Content uploaded by Liora Kolska Horwitz
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Liora Kolska Horwitz on Oct 12, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
Paléorient, vol. 42.2, p. 135-149 © CNRS ÉDITIONS 2016 Manuscrit reçu le 9 décembre 2015, accepté le 14 juin 2016
I
6
–
5
BC
L
M
:
C
I
.
M
,
N
.
G
,
E
.
G
,
A
.
Y
and
L
.
K
H
Abstract: Several objects bearing unusual motifs have recently been recovered during salvage excavations and surveys of sites in
Israel dated to the 6th–5th millennia BC. In the southern Levantine examples (Hagoshrim, NeveYam and Ein Zippori), these motifs
appear on bone objects and stone palettes in strata identied with the Early Chalcolithic of the WadiRabah and post-Wadi Rabah
cultures. In Mesopotamia (Ashur, Mari) these motifs appear on stone stelae. In the case of Ashur the context of the items bearing
the motifs is unclear, while in the case of Mari, the stele probably represents an heirloom found in a later context. Other shared
iconographic motifs between the Southern Levant and these regions dating to the 6th and 5th millennia are schematic representations in
stone of ram’s heads, possibly representing personal amulets. These are associated in the north with the Halaan culture (Domüztepe),
and in the south (Kabri, Hagoshrim) with Early Chalcolithic cultural entities. Here we analyze these motifs and other objects in
common from these geographically distant regions, and suggest that together they constitute an ‘interaction sphere’. This reiterates
the proposal advanced years ago by J.Kaplan, but which was overlooked for several decades, concerning the relations between the
southern Wadi Rabah culture and the northern Halaan cultures.
Résumé : Plusieurs objets gravés de m otifs peu habituels ont été récemment découverts lors de prospections et de fouilles de sauvetage
en Israël sur des sites datés des 6e et 5e millénaires av.J.-C. Au Levant Sud (Hagoshrim, Neve Yam et Ein Zippori), ces motifs
s’observent sur des objets en os et des palettes en pierre attribués au Chalcolithique ancien du Wadi Rabah et aux cultures post-
Wadi Rabah. En Mésopotamie (Assur, Mari), ils sont gravés sur des stèles en pierre. Dans le cas d’Assur le contexte de découverte
de cet objet n’est pas connu alors qu’en ce qui concerne Mari, la stèle a été trouvée dans un contexte tardif et pourrait constituer
une réappropriation. D’autres motifs iconographiques partagés entre le Levant Sud et ces régions datent des 6e et 5e millénaires
et sont des représentations schématiques sur pierre de têtes de bélier, qui pourraient être des amulettes personnelles. Celles-ci
sont associées dans le Nord à la culture Halaf (Domüztepe), et dans le Sud (Kabri, Hagoshrim) au Chalcolithique ancien. Nous
analysons ici ces motifs et d’autres objets communs à des régions géographiquement éloignées et nous suggérons que celles-ci
constituent ensemble une «sphère d’interaction». Cette proposition réitère celle avancée par J.Kaplan il y a des années, mais qui
a été négligée pendant plusieurs décennies, et qui défend des relations entretenues entre la culture Wadi Rabah au Sud et la culture
Halaf au Nord.
Keywords: Wadi Rabah; Halaan; Early Chalcolithic; Female gurines; Iconographic connections.
Mots-clés : Wadi Rabah ; Halaen ; Chalcolithique ancien ; Figurines féminines ; Similarités iconographiques.
135-150_Milevski.indd 135 29/11/16 11:14
CNRS ÉDITIONS - TIRÉS À PART • CNRS ÉDITIONS - TIRÉS À PART • CNRS ÉDITIONS - TIRÉS À PART • CNRS ÉDITIONS - TIRÉS À PART
136 I. M
, N. G
, E. G
, A. Y
and L. K
H
Paléorient, vol. 42.2, p. 135-149 © CNRS ÉDITIONS 2016
INTRODUCTION
In this paper we present a set of iconographic motifs found
in recent years in three 6th–5th millennia sites in Israel (g.1).
Until recently, this time period, sometimes termed the Late
Pottery Neolithic (Gopher 1995, 2012; Kafa 1998; Kadowaki
et al. 2008; Gilead 2009), and by N.Getzov (2009) the Early
Chalcolithic, was under-researched in the Southern Levant,
since relatively few sites were known. In the last two decades
the situation has changed with numerous sites being discov-
ered and excavated in both Israel and Jordan (e.g., Kafa 2001;
Lovell 20 01; L ovell et al. 2004; Rosenberg et al. 2006; Banning
2007; Gopher 2012; Khalaily et al. 2016).
The excavations undertaken by Jacob Kaplan from the
1950’s onward, represent the earliest research on this time
period (Kaplan 1958a and b and 1972). He was the rst to
identify the “Wadi Rabah culture” and coined this term fol-
lowing work at the site of the same name on the coastal plain
near Tel Aviv (Kaplan 1958a). He dened the Wadi Rabah
culture on the basis of the presence of ceramic traits including
incised ceramic decorations and those executed with other
techniques (painting and burnishing), as well as typological
items, including the earliest bow-rim jars and at loop handles
(Ibid.).
The term Wadi Rabah was then extended to all southern
Levantine cultures that appeared at the beginning of the 5th
millennium cal.BC (and see summary in Gopher and Gophna
1993: 325-339; Gopher 1995; Garnkel 1999: 104-152). Over
time several distinct cultural entities of the 5th millennium
were recognized as belonging to this time period, such as the
Qatian and Besorian in the south (Goren 1990; Gilead 2009),
JerichoVIII in the Jordan Valley (Garstang 1932; Garstang et
al. 1935), and in the north of Israel two supposedly coeval cul-
tures, the Tzaan and the Natzurian (Gophna and Sadeh 1988;
Yannai 2013). All these cultural entities are chronologically
situated before the onset of the well-known Late (Ghassulian)
Chalcolithic (beginning in 4500BC).
Though years ago Kaplan (1972) pointed out the relation of
the 6th–5th millennia Israeli sites to the Halaan of the Northern
Levant and Mesopotamia, until recently, and with few excep-
T. Batashi
E.Zippori
E. el-Jarba
Hagosherim
Tell Te `o
Beisamoun
Kabri
Munhata
Jericho
Wadi Rabah
Demircihüyük
Tepecik
Hisarlik
Aruchlo Khramis Gora
Imiris Gora
Hoca Çeşme
Kazane
Höyuk
Aşaği Pinar
Ras Shamra
T. Brak T. Gawra
T. Halaf
T. Kurdu
Domüztepe
Ashur
Mari
Nippur
T.Turllu
Fistikli
Höyuk Shams ed-Din
T.Tzaf
T. Sabi Abyad
T. Ghassul
T. Batashi
E.Zippori
E. el-Jarba
Hagoshrim
Tell Te `o
Munhata
Jericho
Wadi Rabah
Demircihüyük
Tepecik
Hisarlik
Aruchlo Khramis Gora
Imiris Gora
Hoca Çeşme
Kazane
Höyuk
Aşaği Pinar
Ras Shamra
T. Brak T. Gawra
T. Halaf
T. Kurdu
Domüztepe
Ashur
Mari
Nippur
T.Turllu
Fistikli
Höyuk Shams ed-Din
T.Tzaf
T. Sabi Abyad
T. Ghassul
Atlit Yam
Neve Yam
N. Zehora
0300 km
N
Mediterranean
Sea
Fig. 1 – The Southern Levant in the framework of the ancient Near East. Location of sites mentioned in the text.
