gazelle jar

16
Studies Presented to Joaquín Sanmartín Aula Orientalis-Supplementa 22 (2006) 399-414 399 The ‘Gazelle Jar’ from Tell Qara Qûzâq (Syria): an essay of interpretation 1 Carmen Valdés Pereiro – I.P.O.A. (Barcelona) 1. Introduction. The purpose of this paper is the review of a ceramic jar excavated from the site of Tell Qara Qûzâq, in Northern Syria, during the 1991 season (fig. 1). From the beginning, this vessel was unofficially baptised as ‘the gazelle jar’, even if we were not sure of the specific meaning of the scene. Today, I would like to offer some hypothesis that would explain the meaning of the scene and its relation with the economic system of these small communities, which exist at the banks of the middle Euphrates during the middle and the end of the III millennium B.C. The symmetrical and schematic depiction give us the first impression of a group of ‘dancing men’ under a row of caprids, but the nature of the interaction between the two groups could elude us. As is the case of the primitive rock art, schematic representation used to be full of symbolism, and the main issue to these people to represent through art is hunting and rituals, or rituals relating to hunting. In this paper we are going to argue that this jar supports the representation of a gathering/hunting technique used in the Near East during centuries by the people living the arid steppes to hunt large herds of gazelles. This technique requires a permanent or semi-permanent structure called ‘desert-kites’, that is not physically depicted on the jar, but whose symbolic or subconscious existence I would like to emphasize. 2. The archaeological background. Tell Qara Qûzâq has been excavated since 1989 by the Archaeological Mission of the Institute of Ancient Near East (University of Barcelona – University of Murcia), directed by Gregorio Del Olmo Lete, as a part of the salvage project in the Tišrin Dam area (Syria). 2 The small tell is located on the left bank of the Euphrates river, some 30 km south of the Turkish border. The last season was carried out in 2000, when the site had to be abandoned by the rising of the flood level. 1. I am very glad to have the opportunity to present this contribution to Prof. Sanmartín, with whom I have shared the unforgettable experience of digging in the Near East, at the site whose material I am analysing in this contribution. 2. See Del Olmo ed. 1993, Del Olmo – Montero – Valdés eds. 2001, Olávarri 1995, Valdés 1999, id. 2000, for more information about the site. In the lower town, - still not published - some remains of tombs and later settlement (Area C, LR/EByz period) were also detected.

Upload: sicorax

Post on 21-Apr-2015

89 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

DESCRIPTION

Essay of interpretation of a decorated ceramic vessel from a Early Bronze Age Near Eastern site .

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Gazelle Jar

Studies Presented to Joaquín Sanmartín Aula Orientalis-Supplementa 22 (2006) 399-414 399

The ‘Gazelle Jar’ from Tell Qara Qûzâq (Syria): an essay of interpretation1

Carmen Valdés Pereiro – I.P.O.A. (Barcelona)

1. Introduction. The purpose of this paper is the review of a ceramic jar excavated from the site of Tell Qara Qûzâq, in Northern Syria, during the 1991 season (fig. 1). From the beginning, this vessel was unofficially baptised as ‘the gazelle jar’, even if we were not sure of the specific meaning of the scene. Today, I would like to offer some hypothesis that would explain the meaning of the scene and its relation with the economic system of these small communities, which exist at the banks of the middle Euphrates during the middle and the end of the III millennium B.C. The symmetrical and schematic depiction give us the first impression of a group of ‘dancing men’ under a row of caprids, but the nature of the interaction between the two groups could elude us. As is the case of the primitive rock art, schematic representation used to be full of symbolism, and the main issue to these people to represent through art is hunting and rituals, or rituals relating to hunting. In this paper we are going to argue that this jar supports the representation of a gathering/hunting technique used in the Near East during centuries by the people living the arid steppes to hunt large herds of gazelles. This technique requires a permanent or semi-permanent structure called ‘desert-kites’, that is not physically depicted on the jar, but whose symbolic or subconscious existence I would like to emphasize. 2. The archaeological background. Tell Qara Qûzâq has been excavated since 1989 by the Archaeological Mission of the Institute of Ancient Near East (University of Barcelona – University of Murcia), directed by Gregorio Del Olmo Lete, as a part of the salvage project in the Tišrin Dam area (Syria).2 The small tell is located on the left bank of the Euphrates river, some 30 km south of the Turkish border. The last season was carried out in 2000, when the site had to be abandoned by the rising of the flood level.

