| i1 |
K90 |
2014-03-30 |
The fact that this figurine was found in K24, as I understand, near the monumental staircase to the temple, is provocative. Could the bearer have been bringing wool to the temple as an offering? Ordinarily, I do not indulge in such speculation. This artifact, however, mutilated or broken as it may be, bears comparison with the representations recovered in the Royal Storehouse; that it was recovered in this particular place does prompt the question. If it were within the closed context of AK, we would read this exemplar differently.
It would be important to correlate this stratum with strata in the Royal Storehouse. Is the artifact coeval with artifacts there? Or, if not, should we begin to think about the persistence of a representational tradition? That is, Ovis must have been represented in the same manner over generations. The same question may be posed for other representations found in this unit.
The measurements of this figure correspond roughly to those expected for Ovis I. Naturally, measuring from illustrations that may foreshorten and sometimes falsify the view is problematic. However, here follow approximate measurements for this figurine that can be determined from the photographs.
Forequarters (w1) 1.6. Torso (w2) 1.5 hindquarters (w3) 2.2 tail .8 neck 1.2 length 3.6. Thus, the ratio of tail to hindquarters is slightly greater than 1: 3. The width at the neck is approximately three quarters of the width of the forequarters (w1@neck >/= 3/4w1). The fore quarters are greater in width than the torso and the torso is not quite as wide as the hindquarters (w1 >/= 4/5w1 </= w3). The length is a little less than twice the width of the forequarters (lg </= 2w1). [Input: Y401JW.j]
|
| i1 |
K90 |
2014-03-30 |
This figurine, one of two found in unit K24, is a nice example of Ovis TYPE I; that is to say, a sheep raised for its wool. The excavator has correctly determined the species. However, the body type says that this animal was more likely raised for its wool, than for its meat or for its milk (Thus, TYPE I and not TYPE II). The caudal view (V21d4614) clearly shows a tail, which is almost exactly one-third the width of the hindquarters; this is a diagnostic feature of Ovis I. Compare, in the AK figurine volume, Ovis 9 A6q19.1 caudal view. Also see Ovis 3 A1q474.1. Luckily, the illustrations collected here do show the caudal view; there is no dorsal view, which would have provided more diagnostic detail and certainty regarding this identification.
In some cases, measurements given are not diagnostic. It is useless to provide a measurement of an element that is broken; or, rather, terminates in a break; clearly such a measurement could not be diagnostic for it does not conform to the original extension of the element. Invariably, the "height" of a figurine is not determinant, for the head and/or feet are often missing. [Input: Y401JW.j]
|
| i5 |
K90 |
2014-03-30 |
This figurine sits in the same accumulation as figurine J5.1 in K24. There are inaccuracies in the description by the excavator. Corrections should be made to the global record, specifically the references to species, and the tail. Not all the exemplars of animals at Urkesh have "paws."
As there is no dorsal view, it is difficult to ascertain the actual proportions of forequarters to torso to hindquarters. The other views correspond, at least roughly, to exemplars in the AK corpus, (although I am taking it on faith that the median of view V21d4507 is the right median plane), so then this figurine can be compared to the same view of Bos 6.
As it is, there is no particular order to the manner in which the photographs are displayed. In this case, the animal would appear to be Bos, as I surmise the proportion forequarters to torso to hindquarters is 1:1:1. The shallow rise from buttocks to back to neck would seem to substantiate this view. The caudal view is to be compared with Bos 10 and Bos 206. The forward thrust of the forelegs (as I take them) conforms in angle to the TYPE. Further diagnostic details cannot really be read from the photographic record.