135-150_Milevski.indd 136 29/11/16 11:14
CNRS ÉDITIONS - TIRÉS À PART • CNRS ÉDITIONS - TIRÉS À PART • CNRS ÉDITIONS - TIRÉS À PART • CNRS ÉDITIONS - TIRÉS À PART
Iconographic motifs from the 6th–5th millennia BC in the Levant and Mesopotamia
137
Paléorient, vol. 42.2, p. 135-149 © CNRS ÉDITIONS 2016
tions (e.g., Yizraeli-Noy 1999; Garnkel 2003; Streit 2015),
this insight was overlooked. Indeed, southern Levantine
research, on this and later periods, has been narrowly focused
on local developments (Milevski and Gandulla 2016), and the
interaction with other regions and cultures of the Northern
Levant—in Lebanon and Syria, Southern and Easter n Anatolia,
Northern and Southern Mesopotamia and Iran and
Mesopotamia (g.1)—has been neglected (and see Gómez et
al., this volume).
In 2007, Edward Banning compiled a series of important
papers in Paléorient 33,1 (2007) that sought to readdress the
problem of this “disconnection” in our knowledge. Though
these papers mainly addressed ceramic typological questions
and the radiocarbon evidence for the Halaan and Wadi Rabah
cultures, they also offered a range of different perspectives on
this topic and diverse forms of analysis (e.g., Banning 2007;
Campbell 2007), thereby highlighting some of the problems
and features of this period.
The chronology of the 6th–5th millenniaBC in the Northern
Levant and Mesopotamia has been discussed at length in the
archaeological literature (table1). We have adapted the schema
based on Campbell (2007), where the Halaan begins ca
6500BC and ends ca mid-6thmillennium, with a possible tran-
sition to the Ubaid from the end of the 6thmillennium – begin-
ning of the 5th millenniumBC. The geographic distribution of
the Halaan culture was extensive and stretched from
Southeastern Turkey, Northern Iraq into parts of Northern
Mesopotamia,and southwards into Syria (Watson 1983).
Table 1 – The chronology of the Early Chalcolithic in the Southern
Levant in connection with the entities of the Ancient Near East.
Years
cal. BC
Northern
Mesopotamia/
Anatolia
Caucasus Northern
Levant
Southern
Levant
4000
4500
5000
5500
6000
Early Uruk
Late Ubaid
Early Ubaid
Halaf
Maikop/
Berikdeebi
Sioni
Alikemek
Neolithic
Shulaveri-
Shomu
Amuq F
Ras Shamra
III B
Ras Shamra
IIIIC
Amuq E
Amuq D
Amuq C
Late Chalcolithic
Ghassulian, Golanian
Early Chalcoltihic 3
Natzurian, Tzafian,
“Bet Shean XVIII”,
Besorian
Early Chalcolithic 2
Jericho VIII, Tzafian,
Qatifian
Early Chalcolithic 1
Wadi Rabah
Pottery Neolithic-
Jericho IX (Lodian)
For parallel periods in the northern part of the Southern
Levant we have adopted the three-part schema proposed by
Getzov (2009): Early Chalcolithic1, 2 and 3 (ECh.1, 2, 3).
The Wadi Rabah culture falls with in the Early Chalcolithic1
that begins ca 5800/5600 cal.BC and ends ca 5000 cal.BC
(Banning 2007). Other cultures are present at this time in the
Southern Levant, for example, at the site of Hagoshrim in the
northern Hulah Valley. At this site the pottery lacks the char-
acteristic Wadi Rabah decoration and most closely resembles
Halaan pottery of Northern Mesopotamia (Getzov 2011),
such that it may represent the southernmost Halaan site.1
Based on chronology, our synchronization for the southern
Levantine Early Chalcolithic1 is with the northern Levantine
and Mesopotamian Halaan and Early Ubaid periods.
The Early Chalcolithic 2, covering ca 5000–4800 cal.BC,
encompasses the Qatian, Jericho VIII and the early part of
the Tzaan cultures, while the Besorian, Nazurian and the late
Tzaan are dated to the Early Chalcolithic3, ca 4800–4500
cal.BC. In this late phase are also placed the early levels of
Teleilat Ghassul, which is also called Pre-Ghassulian (Gopher
2012: Table42.1).
The geographic distribution of Wadi Rabah sites shows that
this culture was spread over the central and northern areas of
the Southern Levant (Gopher and Gophna 1993: Fig.15), the
coastal plain, the Shephelah, the central hill country, the Lower
and Upper Galilee and the Jordan Valley.
Following the theme of the session which gave rise to this
paper, we will highlight the relationship of the southern
Levantine cultures of the 6th–5th millenniaBC with the cultures
of the Northern Levant and Mesopotamia, by investigating the
relationship between a set of similar iconographic motifs from
different geographic regions, and examine the extent and
nature of cultural connections and disconnections between
them. We will rst present a set of archaeological ndings
which attest to contact between the regions. Finally, we will try
to offer a general explanation for this phenomenon within the
conceptual framework of the “interaction sphere”, in the sense
developed by J.Caldwell (1964), namely complex exchange
networks through which status-specic goods or prestige items
and information (especially sacred or symbolic knowledge)
circulate, thereby connecting distinct societies who exhibit
diverse regional cultural traditions in their subsistence base,
1. The pottery assemblage of the Early Chalcolithic1 of Hagoshrim is char-
acterized by a few examples of incised decoration, high frequencies of
bowls with double carination, an extensive black coating on the surface
and several Halaan sherds which have not been found in other sites of the
Early Chalcolithic in Israel.
135-150_Milevski.indd 137 29/11/16 11:14
CNRS ÉDITIONS - TIRÉS À PART • CNRS ÉDITIONS - TIRÉS À PART • CNRS ÉDITIONS - TIRÉS À PART • CNRS ÉDITIONS - TIRÉS À PART
138 I. M
, N. G
, E. G
, A. Y
and L. K
H
Paléorient, vol. 42.2, p. 135-149 © CNRS ÉDITIONS 2016
domestic crafts and non-ritual artefacts.2 Thus, these societies
share a repertoire of supra-local values expressed in styles,
symbolic and ritual materials as well as behavior, i.e. ceremo-
nial acts, that bind them together and extend beyond the bound-
aries of their respective regional traditions. Notably, the source
and paths of the common items and acts are not
unidirectional.
SHARED MATERIAL CULTURE
In recent years it has become clear that the southern
Levantine material culture of the 6th–5th millenniaBC did not
develop in a vacuum. Even if the pottery and int repertoires
differed from those of the northern cultures, several types of
nds present in the southern Levantine sites, originated in the
north. For instance ne stone (chlorite) vessels, perhaps the
most exquisite nds in Hagoshrim and EinZippori, have close
parallels in sites of the Northern Levant and Anatolia
(Rosenberg et al. 2010; Milevski and Getzov 2014). A similar
northern connection has been proposed for slingstones that are
commonly found in Halaan sites and were apparently used in
hunting (Gaulon 2006). These objects also occur in Wadi
Rabah sites in Northern Israel (Rosenberg 2009). Obsidian
items offer clear evidence of connections with Anatolia, either
with the central or with the eastern sources (Gopher et al.
1998; Schechter et al. 2013).
Most importantly, as rst noted by Kaplan (1958a), and
more recently by others (Garnkel 1999: 151; Rosenberg et al.