1. I am very glad to have the opportunity to present this contribution to Prof. Sanmartín, with whom I have shared the unforgettable experience of digging in the Near East, at the site whose material I am analysing in this contribution.

2. See Del Olmo ed. 1993, Del Olmo – Montero – Valdés eds. 2001, Olávarri 1995, Valdés 1999, id. 2000, for more information about the site. In the lower town, - still not published - some remains of tombs and later settlement (Area C, LR/EByz period) were also detected.

Page 2: Gazelle Jar

CARMEN VALDÉS PEREIRO

400

Fig. 1. Jar with incised decoration from Tell Qara Qûzâq.

Five main occupation periods were identified on the tell: I) Roman period; II) Middle Bronze I-II; III) end of Early Bronze; IV) middle of EB; V) beginning of EB. During the MB it was occupied by a huge complex of silos with a small temple in antis in the middle. Another larger temple in antis (locus 10) was in use during the second part of the III millennium.

Page 3: Gazelle Jar

THE ‘GAZELLE JAR’ FROM TELL QARA QÛZÂQ (SYRIA): AN ESSAY OF INTERPRETATION

401

The jar has already been published in the first volume of the final reports.3 The archaeological context was inside a stone-built silo (S-40) from level IV, smaller in size than those of the silo complex from the Middle Bronze Age. For this level we have no good layers of buildings or settlement, being mostly characterized by the pottery assemblage. This is mostly composed of wheel-made Simple Ware, along with an interesting group of the so-called Euphrates Ware or Euphrates Red-Banded Jars. The Reserved Slip Ware or the post-Ubaid Multiple-brush Painted Ware from the previous phase are completely lost, and we have not yet the EBIV ‘caliciform’ assemblage. In fact, during level IV the decoration is almost absent, especially the paint has completely disappeared. The only decoration is incised, sometimes applied, but in small quantities, and this type seems to be more conspicuous when we are nearing the end of the III millennium. 3. The vessel and its decoration. The vessel4 is a globular medium-sized jar with narrow neck, everted rim and slightly rounded lip. The incised and impressed decoration is laid on the upper part of the body, under the neck. The motifs are framed by two parallel horizontal bands: the upper one a row of impressed circles, and the lower one a band of obliquely incised strokes. In between, two registers with scenes with a repetitive motive arranged in horizontal series: in the upper register is a four-legged animal, possibly a gazelle, shown in profile, and, in the lower one, an anthropomorphic figure alternating with a circular design filled with strokes, more or less converging in the centre. The human figure seems to be also in profile except for the upper body with the raised arms, but it is difficult to discern due to the high level of schematism. The only impressed motifs are the circles of the upper line, the rest is all incised with deep and broad strokes, the whole applied when the vessel was leather-hard. The depiction is quite outstanding in account of its geometrical, schematic and static approach. The design is figurative and linear but, unlike those figurative motives of the jars from this period in the Syrian Euphrates, the intention is not naturalistic. The motives are scarcely outlined with simple basic strokes, rigidly standing and not interacting between themselves. Nevertheless, we are not dealing with a still image, a scene frozen in time. The stillness of the scene stands out its symbolic character. Our knowledge of the meaning of the symbol will provide the movement. The sensation of ‘scene’ is then created by the repetition of the same motive. If a lone figure represents a man, the repetition of almost the same figure creates a multitude. The interaction will be apparent through the relative position of the characters. Here we have the depiction of a man, of an animal and of a round wheel-like object, all three of them repeating themselves. The composition is aware of the morphology of its support. Like in a primitive zoetrope or praxinoscope, also the circular nature of the vessel helps to create the illusion of infinite movement thanks to the phenomenon of the retinal persistence. But, unlike those image devices, here the figures do not basically change, so, for us, the perspective doesn’t matter. Whatever the side from where one held the vessels, the scene will always be the same. Therefore, what we really understand viewing the jar is a strongly ‘vivid’ scene, a crowd of men scaring, guiding, and possibly shouting, a big herd of gazelles running ahead.

