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

For example, nearly a third of the Umm el-Marra Bronze Age corpus derive from domestic features such as wall foundations, floors, or domestic trash and/or debris. And much of the material culture recovered in association with the figurines, such as grinding stones, pestles, spindle whorls and bone tools, suggest an association with domestic activities (Petty 2006: 65).

Distribution

The idea behind creating a map for the distribution patterns of the anthropomorphic figurines, was to deconstruct this distribution in the different areas of the site and in different time periods. The map below reveals the difference in concentration density of anthropomorphic figurines between the temple area and the palace area on one hand, and the difference in concentration density between the Khabur level and all the other levels attested at the site. However, this is not surprising, giving the fact that some excavation units did not reach beyond the Khabur level because of the importance of the Khabur structures in some of these areas, which was deemed worthy of preservation, in addition to the fact that the Khabur 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 only, where not many human figurines are expected to be found.

6.4.2 Discard By isolating the figurines on the map by 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. The archaeological context, which dates the moment of discard or deposition, can reveal, in some cases, if the figurine was intentionally discarded of, or if it just fell there for whatever reason without any pre-meditated intention of discarding it. This can be determined by the context and in some cases, by the breakage pattern on the figurine itself. The intentional breaking of a figurine would imply a magical or apotropaic use where the figurine would be broken after it has fulfilled its purpose, and this is evident on only one figurine from Urkesh (A12.30) as I presume, where the figurine was dumped in a pit filled with broken vessels. The rest of the figurines in the corpus of Urkesh exhibit signs of normal breakage as a result of being dropped and broken at some point, or as a result of sustaining damages over the years of use. What the archaeological context of most of the figurine suggest is that the discard of the figurine was not intentional, meaning that they were discarded when they were broken or damaged or no longer needed, but not in dumping pits and special discard places, 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.

In the 2nd millennium As for 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

The map for the distribution patterns of the anthropomorphic figurines aims to deconstruct distribution in the different areas of the site and in different time periods. The map below reveals the difference in concentration density of anthropomorphic figurines between the Temple area and the Palace area on one hand, and the difference in concentration density between the Khabur level and all the other levels attested at the site. However, this is not surprising because:

(A) the fact that some excavation units did not reach beyond the Khabur level because of the importance of the Khabur structures in some of these areas, which was deemed worthy of preservation.

(B) The fact that the Khabur 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 only, where not many human figurines are expected to be found