2006; Getzov et al. 2009), the pottery vessels show evidence of
cultural connections. Typological comparisons reveal several
common characteristics with the pottery of the Wadi Rabah
culture (and see Garnkel 1999: Table15), mainly with sites in
Lebanon (e.g., Kirkbride 1969), and Syria (e.g., von Oppenheim
1943; Gustavson-Gaube 1981; Breniquet 1991), while the main
difference between the Halaan and Wadi Rabah is expressed
in matters of pottery decoration.
It is clear from the pottery of Hagoshrim dated to the
6th millennium BC that a cultural entity that differed from
the Wadi Rabah, existed in the very northernmost regions of
Israel (Getzov 2011). At Ein Zippori (Milevski and Getzov
2014) and other sites in the Southern Levant, the situation dif-
fers since classic Wadi Rabah wares are found (e.g., Garnkel
2. N. Yoffe (1993) applied this concept to the Neolithic/Chalcolithic cultures
of Mesopotamia. For the Levantine Pre-Pottery Neolithic see Bar-Yosef
and Belfer-Cohen (1989), contra Asouti (2006).
1999: 104-152) together with some sherds that are difcult to
place within the spectrum of local wares and are probably
related to the Northern Levant.
Roughly chipped or refashioned sherds—varying in shape
and in the presence/absence of perforations—are another item
in common between the Wadi Rabah and Halaan sites,
although they also occur in earlier Yarmukian sites (e.g.,
Eirikh-Rose and Garnkel 2002) and in later periods. They are
found in Halaan sites such as Tel Sabi Abyad in Syria
(Akkermans and Verhoeven 1995) and Fıstıklı Höyük and
Kazane Höyük in Turkey (Costello 2000) and in Wadi Rabah
sites such as Ein el-Jarba (Kaplan 1969), Teluliyot Batashi
(Kaplan 1958b), and Munhata (Garnkel 1992). At EinZippori
they appear both in the Early Chalcolithic and Early Bronze
Age layers (N.G. personal observation). The reworked sherds
have been interpreted varyingly as spindle whorls, tokens,
objects used in accounting or games, and more recently as
objects that have a mnemonic function (Costello 2000).
Seals are another important part of the corpus of Halaan
nds in the Northern Levant. In the Southern Levant besides
the large assemblage from Hagoshrim (Getzov 2011), they are
present but in small numbers in Wadi Rabah sites (e.g., Getzov
et al. 2009: Fig.33:1; Milevski and Getzov 2014). One of us
(Getzov 2011: Fig.4) has previously published a map showing
every Mesopotamian or northern Levantine sites where simi-
lar seals to those found at Hagoshrim were discovered. This
again highlights the importance of Hagoshrim as belonging to
an entity related to the Halaan, probably to the southernmost
Halaan. A discussion concerning the function of the seals
whether economic, social or cultural is beyond the scope of
this paper, but the presence of these northern motifs in the
Hagoshrim seals must have been understood by the southern
Levantine populations (e.g., Collon 1990).
To conclude, the material culture of the Early Chalcolithic
sites in the Southern Levant clearly shows the presence of an
exchange network of both goods and knowledge relating to
material culture. For this to constitute an “interaction sphere”
as dened by Caldwell (1964), evidence of a shared symbolic
and ritual world needs to be demonstrated.
COMPOSITE FEMALE FIGURINES
In this section we will present a set of nds from recent
salvage excavations conducted by the Israel Antiquities
Authority (IAA hereafter) which we have labelled “composite
female gurines”. They are described below by site.
135-150_Milevski.indd 138 29/11/16 11:14
CNRS ÉDITIONS - TIRÉS À PART • CNRS ÉDITIONS - TIRÉS À PART • CNRS ÉDITIONS - TIRÉS À PART • CNRS ÉDITIONS - TIRÉS À PART
Iconographic motifs from the 6th–5th millennia BC in the Levant and Mesopotamia
139
Paléorient, vol. 42.2, p. 135-149 © CNRS ÉDITIONS 2016
HagosHrim
First and foremost we present an item found at Hagoshrim
in the Hulah Valley (g.2). It was encountered on the oor of
a room in StratumIVb, identied with the Early Chalcolithic1,
contemporaneous with the Wadi Rabah culture, but probably
representing the southernmost extension of the Halaan in the
Levant (Getzov 2011).
The object comprises a complex of anthropomorphic fea-
tures and decorative motifs that have been incised on a caprine
radius shaft, either a sheep (Ovis) or a goat (Capra). We tenta-
tively call it a composite female gurine made on bone, or an
“eye idol” utilizing terminology applied in Mesopotamia by
M.Mallowan (1947) to the Tell Brak idols, but also in prehis-
02 cm
02 cm
toric (Chalcolithic) Spain and Portugal (occulados; Cacho et
al. 2010).
The Hagoshrim incised item is divided into three parts or
registers. At the top, is a face including eyes, eyelids and eye-
brows and/or eyelashes and in the middle register, a bovid
(probably a gazelle because of the long, zigzag-like horns, long
neck and legs; less likely a billy goat) with a cross–hatched
pattern on its body. The animal is facing toward a plant/tree,
possibly a three-frond palm tree, and is grazing on one of the
fronds. The lowest register depicts a pubic triangle with a small
hole between it and the legs of the animal, possibly represent-
ing the navel. Two parallel lines above the triangle possibly
represent a belt.
Interestingly, a fragmented gurine made on limestone
(g. 3) found years ago in the top soil of Hagoshrim (today
in the Museum of Ma’ayan Baruch) portrays a navel, under
it a line and a pubic triangle and legs (Yizraeli-Noy 1999:
No.106).
Fig. 2 – Decorated bone from Hagoshrim
(photo C.Amit, drawing N.Getzov, courtesy of the IAA).
Fig. 3 – Stone gurine from Hagoshrim, top soil
(adapted from Getzov 2011: Fig.10.45).
135-150_Milevski.indd 139 29/11/16 11:14
CNRS ÉDITIONS - TIRÉS À PART • CNRS ÉDITIONS - TIRÉS À PART • CNRS ÉDITIONS - TIRÉS À PART • CNRS ÉDITIONS - TIRÉS À PART
140 I. M
, N. G
, E. G
, A. Y
and L. K
H
Paléorient, vol. 42.2, p. 135-149 © CNRS ÉDITIONS 2016
Neve Yam
During surveys at the submerged site of NeveYam in the
Mediterranean coast, south of Haifa (Galili 2009; Galili et al.
2015), a cattle femur engraved with a very similar motif to that
of the Hagoshrim gurine was found (g.4). The Neve Yam
site is similarly attributed to the Early Chalcolithic 1 (Wadi
Rabah culture) though pottery from the Early Chalcolithic2 is
also present (Galili 2004).
The bone gurine is divided into four registers. The eyes in
the upper part have a double line around them (eyelids) and
lines above them probably representing eyebrows and /or eye-
lashes. Unlike the Hagoshrim item, there are no animals in the
middle register, instead several schematic plants/trees are rep-
resented separated by triangles lled with a net-like or cross-
hatched motif; below this is a register with a cross-hatched
04 cm
Fig. 4 – Decorated bone from Neve Yam (photo E.Galili,
drawing L.Zeigler, courtesy of the IAA).
