magic practices in the neolithic levant

The Zoomorphic Figurines from Sha‘arHagolan: Hunting Magic Practices in theNeolithic Near East

Michael Freikman1 and Yosef Garfinkel2

While much attention has been paid to the anthropomorphic figurines of the Yarmukian culture,

very little is known about the zoomorphic representations made by the same people. This paper

fills the gap by presenting a full corpus of the zoomorphic figurines uncovered at Sha‘ar Hagolan,

the type site of the Yarmukian culture. There are 38 items, all illustrated by drawings and a few by

photographs. In addition, several zoomorphic figurines from Pre-Pottery Neolithic B Munhata have

been re-examined and are discussed here.

Keywords: Neolithic, Yarmukian culture, zoomorphic figurines, Sha‘ar Hagolan, Munhata

Introduction

While zoomorphic figurines are quite often found

during the excavation of Neolithic sites in the Near

East, they are not considered as attractive as

contemporary anthropomorphic representations.

Numerous discussions have been devoted to anthro-

pomorphic figurines (see, for example, Ucko 1968;

Gimbutas 1982; Ippolitoni-Strika 1983; Voigt 1983,

190–200; Hamilton et al. 1996; Noy-Israeli 1999;

Moorey 2003), but less attention has been paid by

scholars to zoomorphic items. Only a few studies

have been devoted specifically to animal figurines

(Schmandt-Besserat 1997; Coqueugniot 2003; Peters

and Schmidt 2004), while in most cases publication of

zoomorphic figurines is embedded in larger excava-

tion reports (see, for example, Broman Morales 1983;

1990; Holland 1982; Garfinkel 1995; de Contenson

1995; 2000; Collet 1996). A detailed review of Near

Eastern Neolithic zoomorphic figurines has been

published by Coqueugniot (2003, 40–42).

Zoomorphic representations are usually treated in

a descriptive manner, without placing these artefacts

in a broader behavioural context. The aim of this

study is to present the zoomorphic figurines from the

Neolithic site of Sha‘ar Hagolan, to discuss various

aspects of this assemblage and to place it within a

broader diachronic perspective. The reader should be

aware that the Neolithic period in the Levant is

subdivided into four phases: Pre-Pottery Neolithic A

(c. 9500–8500 cal BC), Pre-Pottery Neolithic B (c.

8500–7000 cal BC), Pre-Pottery Neolithic C (c. 7000–

6400 cal BC) and Pottery Neolithic (c. 6400–5800 cal

BC). All radiocarbon dates cited in this article are

expressed in calibrated BC format (Garfinkel 1999).

Sha‘ar Hagolan is a Pottery Neolithic site located in

the central Jordan Valley on the north bank of the

River Yarmuk (Fig. 1), first excavated by M. Stekelis

(1972) in 1949–1952. He recognized a new Neolithic

culture, which he designated ‘Yarmukian’ after the

nearby river. Sha‘ar Hagolan thus became the type site

of the Yarmukian culture, which extends over large

parts of the central Levant in Israel, the Palestinian

Authority, Jordan and Lebanon (Garfinkel 1993).

Eleven seasons of excavation were carried out at the

site in 1989–1990 and 1996–2004. This new project was

directed by Y. Garfinkel on behalf of the Institute of

Archaeology of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

These excavations showed that Sha‘ar Hagolan was a

20-ha settlement with large courtyard structures built

along streets (Garfinkel and Miller 2002; Garfinkel

2004). Large assemblages of flint, pottery, stone tools,

animal bones, fired clay artefacts and numerous art

objects were unearthed. The total number of the latter

exceeds 300, making Sha‘ar Hagolan the richest source

of prehistoric art in Israel, and one of the richest in the

Near East.

While Stekelis published no zoomorphic figurines

at all, a relatively large corpus was found in the new

Michael Freikman and Yosef Garfinkel, Institute of Archaeology, TheHebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem 91905, Israel; 1email:[email protected], 2email: [email protected]

� Council for British Research in the Levant 2009Published by ManeyDOI 10.1179/175638009X427567 Levant 2009 VOL 41 NO 1 5

excavations. Previous data on Yarmukian zoo-

morphic figurines included one item from a

Yarmukian context at Hazorea (Anati et al. 1973,

pl. XVIII:3), two from Jebel Abu Tawwab (Kafafi

2001, 64) and 22 from Munhata (Garfinkel 1995, 42–

43). From contemporary Pottery Neolithic sites a few

zoomorphic figurines are published: three from

Pottery Neolithic A Jericho (Holland 1982) and three

from Tell Ramad Layer III (de Contenson 2000). The

38 objects from Sha‘ar Hagolan thus comprise by far

the largest assemblage of zoomorphic figurines from

the Pottery Neolithic period of the southern Levant.