That this figurine sits in the same accumulation as J5.1 gives me pause. Can we assume that there is in fact, a telling relationship between this artifact and its context? If this animal is not, then, an offering, we may recall the Ishar-Beli sealing and see the presence of these two different species in the same situation as a possible reference to the process of domestication, so successfully applied at Urkesh. That this process is thus commemorated on the way to visit a god is significantThis figurine sits in the same accumulation as figurine J5.1 in K24. [Input: Y401JW.j]
|
| i8 |
K90 |
2014-03-30 |
There are a number of notable things about this figurine that require extended thought. This description will be summary and perhaps will contribute to later discussion about this object. First, it is not clear that the figurine is naked. The figure is, I believe, clothed. The details of the body are schematic, as if covered, although the pubic triangle is clearly indicated. This is not unusual for figurines of the period. Second, as seen in dorsal view, the figurine bends slightly to the left forming a curved arc. This is an unusual detail. Third, the figurine is not clasping its breasts, but rather may be holding an object of some sort. This may account for the " limitation of the hands showed as remove some of the clay before firing," as noted by the excavator. That is, the hand is perhaps grasping some sort of rod, as a scepter, but not cupping a breast. Fourth, the figurine is painted. There may be indistinct remnants of paint on the back of the object, although this is not clear from the photograph. What is clear, are the thick parallel lines drawn horizontally to the vertical axis of the figure on the sides of the object. There appear to be 4 of them. It is not clear whether these lines cross the object to the other side. As the excavator notes, the approximate Munsell value of these lines would appear to resemble Khabur pigment. It does not appear to be made from a slip of the terracotta itself.
To venture further than these observations would be risky. First, the quality of the photography is not adequate for interpretation. Secondly, the form of the figurine is anomalous at Urkesh. It is likely to have been imported. The back of the figurine is particularly striking, resembling for all the world some of the "bed" artifacts from Egypt! Why the articulation of the body through the clothing is rendered in this manner is a mystery. [Input: Y401JW.j]
|
| i9 |
K90 |
2014-03-30 |
The orientation of this object is completely problematic. It is not possible to reconstruct a viable orientation and analysis without having the actual object in front of one. There is no basis for considering the object to be an "ox," as the excavator surmises. There is no decoration at all on this object. Certain anatomical details have been delineated by deep incisions. That the "throat juts out significantly" is not a basis for considering the object as Bos. Any number of species can display a prominent breast ridge, not just cattle.
This object, as well as several others, raises the question: "Why are the figurines recovered in J5 so fragmented?" It is true that depositional action takes its toll. These representations, however, are so damaged as to obscure all but one or two diagnostic details. As a first observation, we might note that the function -- or the life history of these objects -- is different than the function of the figurines found in the royal storehouse. This is not to say that function is equivalent to life history; but rather that the function of these objects dictates a different path of action and results in their fragmentary recovery. [Input: Y401JW.j]
|
| i22 |
K90 |
2014-03-30 |
Once again, the damage to this representation is so extreme as to render it unidentifiable. It is doubtful that this representation is humanoid. It appears that only one, perhaps two appendages are missing. Orientation might help with the identification, but the angles chosen for the photography do not reveal diagnostic detail and provide little clue as to the proper way to view this object. Thus, I am unable to provide an identification at this time. It would have been interesting if the humanoid identification could have been established, as this representation was recovered in K34 and near, I gather, humanoid figurine J5.8.
The Munsell color "light brown" is notable.
A protocol should be established for photographing objects that are, for all practical purposes, nondescript. This requires some thought. [Input: Y401JW.j]
|
| i31 |
K90 |
2014-03-30 |
Once again, the angles chosen to photograph this object do not help with the identification. "Humped" animals are exceptionally rare; zebus are practically the only examples of such representations.
If photograph V21d7688 can be construed as a dorsal view of the forequarters, then one most interesting detail appears: the feet, not broken, each display marks in a triangular pattern. These marks are mere dots, and quite shallow. One might surmise that they mark the pads of an animal foot. The detail is similar to the cloverleaf pattern of dots that surrounds the penis of Felis 302. See Plate XL, page 516.
The appendage visible in photograph V21d7689 is difficult to explain; the representation appears to be in the process of modeling, as a fingerprint may be visible at the top of the so-called "appendage"/tab. The indentation is quite deep, yet the so-called tab does not appear to be finished. Perhaps the representation was discarded during the very process of its making-"unmade," as it were. [Input: Y401JW.j]
|
| i54 |
K90 |
2014-03-30 |
In studying Bos 206, a related stratified find from the Bos corpus in the royal storehouse, some parallels can be seen, although J5.54 is less clearly articulated. However, the exercise may call attention to the fact that the sexual parts of cattle are carried forward in the belly. This may explain the interruption of the painted pattern on the ventral surface of this representation.
The representation compares favorably to Bos 206 in ventral, dorsal and right median plane views. The angle at which the representation is held in V22d3632 (the caudal section of the right median plane) falsifies somewhat the curve of the back; in fact, it is rather more gradual in its decline, and in the same plane, rather than descending as the photograph would indicate.
