| Notes on items |
2014-03-30 |
rAH |
This figurine sits in the same accumulation as figurine i1 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 i1 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 i1 in K24. [Input: Y401JW.j] |