The corpus

The corpus of zoomorphic figurines from Sha‘ar

Hagolan consists of 38 objects (Figs 2–6). Although a

few were found in mixed contexts such as topsoil,

most of them derive from secure Yarmukian

contexts.

In terms of state of preservation, the figurines were

categorized as follows: nearly complete (two items),

head and part of the forequarters (three items), head

fragment (12 items), headless (one item) and broken

horns (20 items). The fact that no complete figurines

have been preserved is easily explained by the

relatively fragile material (poorly fired clay) from

which they are made. No complete zoomorphic

figurines were found at either Munhata or Jebel

Abu Tawwab, and the much larger corpus of fired

clay anthropomorphic figurines from Sha‘ar Hagolan

likewise includes almost no complete items.

Manufacturing technology

Most of the items are made of local clay with very

limited inclusions visible to the naked eye. The few

inclusions do not seem to have been intentionally

added, in contrast to the standard clay mix used by

the potters of the site to make the pottery vessels and

the elaborate anthropomorphic figurines. The zoo-

morphic items were fashioned manually in a rather

schematic and crude manner. Little attention was

paid to the finish, so they are not smoothed and many

of them bear fingerprint impressions. There is no

decoration of any kind, unlike the anthropomorphic

figurines, which are often decorated with red paint

and sometimes incised. Most of the zoomorphic

objects are poorly fired and their final colour is

usually grey in different shades, rarely beige.

This is the case for most of the other zoomorphic

figurines uncovered at Neolithic sites in the Near

East, as described, for example, in the report on

Sarab:

This misshaping, squashing, or twisting gives the

impression that the figure itself was not important,

that it was the act of giving the clay form that was

the reason for the manufacture. Another clue, of

course, is the fragmentary and battered state of

most of the animal material. The general small size

of the pieces is also noteworthy. The makers did not

seem to be concerned with creating anything like a

small statue or votive object to be preserved and

venerated. (Broman Morales 1990, 9)

The zoomorphic items of Sha‘ar Hagolan contin-

ued the tradition of simple modelling and firing of

clay objects that was practiced in the Pre-Pottery

Neolithic periods. The introduction of pottery

manufacture did not affect this category of finds at

all. This probably indicates either that it was

important to maintain a simple manufacturing

tradition for the zoomorphic items, or that a different

segment of the population produced the pottery

vessels. It is also possible that the usage of

zoomorphic items did not require them to be as

strong as pottery.

Figure 1 The location of Sha‘ar Hagolan

Freikman and Garfinkel Zoomorphic Figurines from Sha‘ar Hagolan

6 Levant 2009 VOL 41 NO 1

Typology

Although most of the zoomorphic figurines are

quadruped horned animals, identification of specific

species is usually impossible. Nevertheless, some

figurines have particular anatomical characteristics

which enable us to suggest a tentative identification.

1. A large head with horns projecting forward from

the forehead (Figs 2, 7). Similar items, defined as

bovid figurines, were found at ‘Ain Ghazal

(McAdam 1997, 131–32). These were described

as the now extinct aurochs (wild cattle).

2. A quadruped with horns projecting from the

back or sides of the head (Figs 3, 4, 5:1–2, 8, 9).

These are probably goats and sheep. When the

neck is relatively short they are strongly remi-

niscent of sheep, and this particular head shape

can be traced through the Middle Chalcolithic of

Tel Tsaf (Garfinkel et al. 2007, fig. 19) to the

Late Chalcolithic ram from Gilat (Alon 1976).

(Editor’s Note: the term Middle Chalcolithic as

used by the present author is broadly equivalent

to that currently termed Early Chalcolithic by

the majority of scholars.) A fragment of a

zoomorphic figurine found in a Yarmukian

context at Hazorea was interpreted as a goat

head (Anati et al. 1973, pl. XVIII:3), but its

state of preservation does not allow such an

identification.