3. Valdés 1994: fig. 27, p. 54, 121, pl. VIe. 4. Technical data: Reg. N. QQ91C1-208; location: Trench 311 SE, silo S-40; Simple Ware, wheel-made. Hard clay, slightly

porous, reddish orange colour. Grit temper (fine, middle density). Cream slip on exterior surface, lost at the base of the jar. Incised and impressed decoration.

Page 4: Gazelle Jar

CARMEN VALDÉS PEREIRO

402

4. The hunting technique of the ‘desert-kites’. A ‘desert-kite’ is a large stone construction consisting in an irregular enclosure with an opening from which two or more long walls ran out, diverging and opening up forming a kind of ‘tails’, recalling from the air the shape of a kite, reason why that was the name given to them by the British pilots who fly the Air Mail route across Transjordan on the 1920s. Along the exterior face of the enclosure a series of circular cells were attached. The general assumption, using ethnographic parallels,5 is that they were hunting structures, to gather and mass-kill wild animals, especially gazelles.6 The animals were separated from the herd by groups of men scaring and herding them towards the funnel-shape passage (the guide walls) that, narrowing at the end, lead into the enclosure where the animals were gathered and killed, maybe by the men hiding at the peripheral cells.7

Fig. 2. A view of a ‘desert-kite’ from <Eb n-Naga, Nejma valley, Syria. This hunting technique begins in the late seventh millennium, and it is used during the Neolithic, Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age.8 There is a dense concentration of ‘desert-kites’ in the basaltic zones of central and southern Syria, the Khabur basin, northern Jordan, Negev and Sinai and North Saudi Arabia.9 Various animals were reported to have been trapped within those walls: gazelles, oryx, ostriches or the local Equus, but the onagers and gazelles appear to have been the major sources of meat during the most likely periods of construction and use of ‘desert-kites’.10

5. The last representatives of this type of hunt in the Near East seem to have been the Solubba, a tribal group of gazelle hunters that still survive in the Arabian Pensinsula. The other animals that they deal with are the donkeys, of which they have big herds. Vid. Betts 1989.

6. At least, that would have been its primary use, as it seems that the structures were sometimes reused to gather domestic stock (Echallier – Braemer 1995: 61).

7. Also described as “…devices to concentrate as many animals as possible within the shortest possible striking distance, and to facilitate the killing of as many individual animals as possible out of the group captured and cornered in the kite…” (Rosen – Perevolotsky 1998: 110).

8. Helms and Betts 1987. 9. Van Berg et al. 2004, 90. 10. Pollock 1999: 105-107.

Page 5: Gazelle Jar

THE ‘GAZELLE JAR’ FROM TELL QARA QÛZÂQ (SYRIA): AN ESSAY OF INTERPRETATION

403

The killing was a seasonal affair, as gazelle migrations in Jordan and Syria took place on a north-south axis: at spring they moved to the north looking for better pastures, there the young were born and at the end of the summer they returned south.11 At Abu Hureyra, a Mesolithic camp located at the Syrian Euphrates valley (Tabqa Dam area), the amount of gazelle bones recovered (80%) made the archaeologist conclude that the community must have killed gazelle herds by means of some type of ‘desert-kite’, even if there were no physical remains of the structure. At that period the migrating gazelle herds still arrived quite intact till the Euphrates river, but later, in the Neolithic period the construction of massive networks of ‘desert-kites’ in south and middle Syria and Jordan provoked that the amount of animals arriving to the north drastically declined.12 During the end of the Chalcolithic period and the beginning of the Early Bronze Age the gazelle meat only supplied a small protein surplus. Even so, the system never completely disappeared, as we have prove of its use also during the Roman period.13 Related hunting techniques have been reported to exist even at the XXth century. 5. Comparative material. 5.1. The jar and its decoration:

Fig. 3. Incised vessels of the same general cultural area and period: 1) Tell Qara Qûzâq; 2) Tabqa region; 3) Tell

Bi>a; 4) Halawa.

The most striking parallel of the ceramic vessel with its decoration as a whole, can be found in another jar known to be originated from Syria, specifically from the Euphrates Tabqa Dam area (fig. 3: 2).

