Archaeological context and distribution

NOT FINISHED- WORK IN PROGRESS

The archaeological context of a find constitutes one of the most important components in understanding it and attributing function. The following general remarks should be kept in mind.
• It is very important to note that the context and dating of the artifacts is that of the moment of discard or disposal and not of manufacture or use.
• The majority of the all anthropomorphic figurines from Urkesh were found in secondary context.
• The context of Khabur yielded the highest number of figurine due to its characterization with housing areas, and scattered occupation.
• No human figurines were found in the palace use period.
• The majority of figurines were retrieved from surface layers and accumulation layers without being associated with any structures, with some exception not pertaining to JP area.

Back to top: Archaeological context and distribution

The archaeological context of the figurines

Back to top: Archaeological context and distribution

The associated material culture

Much of the material culture recovered in association with the figurines, such as grinding stones, animal bones, lithic and clay artifacs suggest an association with domestic activities.

Back to top: Archaeological context and distribution

Distribution pattern

A significant difference in concentration density of anthropomorphic figurines between the temple area and the palace area is very noticeable. And the difference in concentration density between the second and the third millennium levels is not surprising, giving the fact that second millennium period was characterized by a settlement context, where mundane activities took place, which is an environment suitable for these types of artifacts, on the contrary of the third millennium level that has been excavated in a royal service quarters, where not many human figurines are expected to be found.

In general, the distribution in the 2nd millennium, it exhibits more conformity with a settlement context, making the presence of such artifacts logical.

With regards to the 2nd millennium figurines in Temple area, the low number is expected in this sacred area. Even if there was a ritualistic use of anthopomorphic figurines in cult related ceremonies of worship, The figurines were not disposed of there, as the area was kept clean, even when the monumental access to the temple was no longer in use.

INCLUDE DISTRIBUTION MAP

Back to top: Archaeological context and distribution

Discard

By placing the figurines on the map following a chronological dating, it become clearer the unintentionality of their deposition, with only minor few exceptions. This would also explain the very low number of human figurines recovered from the temple terrace area, an area that was used for a very long time, and had a sacral nature, which in its self, prevented the discard of such items.

Intentional discard of human figurines in the JP area is not proven, either by archaeological context or intentional breakage and disposal in specific context. And when discarded, they were never disposed of in ritual contexts, but were treated like any other kind of domestic trash, and would be associated with ordinary refuse such as bones, sherds or other kinds of broken artifacts (Petty 2006: 49). It is also very important to keep in mind the different views and perceptions between the person who conceived the figurine, the person who used it, and/or discarded it. These views might not be unified.