3. A quadruped with a pinched ridge on top of the

back (Figs 5:3, 10). Similar representations are

recorded at Pre-Pottery Neolithic B Munhata

(eight items, Garfinkel 1995: 22, fig. 16), Tell

Ramad (de Contenson 2000, fig. 100:10–11) and

‘Ain Ghazal, where the feature was described as

a spinal ridge, sharp and well marked, sometimes

pinched out (McAdam 1997, 131, fig. 13;

Rollefson and Simmons 1985, 40, table 6).

These examples predate the Pottery Neolithic

Sha‘ar Hagolan. At Cayonu, 30 of the 33

figurines defined as dogs have the ‘pinched

Figure 2 Zoomorphic clay figurines from Sha‘ar Hagolan: cattle heads


Levant 2009 VOL 41 NO 1 7

spine’ (Broman Morales 1990, 4–5). Their

definition as dogs was based on their curly tails.

Regrettably, the tail of the Sha‘ar Hagolan

specimen has not survived to confirm the

resemblance. Two other such body fragments

from Cayonu were assigned to pigs (Broman

Morales 1990, 59).

4. Two head fragments of birds(?) (Fig. 5:4–5).

Plastic representations of birds in the Pottery

Neolithic period are extremely rare. At Boukras

(late 7th millennium BC) two wall paintings of

ostriches (or cranes) were reported (Clason

1989–90). A small bird figurine was reported

from a mixed context in ‘Eneolithique moyen’

Tell el-Far‘ah (de Vaux and Steve 1947, 398,

fig. 1:21), in which a Yarmukian sherd was

found (de Vaux and Steve 1947, fig. 1:34). One

of the zoomorphic figurines at Jebel Abu

Thawwab was interpreted as a bird (Kafafi

2001, 64, fig. 23:1), and one more at ‘Ain

Ghazal (Rollefson et al. 1990, 102, fig. 3).

5. Twenty broken horn fragments (Fig. 6).

Although these cannot be related to any specific

group, they testify that most of the zoomorphic

figurines were horned quadrupeds.

Spatial distribution

The distribution of the objects in the site was

examined by excavation area and architectural unit

(Figs 11–12). Figurines were found in the following

areas: E (20 items, 52.6%), G (eight items, 21%), H

Figure 3 Zoomorphic clay figurines from Sha‘ar Hagolan: goats and sheep



(four items, 10.5%) and N (six items, 15.8%). None

were found in Area F.

In Area E the excavations uncovered two complete

large courtyard structures, Building I (233 sq m) and

Building II (710 sq m), as well as small parts of three

other structures (III, IV and V). In Area H one

complete courtyard structure (257 sq m) and small

parts of two other structures were revealed (Garfinkel

2004; 2006).

In Area E, Structures I and III yielded one item

each, both found in the courtyards. The partly

excavated Structure IV yielded four items, all found

in the courtyard. Three of them, including two horns

probably belonging to the same figurine, were found

in the same location. The largest number of

zoomorphic figurines (15 items) was found in

Structure II. One item was found in Room L and

all the rest were found in the courtyard, one inside a

Figure 4 Zoomorphic clay figurines from Sha‘ar Hagolan: goats and sheep



disposal pit. The last item from Area E, a horn

fragment, came from a test pit dug into an earlier

Yarmukian phase, which predates all excavated

architecture in this area.

In Area H the completely uncovered Structure I

yielded only one zoomorphic fragment, found in the

central courtyard, not far from the main entrance.

Three other items were found in the courtyards of the

adjacent partly excavated units.

This picture is similar to that of other categories of

finds, like pottery, anthropomorphic figurines and

fired clay objects, of which the majority of finds were

made in the courtyard of Structure II of Area E (Ben-

Shlomo and Garfinkel 2002; Eirikh-Rose 2003;

Freikman 2006). Most of the finds in the other

structures were also made in the open courtyards. A

consistent pattern is thus clear: the objects were

found almost exclusively in the courtyards and

Figure 5 Zoomorphic clay figurines from Sha‘ar Hagolan: goats, sheep, a quadruped with a pinched ridge on its back

and bird heads



usually broken. No signs of special treatment, such as

burial in pits, were attested; objects were simply

discarded when they went out of use. This domestic

refuse accumulated in the courtyards, which were

probably cleaned less carefully than the rooms.

