mirrored file at http://SaturnianCosmology.Org/ For complete access to all the files of this collection see http://SaturnianCosmology.org/search.php ========================================================== * A STONE METAPHOR OF CREATION* by Denise Schmandt-Besserat * * ^A stone statuette from 'Ain Ghazal, Jordan, shows a nude figure whose gender is not immediately apparent ((Kafafi and Rollefson 1994; 1995:24-25; Kafafi n.d.). The genitals are not indicated and the breasts are flat. However, the absence of musculature, the abdominal fat rolls, the voluminous upper arms and thighs are clues that the subject is female. Mostly, the attention given to the womb, its enormous size, its central place in the composition, the way it projects in profile, and the gesture cradling it, makes it unequivocal that the figure is pregnant (figs. 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 ). Who is the female exalting her pregnant state ? Who is the child? What did the figure mean to the Neolithic villagers? These are questions that the artifact alone or the shreds of evidence left at the site cannot answer. In this paper I seek to address these questions by analyzing the context, technology and style of the statuette. I place the piece in the iconography by comparing it with 'Ain Ghazal clay figurines and with early Levantine stone sculptures. Then I glean information in the mythology, considering the role of pregnancy in ancient Near Eastern creation myths. Based on the collected data, I will propose that the statuette is part of a long tradition of women procreators of cosmos and vegetation. * * The Context The statuette was excavated in 1994 at 'Ain Ghazal. The field number is as follows: AG 1994: NF 5516, locus 002, bag 3, MC 1.The stone figure originated from the PPNC period, dated from 6000 to 5500 B.C. This second cultural phase was characterized by a population decrease and a reduction in human and animal representations. A degradation of the environment caused by overgrazing, overfarming and deforestation, cumulating with a change of climate (Bar-Yosef and Meadow 1994: 44) are generally held responsible for decreased local productivity, depopulation and eventually to a shift to nomadic pastoralism which led to impoverishment of the material culture (Rollefson and Köhler-Rollefson 1993: 33-42). The figurine was located far above the wadi, in an area presumably situated at the outskirts of the village. It was found _in situ,_ lying face-down (fig. 5 ) at the end of a stone path, about 2 meter long, consisting of some 15 tightly aligned slabs. (fig. 6 ) This suggests that the female image was reached by a specially prepared stone pathway. Since no structural remains were detected in excavation, it is possible that the sculpture was displayed on a small platform made of perishable material, such as reeds or wood. If this was so, the statuette could have fallen face down when the flimsy edifice collapsed, either after a conflagration or the abandonment of that part of the site. No other feature was identified in the vicinity except for a thin stone wall, perhaps a courtyard enclosure, running roughly parallel to the path. The Technology When the statuette was excavated, it was covered by a thick coat of mineral deposit which was partly removed in laboratory. The pink, veined limestone (Munsell 7.5YR 7/4) is now visible in the front and left side of the figurine. Broken in antiquity, the head, calves (and feet ?) are now missing. In its present state the statuette is 14 cm high, 5 cm thick, 5.5 cm wide at the shoulders and 7 cm at the hips. The figure is carved in the round, with equal care given to all sides. The sensitive modeling, especially successful in translating the fleshy parts of the body such as the waist and shoulders, is a testimony to Neolithic stone technology. It shows that sculpture, at least in a small format and in a relatively soft limestone, had few limitations for the early stone carver. The sophistication of the composition, which as will be described below was based on the interplay of lines and curves, makes it unlikely that it was dictated by the original stone block, as it is usually implied for