.bk J05 .fl Y401jW1.j .fd rAH analysis of figurines .fn q1.1,q24.1,q48.1,q70.1,q89.1,q104.1,q120.1,q180.1,q182.1,q187.1,q233.2,q239.2,q267.2,q274.1,q341.3,q398.3,q427.1,q428.5 .ei jW .ed Y401 .rd Y330 .ri rAH q 1.1 ni    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." q 24.1 ni    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. q 48.1 ni    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. q 48.1 ni    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. q 70.1 ni    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. q 89.1 ni    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. q 104.1 ni    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. q 120.1 ni    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. q 180.1 ni    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. q 182.1 ni    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. q 187.1 ni    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? q 233.2 ni    There is no photographic documentation for this item. Thus, the accuracy of the observations cannot be tested. q 239.2 ni    There is no photographic documentation for this item. Thus, the accuracy of the observations cannot be tested. q 267.2 ni    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. q 274.1 ni    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. q 341.3 ni    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. q 398.3 ni    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. q 427.1 ni    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. q 428.5 ni    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.