Fig 31 - uploaded by José Luis Ramos-Soldado
Content may be subject to copyright.
Some kúnga pulling from battle wagons depicted in the Standard of Ur (2600 BC) (after Littauer & Crouwel, 1979).
Source publication
Although most of the animal remains recorded throughout the archaeological excavations consist usually of large assemblages of discarded and fragmented bones, it is possible to yield articulated animal skeletons in some cases. Most of them have been usually picked up from sacred and/or funerary contexts, but not all of them might fit necessarily in...
Citations
... The discarded artefacts and ecofacts can survive in the depositional context for a long time, being subject to redeposition, recycling or even reintegration into the living culture (Kuna et al. 2022, 2). For this reason, the approaches of different researchers to structured deposition vary considerably in aspects of the methodology employed, interpretation and practical application (e.g., Richards -Thomas 1984;Brück 1999;Hill 1995;Clarke 1997;Chapman 2000;Pearce 2008;Pollard 1995;Ramos Soldado 2016;Kuna et al. 2022). ...
This paper aimed to sketch the problem of the occurrence of the so-called antiqued artefacts in the territory of the Middle-Danube Barbaricum. As this type of finding has been relatively marginal in the published literature, the aim was to fill this gap at least partially and thus point out its potential significance. Although the use of antiqued artefacts was not uniform and depended on many factors, it is
possible to distinguish two broad categories – the so-called heirlooms and the so-called venerable objects. The two categories differ and can be assumed to have specific treatment, meaning, and handling in archaic cultures. In the funerary context, we see a clear preference for heirlooms among the Germans, especially
concerning components of luxury drinking and dining sets. In the case of settlement assemblages, the state
of publication is a significant limiting factor, as is the negative impact of post-depositional transformation processes. Nevertheless, isolated occurrences of both categories are documented even in this setting. In this respect, the possible connection of antiqued artefacts with the fills of several sunken features, which show signs of so-called structured deposition, proves very important.
... Moreover, if empty vessels were interred as containers symbolizing food offerings (pars pro toto), then this begs the question as to why we also find examples of actual joints of meat in vessels. Clearly, there is no consensus, despite the many ancient sources (the Bible and Canaanite/Ugaritic or Mesopotamian texts) that relate to Bronze and Iron Ages mortuary customs (e.g., Bloch-Smith 1992Baldacci 1998;Barrett 2007;Ramos Soldado 2016;Nabulsi 2017 and bibliographies therein). ...
... Foundation and termination rituals as collective performances are known from the Neolithic onwards (Garfinkel 1994;Meskell et al. 2008); they become textually evident from the third millennium BC onwards in the Near East, Egypt, the Levant and Anatolia, and were often performed in relation to temples or other sites of ritual significance (Ellis 1968;Ünal 1999;Soysal, Süel 2007;Ambos 2010;Romano 2015;Valentini 2015;Karkowski 2016;Laneri et al. 2016;Türkteki, Başkurt 2016;Müller 2018). The nature of such activities varied across these regions and reveals a diverse choice of material practices ranging from artefact placement to animal and human sacrifice in votive contexts (for example, see Ellis 1968;Morandi Bonacossi 2012;Porter 2012a;Schwartz 2012;Laneri et al. 2015;Soldado 2016). However, archaeological research often tends to separate artefacts of exclusive significance from their contextual and cognitive contexts, stressing the object itself rather than the moment of its use in its temporal and spatial settings (Hodder 1986;Meskell 2004: 14;Knappett 2011: 137). ...
Constructing and deconstructing public spaces in second-millennium BC Anatolia, the Near East and the Levant was not only a collaborative physical act but also involved deeply embodied ritual symbolism. This symbolism is materialized in the practice of conducting public foundation and termination rituals that unified individual memories in space and time, transforming the physical act into a collective memory: a process that contributed to the formation of political and cultural memory. The recent rescue excavations conducted by the Hatay Archaeological Museum at the hinterland site of Toprakhisar Höyük in Altınözü (in the foothills above the Amuq valley) add to the understanding of the practice of foundation and termination rituals during the Middle Bronze Age and how these moments may have contributed to the political and cultural memory of a rural community living away from the centre. The practice of foundation/termination rituals is archaeologically documented by caches of artefacts from votive contexts stratigraphically linked to the construction and termination of a Middle Bronze Age administrative structure.
... Depositions of animal bones that are not considered as common food waste, because of the context, the species, or the treatment of the carcass, are rather common in ancient Near Eastern cultures in general (Ellis, 1968;Ramos Soldado, 2016). If a few trends can be observed, in funerary contexts in particular, many of these deposits remain unique in nature (see among others De Cupere, 2012, Berthon et al., 2016). ...