It is not unusual for w3 to be ever so slightly wider than the forequarters and the torso. That is the case here, so at least in the last two measurements, the ratio would appear to be 1 : : 1, a solid Bos characteristic. [Input: Y401JW.j]
|
| i54 |
K90 |
2014-03-30 |
This is a most interesting object, albeit fragmentary. There is painted decoration, perhaps saddle bags, or a coverlet/blanket thrown over the dorsal surface. The patterning is grid-like, quite regular. It does not appear to be in imitation of animal hair, but rather a covering. Interesting that the "net" effect continues under the body to the ventral surface. This might argue for an abstract rendering of bodily fur (but unlikely). Munsell value of the paint is Khabur red.
In photograph V22d3633, which I take to be the ventral view of the fragment, the pattern of the lines is disrupted, just to the front of the genital area. There is a triangular/pointed extension of the painted decoration to just below the tail, as if indeed the covering were terminated there, a sort of unusual "all weather wrap" -- ?
Fingerprints do their part to interrupt the pattern. This is a most unusual manufacturing detail; as, apparently, the fingerprints come on top of the paint. Why this is so is difficult to say. The handling and modeling of such figures, particularly those with painted decoration, must surely have something to do with the making and unmaking of these representations. [Input: Y401JW.j]
|
| i59 |
K90 |
2014-03-30 |
Once again, a fragmentary representation. The excavator feels that this is, I presume, a quadruped. This is far from certain. I would prefer to see this artifact as a badly eroded ram's head (V22d3790), although that identification is equally uncertain. Compare with A1.479, Ovis 33, a perforated exemplar from the royal storehouse. See also a comparative example from Tepe Gawra on page 171. Also see Comparative Table 8. The curved "knob" (V22d3790) is surprising. I know of only one similar detail, and this is the tail of Ovis II 203 (plate XV, page 488).
I fear this artifact has been overcleaned; some detail may have been brushed away. The lighting of the photographs, uniform, does not help in analyzing detail.
I have been unable to locate k105 on a grid within the Global Record. Several interesting exemplars have been recovered there. I thus am at a loss to ascertain their relationship to other artifacts in this unit. [Input: Y401JW.j]
|
| i60 |
K90 |
2014-03-30 |
The photograph V22d3802 is not diagnostic. It is taken at an angle and slightly below the artifact, thus obscuring all diagnostic measurement. If the artifact is intact and not broken with the exception of the legs this view might show a forequarter breast ridge, which is of note.
V22d3803 seems to be a view in the caudal plane. If so, there is an indentation between the legs, as if made by a thumb, which is most interesting. There appears to be a hole for a tail above the indentation.
I do not feel confident saying that this is an intact figurine, although there does not appear to be a break at either caudal or cranial termination. See V22d3801. If this is a dorsal view, the ratio of forequarters to either torso or the uncertain hindquarters is most unusual. I believe the figurine is in fact the cranial section (forequarters) and that the artifact is broken at the torso; the break is disguised by what may be exuberant cleaning, brushing away the rough edges at the break. It is unlikely that depositional action could account for this smooth a termination.
Recovered from k105. [Input: Y401JW.j]
|
| q1.1 |
K90 |
2014-03-30 |
The excavator has determined that this artifact is an animal head; once that determination was made, various details of the "face" were noted. I have yet to see what the researcher saw. What follows are my observations based on the photographs of this object.
V22d7185: it is possible that this is the base of a footed vessel.
V227186: at first, I did not see the utility of this view; then, I began to look more closely at the patterning, if such it is. Vegetal? It rather appears the object was set on something while awaiting firing; perhaps a mat of straw? Look more closely for pattern.
V22d7187: the object is photographed from an odd angle, but this could be taken for an unusual eye-level view of the "dog-based" goblets from AK. It is odd that the representation, if indeed it is one, merges with the "base." If one holds this photo close to the vertical, one can begin to see what the researcher is seeing. There are strikes along a flat and smooth surface of the object. I took these to be the marks of excavation; perhaps that is not the case. Perhaps they were originally struck or drawn into the surface of the wet clay. The supposed snout or chin -- whatever it may be -- only makes sense if we think of popular representations (cartoons) of, say, pigs or other ruminant animals. But to be blunt, I see no parallel with animals of the real world.
The real clue to the function of this object lies in the flat surface it was either made to sit upright or to be affixed to a vertical, flat surface.