In contrast to the lack of evidence for ceremonial

burial of zoomorphic figurines at Sha‘ar Hagolan, a

pit containing more than 20 such figurines was

uncovered at Pre-Pottery Neolithic B ‘Ain Ghazal

(Schmandt-Besserat 1997) and groups were buried in

pits at Catal Huyuk (Mellaart 1967, pl. 66).

Discussion: the function of the zoomorphicfigurines

Several explanations are customarily offered for

the function of Neolithic figurines: objects of venera-

tion, children’s toys, tokens, and finally objects used

in magic rites. These were first suggested for

Figure 6 Zoomorphic clay figurines from Sha‘ar Hagolan: horn fragments



anthropomorphic figures (Ucko 1968; Voigt 1983)

but are relevant to the zoomorphic items as well

(Coqueugniot 2003).

Objects of veneration

The possibility that zoomorphic figurines represent

gods or objects of veneration of some kind is usually

raised in the context of the divine pair ‘Femme-

Taureau’. For instance, Cauvin (1994) interprets the

bulls as representing a male divinity associated with a

female goddess. This possibility was also discussed by

Coqueugniot (2003, 44).

In the context of Sha‘ar Hagolan we can examine

this suggestion by comparing the assemblages of

anthropomorphic and zoomorphic figurines. From

the manufacturing point of view, four features are of

importance:

Figure 7 Two sides of a cattle head from Sha‘ar Hagolan

(Fig. 2:2)

Figure 8 A clay figurine of a goat from Sha‘ar Hagolan

(Fig. 3:1)

Figure 9 A clay figurine of a goat from Sha‘ar Hagolan

(Fig. 3:2)

Figure 10 A clay figurine from Sha‘ar Hagolan with a

pinched ridge on top of the back (Fig. 5:3)



a. While better clay was used for the anthropo-

morphic figures, the clay used for the zoomorphic

figurines is basic clay without inclusions.

b. While the anthropomorphic figurines were well

fired, the zoomorphic figurines were fired at a

lower temperature and probably for a shorter

time.

c. While the anthropomorphic figurines of Sha‘ar

Hagolan are among the highest artistic achieve-

ments of the Neolithic period in the Near East,

being made with great care and with much

attention to detail, the zoomorphic items were

fashioned schematically with minimal effort and

were crudely finished.

d. While the anthropomorphic figurines were deco-

rated with paint and sometimes incisions, no

traces of decoration are evident on the zoo-

morphic items.

All of these features create a striking contrast

between the anthropomorphic and zoomorphic figur-

ines at Sha‘ar Hagolan. We may safely conclude that

the anthropomorphic items were indeed used as

venerated cultic items, representing supernatural

powers. Such a function is inappropriate for the

zoomorphic items.

Children’s toys

The possibility that the zoomorphic figurines are

actually toys for children, or devices to teach the

anatomy of animals and how to hunt them, cannot

totally be ruled out (Kenyon 1957, 59–60; Treuil

1983; McAdam 1997, 139). Indeed, ethnographic

evidence for the didactic use of figurines has been

Figure 11 Distribution map of the various zoomorphic figurines in the main excavation area (Area E)

Figure 12 Distribution map of the various zoomorphic fig-

urines in Area H



published (Ucko 1968, 426; Talalay 1993). However,

that the Neolithic zoomorphic figurines are toys is

not self-evident:

It is hard to imagine children playing creatively with

clay and not making models of the smaller creatures

with which they must have been thoroughly familiar.

A frog or turtle would present a very attractive form

to model, and snakes would be very simple and

natural to do. (Broman Morales 1983, 377)

Neolithic zoomorphic figurines are distributed

throughout the Near East, from Turkey to southern

Jordan and to Iraqi Kurdistan, over almost two

millennia. No other shapes of objects of daily life,

such as flint tools or pottery vessels, survived for such

Figure 13 Two sides of a clay figurine from Sha‘ar

Hagolan bearing cuts and stab marks (Fig. 4:6)

Figure 14 Three Pre-Pottery Neolithic B clay figurines

from Munhata bearing cuts and piercing



a long duration. A deeper meaning was apparently

embedded in these items. Indeed, they were some-

times buried in groups in pits, as in the case of 24

figurines found in one pit at ‘Ain Ghazal (Rollefson

1986; Schmandt-Besserat 1997) and at Catal Huyuk

(see further discussion below, Mellaart 1967, pl. 66).