prehistoric sculptures. Instead, it suggests that the artist first created a model in a softer material, perhaps tuber, wood, clay, dough or wax, before turning to stone. In the absence of lithic replication studies, the carving technique can presently only be speculated upon. (Wilke and Quintero 1994:33-60). It probably implied pecking and chipping the limestone block with a stone tool to achieve a rough form of the desired size. The female body was then disengaged by grinding selected areas with gritty stones. It is noteworthy that the transitions are remarkably executed. For instance, the arms do not end abruptly at the wrist, but the unformed hands give the impression of melting into the mass of the abdomen. The grooves outlining the breasts, thighs and fat rolls were engraved with a pointed tool. Finally, the surface was smoothed by rubbing stones of decreasing roughness. Dark red speckles (Munsell 2.5YR 4/4 reddish brown) all along the right side, from the upper arm to the thigh, show that the statuette was painted. The Style Nothing in the statuette can be credited to chance or mere imitation of nature. Instead, the female form is cast in an elaborate geometric framework. (fig. 7 ) To start with, the image is built around a vertical axis beginning between the breasts and continuing along the thighs. Shoulders, arms, breasts, fatty rolls, thighs and knees are symmetrically arranged around this central line, but the womb bursts out in the center, at the focal point of the figurine. Then, deep, clearly marked horizontal grooves divide the body into three parts, the abdomen again occupying the center. Finally, the stomach is bracketed between a triple set of diagonal lines. The grooves descending along the breasts widen towards the abdomen, driving the eyes on to it. In the opposite direction, the little arms form a double set of parallels that emphatically close the center of attention below the pregnant womb. The most masterful part of the composition is the successful blending of the rigorous linear inner design with the outline of curves cascading along the shoulders, waist, hips and thighs. Moreover, lines and curves combine to create geometric patterns. The semi-circle of the shoulders mirrors that of the fat rolls, enclosing the torso into a full circle. Triangles are a leitmotif. Breasts, lower arms and thighs are made into three triangles switching directions. Finally, the tip of the stomach and the two upper arms form a last imposing triangle. Everything in the sculpture is calculated to bring the pregnant womb into focus. The lozenge composition emphasizes the round abdomen by featuring both extremities of the body tapering off symmetrically on either side. (fig. 1 ) The style manipulates the female form for showcasing the bulging stomach. Some body parts are entirely eliminated. Among them are genitalia, navel, elbows, hands, fingers, armpits and neck. The chest and limbs are minimized. The breasts are flat, linear, and show no nipples. As a result, the streamlined composition concentrates upon selected fleshy parts of the body: the upper arms, thighs, fat rolls, and mostly, the inflated stomach. Proportions are skewed in order to emphasize the abdomen. The enormous arms taper to minuscule limbs when reaching over the stomach. The torso is lengthened to match the size of the legs so that the womb occupies the center of the figurine. Moreover, body masses are shifted. The switch between breasts and arms is perhaps most remarkable. The breasts are flat but the upper arms bulge, round and voluptuous. Finally, the buttocks are lifted to the height of the abdomen. As a result, the woman enshrines her womb with her head bent, raised thighs and folded arms. The Iconography: A Comparison with the 'Ain Ghazal Clay Figurines 'Ain Ghazal produced a collection of 49 human clay figurines (Rollefson et al. 1985:83-85). It must be significant that the villagers produced female representations in both stone and clay. It must also be meaningful that the two genres have little in common. The analysis of their similarities and disparities may provide clues to their respective importance. To start with, both stone and clay figurines