Fig. 5 – Palette from Ein Zippori (Reg. no.30252). 1) verso;
2)reverse; 11.5x 5.5cm (photo C.Amit, courtesy of the IAA).
motif, and further down a female pubic triangle separated from
the middle register by two parallel lines (possibly a belt). If we
compare this object with the item from Hagoshrim it can be
suggested that several conventions existed as to how to repre-
sent eyes, plants/trees and pubes, while cross hatching was a
common decoration.
eiN Zippori
A third object, which can also be considered as part of the
composite female gurine group, was discovered at the site of
Ein Zippori located in the Lower Galilee near Nazareth
(Milevski and Getzov 2014). It is a fragment of a at lime-
stonepalette with both sides engraved (g. 5). The palette
was found in the Early Chalcolithic layers of the site; unfor-
tunately we cannot assign the locus where it was found to one
of the specic phases of this period (ECh.1 or ECh.2). At rst
glance on what we can call the verso aspect of the palette
(g.5: 1), two birds are clearly depicted and part of an eye in
the upper left hand corner. The birds may represent cranes or
possibly even ostriches, taking into account their long necks,
the position of the heads and the rather short bodies which
are decorated with a net-like motif, similar to the embellish-
ment found on the animals on the Hagoshrim bone. The legs
of the birds are very schematic and in the left bird they are
exed intimating that it is taking off or landing. There is a
circle above the birds that could be interpreted as a nose or a
navel, that is, if a pubic triangle ever existed on the missing
piece.
On the reverse of the palette (g.5: 2) there is another
motif of geometric shapes lled with a net-like pattern, which
could also represent the torso of a human gure, but since the
palette is broken on both ends it is difcult to be more pre-
02 cm
135-150_Milevski.indd 140 29/11/16 11:14
CNRS ÉDITIONS - TIRÉS À PART • CNRS ÉDITIONS - TIRÉS À PART • CNRS ÉDITIONS - TIRÉS À PART • CNRS ÉDITIONS - TIRÉS À PART
Iconographic motifs from the 6th–5th millennia BC in the Levant and Mesopotamia
141
Paléorient, vol. 42.2, p. 135-149 © CNRS ÉDITIONS 2016
cise. However, if we observe the reverse of the Ein Zippori
palette it can be considered as similar to an engraved stone
object found at Munhata (Gopher and Orelle 1995) (g.6)
which though broken, has a pubic triangle engraved on the
one side.
When we reconstruct the palette of EinZippori (g.7) we
can see parallel iconographic motifs with the items from
Hagoshrim and Neve Yam. The eyes and eyelids can be
reconstructed with a high degree of certainty, but the prob-
lem is whether there was a pubic triangle since the palette
was broken at this point. Naturally these are tentative recon-
structions, but they are supported by similar motifs that occur
on objects that were found at this same site that are presented
below.
Two other fragments of incised bones which were found at
the site can be related to the group of female bone gurines we
have presented here. The rst (g.8: 1-2) (Yaroshevich 2016) is
an incised bone fragment showing the upper part of eyes (the
left one with eyelids), while the second (g.8: 3) is an incised
bone fragment which probably represents the lower register
02 cm
1 2
Fig. 6 – Palette from Munhata (adapted by N.Getzov
from Gopher and Orelle 1995), verso (1) and reverse (2).
Fig. 7 – Reconstruction of the Ein Zippori palette
(drawing N.Getzov, courtesy of the IAA).
02 cm
02 cm
02 cm
1
2
3
Fig. 8 – 1-2) Fragment of decorated bone from Ein Zippori (photo
E.Galili, drawing L.Zeiger, courtesy of the IA A); 3) Fragment of deco-
rated bone from Ein Zippori (photo I.Milevski, courtesy of the IAA).
135-150_Milevski.indd 141 29/11/16 11:14
CNRS ÉDITIONS - TIRÉS À PART • CNRS ÉDITIONS - TIRÉS À PART • CNRS ÉDITIONS - TIRÉS À PART • CNRS ÉDITIONS - TIRÉS À PART
142 I. M
, N. G
, E. G
, A. Y
and L. K
H
Paléorient, vol. 42.2, p. 135-149 © CNRS ÉDITIONS 2016
with motifs of tree branches similar to those on the gurines
from Hagoshrim and Neve Yam.
Last but not least, a pottery sherd from a bowl found at
Ein Zippori bears an interesting painted decoration (red on
buff) showing parts of eyes with eyelids (g.9), painted in a
similar style to the eyes on the bone gurines.
COMPOSITE FEMALE FIGURINES
ANDOTHER MESOPOTAMIAN ITEMS
Some time ago Getzov (et al. 2009) and I.Ziffer (2010)
both highlighted the connections between the southern
Levantine composite female gurine from Hagoshrim and the
stone stele of Mari from Mesopotamia, dating to the 4th millen-
niumBC (Margueron 2004: Fig.92).
The stele (g. 10) was found in a pit at the temple of
Ninhursag in VilleII, but according to Margueron (2004: 113-
114) it must represent an heirloom of the VilleI phase, dated to
Fig. 9 – Decorated sherd from EinZippori with reconstruction
(photo I.Milevski, drawing N.Getzov, courtesy of the IAA).
02 cm
04 cm
010 cm
Fig. 10 – Stele of Mari
(adapted by N.Getzov from Margueron 2004: Fig.92).
the Early DynasticI period, i.e. the rst half of the 3rd millen-
nium BC (and see Getzov et al. 2009; Schumacher 2013;
Uehlinger 2014).
The images on the stele of Mari appear in several registers.
The upper part is a face with eyes and eyebrows, and a geomet-
ric motif on top of them; a zigzag, or herringbone-like motif of
two panels. Below the eyes and the nose marked by a line and
a circle are two horizontal lines of horned animals with a pubic
triangle between them. Here again the animals depicted are
bovids, probably gazelles, given their zigzag-like horns, slen-
der bodies and long necks and legs. The upper line of images
depicts schematic trees or branches between which some of
the animals are looking at each other. In the lowest line there
are birds, portrayed in a very schematic way, with long necks
and wings but without legs. The lower register includes a
similar geometric pattern of two panels similar to the upper
135-150_Milevski.indd 142 29/11/16 11:14
CNRS ÉDITIONS - TIRÉS À PART • CNRS ÉDITIONS - TIRÉS À PART • CNRS ÉDITIONS - TIRÉS À PART • CNRS ÉDITIONS - TIRÉS À PART
Iconographic motifs from the 6th–5th millennia BC in the Levant and Mesopotamia
143
Paléorient, vol. 42.2, p. 135-149 © CNRS ÉDITIONS 2016
one (over the eyes).3 The iconography of the stele is markedly
similar to that of the Wadi Rabah gurines –in the style of the
eyes, quadrupeds, trees, pubis and birds as well as in its
composition.
Margueron (2004) contended that the only parallels in
Mesopotamia for the Mari stele were several palettes from
Ashur. These gypsum palettes were uncovered in the 1930s
by W.Andrae (1938: Fig.31). Though their precise location in
the site is unknown, interestingly Andrae wrote that they must
3. No clear parallels to the stele of Mari were found in Mesopotamian contexts
aside from a bed model from Nippur made in clay depicted in the Fribourg
Museum Catalog (Keel und Schroer 2004), dating to the Old Babylonian
period (ca 2000BC). This item depicts a pubic triangle which ties it to the
Mari stele, but the remainder of the iconography is not comparable.
date to the Neolithic, i.e. probably parallel to our Early
Chalcolithic1 (and see above).