11. Legge – Rowley-Conwy 1987: 79. 12. Ibidem, 81-83. 13. Echallier – Braemer 1995: 55.

1 2

3

4

Page 6: Gazelle Jar

CARMEN VALDÉS PEREIRO

404

The shape of the profile is almost exactly the same, a medium-sized globular jar, with narrow neck and everted rim, the lip a bit different in shape. The incised decoration is also developed on the upper part of the body, and it represents a gazelle-hunting scene. The essential difference between both jars is in the artistic style, figurative rather than schematic, and the overall disposition, movement and almost three-dimensional rather than rigid and flat. Based on shape and style, the author proposes a chronology in the middle of the III millennium, even if she found the zenith of the decorative style during the EBIVB period.14 In this case the scene is easier to interpret. Unfortunately the jar belongs to that category of archaeological objects ‘without context’, bought for a museum and published from the point of view of its decoration and style. The jar from Tell Bi>a (fig. 3: 3)15 does not depict a hunting scene, nor does it present any human figure, but the shape of the vessel, the technique of the decoration and the distribution of the scene are the same. If we add the provenience (Euphrates valley, south but still near to the Tabqa dam region) and the chronology (end of EBIII or EBIVA), we are talking about the same cultural context. Instead, the Halawa sample (fig. 3: 4)16 is similar in the technique, the distribution of the motives and, in my opinion, the subject displayed. The men are above and the animals below, the animals are equids and the men are dressed, with the arms upside down. The posture of the arms is not important if we recall other depictions where the men leading the beasts are portrayed sometimes with the hands at their side or slightly onwards. That way we can accept the general meaning of the gesture as “movement of the arms with the purpose to frighten the animals and lead them”. As we said before, since Neolithic times the other big source of protein diet provided by the hunt, aside from the gazelle, was the onager.17 The makers of the jars must have been from the same cultural context, even the same tribe but, obviously, the depiction is not from the same hand. That fact is surmised by the different level of acquisition of the linearity, figurativeness, and naturalism involved in each one. Our jar seems to be the most linear and schematic, followed by the Halawa sherd, which is developing the men bodies and dresses, and the legs of the quadrupeds are separated as if walking. The Tabqa jar seems to have reached the culmination of the movement. 5.2. ‘Desert-kite’ representations. The main source of pictorial representation of ‘desert-kites’ is rock art. One of the best places where a big number of ‘kite’ representations coexist with its actual archaeological remains is the Hemma plateau, the larger rock art complex in Syria, where the Archaeological Mission of Khishâm is at present carrying out its research.18 These ‘kite’ gravings are also dated during the EB (EJIIIB).19

14. Böhme 1992. 15. Strommenger 1989, Abb. 37. 16. Hempelmann 2001, Taf. 1.4. 17. Van Berg et al. 2004: 93. Another representation of the herding/hunting of onagers on a wall painting is found at Umm

Dabaghiyah as early as Late Neolithic. The village was specialized in the hunt of the onager, which amounted to a 70% of the animal remains studied at the side, while the domesticated animals just account to an 11% (Kirkbride 1982: 19-20, Fig.8).

18. Van Berg – Picalause 2003; ibidem 2006 (web), Van Berg et al. 2004. 19. Van Berg et al. 2004.

Page 7: Gazelle Jar

THE ‘GAZELLE JAR’ FROM TELL QARA QÛZÂQ (SYRIA): AN ESSAY OF INTERPRETATION

405

Fig. 4. Rock carvings of ‘desert-kites’ in the Hemma plateau (Syria). As the researcher states, “probably the most obvious association of a carved ‘desert-kite’ and hunting lies in Kefra, sector F (fig.2, lower part) (fig. 5a in this paper): a character with a possible animal head seems to push an animal into a desert-kite, …the morphology of the horns, quite different from the majority of other depictions of ‘gazelles’ in the site…, suggests that it could be a depiction of a Gazella subgutturosa. Indeed, the horns affect the form of a lyre, divergent from the basis of the skull and then slightly converging”.20 Here we found the most repetitive representations of the relationship between the man with the raised arms and the caprid.21

Fig. 5. Representing interaction between the man with the raised arms, the caprid and the ‘kite’. a) Kefra and b) Bashkoy (Hemma plateau, Syria); c) Cairn of Hani (Jordan).