I am mindful that I am dismissing the considered opinion of the researcher, who has indeed held this object and seen it at very close quarters. My observations must be taken in this light -- that is, observations at a distance, "second-hand." [Input: Y401JW1.j]
|
| q24.1 |
K90 |
2014-03-30 |
Depending upon the manner in which one holds a figurine, different interpretations can be offered. What is front? What is back? I do believe the excavator has reversed the caudal and cranial views of this object. The manner in which the object is photographed, however, is confusing. One has a first impression; then that impression is reversed because the object is flipped and photographed from an angle that does not logically "follow" the previous one. Now, V21d4520 and V21d4521 do indeed bring to mind certain animal representations. Unfortunately, the manner of photographing the object cancels out any first impression a viewer might have of the object. The remaining two photographs are so foreshortened and/or washed out by the lighting that it is impossible to analyze this figurine further. [Input: Y401JW1.j]
|
| q48.1 |
K90 |
2014-03-30 |
Also notable in caudal view is the narrow channel between the buttocks leading from the anus to the genitals. See Comparative Tables 9A, 9B and 9C, which document veterinary intervention, specifically the use of the penile strap and the caudal band in the genus Felis.
One matter gives pause -- the lack of definite musculature, so very typical of the genus Felis. The researcher has identified certain characteristics that are salient, but the interpretation of these details is not informed. One need be cautious in offering interpretations of animal representations; or indeed, of any artifact without having firmly in mind a corpus of similar objects or objects which, considered together, might inform one regarding the artifact in hand.
It is important also to realize that some measurements convey no information at all. In this case, the question of height is meaningless, because the artifact is broken and this measurement could never be diagnostic. It should also be noted that the category in the global record "mid-width" does not correspond to the analysis made to this date of the figurine corpus at Urkesh. As far as animal representations go, this measurement must mean "torso." As applied to the measurement of a pot, say, it would of course mean a measurement taken at a point midway between the rim and the base of the vessel.
The significance of this artifact is considerable. Taken as representative of a social practice, J5q48.1 demonstrates the success and/or persistence of certain methods of domestication. If this stratum is coeval with those in the royal storehouse, then we simply have here another demonstration of the practice. If, however, this artifact was recovered from a stratum that is later than those in the royal storehouse (say, coeval with Khabur times), then we have a demonstration of the success of the given practice, and its persistence over time. [Input: Y401JW1.j]
|
| q48.1 |
K90 |
2014-03-30 |
This is an excellent example of Felis TYPE II, replete with penis strap; the ratios hold.
All measurements should be verified in the field or laboratory. For the moment, it is enough to say that the ratio of length to torso width is greater than two to one, almost three to one (6.2/2.2 = 2.8 : 1), a sure sign of the carnivore body type. Useful comparisons can be made with the compendium of Felis body types in figures 17 and 18. Note particularly body TYPE II, Felis 302, 37 and 38. Note also the wide stance (an angle of almost 60 degrees) of the forequarters. The forelegs join the body at an angle of 120 degrees to 160 degrees.
The most striking detail of this figurine is the penile strap, which is so very clearly indicated and which was accurately represented in the rendering W21c. The artist is to be commended for drawing what was actually there. I do, however, miss the rendering of the cranial view. [Input: Y401JW1.j]
|
| q70.1 |
K90 |
2014-03-30 |
Breakage of this figurine is unusual, to say the least; the forequarters seem almost to be scooped out. The excavator identifies this artifact as possibly an "ox." There is little of Bos about the artifact, with the possible exception of the genitals, which do extend rather far forward into the belly, a characteristic of cattle. Rather, there are other details that point to another genus. In the left median plane (V21d4756), the forelegs thrust forward in the manner of Felis 8 A5.15.1 TYPE I. Note accretions over all.
As visible in the ventral view (V21d4757), the penis, according to the excavator, is "fragmented." Rather, the entry to the urethra is simply indicated. The head of the penis, even so, does extend rather far into the belly. Likely, the "fragmentation" is simply the negative impression of the band that passed over the penis. This may also have occurred during an abrasive cleaning that has carried away part of the bodily detail.
I wish there were a dorsal view so I could establish diagnostic ratios.
In the caudal view (V21d4758), similar to A1.52, the legs meet in a rather wide angle: approximately 90 degrees; there is a rather open V inside: 60 degrees. There are signs of a caudal strap (negative).