depicted humans, but the form differs. The clay pieces are usually cursorily done, reducing the body to a mere cone pinched at the base into two pointed legs. (fig. 8a ) In contrast the stone sculpture was executed with careful planning. It shows the mastery of aesthetic principles such as symmetry and geometry. In particular, the triangles and lozenges intrinsic to the composition of the statuette are absent in the clay examples. The two types of figurines featured child bearing in a different style. The three pregnant females made of clay have prominent breasts and are dressed with an all covering impressed garment, (fig. 8 b ) whereas the statuette is flat-chested and stresses nudity (Rollefson et al. 1985:83-85; Rollefson and Simmons 1984:19-21). The two types of objects belong to different periods. The majority of the clay figurines date of the PPNB, ca 7250-6000 B.C. when 'Ain Ghazal was a prosperous agricultural community. On the other hand, the stone statuette is of the following PPNC period marked by an economic and cultural decline (Köhler-Rollefson 1988:87-93). The context indicates separate functions. The clay figurines are consistently part of the fill, mixed with ashes, charcoal and other refuse, implying that they were thrown away after use because they had no intrinsic value. In contrast, the sculpture was recovered in what seems a formal context suggesting that it was displayed in some fashion and could be visited by the villagers through a specially prepared pathway. The discrepancy in the number of stone versus clay figurines is substantial. There is one stone statuette compared to 49 clay figurines indicating that the clay representations were common, but those of stone, rare. The choice of clay, vs. stone, implied different expectations. Clay is a common, ubiquitous material. Pinching tiny figures is done quickly, by hand, without any tool. It requires no prior training or competence. Clay artifacts, when unfired, are exceedingly fragile and therefore have a limited lifetime. On the other hand, flesh-colored stone was perhaps endowed with mystical qualities conferring special powers to the sculpture. Moreover, carving stone denotes a concern for durability; a commitment of time and energy; skill; the knowledge of the craft and; a specialized tool kit. The size of the figurines further underscores their relative importance. The stone statuette is hand-size. The clay figurines are minuscule, measuring 3-5 cm, which precluded a public display. The figures' postures point to a different handling. The seated position of most of the clay figurines suggests that they were meant to be stable without support. Instead, the stone statuette can neither stand, nor sit, nor lie. It had to be displayed in a throne that held it upright. It may also be significant that the figurine fits perfectly in the hand, the buttocks nestling snugly in the palm and the side grooves providing a firm grip. The statuette primary function, therefore, was perhaps to be held in the hand by an individual in order to present it to an audience. In sum, the analysis of the 50 anthropomorphic figurines of 'Ain Ghazal shows that the stone and clay specimens shared the human form and sometimes pregnancy. Otherwise, the two genres differed in treatment, style, chronology, context, number, technology, and in size as well as form. The more numerous clay figurines, made of a common material, with little investment of time and energy and discarded with other refuse, suggest brief domestic use, probably related to magic. Instead, the statuette's more durable material, complex technology, special context, elaborate form, aesthetic composition and emphatic symbolism denote a valued artifact, destined for a formal, public function (Kafafi 1991:12-14). It is likely that the 'Ain Ghazal female is part of the long tradition of female stone statuary known from excavations to have been used in temples and shrines (Foster 1993:33). As soon as inscriptions on statues, royal texts, temple inventories and hymns become available in the early historical period, they leave no doubt that the female stone effigies, as a rule, represented deities. Following Durkheim (1976:30), I call deity, divinity, god or goddess "spiritual beings É, conscious subjects gifted with powers superior to those possessed by common menÉ" The main function of icons was to personify some of these supernatural forces, suggesting that they resided in the community, and could be propitiated by cultic ceremonies, offerings and prayers. This role of cultic statuary is not difficult to grasp since it is not particular to the Near East or to prehistory, but quasi universal (Beaulieu 1993:241). The Iconography: the early Levantine Stone Statuary Although the PPNB clay figurines preceded the stone statuette, they did not serve as prototypes. The antecedents of the 'Ain Ghazal female may rather be sought in the early Levantine stone statuary. The first anthropomorphic representations consisted mostly of pebbles carved in the form of a phallus (Perrot 1966:figs. 2-3 and photos 11-12) that appeared in Natufian assemblages ca. 10, 000 B.C. The same culture is also traditionally credited (Cauvin 1978:118-19) for a small calcite statuette depicting a couple in coitus, with the two bodies tightly clutched together (Neuville 1933:558-60). (fig. 9a ) It is noteworthy that the theme of the embraced couple was not unique to the Natufians or to the Levant. The motif of the copulating couple reoccurs, for example, in Anatolian sculptures of the seventh millennium B.C. at Catal Hüyük (Mellaart 1967:pl. 83) (fig. 9b ) and as a seal of Protohistoric Susa (Amiet 1972:2, pl. 58: 414). When individual figures started being carved in the Pre-pottery Neolithic A (PPNA) Khiamian culture, most were sexually ambiguous or even dual-gendered representations (Bar ­Yosef 1980:193-99, fig. 3 -4 ). Examples at Salibiya, Nahal Oren and Gilgal, on the one hand, depict the body of a woman with a head barely disengaged from the shoulders, facial features reduced to the brows and a long nose, and with the trunk ending in two stumpy thighs. (fig. 10a ,b,d ) On the other hand, the figures can also be viewed as male genitalia: the nose and brows become the foreskin, the body is the phallus and the thighs represent the testicles (Gopher and Orelle 1996:255). The bisexual style was not confined to the PPNA culture but was still alive as late as in the 6th Millennium B.C. at Shaar Golan, where pebble figurines still fused the male sex with the female body (Stekelis 1972:25-27, pl. 50:1, 51:1, 52: 1). (fig. 11 ) In fact, bisexuality, far from being restricted to the Mediterranean coast, was celebrated in a statuette as late as ca. 4500 B.C. and as far as Tepe Yahya in southern Iran (Lamberg-Karlovsky and Meadow: 1970:14). Female sculpture in the Levant also coincided with the beginning of agriculture in the Khiamian culture, ca. 8500-8000 B.C. These few PPNA stone figurines from El Khiam, and Mureybet II (fig. 10c, e ) depict women that are singular in having no breasts, navel or genitalia. The buttocks are often emphasized, producing a characteristic arching posture. The stylization becomes even more extreme in the following millennia, as shown by figures of Mureybet III in the 8th Millennium (Cauvin 1978:121,fig. 25:3), Tell Ramad II (Contenson 1966:170,173,pl. 2C) as well as Ras Shamra V in the 7th Millennium (Schaeffer 1962:154, fig. 1A). The figures are then reduced to a torso with stumpy legs, omitting head, arms, breasts, navel and usually sex. A single specimen from Mureybet features a vulva. (fig. 12 ) These statuettes also preserve the triangular profile noted in the PPNA prototypes. It was noted above that intercourse and bisexual representations were not restricted to the ancient province of Palestine, but were attested as far north as Turkey and as far east as Iran, respectively. The same is true for the flat-chested female stone statuettes. For example, level VI A at Catal Hüyük, ca. 6000 B.C., produced a figurine that is far more naturalistic but still retains the same characteristic triangular profile and has no breasts, navel or vulva (Mellaart 1967:pl. 80). (fig. 13 ) It is noteworthy, therefore, that at Catal Hüyük, as well as at Hacilar, pregnancy is translated in the informal clay figurines, not in the more complex stone statuettes. The