Of course there is always the possibility that in these representations those men were not hunting but herding the animals, just to regroup them. That is the hypothesis presented by Echallier and Braemer who think that the ‘desert-kites’ are places used by pastoralists to herd cattle, as in many representations the animal depicted could be goats.22

20. Van Berg et al. 2004, p. 94. 21. Vid. Van Berg – Picalause 2003 and 2006, and Van Berg et al. 2004. I would like to thank Prof. Van Berg to provide me

with some unpublished images, as well as kindly allow me to use freely from its web page, www.espasoc.org/index.html. 22. Echallier – Braemer 1995: 57-58, 61. Against it, see Rosen – Perevolotsky 1998.

Page 8: Gazelle Jar

CARMEN VALDÉS PEREIRO

406

5.3. Isolated motives. If we isolate the single motives from the jar we have five basic symbols, two figurative and three

geometrical: the figurative are the anthropomorph and the zoomorph, and the geometrical are the circle with the converging strokes, – that we will call ‘the wheel’ just for the sake of expediency –, the line of circles and the band of oblique strokes. 5.3.1. The anthropomorph: The identification of the anthropomorphic figure with a man seems not to have any kind of doubt, even if the posture gives pause. The upraised hands are unnaturally enlarged, emphasizing the gesture. Some literature use to call a man with likewise upraised hands, especially appearing in the glyptic, ‘the dancing man’, but, as we said before, we prefer here the identification as ‘herder’. Apart from the raised hands and the outstanding digits, another striking feature of the man is its head, quite elaborate. It could be some kind of mask or coiffure, but it is also true that the one line looking at the front could be the nose, and the three strokes at his rear, a kind of longhaired coiffure or hairdo. It also recalled a feather headdress.

Fig. 6. Comparison of head representations: 1) Qara Qûzâq; 2-4) Halawa; 5) Dhuwaila; 6) Sabi Abyad; 7) Kefra.

Fig. 6 is showing some comparative material related with the head depiction: 2 and 3 are incision on pottery, 4 is painting on wall23, 5 and 7 rock carvings, and 6 painting on pottery. The examples from Halawa24 (fig. 6: 2-4) come from EBIV levels, and at least two of them seem to recall curly haired locks. The halafian sherd from Sabi Abyad25 comes also from a nearby region (Balih valley, Northeast Syria) even if from an earlier period, while the rock art from Dhuweila26 is from a Neolithic hunting campsite in eastern Jordan.

23. Akkermans – Schwartz 2003: 227, fig. 7.10. 24. Hempelman 2001, Taf. 1.1. Sherd with incised decoration. 25. Akkermans 1987, fig. 4: 4. 26. Betts 1987, fig. 2, pl. 1. In this case, the relationship between representations of gazelles with ‘desert-kites’ are also

evident.

Page 9: Gazelle Jar

THE ‘GAZELLE JAR’ FROM TELL QARA QÛZÂQ (SYRIA): AN ESSAY OF INTERPRETATION

407

5.3.2. The zoomorph: That type of linear, schematic zoomorphic representation tends to be problematic in the identification. For the sake of accuracy the term ‘Caprid’ is usually used as an archaeological collective name that encloses all horn porters that belong to the subfamilies Antilopinae and Caprinae or resemble these externally.27 But the kind of gazelle that was common from this area until the beginning of this century, the goitered gazelle (Gazella subgutturosa), has a characteristic type of horn that made it more easily identifiable through the representations amongst other ungulates or caprids: a kind of lire form, diverging at the base and converging again at mid body, with a slight torsion at the tip.28 At Northern Syria this is the type found between the bone remains at Tell Sheikh Hassan, Halawa, Tell Huera, o El Kown.29 In Neolithic Jordan, at Dhuweila they were the 90% of the animal remains, along with equid and hare.30 That type of gazelle did not jump, as others, but run with the neck straight in front, they are easily frightened and also they are easy to lead by a group of men to a trap, where the walls wouldn’t need to be very high.31

Fig. 7. The goitered gazelle (Gazella subgutturosa) At the end of the IV millennium there were still a good amount of gazelle that were massively killed in northern Syria,32 and during the III millennium, even if the meat originates mainly from domesticated cattle, among the wild hunt the gazelle is the main specie.33 In the characters of the Qara Qûzâq jar, apart from the circles, the only incised lines that are not straight are the horns of the animals. They are the only undulated shape in the entire scene. The author

27. Osten-Sacken 1991: 136. 28. Vila 1998: 37. It still survives in the deserts, semi-deserts, and hilly plains of central Asia, part of the Arabian Peninsula

and the Iranian plateau, but in the antiquity its area reached the Eufrates Syrian valley. It dissapeared from regions as Syria at the beginning of the XXth century due to indiscriminate fire arms hunting.