Against the identification as Felis, the tail does not hang over and there is little indication of musculature; but see Felis 4, covered with a heavy slip -- there may be the indication of same with J5Q70.1. See V2d4758. [Input: Y401JW1.j]
|
| q89.1 |
K90 |
2014-03-30 |
The excavator, in a fanciful and inexplicable comment, says that this figurine is possibly a dog wagging his tail. She identifies a "grid pattern" on the back of the animal (visible in V21d4740), but does not comment on its continuation in the left median plane (visible in V21d4741). It is unclear whether the paint is applied to the ventral section. Once again, the height is given as a diagnostic measurement. Ratios approximate those of Ovis TYPE I: l = 2w1(=w3); w2 >/= 4/5w1(=w3).
The hindquarters (V21d4743), both in stance and the disposition of the tail, remind one of Capra 203 A810q114.1. The stance however is too wide for this genus. Although the tail is carried high, the caudal section is more directly comparable to the caudal section of Ovis 203. I take the hole in the caudal section to be an accident of excavation; it's too low to be a hole for a tail.
As I have begun to appreciate the references to domestication in the collected finds from J5, I tend to think of this representation as an exemplar of Ovis. The gridlike pattern is interesting in this context; it might represent either the blanket made from the wool of this animal, or the deep striations of wool as exemplified by comparative example Schaf Assur Nr. 605 (page 153). I am not totally comfortable with this identification, as the animal appears rather lean. [Input: Y401JW1.j]
|
| q104.1 |
K90 |
2014-03-30 |
The excavator identifies these three fragments as part of the same figuring leg. It is an object fragmented in three pieces; not baked, I would wager. Does it resemble in form a column? Certainly, the object bears none of the definition of a "figurine leg," as the excavator surmises. There is neither muscular definition of the haunches nor is there articulation at a possible "knee-joint." This seems to be merely a pellet or possibly a cylindrical token. Illustration V21d4710 shows three segments; are the top two the obverse of the upper fragment? If so, this token/object might be assembled from 2-3 "rods" of clay; a rather unusual detail. [Input: Y401JW1.j]
|
| q120.1 |
K90 |
2014-03-30 |
This is purportedly "a human figurine"; photograph V21d4766 could possibly be construed as such a representation. Remember, however: humanoid figurines were meant to be seen in an erect posture, whether they have bases that would permit them to stand or not (think of certain foundation pegs that terminate in a point, not a flat base).
Thus, the photographic documentation should consistently demonstrate the item in a posture that would support the conjecture offered.
V21d4768: the flat portion of the figurine is of interest; is this the actual "back" of the humanoid?
As seen in V21d4769, the puncture in the base (??) of the figurine bears comment. The figurine itself is not hollow; thus, this must've been a receptacle for a stick or dowel that enabled the figurine to stand, as the excavator surmised. This flat surface and its hole do seem an apt termination.
V21d4766 is the most convincing view in support of the claim that this is a humanoid. The "set of small circular scattered holes" on the "back" of the figurine are merely depositional marks; it is important to distinguish such markings from intentional decoration. [Input: Y401JW1.j]
|
| q180.1 |
K90 |
2014-03-30 |
The excavator surmises that this representation may be a "gazelle." She is right to notice the tapering muzzle. The appropriate comparandum is, I believe, Capra. A look at Comparative Table 2A in Reading Figurines gives a range of possibilities.
Once the researcher has determined the genus, the manner in which the representation will be shown in the photographic documentation must be determined. It is equally important. The photographs should be chosen so as to lead the reader or viewer to an appreciation of the aptness of the identification the researcher has made. [Input: Y401JW1.j]
|
| q182.1 |
K90 |
2014-03-30 |
Of the nine photographs which accompany this entry, only three can be accessed. Thus, it is impossible to ascertain the accuracy of the excavator's observation that the artifact is "decorated with two perpendicular lines of small circles engraved." As it is, the photographs displayed are nondescript. It is impossible to analyze them in any meaningful way. [Input: Y401JW1.j]
|
| q187.1 |
K90 |
2014-03-30 |
Of 12 photographs referenced in the documentation only six can be accessed. Photographs V21d4816-V21d4818 both in form and surface treatment do not relate to the photographs following. Presumably these three photographs are the base of the object, but that is uncertain. In the second entry under "description", the researcher speaks of "a very smooth fragment of stone." How this relates to the artifact depicted in the rest of the photographs is problematic.