fact that the Levant shares themes and style with other regions demonstrates that the Mediterranean coast was not isolated. The stone images belonged to a Pan-Near Eastern Neolithic phenomenon. The 'Ain Ghazal figure was thus similar to the previous and contemporaneous statuettes for the choice of stone, art form, size and triangular profile. Like the other female images, the woman was depicted with flat breasts, no navel or genitalia. However, it departed from the former tradition in significant ways. It was far more naturalistic, since, except for hands and nipples, it depicted each and every part of the human body. It was novel in the treatment of obesity, i.e. the exaggeration of the upper arms and abdominal fat rolls. More importantly, it was first in glorifying pregnancy. In particular, the gesture holding the womb has also no known antecedents. Finally, the 'Ain Ghazal figure surpassed her Levantine sisters by the slick composition, the skillful use of symmetry, triangles and lozenges, that endowed the figure with an unmatched mystical quality. The 'Ain Ghazal female further inherited from the past the theme of propagation (Cauvin 1994). It shared with the early Natufian phallic images, the copulating pair and the PPNA bisexual figures, the same concern with sexuality or reproduction( Perrot 1966:fig. 21:1,10,13). But it was a new interpretation. The statuette did not feature bisexuality or intercourse, but a woman ready to give birth. In other words, it did not picture conception, but pregnancy. The Mythology Intercourse, bisexuality and pregnancy exalted in stone sculpture also played an important role in ancient Near Eastern mythology. The cuneiform literature gives multiple examples when child bearing is used as a metaphor to express the mysteries of origins. For example, the beginning of the universe was conceived as a divine procreation. Nammu, the lone primeval deity, gave birth to An-Ki, sky and earth, with no male partner (Wiggerman 1992:289-93). In other words, the ultimate beginning of the universe was viewed as the fruit of bisexuality. An-Ki were the tightly embraced, inseparable pair who, in turn, begot the various components of nature, water, wind, the sun, the moon and all the stars. The idea that all existing things were ultimately the result of sexual conception pervaded the ancient Near East. The Egyptian creation myths echo those of Mesopotamia. Their demiurge Atum had a progeny without a female, by masturbation. Among his children, the brother and sister couple Geb and Nut, Earth and Sky, were intimately embraced until being separated by Shu, personifying Air (Hart 1990:14). The bounty of nature renewed by each season was also conceived as resulting of divine sexual intercourse. Ki was one of the early female Mesopotamian deities, who was credited for generating earthly vegetation by sleeping with An (Black and Green 1992: 112-13). But the prevalent tradition from the Sumerian to the Babylonian period held that Inanna / Ishtar was responsible for the seasonal germination of plants and the propagation of the flocks in the spring through intercourse with Dumuzi. Can the Near Eastern mythology give a clue to the significance of the early sculptures? Could the bisexual figures evoke primeval deities like Nammu? Could the loving pairs represent inseparable godly couples, antecedents of An-Ki ? And finally, could the 'Ain Ghazal statuette embody a mythical female engendering fertile crops? These questions are warranted first because the myths recorded in the cuneiform literature were not short-lived stories. Well on the contrary, it is commonly held that the mythological texts recorded on tablets had their roots deep in the past, probably as far back as the prehistoric oral tradition (Postgate 1994:176-80). They were the product of the accumulated experience of innumerable generations and therefore express a timeless Near Eastern cosmology. The hypothesis is also particularly plausible because people of innumerable societies have used the tangible experience of sexual conception and pregnancy to explain the mystery of life. Conclusion: The Significance If indeed the woman cradling her womb was a metaphor