29. Ibídem, 38-40. 30. Betts 1987: 215. 31. Rosen – Perevolotsky 1998: 109. 32. At Tell Kuran, at the northern Syrian steppe, we have actually the archaeological evidence of a massive gazelle kill at

the end of the IV millennium, where some 100 gazelle were butchered at the same moment, the meat cut and distributed to be carried out, leaving mainly the parts not able to be processed (Zeder 1995: 28-29).

33. Zeder 1998.

Page 10: Gazelle Jar

CARMEN VALDÉS PEREIRO

408

could have perfectly made straight horns, which indicates the especial attention that they would have liked to address to that characteristic of the animal. 5.3.3. The ‘wheel’: That ‘abstract’ motif has been the most difficult icon to find a meaning. The first idea was of a kind of reed cage to put the animals in but, as it has happened with the other symbols, the association of the scene with the ‘desert-kites’ can also provide us with a possible explanation. We still don’t have the answer, but we will just show some resemblances and coincidences. In a variety of cases, especially in the ‘desert-kites’ from Southern Syria and Jordan, they are found together with another kind of stone-made structure, sometimes called ‘wheel-houses’, or ‘jellyfish’ by the English pilots who baptized the ‘kites’.34 Its significance and use is still unknown, but in the instances when they have been excavated, they seem always to precede the construction of the ‘kite’ itself, even been prehistoric in date.35 It seems that it was not a device related with the hunting technique. Nevertheless, it is possible that the author of the representation mentally associates the presence of the wheels among the running men, whether they had a real use in the hunt or not. In fig. 8: 3 we can see that the ‘jellyfishes’ are distributed precisely inside and along the training walls that lead to the enclosure, and it would have been imperiously for the men to run through them.

Fig. 8. Comparison between 1) the round motif of the jar; 2) an aerial view of a wheel-house enclosure in the black

basalt desert (Jordan); and 3) the map of a group of ‘jellyfish’ between two ‘kites’ in southern Syria (n. 3).

Less probable, they could be the isolated representations of the peripheral ‘cells’ themselves, or even, just a decorative drawing with no meaning at all. The most obvious answer that it was really ‘a wheel’, does not seem to have, at this point, any meaning at all. 5.3.4. The line of circles: In the upper border of the scene we have a change in the decorative technique: it is the only instance, including reviewed parallels, when the impression of small circles, probably with the end of a reed or

34. “... il s’agit de constructions circulaires à structure interna radiale, leur fonction n’est pas expliquée”. Note 18, p. 48, in Echallier – Braemer 1995.

35. Betts 1998. Also Echallier – Braemer 1995: 54.

Page 11: Gazelle Jar

THE ‘GAZELLE JAR’ FROM TELL QARA QÛZÂQ (SYRIA): AN ESSAY OF INTERPRETATION

409

cane, is used. As before, we can just assume that its presence is just decorative, with no meaning. The fact that it is located in the upper part of the jar, down the neck and near the animals, could lead to a resemblance with the end of the herding device, the final enclosure.

Fig. 9. The line of circles from the Qara Qûzâq jar (a) and a rock art (b) and three maps (c-e) of the enclosure of ‘desert-kites’ with its surrounding ‘cells’.

This ‘enclosure’ seems quite more open than the one in the Tabqa jar, as it is a row of circles instead of a herringbone. Thus, here the symbolic meaning of it as ‘enclosure’ is quite more hypothetical if we could not relate it with the round nature of the ‘cells’ surrounding the ending of the kite. 5.3.5. The band of oblique strokes: Aside from considering it a simple garland with no meaning, the only plausible explanation in this case could be that it is a kind of fence. And thus, along with the location down the scene (i.e. ‘near’ as opposite to ‘above’ as ‘far’ in the artistic convention), we propose that it would be a representation of the guiding or travelling walls of the ‘desert-kites’. Using a recent review of the representation of fences and nets in the Near Eastern art, especially in glyptic,36 the best reminders of the Qara Qûzâq jar are shown below:

