On Prehistoric Human Figurines in Iran: Current Knowledge and Some Reflections

Iranica Antiqua, vol. XXXIX, 2004 ON PREHISTORIC HUMAN FIGURINES IN IRAN: CURRENT KNOWLEDGE AND SOME REFLECTIONS BY Aurelie DAEMS (Ghent University) With this paper, our intention is to have a closer look at the human free- standing figurines that were being produced from the late 8th to the 5th early 4th millennium BC in Iran1. Some 20 sites2 within modern day Iran have revealed evidence for the production of prehistoric clay or stone human figurines. Of course, one has to bear in mind that – to make a cultural overview over the millennia – one should not focus on modern boundaries only, but instead look at ancient cultures as a whole, oversee- ing today’s frontiers. Nevertheless only figurines discovered within the modern boundaries of Iran are discussed here3. Where necessary and appropriate, links are made with figurines belonging to the same period, having the same characteristics, but having been found within neighbour- ing countries. Before giving a chronological overview of the types known so far and before discussing the eventual functions of these figurines, it is important to first delineate the topic, since we feel that in the past, too often a nomencla- ture has been given to these objects, which in some cases clearly needs to be reviewed. In literature, most human figurines are called ‘anthropomorphic’, ‘mother-goddess’ figurines or ‘fertility symbols’. However, scholars should ask themselves, whether or not these figurines really represent these 1 All sites cited within the paper are subject to the classification in time according to C14 calibrated dates as listed in Hours, Aurenche, Cauvin et alt. 1994. The chronological limit was put by analogy with the chronology of nearby prehistoric Mesopotamia. 2 Some other excavation reports mention figurines that have been discovered on the site, but when there is no clear indication of what the figurine represents (human, animal, T-shaped, token, etc), the site is not mentioned in this article. 3 The present contribution is part of a larger study concerning the human figurines of Neolithic and Chalcolithic Iran and Greater Mesopotamia. For now, only preliminary results concerning prehistoric Iran will be dealt with. 2 A. DAEMS symbols: they could have had another meaning within prehistoric communi- ties. When calling these objects not human but anthropomorphic figurines, fertility figurines or mother goddesses, we immediately give them a function they perhaps never had. Let us therefore first state the features, which we think should occur if we want to consider them as human figurines4: • Facial features should be rendered when no other organs of the body are shown. When the head is preserved, at least one of the following organs should be present, either by paint, incisions or appliqués: nose, eyes, mouth, nostrils, ears etc. If no facial feature is shown, the figurine might very well not represent a human, but a token or another object. • Human organs should be shown: arms, shoulders, torso, head, legs or feet • Sexual characteristics are equally important to identify the figurine as human: breasts, pudendum, phallus, belly and buttocks. Human figurines can either be represented standing or sitting. When a figurine, which has no clear human body features is shown standing either with lower or upper limbs, torso or genus represented, even if the face is beard-, beak- or lizard like (which is the case for some late 5th-early 4th millennium BC figurines found within Susa), I consider them as human, since they might be representations of individuals wearing an appropriate mask during a ritual ceremony… According to the Oxford Dictionary, the word anthropomorphic means: treating gods or animals as human in form and personality. Thus calling these tiny clay or stone human figurines anthropomorphic, which is almost always done in literature, means ascertaining them a divine meaning, and excluding all other possible functions. If the figurines were so-called ‘fertility symbols’ or ‘mother goddesses’, then we should question ourselves why so many figurines have never been represented with protruding bellies, fat thighs, and a baby on the lap. Furthermore, if a scholar is convinced the figurines represent a mother-goddess or fertility symbol, it is essential that 4 It is important to note here that at least one of the three main features mentioned should occur to be able to identify the figurine as human. The more criteria present, the easier or surer one can be in identifying the figurine ‘correctly’. PREHISTORIC HUMAN FIGURINES 3 the author delineates the criteria that can give us certainty to identify a figurine as such. But unfortunately, too often every unidentifiable abstract terracotta or crude clay figurine has singularly been referred to as ‘mother goddess’ or ‘anthropomorphic’ figurine, with no indication proving it. In the past, many publications have tried to convince us there was something like a religion common for all prehistoric societies that was singularly based on the worship of a single mother goddess, which was to be found from the West of the Mediterranean World to the Eastern fringes of Asia. With- out minimizing the work that has been done to find evidence for the exis- tence of an overall mother-goddess cult5 and the interesting statements that have been put forward, we feel that this is a too limited conclusion. Had there been an almost exact representation of a type of figurine for every site that existed within a certain cultural and chronological span, then we could with more certainty state that there was a ‘common’ belief in a specific ‘goddess’. This is, as we will see, yet not the case for prehistoric Iran. Sure, the figurines often appear to have similar characteristics, but they are mostly not that similar to each other as are the different types of pottery that were being produced, with or without a ‘decorative’ design, which were found throughout sometimes extended geographical areas. Therefore, more and more these objects should be reconsidered for each site. Up to now, many studies concerning prehistoric human figurines have been published, yet none of them was ever made for the figurines in Iran6. A first major attempt in classifying the Near Eastern figurines was made by George Dales7 but it was Peter Ucko who opened the discussion concerning human figurines in 19688. He pointed out to some other possible 5 See for instance Gimbutas 2001. Gimbutas has interesting personal views and ‘evidence’ to show there must have been an overall mother-goddess cult, but we feel it is dan- gerous to see every decorative pattern on pottery, mural paintings, figurines, etc as symbols or even attributes of ‘the goddess’, certainly when these objects or supports are not associated with a human representation. No matter how often a zigzag line, meander or other pattern is found on an artefact, this still doesn’t give us certainty of a connection with a mother-goddess cult, and the subsequent belief in prehistoric societies being matri- archal. 6 The only exception to this is the work by Spycket 1992 7 1960 8 For full reference see bibliography at the end of this article. 4 A. DAEMS interpretations for the figurines and grouped them into distinct types according to function, which for the sake of clarity are taken over in this paper9: • Cult figurines: representations of supernatural beings, used primar- ily as symbols or objects of worship • Vehicles of magic: figurines used in rituals, intended to produce, prevent or reverse a specific situation or state • Teaching figurines: used in initiation rites to teach adolescent children the proper kinds of behaviour. • Toys: used in entertainment or children’s play • Representations of deceased persons: used as mortuary furniture Ucko identified these five types according to his criteria involving material used to produce the figurine, morphology, use and disposal within the site. However, as long as contextual occurrence of the figurine is unknown, it remains difficult to attribute a figurine to one type or another, since the danger might occur of classifying a figurine to a certain type according to ‘personal feeling’. Voigt10 added another interesting criterion – surface wear – to the human figurines, in order to try and find out if the wear accords to a certain manipulation and a subsequent use. In this view, we should also always try to look at the breakages of the figurines. It is important to make a distinction between breakage or fracture at weak points, like the ones, which can occur accidentally at arm, leg or neck and head level, and the ones that do not occur at weak parts of the body, for example the waist or chest. If the fragments are found in each other’s vicinity during the excavations we can more easily assume that they are the result of acciden- tal fractures that occurred during antiquity. If not, and the fragments are found ‘distant’ from one another, then the figurine most probably lost its initial use during deposition. An important problem when dealing with the possible function of prehistoric figurines is that most authors forget to mention where exactly and in association with what other artefacts or structures the figurines were found. Not to mention the lack of mentioning the eventual surface wear that may occur on some of the figurines… 9 As noted in Voigt 2000: 258 10 2000: 262 PREHISTORIC HUMAN FIGURINES 5 Now that I have outlined what represents, in my view, a human figurine and what we should look for when studying them, we need to take a closer look at which types were produced when and where within prehistoric Iran to try and get to a more correct understanding of our topic.

Load more