments which cleaved smoothly from lower layers of plaster, providing evidence for sequential plaster
application (fig. 76b).

Figure 77. Modern recreation of statue #5/6: (a) heads completed and torso armature constructed around them,
(fig. 77b) plaster applied to front of torso, (fig. 77c) bust inverted, and (fig. 77d) plaster applied to torso back. Plaster used to model heads was white while plaster used to model the torso was tan-colored.

Measurements
Statue Torso
H 88.0cm (plaster only)  H 68.5cm (plaster only) 
88.5cm (with epoxy)  70.3cm (with epoxy) 
W 48.6cm (near base)  W 48.6cm
D 17.6cm (nose to  D 14.6cm (at base) 
torso back at base) 
Head #5 (proper right)  Head #6 (proper left) 
H 16.8cm  H 16.8cm
W 11.1cm  11.6cm
D 9.7cm (at nose)  D 7.8cm (at nose) 
Neck #5 (proper right) Neck #6 (proper left) 
H 7.1cm (42% of head)  H 8.3cm (49% of head) 
18.0cm
W 6.4cm (at top)  W 6.7cm (at top) 
5.1cm (at narrowest)  5.5cm (at narrowest) 
D 6.5cm (at nose)  D 4.4cm (at nose) 
Original plaster (and consolidant) weight = 18,000g

Final statue weight = 28,8613.6g

 

The bust's heads were found at the western perimeter of the pit, tilted with the p.r. sides downwards (the opposite side downwards from statues #1, #2, and #3), slightly more face down than sideways (Fig. 72). Portions of the heads lay on top of statues #1 and #2, and because they were generally found intact, the positions of the heads may reflect the original or at least intended placement of the bust in the pit. Otherwise fragments of the torso were found broken and scattered with some found lying on top of statue #3 and to a smaller extent statue #2, while the largest intact section of the torso (the back base 35.13C ) was found below statue #4/8. Thus, the statue was most likely buried after statues #1-#3 but before statue #4/8. However, a few of its fragments were found as if the statue had been buried before statues #1 and #2, and the best explanation for this is that the statue was broken at the time of burial and its fragments interspersed, supported by extensive breakage and the wide dispersal of fragments. Despite breakage, however, many fragments retained sharp reed and twine impressions on interior surfaces, and the bust could be substantially reassembled with the aid of these impressions, particularly the shoulders and sides.
 
  This large two-headed bust is bigger overall than the other large two-headed bust found in the cache (statue #4/8) although its necks are shorter. Its two heads are similar to each other in size and features. Fabrication seems essentially the same for the two large busts, but this bust is better preserved and has superior evidence of construction. Based on that evidence and a full-scale replication (Figs. 77a, 77b, 77c, 77d), the large busts are believed to have been plastered horizontally, then placed upright levelled with the addition of a small amount of plaster. Plaster on the bottom of this bust was formed by having been pressed against a flat surface, and it covers much of the base. Reed bundle impressions continue to the bottom in several places, but based particularly on the replication experience, it has been concluded that bundles probably did not extend beyond to serve as anchors. However, sticks of the like might have been placed in reed bundles at the base of the statue and corresponding holes in the ground to secure the busts during display.
 
  Head #5 and its neck were found in excellent condition, broken only below the chin and at the base of the neck. This limited breakage may have been because both head and neck were thickly plastered. The head and neck were reattached to the torso, the interior reinforced with acrylic resin and acrylic putty layers. The head had been made according to the standard method, except that its reed cavity is nearly cylindrical, measuring about 4.0-4.5cm in both width and depth. The twine-covered armature cavity in the head is wider, however, measuring 7.5cm in width compared to 6.0cm in depth, while in the neck, the twine-covered cavity measured 5.5cm in width by 6.0cm in depth. A few impressions on the back suggest that a woven fabric was impressed in the surface during fabrication, as it was for heads #1 and #2.

Head #6 and its neck, by contrast, were badly broken during burial. The proximity of the head to the edge of the burial pit may have contributed to damage, especially loss of bitumen, but the neck also had particularly thin walls (the inner reed-impressed layer is largely missing on the p.l.) and was very long as found, measuring 18cms. Remarkably, its lower portion (38.3) which had been incorporated in the torso during fabrication was found with the rest of the neck rather than with torso sections like the shoulder (47.10C) which had enclosed it (Fig. 72; "Cache 2," section 5.62). To reinforce the head and neck, including its lower portion, acrylic resin solutions were poured into the neck aperture, then acrylic/microballoon slurries, until considerable thickness had been built up. The neck had also been bent to one side during burial and required adjustment to make it displayable. A Leister hot air gun was used to soften acrylic adhesive and support layers, and fragments were moved until the neck was vertical. A few small pieces had to be removed from the portion of the neck which would be on the interior of the statue in order to insert it in the neck cavity. After adjustment, more acrylic/microballoon slurry was added. No epoxy putty was used, and the neck remains vulnerable to breakage at the juncture with the torso.