The palettes from Ashur (g.11) bear the same motifs as
found on the Mari stele—the quadrupeds, the eyes, the trian-
gles and even the navel. Palettes1 and 2 depict an eye in the
upper part (marked by the arrows), and probably a line, circle
and geometric motifs in the lower part. Thus, the iconography
of the palettes resembles both the images on the stele of Mari
and the Early Chalcolithic composite female gurines from
the Southern Levant. Of course the question of the dating of
the stele of Mari remains unresolved.4
4. Recently, Schumacher (2013) listed several 3rd millennium parallels to
specic features found on the Mari stele; these include occulus painted
010 cm
Fig. 11 – Palettes from Ashur (photos A.Gutow and O.M.Tessmer,
courtesy of the Vorderasiatische Museum, Berlin).
135-150_Milevski.indd 143 29/11/16 11:14
CNRS ÉDITIONS - TIRÉS À PART • CNRS ÉDITIONS - TIRÉS À PART • CNRS ÉDITIONS - TIRÉS À PART • CNRS ÉDITIONS - TIRÉS À PART
144 I. M
, N. G
, E. G
, A. Y
and L. K
H
Paléorient, vol. 42.2, p. 135-149 © CNRS ÉDITIONS 2016
If we return to our southern Levantine motifs, I. Ziffer
(2010) proposed that these were part of a cult which included
sacred trees, animals and pubic triangles, motifs related
to fertility in the animal, vegetal and human kingdoms. As
Ziffer pointed out, the stele of Mari includes all these
elements in a very similar composition. A key issue is then
not only the shared symbolic nature of the different elements
that could point to a common understanding of reality, but
the order in which the people from these cultures presented
them.
on ceramics from TroiaI (Turkey) and ThermiIII (Lesbos), and stipled
triangular pubes on gurines from early 3rd millennium BC contexts at
Demircihüyük- Sariket and TroiaII (Turkey).
APPLIQUÉ FIGURES ON POTTERY
In 1969, Kaplan published a unique carinated holemouth
jar with appliqués of two human gures from the Early
Chalcolithic1 (Wadi Rabah) site of Ein el-Jarba (g.12: 1). He
interpreted the applied motif as a human gure with a mask or
an animal-like face, later dened by Garnkel (2003) as repre-
sentative of southern Levantine depictions of “dancing g-
ures”. The holemouth jar was rec ently analysed petrographically
(Milevski et al. 2016) demonstrating that it is local. Moreover,
local parallels to the vessel type, also attest to its being of
southern Levantine origin.
Parallels to this motif appear from the 6thmillenniumBC
onwards in sites in Anatolia, Tepecik-Çiftlik (Cappadocia),
Fig. 12 – Appliqué human gures on pottery vessels. 1) Ein el-Jarba (photo I.Milevski, redrawn after Kaplan 1969,
courtesy of the IAA); 2)Aruchlo (photo S.Hansen, courtesy of S.Hansen and the German Institute of Archaeology).
010 cm
1
010 cm
2
135-150_Milevski.indd 144 29/11/16 11:14
CNRS ÉDITIONS - TIRÉS À PART • CNRS ÉDITIONS - TIRÉS À PART • CNRS ÉDITIONS - TIRÉS À PART • CNRS ÉDITIONS - TIRÉS À PART
Iconographic motifs from the 6th–5th millennia BC in the Levant and Mesopotamia
145
Paléorient, vol. 42.2, p. 135-149 © CNRS ÉDITIONS 2016
Hoca Çeşme and Aşaği Pinar (Eastern Thrace) (Özdoğan 2011:
Fig.2, d-e, g-h); some of them contemporary to the example
from Ein el-Jarba. The same motif appears later in the 5th mil-
lennium BC in Neolithic sites of South-Eastern Europe
(Garnkel 2003: Fig.2.13, 10-11 and 14; Streit 2015), belong-
ing to the local Cucuteni culture but even earlier examples are
known dating to the early 6th millennium, from sites in the
Caucasus such as Aruchlo, Khramis Gora and Imiris Gora
(Lyonnet et al. 2012).
In sum, the typology and iconography indicate that the Ein
el-Jarba holemouth is a southern Levantine vessel portraying
similar human gures to Caucasian, Anatolian and southeast-
ern European vessels from the 6th–5th millennia BC (Streit
2015; Milevski et al. 2016).
02 cm
04 cm
1 2
3
4 5
Fig. 13 – Pebble female gurines. 1) Nahal Zehora (adapted from
Gopher 2012); 2) Ras Shamra (adapted from de Contenson 1973:
Fig.16); 3) Beisamoun (adapted from Noy 1999: no.114); 4) Western
Galilee; 5) Tel Te`o (adapted from Eisenberg et al. 2001: Fig.9, 6.7)
(drawings N.Getzov).
Fig. 14 – Ovis-pendants. 1) Domüztepe (from http://www.british-
museum.org/research/research_projects/all_current_projects/
domuztepe_excavations_project.aspx) ; 2) Kabri (photo N.Getzov,
Museum of Prehistoric Man, Ma`ayan Baruch, courtesy of the IAA;
3) Hagoshrim (photo C.Amit, Museum of Prehistoric Man, Ma`ayan
Baruch, courtesy of the IAA).
OTHER ICONOGRAPHIC ITEMS
FROM THE SOUTHERN LEVANT
Images perceived by most researchers as representing
expressions of fertility have a tradition in the Neolithic of the
02 cm
1
2
3
échelle des objets 2 et 3 identique ?
135-150_Milevski.indd 145 29/11/16 11:14
CNRS ÉDITIONS - TIRÉS À PART • CNRS ÉDITIONS - TIRÉS À PART • CNRS ÉDITIONS - TIRÉS À PART • CNRS ÉDITIONS - TIRÉS À PART
146 I. M
, N. G
, E. G
, A. Y
and L. K
H
Paléorient, vol. 42.2, p. 135-149 © CNRS ÉDITIONS 2016
Southern Levant with schematic decorated pebbles (Yizraeli-
Noy 1999; Garnkel 2010: 335-337), in some way paralleling
the items from Hagoshrim, EinZippori and NeveYam. These
very schematic gurines (g.13) have eyes (incised lines)
and pubic triangles or vulvas, while sometimes the eyes
are not depicted, as in the case of Nahal Zehora (g.13: 1).
This last example and that from Tel Te‘o (g.13: 5) can be
dated to the Wadi Rabah culture. There is a similar gurine
from RasShamra (g.13: 2), that can tentatively be dated to
the 6th millennium BC; in the other cases the eyes are also
missing.
Another group of iconographic objects we include within
the framework of this paper are what we call “Ovis pendants”,
i.e. pendants that schematically represent the heads of rams
with twisted horns (g.14). In general these are made of exotic
stones, such as the item from Domüztepe in Turkey close to
the Syrian border (g.14: 1). The latter is dated by its context
to the beginning of the 6th millennium BC, the Early Halaf
according to Campbell (2007; but see Campbell and Fletcher
2010).
Very similar objects have been recovered in sites in Israel—
at Kabri (g.14: 2) and Hagoshrim (g.14: 3). Both items are
similar in size and shape, but manufactured on different types
of stone. Unfortunately, these objects cannot be attributed to a
specic period or date based on their contexts but at both sites
there are signicant Early Chalcolithic occupations, identied
with the Wadi Rabah culture. Moreover, in terms of their ico-
nography these pieces closely parallel the Domüztepe item.
Thus, we suggest that they too belong to the shared cultural
repertoire of the Early Chalcolithic in the Southern and
Northern Levant.