The "dark brown band painted across his snout" is visible in the V21d4828, although it is not possible to tell from the photograph exactly how it was applied, or where it was applied. And why the researcher feels that the dark brown band may suggest a horse is open to question. Perhaps the band was taken to be a bridle? [Input: Y401JW1.j]
|
| q233.2 |
K90 |
2014-03-30 |
There is no photographic documentation for this item. Thus, the accuracy of the observations cannot be tested. [Input: Y401JW1.j]
|
| q239.2 |
K90 |
2014-03-30 |
There is no photographic documentation for this item. Thus, the accuracy of the observations cannot be tested. [Input: Y401JW1.j]
|
| q267.2 |
K90 |
2014-03-30 |
The photographic documentation that accompanies this artifact demonstrates the importance of orientation. I note that the object is some 4 cm long. Thus, we may in fact have here an animal torso. Unfortunately the artifact is displayed vertically, and there is not enough definition in the representation to enable the viewer to ascertain whether there were other appendages or not. The photographs and the textual information provided are not diagnostic. [Input: Y401JW1.j]
|
| q274.1 |
K90 |
2014-03-30 |
The rounded contours of this representation lead me to say that this figurine is an example of Ovis TYPE I, that is to say an animal raised for its wool. The rounded contours of the dorsal section (V21d7703) support this contention. In the main, the ratios hold, particularly that between the torso and the hindquarters. Of the nine photographs in the primary documentation only three print, thus this identification must be considered provisional. [Input: Y401JW1.j]
|
| q341.3 |
K90 |
2014-03-30 |
The excavator's contention that this may be a human figurine is interesting. This must be based on the joining of the two columnar forms in V22d3607, which might be taken to be the legs of a standing figurine. In the main, however, contemporaneous figurines of humanoids do not separate the legs sculpturally. They are rather part of a columnar representation, divided by an incision or indentation indicating a separation of the two members.
V22d3606 seems to show a termination that is part of the original manufacture. I am perplexed; how the separate images relate is problematic and to be determined. [Input: Y401JW1.j]
|
| q398.3 |
K90 |
2014-03-30 |
The pattern of breakage on this artifact is most interesting; it provides clues to the identification. Note particularly the dorsal section (V22d3738). In order to view the illustration properly it is necessary to rotate it 90 degrees to the left. The upper part of the dorsal section appears to be shattered, broken away.
I do not follow the excavator when s/he says that "the tail is incised with a line." S/He has accurately identified the male member in the ventral section; it is carried rather far forward in the belly. There may be some indication of the penile strap.
The excavator says that the figurine has been "hollowed out." Actually, the figurine is built on a core; inadequate firing or differential firing caused the figurine to separate, the core detaching from the surrounding body that enfolded it something like a sausage. This core is visible in photograph V22d3738.
Final identification will have to wait upon physical examination of the object.
One provocative detail to note is the almond-shaped form in the shallow declivity that may indicate the hind legs -- this may (with great caution, and provisionally) be an indication of the animal's vulva; that is, the animal is actually a female of the species Equus in oestrus. The top of the dorsal section would have been broken away, because it was weakened by the insertion of a deep hole to hold the tail. A comparative example is found in Figure 21, Equus A7.320. [Input: Y401JW1.j]
|
| q427.1 |
K90 |
2014-03-30 |
The excavator has correctly identified a caprid head, although that the muzzle curves down is most unusual and not typical of the species; that the muzzle is somewhat foreshortened accentuates this anomaly. Comparative Table 8 can be consulted, although these exemplars are all Ovis. For the rather more narrow muzzle of Capra, it is necessary to consult Comparative Tables 2 and 2A. In general, the horns of Capra sweep up and back; the horns of Ovis curve downwards. It is incorrect to say that the horns are "in high relief." They are simply obvious, being manufactured from separate pieces of clay and applied to the head. [Input: Y401JW1.j]
|
| q428.5 |
K90 |
2014-03-30 |
The caudal plane of this figurine has been adequately photographed (V22d3798). It bears comparison with A1.52, an exemplar of Ovis TYPE I. It is certainly possible that the other illustrations document a figurine that could be made to conform to type. It's something of a fruitless exercise at this juncture, however, simply because the orientation and order of the photographs has not been made clear. [Input: Y401JW1.j]
|