Head #6 had been made according to the standard method, and the armature had a flattened shape, contrasting with that in head #5. Documented by Xero-radiography, the reed bundle cavity is estimated to have measured about 5.0cm in width and 2.5cm in depth (Fig. 73). The twine-covered armature measured 7.5-8.0cm in width and 4.5-5.0cm in depth inside the head, and at mid-neck about 6.0cm in width and 3.5cm in depth. The upper rim of bitumen over the p.l. eye appears to have been misapplied. It is slightly below rather than in the incision for which it was intended, with a small bit at the center lying on top of the pupil/iris. The pupil/iris appears to have been indented by the upper rim bitumen, which would have been possible only if it occurred at the time of fabrication. Significant patches of orange-red paint were found on the facial area, darkened somewhat by consolidation.
 

Although the shoulder region displayed especially sharp reed bundle and twine impressions, when reassembled it was found that some fragments had been plastically distorted during burial. The shoulders now tip upwards in the back, producing a "hunchback" which would not have been present when the statue was made. Similarly, some curved side fragments, notably 24.32 and 34B.21W, were flattened during burial, and compromises had to be made for their reassembly: gaps had to be enlarged between adjoining pieces in order to accomodate other segments. Much plaster was missing from the lower center front and back, possibly because absence of curvature and fewer twine marks did not assist in reassembly; considerable filling was done in these areas. However, although some sections seem to be "floating" at the center front and back and some doubts remain about exact positions, reed impressions for these fragments were aligned with those of fragments whose positions are certain. The bottom rests on 3 epoxy stubs which extend below the statue where no plaster was extant (Fig. 71). All three were originally drilled for the insertion of stainless steel sleeves, but no sleeve was installed at the center, and that cavity was refilled with epoxy. A cavity remains inside much of the torso after auxiliary support was added, but auxiliary supports and plaster enclose the bottom surface so that the interior cannot be seen.

Based on examination of the interior during treatment, construction of the torso began with the assembly of vertical bundles: 2 placed between the bundles on which the heads and necks had been modelled and several outside of them, for a total of 9 (Figs. 75, 75a, 76a and 76b. Head #6 was modelled on bundle 4 and head #5 on bundle 7. Impressions of an anomalous short horizontal bundle perpendicular to the viewer at the p.r. shoulder seem most likely to have been formed by the penultimate side bundle 8 bent squarely at the back instead of having been folded over itself. There are at least 14 impressions (including one pair) of twine encircling bundles 1-4, incorporating the head-and-neck bundle. Impressions seem less orderly on the opposite side although it is more damaged and only 8 impressions could be discerned. Nevertheless, it is clear that twine encircled bundles 9-7, thus including the other head-and-neck bundle, and to some extent bundle 6. Only a few widely spaced twine impressions were visible at the center, partly because plaster is so damaged and missing in this area.

Three horizontal bundles were used at the shoulders, H1-H3 (Fig. 75 and 75b). H1 has 4 oblique twine impressions between bundles 5-6 and 6-7, so located because bundles 5 and 6 extended above H1 and restricted access to it. The twine apparently secured the heads to H1, as well as bundles 5 and 6. H2 shows no twine impressions: twine may have been unnecessary for a short bundle lodged in between the heads, or impressions may be missing adjacent to the necks because of damage. H3 has far more twine impressions: 6 pairs alone between the heads, including those immediately adjacent to the necks. Centered between twine impressions behind H3 are circular impressions of the ends of small vertical bundles 10-19. This suggests that twine was used to secure a second set of vertical bundles behind H3, although impressions of twine around the those vertical bundles could not be discerned at the top of the shoulders. There is some evidence of merging of these small back bundles with larger bundles lower down on the statue, probably the bundles visible on the interior front, but lower portions of both busts are so fragmentary that this is impossible to confirm.

In some locations, it is apparent that the torso plaster was applied in 2 layers, with some interim drying which resulted in cleavage between layers; these layers exhibited smooth surfaces on both sides of the interface (Fig. 76a and 76b). Such cleavage was visible on the large p.l. shoulder section (47.10C) when found, a surface layer at the lower edge clearly missing; section 47.7A and others were later determined to be the missing surface fragments. This phenomenon is also illustrated by p.l. front base fragments 33.3C, 33.8B-D, and 33.9B, and lower p.r. side fragments 14.8A, 14.5, 14.12A, 22.5A, and 24.12A-C. The location of cleavage at the sides and bottom of the statue provides evidence that the front, back, and base were made by consecutive, slightly overlapping applications of plaster as the torso lay flat on one side, was inverted, and then placed upright.

Base plaster extends solidly from the front to back over more than half the bottom surface, and it may have extended over a larger area given that a significant amount of plaster appears to be missing. Bundles 3,4,5,7, and 8 seem to have ended short of bottom, their bottoms plastered over; bundle 4 is noteworthy because it seems to have been bent at the bottom, perhaps because it was too long. Remaining bundles seem to continue to the bottom surface. It has been concluded that it is unlikely that they extended beyond the bottom to serve as anchors, however, because of the difficulties that this would have posed during erection of the statue.
 

 
STATUE HEAD #7, a Fragmentary Small Head, Probably for a Bust (Figs. 78-80)
 

Figure 78. Head #7, p.r. view (3/4). Drawing shows fragment identifications (fig. 78a).