of creation carved in stone, the statuette gives important insights into the rituals and beliefs of PPNC 'Ain Ghazal. First , it provides the evidence that icons were used to revere deities. Moreover, the time and energy invested in carving stone manifest that the divine images were deemed important. The context in which the statuette was found indicates that, at least in the case of 'Ain Ghazal, the icon was visited by worshippers in an open place on the outskirts of the village. The similarities of the statuette with earlier PPNA and PPNB sculptures suggests that the sculptures served a same purpose and were used according to a long established cultic tradition. In particular, the peculiar triangular profile implies that the icons were displayed in a similar way, perhaps involving a small throne, or, since they fit the hand so perfectly, were held by an individual during cultic ceremonies. The statuette also reveals that the early farmers' pantheon included supernatural beings in the shape of pregnant women, that differed from earthy females by having flat breasts, no navel or genitalia. More importantly, the fact that PPNC 'Ain Ghazal departed from the flat chested women representation denotes an evolution in symbolism. The pregnant, obese woman may therefore indicate that climate change and the deterioration of the environment stimulated a change in the cosmology. Pressing concerns for plentiful harvests and herd reproduction inspired a new cult centering on life-giving females. ** I am grateful to Gary O. Rollefson and Zeidan Kafafi for the privilege of studying the statuette, and for their generous cooperation. I much appreciated that Gary took the time to read each and every draft of the ms., contributing invaluable ideas and knowledge. I also want to thank Pierre Bikai for discussing the paper with me, for his insights, suggestions and encouragement. The study was funded by a fellowship from the American Center of Oriental Research and NMERTA.* Denise Schmandt-Besserat , Department of Art, The University of Texas at Austin ILLUSTRATIONS Figs. 1-4 , Statuette from 'Ain Ghazal, Jordan, Photograph by Yousef Zobi. Fig. 5. The 'Ain Ghazal statuette in situ, Ain Ghazal excavations 1994. Fig. 6 . The excavation context, drawing by Lamia Salem el-Khoury. Fig. 7 . The geometric composition, drawing by Lamia Salem el-Khoury. Fig. 8 a and b . Clay figurines from 'Ain Ghazal, Jordan. Photograph by Yousef Zobi. Fig. 9a . Stone statuette of an embracing couple from Ain Sakhri, ca. 10,000 B.C. (?), after Jacques Cauvin, _Les Premiers Villages de Syrie-Palestine du XIème Millénaire Avant J.C_., Maison de l'Orient, Lyon 1978, p. 118-119, fig. 23. Fig. 9b . Stone relief of an embracing couple from Catal Hüyük, after James Mellaart,_ Catal Hüyük, A Neolithic Town in Anatolia_, McGraw-Hill, New York 1967, plate 83, drawing by Lamia Salem el-Khoury. Figs. 10 a-e . Stone statuettes of Salibiya IX, Nahal Oren, El Khiam, Gilgal and Mureybet II, after Jacques Cauvin, _Naissance des Divinités, Naissance de l'Agriculture_, CNRS Editions, Paris 1994, p. 45, fig. 6. Figs. 11 a-b . Stone statuettes from Shaar Golan, after M. Stekelis, _The Yarmukian Culture of the Neolithic Period_, The Magna Press, The Hebrew University, Jerusalem 1972, Plates 50: 1 and 51: 1. Fig. 12 . Stone statuettes from Mureybet III courtesy of Jacques Cauvin, CNRS Institut de Préhistoire Orientale Jalés, Berrias, France. Fig. 13 . Stone statuette from Catal Hüyük, after James Mellaart, Catal Hüyük A Neolithic Town in Anatolia, McGraw-Hill, New York 1967, plates 80 and 82, drawing by Lamia Salem el-Khoury. ** The chapter was first published with minor changes in _Near Eastern Archaeology_ Vol. 61, No. 2, 1998, p. 109-117. The study was funded by a fellowship from the American Center of Oriental Research and the USIA. I thank Dr. John L. Baker and Rosemary Price for taking the time to share their expertise.* * * *Amiet, Pierre.* 1972. _Glyptique Susienne_, _des Origines à l'Epoque des Perses Acheménides_, vol. 2. Mémoires de la Délégation Archéologique en Iran 43. Paris: Librairie Orientaliste Paul Geuthner. *Bar-Yosef, O. * 1980. A Human Figurine from a Khiamian Site in the Lower Jordan Valley. _Paleorient_ 6:193-199. *Bar-Yosef, O. and Meadow, R.H.