The occurrence of wild carnivores remains among faunal assemblages constituted almost exclusively of domestic ruminants raise the question of the status of these rare species. Parts of two foxes were deposited in a jar discovered in a Late Chalcolithic (ca. 4300-3950. cal. BCE) occupation layer at the site of Ovçular Tepesi (Nakhchivan, Azerbaijan). The skeletal elements were carefully dismembered, selected, exposed to fire for some of them, and disposed in an organised manner in the jar. A detailed analysis led us to suggest that this deposition could be related to rites performed during the periodic abandonment and reoccupation of the settlement. Foxes tend to play a peculiar symbolic role in some livestock-raising communities. It could be also the case in this possibly partly mobile pastoral group. This deposit sheds some light on how this community conceived the occupation of this settlement.
The article presents the context and multiple investigations of an unexpected discovery, made during the 2020 excavations, from the Ruginoasa-Dealul Ruginii Chalcolithic site in north-eastern Romania. The site, known before our research (aerial photography, geomagnetic survey, test trenches) only for its visible traces of WW2, belongs to the Cucuteni culture, phase A, and consists of five rows of burned dwellings and several pits. The surprise, and central to this paper, is a burial grave belonging to the Late Bronze Age (LBA), Noua culture, dug into the filling of a Chalcolithic clay extraction pit, consisting of a crouched human male and its funeral inventory—an animal deposition and a small ceramic vessel. For an exact chronology of the features, samples of bones were dated by AMS radiocarbon (of both the human and animal skeletons from the grave). Also, thorough anthropological investigations, analysis of dental wear of the human skeleton, archaeozoological analysis of the animal skeleton deposited as an offering and analysis of Phytoliths from several areas of the grave were applied. Although the paper presents a single burial, the results obtained from applying multiple interdisciplinary methods bring a series of unique insights (anthropological profile, rite and ritual, special status) regarding the end of the Bronze Age in north-eastern Romania, a period still insufficiently known.
Animals have always been an integral part of human existence. In the ancient Near East, this is evident in the record of excavated assemblages of faunal remains, iconography and – for the later historical periods – texts. Animals have predominantly been examined as part of consumption and economy, and while these are important aspects of society in the ancient Near East, the relationships between humans and animals were extremely varied and complex. Domesticated animals had great impact on social, political and economic structures – for example cattle in agriculture and diet, or donkeys and horses in transport, trade and war. Fantastic mythological beasts such as lion-headed eagles or Anzu-birds in Mesopotamia or Egyptian deities such as the falcon-headed god Horus were part of religious beliefs and myths, while exotic creatures such as lions were part of elite symbolling from the fourth millennium bc onward. In some cases, animals also intruded on human lives in unwanted ways by scavenging or entering the household; this especially applies to small or wild animals. But animals were also attributed agency with the ability to solve problems; the distinction between humans and other animals often blurs in ritual, personal and place names, fables and royal ideology. They were helpers, pets and companions in life and death, peace and war. An association with cult and mortuary practices involves sacrifice and feasting, while some animals held special symbolic significance. This volume is a tribute to the animals of the ancient Near East (including Mesopotamia, Anatolia, the Levant and Egypt), from the fourth through first millennia bc, and their complex relationship with the environment and other human and nonhuman animals. Offering faunal, textual and iconographic studies, the contributions present a fascinating array of the many ways in which animals influence human life and death, and explore new perspectives in the exciting field of human-animal studies as applied to this part of the world.
Shahr‐i Sokhta (Iran) was an important urban settlement in the Near East between the end of the 4th millennium and the beginning of the 2nd millennium BC. It entertained trade and cultural relations with ancient sites and cultures on the Indus Plain, southern shores of the Persian Gulf and of the Oman Sea, south‐west Iran, and central Asia. The recent discovery of a rhesus macaque (Macaca mulatta) burial in the cemetery of site shed new light on the exploitation of monkeys in antiquity. A young rhesus macaque – around 5 years old at death – was buried in the necropolis according to the same funerary practices used for human infants. The monkey was buried in a simple pit, togheter with an unpainted pear‐shaped beaker. Both its femurs were pathological, due to a sort of dystrophic calcification of the tendon or muscle insertion, that may suggest the macaque was kept in captivity and died due to physical stress. No non‐human primate species is native of Iran; rhesus macaques inhabit parts of southern and south‐eastern regions of central Asia. A possible provenance from the Indus valley of the macaque found at Shahr‐i Sokhta can be hypothesized. Although findings of monkey remains are rare, iconographic and written sources widely testify that non‐human primates were imported to the Near East in the 4th‐to‐2nd millennium BC as luxury animals and symbols of power, often as gifts for the elite. This discovery represents one of the earliest examples of monkeys being kept as pets.