Figure 79. Head #7, p.r. view. Unit of scale is 1cm.

Figure 80. Head #7, back view, showing interior twine impressions (inner layer of plaster is missing); cf. Fig. 61c. Unit of scale is 1cm.

Measurements

H 7.5cm

W 6.3cm

D 3.0cm

Weight = 104g

 
 

This head consists of two fragments forming part of the p.r. side of a face. The eye fragment was found face up in a jumble of fragments between statue #1 and #2. A torso shoulder fragment was found adhered to its reverse, detached during treatment and subsequently adhered to unattached shoulder section 14.25B et al. (Figs. 95, 96 and 97). The ear fragment was found loose nearby at the north edge of the cache. Because very few unattached fragments of heads remain (Figs. 90, 91) and such fragments are easily identifiable since they are distinctive, it seems likely that the rest of the head was either already missing when the head was buried or lost when the cache was exposed by the bulldozer. Bust torso fragments which may be associated with this head fragment were found in areas adjacent to it, especially the bulldozer-disturbed eastern end of the cache.

 

Features of this fragmentary right side of a face include the proper right eye and ear and part of the jaw line below the ear. Based on its size, this fragment was part of a small head similar in size to heads of the small bust (statue #3). The outside corner of the eye to the jaw line was measured for this fragment (4.8cm) and compared to the same measurement made on other heads: 5.5cm and 6cm for each side of statue head #1; 7.5cm and 7.3cm for statue head #2; 4.5cm and 4.7cm for heads of statue #3; 6.1cm and 6.7cm for statue head #4; 5.8cm, 6.0cm. 6.1cm, and 6.6cm for heads of statue #5/6; 6.0cm for statue head #9. The bust to which it was probably attached may have had two heads. Two apparently unrelated groups of unattached fragments, 14.18C et al. and 22.17A, B (Figs. 96, 97), have shapes and unique armature features similar to those of bundles H1-H3 on statue #5/6, characteristic only of plaster located between pairs of heads. The head does not seem to have been a twin of statue head #9, however, because of its smaller size.

In addition to the absence of most of the head, the innermost layer of plaster with reed impressions is missing, exposing the closely spaced twine impressions on the interior of the outer layer (Fig. 80). Nearly all bitumen decoration is absent, and no paint was found. After the two fragments were consolidated and adhered, a brass bracket was made by Bob Fugelstad for 3-dimensional display of the fragment.
 
 

 
STATUE HEAD #9, an Average-Sized Head, Probably for a Bust (Figs. 81-88)
 

Figure 81. Head #9, front view.

Figure 82. Drawing of head #9, front view. Shading indicates loss.

Figure 83. Head #9, back view.

Figure 84. Drawing of head #9, back view, showing evidence of fabrication in multiple layers, fragment identifications, and compensated losses (cf. Fig. 83).

Figure 85. Head #9, back view during treatment, showing armature impressions on interior of front.

Figure 86. Head #9, p.r. view.

Figure 87. Drawing of head #9 with fragment identifications, p.r. view. Shading indicates loss.

Figure 88. Head #9, p.l. view. Drawing shows fragment identifications; shading indicates loss (fig. 88a).
 
 

Measurements

 H 15cm

W 10cm

D 7cm

 
Weight 497g

 

The head was found as if placed face up in the pit, on top of the legs of statue #2, oriented S-N. Its forehead (23.28B) was found adhered to the back of a large fragment from the base of statue #5/6; some of the interior of the statue #5/6 fragment was sacrificed during mechanical removal in order to safely separate the forehead. Bust torso fragments which may be associated with this head were found in areas adjacent to it, especially the badly disturbed eastern end of the cache.

 

This medium-sized head was likely attached to a bust which may have had two heads. Two apparently unrelated groups of unattached fragments, 14.18C et al. and 22.17A, B (Figs. 96, 97), have shapes and unique armature features similar to those of bundles H1-H3 on statue #5/6, characteristic only of plaster located between pairs of heads. The head does not seem to have been a twin of the other unattached statue head (#7), however, because of its larger size.

Only the lower p.l. side of the face was found in good condition. The remainder was badly deformed, particularly the forehead, and the upper back of the head was found caved in and adhered to the front interior. Fragments of the upper back of the head were detached from the front interior (Fig. 85) and realigned with the sides of the head. The lower back of the head is missing (Fig. 83) and has not been filled, partially revealing its interior structure. Many neck fragments found in the vicinity of the head could not be attached. Some bitumen was found in surrounding fill during excavation and was reattached, but much was missing, particularly eyeliner. Traces of orange-red paint were observed on facial areas. The head was sound enough that internal support did not seem essential, but diluted acrylic putty was poured into the upper half of the head to protect original plaster from the mounting bracket. A bracket was made of thick brass wire by Bob Fugelstad for 3-dimensional display.

The head was made according to the standard method. Both layers of plaster remain visible at the lower back, although much of the inner layer is missing. The twine-covered armature inside the head measured about 6.5cm in width, documented by Xero-radiography.

Table of Contents