* 1995. The Origins of Agriculture in the Near East. Pp. 44-45 in T. D. Price and A. B. Gebauer eds., _Last Hunters, First Farmers: New Perspectives on the Prehistoric Transition to Agriculture_, Santa Fe: School of American Research Press.* * *Beaulieu, Paul-Alain * 1993. An Episode in the Fall of Babylon to the Persians._ Journal of Near Eastern Studies_ 52 (4): 241-262.* * *Black, Jeremy and Green, Anthony* 1992. _Gods, Demons and Symbols of Ancient Mesopotamia_. Austin: University of Texas Press. *Cauvin, Jacques * 1978. _Les Premiers Villages de Syrie-Palestine du Xième Millénaire Avant_ J.C. Lyon: Collection de la Maison de l'Orient Méditerranéen Ancien 4, Série Archéologique 3. Lyon: Maison de lÕOrient.* * *Cauvin, Jacques * 1994. _Naissance des Divinités, Naissance de l'Agriculture_, Paris: CNRS Editions. *Contenson, Henri de * 1966. Seconde Campagne à Tell Ramad, Rapport Préliminaire,1965. _Annales Archéologiques Arabes Syriennes_ 16: 167-74. *Durkheim, E.* 1976. The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life. London: George Allen and Unwin. *Foster, Benjamin R. * 1993. _Before the Muses_. Bethesda, Maryland: CDL Press. *Gopher A. and Orelle, E.* 1996. An Alternative Interpretation for the Material Imagery of the Yarmukian, a Neolithic Culture of the Sixth Millennium B.C. in the Southern Levant. _Cambridge Journal of Archaeology_ 6(2): 255-79. *Hart, George * 1990. _Egyptian Myths_, Austin: University of Texas Press. *Kafafi, Zeidan* 1991. The Role of Women in the Stone Age - Preliminary Ideas. _News Letter of the Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, Yarmouk University_ 11: 12-4. Arabic. *Kafafi, Zeidan* n.d. A Unique PPNC Female Figurine from 'Ain Ghazal. M.s. *Kafafi, Zeidan and Rollefson, Gary O.* 1994. Ain Ghazal 1993-94. _Biblical Archaeologist_ 57 (4): 239-241. *Zeidan Kafafi and Rollefson, Gary O.* 1995. The 1994 Excavations at 'Ain Ghazal: Preliminary Report. _Annual of _ _the_ _Department of Antiquities of Jordan_ 39:13-29. *Kohler-Rollefson, Ilse * 1988. The Aftermath of the Neolithic Revolution in the Light of Ecological and Ethnographic Evidence. _Paléorient_ 14 (1): 87-93. Lamberg-Karlovsky, C.C. and Meadow, R. 1970. A Unique Female Figurine. _Archaeology_ 23 (1): 13-17. *Mellaart, James * 1967. _Catal Hüyük, A Neolithic Town in Anatolia_. New York: McGraw-Hill. *Neuville, René* 1933: Statue Erotique du Désert de Judée. _L'Anthropologie_ 43: 558-560. *Perrot, Jean * 1966. Le Gisement Natoufien de Mallaha (Eynan), Israël. _L'Anthropologie_ 70 (5-6): 437-83. *Postgate, J. N. * 1994. Text and Figure in Ancient Mesopotamia: Match and Mismatch. Pp. 176-180 in Colin Renfrew an Ezra B.W. Zubrow, eds. _The Ancient Mind, Elements of_ _Cognitive Archaeology_, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. *Rollefson, Gary O. Simmons, Allan H. et al. * 1985. Excavations at the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B Village of 'Ain Ghazal (Jordan), 1983. _Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient Gesellschaft_ 117: 69-116. *Rollefson, Gary O. and Kohler-Rollefson, Ilse * 1993. PPNC Adaptations in the First half of the 6th Millennium B.C. _Paléorient_ 19 (1): 33-42. *Rollefson Gary O. and Simmons, Alan H. * 1984. The 1983 Season at 'Ain Ghazal: Preliminary Report. _Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan_. 28:13-30* * *Schaeffer, Claude F. A.* 1962: _Ugaritica IV_. Mission de Ras Shamra 15, Paris: Librairie Orientaliste Paul Geuthner. *Stekelis, M. * 1972. _The Yarmukian Culture of the Neolithic Period_. Jerusalem: The Magna Press. *Wilke, P. J. and Quintero L. A. * 1994. Naviform Core-and-Blade Technology: Assemblage Character as Determined by Replicative Experiments. Pp. 33-60 in H. G. Gebel and S.K. Kozlowski, eds. _Neolithic Chipped Stone Industries of the Fertile Crescent, Studies in Early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence, and_ _Environment_, I. Berlin: ex oriente. *Wiggerman, F.* 1992. Mythological Foundation of Nature. Pp. 289-293 in Diederick J.W. Meijer, ed. _Natural Phenomena_. Amsterdam: North Holland. * * * * * * * *