CONCLUSIONS: INTERACTION SPHERES
AND ICONOGRAPHIC INFLUENCE
The locations of all the ‘composite female gurines’
and other objects illustrate that numerous items of material
culture and symbolic motifs were common to the Southern
Levant and areas in the Northern Levant and Mesopotamia.
These nds demonstrate that close contact existed between
these regions in the Early Chalcolithic periods (6th and 5th
millenniaBC).
The concept of “interaction spheres” coined by Caldwell
(1964) denotes social, ideological and exchange connections
among distinct societies and separate cultures who share a
restricted corpus of material items that binds these local sys-
tems within a large, inter-regional area. This framework
enables us to examine both the independence and the unity of
regional cultures, as illustrated by the objects discussed here.
From our research, exchange of artefacts as well as sharing of
knowledge and symbols is evident in ceramic typology, use of
refashioned sherds, seals, ne stone vessels, obsidian, sling-
stones and the iconography of the ‘composite female gurines’,
‘Ovis’ pendants and appliqué ceramic motifs, while differ-
ences exist in a range of other features such as ceramic decora-
tive motifs, lithics, architecture, etc.
Though, as noted by Hayden and Schulting (1997), the spe-
cic socio-cultural dynamics that create and maintain interac-
tion spheres may not be fully understood, we propose that in
the Levantine-Mesopotamian sphere, following the ow of
goods, shared values and beliefs developed and these are man-
ifest in a shared corpus of symbols. This facilitated and main-
tained the social interaction and ideological cohesion needed
to exchange goods. While searching for the drivers behind
these connections, we can try to identify the directionality of
the movement of motifs and items. We suggest that the iconog-
raphy of the “composite female” motif, which rst appears in
the Early Chalcolithic1 of Israel, was transplanted to the north
as attested to at sites such as Ashur, since it appears there
slightly later. The stele of Mari although with no clear date,
should also be later than the southern Levantine examples,
possibly a case of iconographic inuence in the longue durée
as suggested by C.Uehlinger (2014).
However, given the relatively rudimentary level of socio-
political complexity that characterized communities in the
Southern Levant at this time, compared to those inhabiting
regions to the north and northeast, it is unlikely that an exten-
sive or one-sided sphere of inuence existed that followed a
south-north direction. Indeed, one clear north to south icono-
graphic transfer is the human ‘dancing’ gure from Ein el-
Jarba since this motif appears in the Caucasus and Anatolia
well before its appearance in the Southern Levant. Likewise,
several other shared features such as obsidian, slingstones, ne
stone vessels are ubiquitous in northern Halaan sites but rare
in Early Chalcolithic southern Levantine sites, and so probably
imported from the north into the south. Likewise, the date of
the ‘Ovis’ pendant from Domüztepe in Anatolia, also suggests
a northern inuence taking in consideration that this object
should be earlier than the southern Levantine items.
The ‘composite female gurines’ and other contemporane-
ous iconographic/symbolic items could have served as a com-
mon symbolic motif, shared by peoples of Anatolia,
Mesopotamia and the Levant. This tallies with the central con-
cept that denes an “interaction sphere”, namely that it is always
135-150_Milevski.indd 146 29/11/16 11:14
CNRS ÉDITIONS - TIRÉS À PART • CNRS ÉDITIONS - TIRÉS À PART • CNRS ÉDITIONS - TIRÉS À PART • CNRS ÉDITIONS - TIRÉS À PART
Iconographic motifs from the 6th–5th millennia BC in the Levant and Mesopotamia
147
Paléorient, vol. 42.2, p. 135-149 © CNRS ÉDITIONS 2016
focused around a specic kind of interaction (Caldwell 1964).
Concepts of human fertility and agriculture, domestication and
hunting, sacred vegetal and animals, that are embodied in these
gurines were part of the shared world of the Late Neolithic/
Early Chalcolithic communities. Clearly, these and other
objects, imply a common socio-economic and ideological base,
most probably common religious beliefs and an understanding
of the world. Consequently, if we consider the full repertoire of
material cultural and iconographic motifs outlined in this paper,
we can suggest that a northern-southern interaction sphere
existed during the 6th–5th millennia BC in the Near East.
ackNowledgmeNts
Objects from our excavations at Hagoshrim, Ein Zippori and
NeveYam are published here by courtesy of the Israel Antiquities
Authority. We are indebted to the director Markus Hilgert and to
the deputy director LutzMartin, Vorderasiatiches Museum, Berlin,
for permission to publish the palettes of Ashur, and to AlrunGutow
and Olaf M.Tessmer (Fotoarchiv) for the photographs of these items.
Thanks are due also to Svend Hansen (German Institute of Archae-
ology – Euroasian Department) for graciously providing the picture
from Aruchlo, and to Estelle Orelle for bringing to our notice the
Halaan refashioned sherds. We are indebted to the four anonymous
reviewers for their critical comments.
Ianir Milevski
Nimrod Getzov
Ehud Galili
Alla Yaroshevich
Israel Antiquities Authority
POB 586 – 91004 Jerusalem – Isr ael
ianir@israntique.org.il
getzov@israntique.org.il
udi@israntique.org.il
allayaroshe@gmail.com
Liora kolska horwitz
The National Natural History Collections
The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Jerusalem – Israe l
lix1000@gmail.com
BIBLIOGRAPHY
A
P
.
M
.
M
.
G
and
V
M
.
1995 An Image of Complexity: The Burnt Village at Late Neolithic
Sabi Abyad, Syria. A merican Journal of Archaeology 99,1: 5 -32.
A
W
.
1938 Das wiedererstandene Assur. Leipzig: J.C.Hinrichs.
A
E
.
2006 Beyond the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B Interaction Sphere. Journal
of World Prehistory 20: 87-126.
B
E
.
B
.
2007 Wadi Rabah and Related Assemblages in the Southern Levant:
Interpreting the Radiocarbon Evidence. Paléorient 33,1: 77-10 2.
B
-
Y
O
.
and
B
-
C
A
.
1989 The Levantine ‘‘PPNB’’ Interaction Sphe re. In: H
I
.
(ed.), People and Culture in Change: Proceedings of the Second
symposium on Upper Paleolithic, Mesolithic and Neolithic
Populations of Europe and the Mediterranean Basin: 59-72.
Oxford (BAR Int. Ser. 508, i).
B
C
.
1991
Un site halafien en Turquie méridionale : Tell Turlu. Rapport sur
la campagne de fouilles de 1962. Akkadica 71 : 1-35.
C
C
.,
M
R
.,
M
J
.
A
.
G
E
. (eds.)
2010 Los Ojos que nunca se cierran. Idolos en las primeras socie-
dades campesinas. Madrid: Museo Arqueológico Nacional.
C
J
.
1964 Interaction Sphe res in Prehistor y. In: C
J
.
and H
R
.
(eds.), Hopewellian Studies: 133-143. Springfield: Illinois State
Museum (Scientific Papers 12.6).
C
S
.
2007 Rethinking Halaf Chronologies. Paléorient 33,1: 101-134.
C
S
.
and
F
A
.
2010 Questioning the Halaf-Ubaid Transition. In: C
R
.
A. and
P
G
.
(eds.), Beyond the Ubaid. Transformation and
Integration in the Late Prehistoric Societies of the Middle East:
69-83. Chicago: The Or iental Institute of the Chicago University
(Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 63).
C
D
.
1990 Near Eastern Seals. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of
California Press (Interpreting the Past).
