.bk J05 .fl Y401jW.j .fd rAH analysis of figurines .fn i1,i5,i8,i9,i22,i31,i54,i59,i60 .ei jW .ed Y401 .rd Y330 .ri rAH i 1 ni    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. i 1 ni    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). i 5 ni    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. i 8 ni    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. i 9 ni    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. i 22 ni    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. i 31 ni    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. i 54 ni    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. i 54 ni    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. i 59 ni    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. i 60 ni    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.