Burial of cultic objects is a well-known phenomenon

in the Neolithic Near East (Garfinkel 1994).

Tokens

The use of plastic representations of animals as

tokens was proposed by Schmandt-Besserat (1992,

230–31, pl. 15). However, not every item made of clay

is a token. At Sha‘ar Hagolan we have a large

assemblage of fired clay items made in various

geometric shapes, as well as potsherds shaped into

discs (Eirikh-Rose 2003; Freikman 2006). The dis-

tribution of these items in the courtyard structures is

similar to that defined as typical of tokens by

Schmandt-Besserat (1992, 230–31): they are usually

found in small groups inside the rooms and in larger

clusters in dumping areas in the courtyards. The

zoomorphic figurines are usually found individually.

Objects used in magic rites

This possibility has been raised by various scholars.

When presenting zoomorphic fired clay figurines

from Catal Huyuk, Mellaart wrote:

Nearly all these figures are intentionally maimed or

broken and many bear ‘wounds’ inflicted with

obsidian arrows or other offensive weapons. Found

in groups buried in pits, these figures had evidently

been used in a hunting ritual in which they had

served as substitutes for the animals the hunters

hoped to kill. (1967, pl. 66)

A number of paintings depict human figures

skipping around large animal figures. There were

described as ‘dancing hunters’ (Mellaart 1967, pls 61–

64).

This interpretation was supported by the discovery

of a large and rich assemblage of zoomorphic

figurines at ‘Ain Ghazal (Rollefson 1986; McAdam

1997; Schmandt-Besserat 1997). This includes a cache

of 24 cattle figurines buried together in a pit and

another pit containing two other figurines, decapi-

tated and with tiny flint blades stuck in the bodies

(Rollefson 1986, 48–50, pl. II:4–5). The arrowheads

used by the Neolithic hunters were also made of flint.

The ‘Ain Ghazal items present a striking parallel to

the dolls still used in various parts of the world for

magic practices. A specific person is represented by

an anthropomorphic doll, through which one can

affect the emotions or physical condition of that

person. Figurines have been described by Ucko

(1968, 431) as ‘vehicles for sympathetic magic’. In

this interpretation, the zoomorphic figurines

were probably made shortly before a hunting

campaign, sometimes mutilated and stabbed, and

then abandoned.

The discovery at ‘Ain Ghazal shows that use marks

on figurines can indeed include stabbing and cutting.

Such marks can be seen on at least two other figurines

from the site (McAdam 1997, 134), Sha‘ar Hagolan

(Figs 4:6, 13), finds from various layers in Munhata

(Garfinkel 1995, figs 33:12, 38:1, 39:3) and finds from

Tell Ramad (de Contenson 2000, pl. 22:4–5). At Sabi

Abyad it was reported that ‘a shallow depression is

visible, possibly the result of an attempt to insert

another object into the figurine’ (Collet 1996, 406).

The assemblage of zoomorphic figurines from Jarmo,

dated to the 7th and early 6th millennia BC, includes

nearly 1,100 items (Broman Morales 1983, 371).

More than half of the published objects belonging to

group F (76 items) bear a double incision behind the

ears. Also noteworthy are diagonal incisions on the

surface of objects belonging to groups H and K, and

some of the objects belonging to group K are also

punctured (Broman Morales 1983, figs 153, 155). The

zoomorphic figurines from Sarab also bear signs of

injury (Broman Morales 1990, pls 2:a, 5:d–e). The

authors, though they pay no attention to the ‘hunting

marks’ on the figurines, still consider them ‘magic

wished objects’ items intended to bring luck during

hunting or to assure the flourishing of the herd.

Marks of injury are mentioned at Catal Huyuk

(Mellaart 1967, pl. 66 lower). At Sha‘ar Hagolan a

few zoomorphic figurines bear similar marks, namely

holes made by inserting sharp or pointed objects into

the animal’s body and cut marks on the back of the

neck.

Re-examination of the zoomorphic figurines of

Munhata, now held in the storehouse of the Israel

Antiquities Authority, revealed at least five examples

of such practices. In at least three instances definite

signs of piercing can be seen (Fig. 14). One of these is

pierced several times in the belly and sides and is cut

twice on the back, in a manner very similar to one of

the items from Sha‘ar Hagolan. It is likely that more

figurines from different sites bear such marks, which

were overlooked by scholars prior to the ‘Ain Ghazal

discoveries.