C
H
. ()
1973 La culture halafienne du niveauIV à Ras Shamra d’après les
campagnes de 1968-1972 dans le sondage préhistorique. Annales
Archéologiques Arabes Syriennes 23 : 85-103.
C
S
.
K
.
2000 Memory tools in Early Mesopotamia. Antiquity 74,28 5: 475 -476.
E
-
R
A
.
and
G
Y
.
2002 The pottery. In: G
Y
.
and M
M
.
A. (eds.), Sha’ar
Hagolan: Neolithic Art in Context: 86-138. Oxford: Oxbow
Books.
E
E
.,
G
R
.
and
G
A
.
2001
Tel Te’o. A Neolithic, Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age Site in
the Hula Valley. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA
Reports 13).
135-150_Milevski.indd 147 29/11/16 11:14
CNRS ÉDITIONS - TIRÉS À PART • CNRS ÉDITIONS - TIRÉS À PART • CNRS ÉDITIONS - TIRÉS À PART • CNRS ÉDITIONS - TIRÉS À PART
148 I. M
, N. G
, E. G
, A. Y
and L. K
H
Paléorient, vol. 42.2, p. 135-149 © CNRS ÉDITIONS 2016
G
E
.
2004 Submerged Prehistoric Settlements of the 6th-7thmill. BP of the
Northern Carmel Coast,Israel. Unpublished PhD Dissertation.
Tel Aviv University (in Hebrew).
2009 Evidence for a Separ ate Burial Ground at t he Submerged Pottery
Neolithic Site of Neve-Yam, Israel. Paléorient 35,1: 31- 46.
G
E
.,
H
L
.
K
.
and
R
B
.
2015 Neve Yam: Anthropomorphic Figu rine. Hadashot Arkheologiyot
– Excavations and Surveys in Israel 127 [http://www.hadashot-
esi.org.il/report_detail_eng.aspx?id=18743&mag_id=122].
G
Y
.
1992 The Pottery Assemblages of the Sha’ar Hagolan and Rabah
Stages of Munhata (Israel). Paris: Association Paléorient (Les
Cahiers du CRFJ 6).
1999
Neolithic and Chalcolithic Pottery of the Southern Levant.
Jerusalem: The Hebrew University of Jerusalem (Qedem 39).
2003 Dancing at the Dawn of Agriculture. Austin: The University of
Texas Press.
2010 Pebble Figurines in the Levant. In: G
Y
.,
B
-
S
D. and
K
N
.,
Shaa`ar Hagolan 3. Symbolic
Dimensions of the Yarmukian Culture: Canonization in
Neolithic Art: 3 19-3 37. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society and
Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
G
J
.
1932 Jericho: City and Necropolis. Second Report. Liverpool Annals
of Archaeology and Anthropology 19: 3-54.
G
J
.,
D
J
.
P
.
and
C
J
.
1935 Jericho: City and Necropolis. Fifth Report. Liverpool Annals of
Archaeology and Anthropology 22: 143-184.
G
A
.
2006 Les pratiques cynégétiques au VIe millénaire avant J.-C. en
Mésopotamie et au Levant (période Halaf). In :
S
I. (éd.),
La chasse. Pratiques sociales et symboliques : 61-72. Paris : De
Boccard (Colloques de la Maison René- Ginouvès 2).
G
N
.
2011 Seals a nd Figurines from the Beginning of the Early Chalcolithic
Period at Ha-Gosherim. ‘Atiqot 67: 1-26 (in Hebrew with English
summary).
G
N
.,
L
-
W
R
.,
S
H
.
and
S
D
.
2009 Horbat Uza: The 1991 Excavations 1. The Early Periods.
Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority (IA A Reports 41).
G
I
.
2009 The Neolithic-Chalcolithic Transition in the Southern Levant:
Late Sixth-Fifth Millennium Culture History. In: S
J
.
J
.
and
L
D. (eds.), Transitions in Prehistory. Essays in
Honor of Ofer Bar-Yosef: 335-355. Oxford: Oxbow Books.
G
A
.
1995 Early Pottery-Bearing Groups in Israel: The Pottery Neolithic
Period. In: L
T
.
E
. (
ed .), The Archaeology of Society in the
Holy Land: 205-225. London: Leicester University Press.
2012 Village Communities of the Pottery Neolithic Period in the
Menashe Hills, Israel: Archaeological Investigations at the Sites
of Nahal Zehora. Vols.I and II. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University
(Institute of Archaeology, Emery and Claire Yass Publications
in Archaeology 22).
G
A
.
and
G
R
.
1993 Cultures of the Eight and Seventh Millennia BP in the Southern
Levant: A Review for the 1990s. Journal of World Prehistory
7,3: 297-353.
G
A
.
and
O
E
.
1995
The Groundstone Assemblages of Munhata, a Neolithic Site in
the Jordan Valley – Israel. A Report. Paris: Association
Paléorient (Les Cahiers des Mi ssions Archéologiques Fran çaises
en Israël 7).
G
A
.,
B
R
.
and
M
O
.
1998 Cultural Contact s in the Neolithic Period: A natolian Obsidian in
the Southern Levant. In: Préhistoire d’Anatolie, genèse de deux
mondes: 641-650. Liège (ER AUL 85).
G
R
.
and
S
S
.
1988 Excavations at Tel Tsaf: An Early Chalcolithic Site in the Jordan
Vall ey. Tel Avi v 15: 3-36.
G
Y
.
1990 The “Qatifian Culture” in Southern Israel and Trans-Jordan:
New Aspects for its Definition. Journal of the Israel Prehistoric
Society 23: 10 0 -112.
G
-
G
C
.
1981
Shams ed-Din Tannira: The Hala fian Pottery of Area A. Berytus
29: 9-182.
H
B
.
and
S
R
.
1997 The Plateau Interaction Sphere and Late Prehistoric Cultural
Complexity. American Antiquity 62,1: 51-85.
K
S
.,
G
K
.,
A
A
.
and
B
E
.
B
.
2008 Late Neolithic Settlement in Wadi Ziqlab, Jordan: al-Basatîn.
Paléorient 34,1: 105-129.
K
Z
.
1998 Th e Late Neolithic in Jorda n. In: H
D. (ed.), The Prehistoric
Archaeology of Jordan: 127-138. Oxford (BAR Int. Ser. 705).
2001 Jebel Abu Thawwab (Er-Rumman), Central Jordan. The Late
Neolithic and Early Bronze Age I Occupations. Berlin: ex
Oriente (Monographs of the Institute of Archaeology and
Anthropology3; Bibliotheca neolithica Asia meridionalis et
occidentalis).
K
J
.
1958a Excavations at Wadi Rabah. Isra el Exploration Jour nal 8,3: 149-
160.
1958b Excavations at Tuleylot Batashi in the Valley of Sorek. Eretz-
Israel 5: 9-24 (in Hebrew).
1969 ‘Ein el-Jarba. Chalcolithic Remains in the Plain of Esdraelon.
Bulletin o f the American Schools of Orien tal Research 194: 2-39.
1972 The Wadi Rabah culture. Twenty years after. Bulletin of the
Haaretz Museum 14: 9-13, 23-29 (in Hebrew with English abs-
tract).
K
O
.
und
S
S
.
2004 Eva – Mutter alles Lebendigen: Frauen und Göttinnenidole aus
dem Alten Orient. Fribourg: Academic Press.
K
H
.,
M
I
.,
H
L
.
K
.
and
M
O
.