36. Osten-Sacken 1991.

Page 12: Gazelle Jar

CARMEN VALDÉS PEREIRO

410

Fig. 10. Comparative of fences and nets: a) Qara Qûzâq jar; b and c) seals from the Uruk period; d) Early Dynastic

from Ur, and e) Neo-Assyrian relief from Nineveh. In fig. 10 b) we have the representation of fences associated with ‘caprids’ (they seem more like ibexes here) and the ‘dancing man’. The example in c) really shows a stable, but it is interesting because of the similarities in the depiction of a reed wattlework reminding the QQ one. The Assyrian relief (e) shows clearly a ‘hunting net’, as it seems also to be the case in d), even if in that one we can also have a fence. Nevertheless, here the association between fence/net, caprids and birds reminds us of the scene in the Tabqa jar. This band seems therefore to show more a wooden fence than a stonewall. The general use of symbolism and schematism in these scenes could have represented that as the ‘symbol’ of a wall, never mind the material used to really make it. But it is also true that, even if the stone-made ‘kites’ are the most remarkable remains, there is a lot of references of ‘kites’ made of other materials, tales of travellers or archaeological finds. The guiding walls of the Cairn of Hani representations seem to reflect wood fences. Travellers’ tales reported the use of nets or rows of rag pennants hung on slender poles instead of stone training walls.37 In the representation of the onager hunt in the wall paint in Umm Dabaghiyah the training walls are made with wooden hooks.38 Finally, it is also possible that the relatively low stone walls were superseded by an upper wooden construction, as was pointed out for the ‘desert-kites’ of Wadi Umbashi.39 6. Conclusion: the ‘desert-kites’ and the ‘hunting scene’ hypothesis. As I have tried to demonstrate, all the existing motives in the jar could be symbolically associated with some of the aspects of the general strategy of the herding and mass-hunting system of killing wild animals related to the ‘desert-kite’, even if the representation does not portray the plant of the ‘kite’ structure itself. We are dealing then with a not very recurrent but characteristic scene, especially associated with the globular jar shape. The common shape – meaning the same use – and the composition reflect a unique tradition or cultural group. The stylistic differences could be attributed to different chronologies, even if we are just talking about one or two generations. Taking everything into account, the general data of this ‘globular jar with incised decoration of hunting scene’ seems to be around the end of the EBIII and EBIV,

37. Legge – Rowley-Conwy 1987: 81. 38. Kirkbride 1982: 20, fig. 8. 39. Echallier – Braemer 1995: 42.

Page 13: Gazelle Jar

THE ‘GAZELLE JAR’ FROM TELL QARA QÛZÂQ (SYRIA): AN ESSAY OF INTERPRETATION

411

maybe even entering the II millennium.40 It is too bad that the more naturalistic jar has no archaeological context. At present nobody seems to actually confirm that the ‘kite’-scenes reflect hunting, not even with the abundant representations of animals and men inside the kites at the Hemma plateau.41 But, if we agree that the gazelle has never been ‘semi’ or completely domesticated,42 and we also concede that our four-legged beasts are gazelles, there is no other option than to consider the scene from the Qara Qûzâq jar as a ‘hunting scene’. It is not the prosaic moment of the knife actually cutting the skin, but the pick of the game, the pursuit, when the physical capacity and skills of the men of the community, together with the goodwill of the gods, would be decisive for the success of the group activity. Therefore, the aspect worthy to be depicted and symbolized.