It seems that zoomorphic figurines were often

ritually ‘killed’ before the actual hunt by Neolithic

hunters to guarantee good luck. This may explain

many characteristics of these items: they are very

crude and of poor quality, generally small in size (a



few centimetres in length), not made for long use,

usually depict wild mammals, and finally were

deliberately pierced, cut and broken.

During the later phases of the Pre-Pottery

Neolithic period domesticated animals were intro-

duced to the southern Levant, but constituted a small

percentage of the total fauna consumed (Horwitz

et al. 1999). By the Pottery Neolithic period

domesticated animals had become the majority of

the fauna. At Sha‘ar Hagolan, for example, the

clearly domesticated animals (sheep, goat and pig?)

constitute 73.1% of animal bones, and it is possible

that the cattle (10.7%) were also domesticated (Hesse

2002). As wild animals became a lesser component of

the diet, hunting lost its economic importance. One

would expect to see a decrease in the relative numbers

of zoomorphic figurines over time in accordance with

this process, and Table 1 indeed presents such a

tendency. The table presents the numbers of zoo-

morphic and anthropomorphic figurines in various

Neolithic sites. Putting together this information

presented two main problems: in some cases clear

quantitative data are not published, and the publica-

tion of Tell Ramad includes under the heading of

‘anthropomorphic figurines’ a variety of items

classified at other sites as ‘gaming pieces’. To over-

come the latter problem, the data from Layers II and

III at this site presented in the table include only

zoomorphic figurines classified as ‘quadrupedes’ and

anthropomorphic figurines classified as ‘figurines

assises’. As we can see from the table, the relative

proportion of zoomorphic figurines decreases over

time. Thus, there is a clear correlation between the

introduction of domesticated animals and a decrease

in the numbers of zoomorphic figurines.

Hunting ceremonies did not entirely die out in the

Pottery Neolithic period, as exemplified by the wall

paintings of Catal Huyuk. In a number of these

paintings, human figures are shown skipping around

large animal figures. These were described as ‘dancing

hunters’ (Mellaart 1967, pls 61–64). However, unlike

definite dancing scenes of the period, there is no order

in the arrangement of the human figures (Garfinkel

2003, 60). Thus, the Catal Huyuk scenes may well

depict hunting magic rituals in which the animal in

the centre was actually a figurine, like the items

discussed in this article.

Conclusions

The main conclusion that can be drawn from the data

collected at Sha‘ar Hagolan is that the world of

zoomorphic figurines is fundamentally different from

that of anthropomorphic ones. The latter were made

by well-trained potters from a specific clay mix,

carefully modelled and decorated, and well fired.

They were made to last. The zoomorphic figurines, on

the other hand, were apparently simply manufactured

ad hoc artefacts. They were probably made shortly

before hunting expeditions, sometimes stabbed and

incised, and then abandoned. It is very likely that

they functioned as ‘vehicles of magic’.

During the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B and C periods,

when hunting was a major component of human

survival, the zoomorphic figurines were of greater

significance. They were made in relatively large

numbers and after the ceremony were sometimes

buried in pits. As hunting lost its importance with the

introduction of domesticated animals, the zoo-

morphic figurines declined in number and slowly

went out of use.

In the following Chalcolithic period these rude clay

figurines bearing signs of deliberate damage disap-

pear. Much more elaborate zoomorphic figurines

appeared at this stage, similarly produced as their

anthropomorphic analogies.

Acknowledgements

The excavations at Sha‘ar Hagolan and the analysis

of the finds were sponsored over the years by various

agencies: Israel Science Foundation, Philip and

Muriel Berman Center for Biblical Archaeology,

Curtiss T. and Mary G. Brennan Foundation, Irene

Sala CARE foundation and Oxford Mediterranean

Table 1 The proportions of zoomorphic and anthropomorphic clay figurines in Neolithic sites of the southern Levant