2016 Early Wadi Rabah and Chalcolithic Occupations at Tel Dover:
Environmental and Chronological Insights. In:
G
S., K
I., S
K.,
M
M.
(eds.), From Sha’ar Hagolan to Shaaraim. Essays in honor of
Prof. Yosef Garfinkel: 109-154. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration
So ciety.
K
D
.
1969
Early Byblos and the Beqa’a. Mélanges de l’Université Saint-
Joseph 45: 45-60.
135-150_Milevski.indd 148 29/11/16 11:14
CNRS ÉDITIONS - TIRÉS À PART • CNRS ÉDITIONS - TIRÉS À PART • CNRS ÉDITIONS - TIRÉS À PART • CNRS ÉDITIONS - TIRÉS À PART
Iconographic motifs from the 6th–5th millennia BC in the Levant and Mesopotamia
149
Paléorient, vol. 42.2, p. 135-149 © CNRS ÉDITIONS 2016
L
M
.
1978 Abu Gosh et Beisamoun. Deux gisements du VIIe millénaire
avant l’ère chrétienne. Paris: Association Paléorient (Mémoires
et Travaux du CRFJ 2).
L
J
.
L
.
2001 The Late Neolithic and Chalcolithic periods in the Southern
Levant: New data from the site of Teleilat Ghassul, Jordan.
Oxford (BAR Int. Ser. 974).
L
J
.
L
.,
D
G
.
and
K
Z
.
2004 The Middle Phases at Abu Hamid and the Wadi Rabah Horizon.
In: K
F. (ed .), St udies in the History and Archa eology
of Jordan VIII. Archaeological and Historical Perspectives on
Society, Culture and Identity: 263-274. Amman: Department of
Antiquities.
L
B
.,
G
F
.,
H
B
.,
A
T
.,
H
S
.
and
M
G
.
2012 Ancient Kura 2010-2011: The First Two Seasons of Joint Field
Work in the Southern Caucasus, Archäologische Mitteilungen
aus Iran und Turan 44: 2-196.
M
M
.
E
.
L
.
1947 Excavations at Brak and Chagar Bazar. Iraq 9: 1-259.
M
J
.-
C
.
2004 Mari : Métropole de l’Euphrate au IIIe et au début du IIe millé-
naire av. J.-C. Paris : Picard.
M
I
.
and
G
B
.
2016 Biblical Archaeology, Processualism, Post-Processualism and
Beyond. In: M
I
.
and L
T
.
E
.
(eds.), Framing
Archaeology in the Near Ea st. The Applicat ion of Social Theor y
to Fieldwork: 123 -140. Sheffield: Equinox.
M
I
.
and
G
N
.
2014 ‘E n Zippori. Hada shot Arkheologiyot – Excavatio ns and Surveys
in Israel 126 [http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/Report_Detail_
Eng.aspx?id=13675].
M
I
.,
M
Z
.,
C
-
W
A
.
and
G
N
.
2016 The ‘Ein el-Jarba Holemouth Jar: A Local Vessel with Parallels
in the Near East and Southeast Europe. In: G
S
.,
K
I
.,
S
K
.,
M
M. (eds.), From
Sha’ar Hagolan to Shaaraim. Essays in honor of Prof. Yosef
Garfinkel: 155-169. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.
O
M
.
1943
Tel Halaf I: die prähistor ischen Funde. Berl in: Walter d e Gruyter.
Ö
ğ
M
.
2011 Eastern Thrace: The Contact Zone between Anatolia and the
Balkans. In: S
S. and M
M
G. (eds.), The
Oxford Handbook of Ancient Anatolia: 657-682. Oxford
University Press.
R
D
.
2009 Flying Stones – The Slingstones of the Wadi Rabah Culture of
the Southern Levant. Paléorient 35, 2: 99 -112.
R
D
.,
G
N
.
and
A
A
.
2010 New Light on Long-Distance Ties in the Late Neolithic/Early
Chalcolithic Near East: The Chlorite Vessels from Hagoshrim,
Northern Israel. Current Anthropology 51,2: 281-293.
R
D
.,
A
A
.,
E
R
.
and
G
A
.
2006 Beisamoun – the Wadi Rabah Occurrence. Journal of the Israel
Prehistoric Society 36: 129-137.
S
H
.,
M
O
.,
B
R
.,
G
N
.
and
G
A
.
2013 The Obsidian Assemblage from Neolithic Hagoshrim, Israel:
Pressure Technology and Cultural Influence. In: B
F
.,
I
J
.
J. and M
M. (eds.), Stone Tools in Transition.
From Hunter-Gatherers to Farming Societies in the Near East.
7th Conference on PPN Chipped and Ground Stone Industries
of the Fertile Crescent: 509-529. Barcelona: Universitat
Autònoma de Barcelona.
S
T
.
S
.
2013 Some Reflections about an Alabaster Stele f rom Mari (Syria) and
its Possible Relations to the Western Mediterranean. Cuadernos
de Prehistoria y Arqueología de la Universidad Autónoma de
Madrid 39: 7-20.
S
K
.
2015 Interregional Contacts in the 6th millennium BC: Tracing
Foreign Influences in the Holemouth Jar from Ein el-Jarba,
Israel. Levant 47,3: 255-266.
U
C
.
2014 Ni n ḥursaĝa oder „Grosse Mutter“? Eine ikonographisch-ikono-
logische Skizze zu einem Phänomen der longue durée. In:
W
S.J. und G
G. (Hrsg.), „Vom Leben u mfa ngen“.
Ägypten, das Alte Testament und das Gespräch der Religionen.
Gedenkschrift für Manfred Jörg: 407-424. Münster: Ugarit-
Verla g (Ägypten und Altes Testament 80).
W
P
.
J
.
1983
The Halafian Culture: A Review and Synthesis. In: Y
T.C.,
S
P
.
E
.
L
.
and M
P. (eds.), The Hilly Flanks and
Beyond: Essays on the Prehistory of Southwestern Asia pres-
ented to RobertJ. Braidwood: 231-250. Chicago: The Oriental
Institute of the University of Chicago (Studies in Ancient
Oriental Civilization 36).
Y
E
.
2013 The Natzur Culture – a Phase in the Development of the
Chalcolithic Culture or an Independent Culture? [http://www.
antiquities.org.il/article_eng.aspx?sec_id=17&sub_subj_
id=458&id=1149, Accessed on Dec.6, 2014]
Y
A
.
2016 ‘En Z ippori (Giv’at Rabi). Hada shot Arkheologiyot – E xcavations
and Surveys in Israel 128 [www.hadashot-esi.org.il/Report_
Detail_Eng.aspx?id=24979].
Y
-
N
T
.
1999 The Human Figure in Prehistoric Art in the Land of Israel.
Jerusalem: Israel Museum (in Hebrew).
Y
N
.
1993
Mesopotam ian Interaction Spheres. In: Y
N. and C
D
.
(eds.), Early Stages in the Evolution of Mesopotamian
Civilization (Soviet Excavations in Northern Iraq): 257-270.
Tucson: The University of Arizona Press.
Z
I
.
2010 Western Asiatic Tree-Goddesses. Ägypten und Levante 20: 411-
430.
135-150_Milevski.indd 149 29/11/16 11:14
CNRS ÉDITIONS - TIRÉS À PART • CNRS ÉDITIONS - TIRÉS À PART • CNRS ÉDITIONS - TIRÉS À PART • CNRS ÉDITIONS - TIRÉS À PART