Site Period Zoomorphic Anthropomorphic Total % zoomorphic References

‘Ain Ghazal PPNB 123 43 166 74.1 Schmandt-Besserat 2008; McAdam 2008Munhata (3–6) PPNB 36 19 55 65.5 Garfinkel 1995Tell Ramad I PPNB 8 12 20 40.0 de Contenson 2000, tab. 46Ghoraife (I–II) PPNB 16 4 20 80.0 de Contenson 1995, 354, 356Tell Ramad II PPNB/C 60 5 65 92.3 de Contenson 2000, tabs 56, 60‘Ain Ghazal PPNC 11 1 12 91.7 Schmandt-Besserat 2008; McAdam 2008‘Ain Ghazal PN 6 5 11 54.5 Schmandt-Besserat 2008; McAdam 2008Munhata (2a) PN 22 40 62 35.5 Garfinkel 1995Tell Ramad III PN 3 12 15 20.0 de Contenson 2000, tab. 63Sha‘ar Hagolan PN 38 102 140 27.1



Trust. The items were drawn by O. Dubovsky and

D. Ladiray, and photographed by V. Naikhin.

BibliographyAlon, D. (1976) Two cult vessels from Gilat. ‘Atiqot (English Series) 11,

116–18.

Anati, E., Avnimelech, M., Hass, N. and Meyerhof, E. (1973) Hazorea

I. Archivi 5. Brescia: Centro di Studi Preistorici.

Ben Shlomo, D. and Garfinkel, Y. (2002) The spatial distribution of the

anthropomorphic figurines in Area E. In Garfinkel and Miller

2002, 209–13.

Broman Morales, V. (1983) Jarmo figurines and other clay objects. Pp.

369–423 in R. J. Braidwood (ed.), Prehistoric Archaeology along

the Zagros Flanks. Chicago: Oriental Institute.

— (1990) Figurines and Other Clay Objects from Sarab and Cayonu.

Chicago: Oriental Institute.

Cauvin, J. (1994) Naissance des divinites, naissance de l’agriculture.

Paris: CNRS.

Clason, A. T. (1989–90) The Boukras bird frieze. Anatolica 16, 209–13.

Collet, P. (1996) The figurines. Pp. 403–15 in P. M. M. G. Akkermans

(ed.), Tell Sabi Abyad I. The Late Neolithic Settlement. Istanbul:

Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut.

Contenson, H. de (1995) Aswad et Ghoraife: sites neolithiques en

Damascene (Syria) aux VIII–VII millenaires avant l’ere chretienne.

Beyrouth: Institut Francais d’Archeologie du Proche-Orient.

— (2000) Ramad: site neolithique en Damascene (Syria) aux VIII–VII

millenaires avant l’ere chretienne. Beyrouth: Institut Francais

d’Archeologie du Proche-Orient.

Coqueugniot, E. (2003) Figurines et representations animals dans les

villages neolithiques du proche-orient. Anthropozoologica 38, 35–

48.

Eirikh-Rose, A. (2003) The pottery assemblage of Sha‘ar Hagolan.

Unpublished MA thesis, Hebrew University of Jerusalem (in

Hebrew).

Freikman, M. (2006) The assemblage of baked clay items of Sha‘ar

Hagolan. Unpublished MA thesis, Hebrew University of

Jerusalem (in Hebrew).

Garfinkel, Y. (1993) The Yarmukian culture in Israel. Paleorient 19/1,

115–34.

— (1994) Ritual burial of cultic objects: the earliest evidence.

Cambridge Archaeological Journal 4, 159–88.

— (1995) Human and Animal Figurines of Munhata, Israel. Les Cahiers

des Missions Archeologiques Francaises en Israel, Volume 8.

Paris: Association Paleorient.

— (1999) Neolithic and Chalcolithic Pottery of the Southern Levant.

Qedem 39. Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew

University.

— (2003) Dance at the Dawn of Agriculture. Austin: University of Texas

Press.

— (2004) The Goddess of Sha‘ar Hagolan, Excavations at a Neolithic

Site in Israel. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.

— (2006) The social organization at Neolithic Sha‘ar Hagolan: the

nuclear family, the extended family and the community. Pp. 103–

11 in T. Benning and M. Chazan (eds), Domesticating Space.

Construction, Community, and Cosmology in the Late Prehistoric

Near East. Studies in Early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence

and Environment 12. Berlin: ex oriente.

— and Miller, A. M. (2002) Sha‘ar Hagolan Vol 1. Neolithic Art in

Context. Oxford: Oxbow.

—, Ben Shlomo, D., Freikman, M. and Vered, A. (2007) Tel Tsaf: the

2004–2006 excavation seasons. Israel Exploration Journal 57, 1–33.

Gimbutas, M. A. (1982) The Goddesses and Gods of Old Europe, 6500–

3500 BC, Myths and Cult Images. Berkeley: University of

California Press.

Hamilton, N., Marcus, J., Bailey, D., Haaland, G., Haaland, R. and

Ucko, P. J. (1996) Viewpoint: can we interpret figurines?

Cambridge Archaeological Journal 6, 281–307.

Hesse, B. (2002) Between the revolutions: animal use at Sha‘ar Hagolan

during the Yarmukian. In Garfinkel and Miller 2002, 247–55.

Holland, T. A. (1982) Figurines and miscellaneous objects. Pp. 551–64

in K. Kenyon and T. A. Holland (eds), Jericho IV. London:

British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem.

Horwitz, L. K., Tchernov, E., Ducos, P., von den Driesch, A., Becker,

C., Martin, L. and Garrard, A. (1999) Animal domestication in

the southern Levant. Paleorient 25/2, 63–80.

Ippolitoni-Strika, F. (1983) Prehistoric roots: continuity in the image

and rituals of the Great Goddess cult in the Near East. Rivista

degli Studi Orientali 57, 1–41.

Kafafi, Z. (2001) Jebel Abu Thawwab (er-Rumman), Central Jordan.

Berlin: ex oriente.

Kenyon, K. (1957) Digging Up Jericho. London: Ernest Benn.

McAdam, E. (1997) The figurines from the 1982–1985 seasons of

excavations at ‘Ain Ghazal. Levant 29, 115–45.

— (2008) Human figurines. In ‘Ain Ghazal Excavation Reports Home

Page http://menic.utexas.edu/ghazal

Mellaart, J. (1967) Catal Huyuk, a Neolithic Town in Anatolia. London:

Thames & Hudson.

Moorey, P. R. S. (2003) Idols of the People. Miniature Images of Clay in

the Ancient Near East. The Schweich Lecture of the British

Academy 2001. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Noy-Israeli, T. (1999) Image of Man in Prehistoric Art in Land of Israel.

Jerusalem: Israel Museum (in Hebrew).

Peters, J. and Schmidt, K. (2004) Animals in the symbolic world of Pre-

Pottery Neolithic Gobekli Tepe, south-eastern Turkey: a pre-

liminary assessment. Anthropozoologica 39, 179–218.

Rollefson, G. (1986) Neolithic ‘Ain Ghazal (Jordan): ritual and

ceremony, II. Paleorient 12/1, 45–52.

— and Simmons, A. (1985) The Early Neolithic village of ‘Ain Ghazal,

Jordan: preliminary report on the 1983 season. BASOR

Supplement 23, 35–52.

—, Kafafi, Z. and Simmons, A. (1990) The Early Neolithic village of

‘Ain Ghazal, Jordan: preliminary report on the 1988 season.

BASOR Supplement 27, 97–118.

Schmandt-Besserat, D. (1992) Before Writing. Vol. 1: From Counting to

Cuneiform. Austin: University of Texas Press.

— (1997) Animal symbols at ‘Ain Ghazal. Expedition 39, 48–58.

— (2008) Animal figurines. In ‘Ain Ghazal Excavation Reports Home

Page http://menic.utexas.edu/ghazal

Stekelis, M. (1972) The Yarmukian Culture of the Neolithic Period.

Jerusalem: Magnes Press.

Talalay, L. E. (1993) Deities, Dolls, and Devices. Neolithic Figurines

from Franchthi Cave, Greece. Bloomington, IN: Indiana

University Press.

Treuil, R. (1983) Le Neolithique et le Bronze Ancien Egeens. Paris: Ecole

Francaise d’Athenes.

Ucko, P. J. (1968) Anthropomorphic Figurines of Predynastic Egypt and

Neolithic Crete with Comparative Material from the Prehistoric

Near East and Mainland Greece. London: Andrew Szmidla.

Vaux, R. de and Steve, A. M. (1947) La premiere campagne de fouilles

a Tell el-Far‘a, pres Naplouse. Revue Biblique 54, 394–433.

Voigt, M. M. (1983) Hajji Firuz Tepe, Iran: The Neolithic Settlement.

University Museum Monograph No. 50. Philadelphia: University

Museum.



magic practices in the neolithic levant

Documents