* * * Does this artistic representation actually reflect an economic activity carried out by the community living at Qara Qûzâq during the second half of the III millennium? The current climate in the area of Qara Qûzâq, the upper Syrian Euphrates valley, is not much different from the one prevailing in the III millennium. The fertile margin of the valley is a narrow fringe, and then the steppe landscape suddenly begins. But, in this narrow fertile fringe the economy in this period is mostly based on agriculture and pastoralism. As it happens in the other sites of the area, the study of the animal bones of Qara Qûzâq levels III and II (end of EB and beginning of MB) indicates that the massive amount are from domestic species and the percentage of the gazelle is insignificant.43 In the surrounding area on the Middle Euphrates there are not remains of stone-made ‘desert-kites’. Knowing the gazelle migration habits, we could presume that hunting could have been a seasonal activity carried out by the sedentary communities of the area, and the structure could have been a temporal one, reed-made or with nets. But, in that case, it would not explain the exclusive nature of the jar, as it is the only sample of this kind found among the ceramic repertoire of Qara Qûzâq. All these facts seem to indicate that the real activity reflected in the jar did not take place within the local community. Instead, this situation would be understandable if the gazelle meal was provided by transhumant groups, not necessarily shepherds, but maybe nomadic hunters. The meat would be already processed, salted and dried, and the bone remains to be found at the site would be very few. That semi nomadic or transhumant group, in its aspect of mobile artisans, would manufacture also the globular jar. The main present ethnological parallel, the Soluba, were called ‘wandering craftsmen’, and they were hunting/gatherer/artisan groups with a multi-resource economy (“is a hunter, smith, minstrel, and donkey herder”) .44 This hypothesis of the transhumant population could also explain the stylistic similarity with the Hemma plateau representations.

40. The typology of the scene of the Tabqa jar has been paralleled by Prof. Van Berg with some of the Khishâm scenes, caprids feeding from plants (Van Berg 2006, repport 2005), that he tentatively dated to the II millennium (personal communication).

41. Van Berg – Picalause 2003: 558. 42. Rosen – Perevolotsky 1998. 43. Nicolás 2001. 44. Betts 1989.

Page 14: Gazelle Jar

CARMEN VALDÉS PEREIRO

412

Bibliography Akkermans, P.M.M.G. 1987 “A late Neolithic and early halaf village at Sabi Abyad, Northern Syria,” Paléorient 13/1: 23-40. Akkermans, P.M.M.G. – Schwartz, G.M. 2003 The Archaeology of Syria: From Complex Hunter-Gatherers to Early Urban Societies (c.

16,000-300 BD) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Betts, A. 1987 “The hunter’s perspective: 7th millennium rock carvings from eastern Jordan,” World

Archaeology 19/2: 214-225. 1988 “1986 Excavations at Dhuweila, Eastern Jordan: A Preliminary Report,” Levant XX: 7-21. 1989 “The Solubba: Nonpastoral Nomads in Arabia,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental

Research 274: 61-69. Betts, A. – Helms, S. 1986 “Rock Art in Eastern Jordan: ‘Kite’ Carvings?” Paléorient 12/1: 67-72. 1987 “The Desert ‘Kites’ of the Badiyat esh-sham and North Arabia,” Paléorient 13/1: 41-67. Böhme, S. 1992 “Ein Keramikgefäss der späten Frühbronzezeit aus der Region des mittleren Euphrats im

Museum für Vor- und Frühgeschichte,” Acta Praehistorica et Archaeologica 24: 111-117. Castel, C. et al. 2004 “Rapport préliminaire sur les activités de la première mission archéologique franco-syrienne

dans la micro-région d’Al-Rawda (Syrie intérieure): la campagne de 2002,” Akkadica 125: 27-77.

Del Olmo, G., ed. 1993 Qara Qûzâq - I. Campañas I-III (1989-1991), Barcelona: Ausa (Aula Orientalis-Supplementa 4). Del Olmo, G. – Montero, J.-L. – Valdés, C., eds. 2001 Qara Qûzâq - II. Campañas IV-VI (1992-1994), Barcelona: Ausa (Aula Orientalis-Supplementa

17). Echallier, J.C. – Braemer, F. 1994 “Nature et fonction des ‘desert kites’: données et hypothèses nouvelles,” Paléorient 21/1: 35-63. Gondet, S. - Castel, C. 2001 “L’art rupestre à Khishâm,” Les Annales archéologiques arabes syriennes XLIV: 97-105. 2004 “Prospection géophysique à al-Rawda et urbanisme en Syrie au Bronze ancien,” Paléorient

30/2: 93-100. Hempelmann, R.A. 2001 “Menschen- und tiergestaltige Darstellungen auf frühbronzezeitlichen Gefässen von Halawa A”,

in J.-W. Meyer – M. Novák – A. Pruss, eds., Beiträge zur Vorderasiatischen Archäologie. Winfried Orthmann gewidmet. Frankfurt am Main: Archäologisches Institut der Universität Frankfurt am Main, pp. 150-169.

Kirkbride, D. 1982 “Umm Dabaghiyah”, in J. Curtis, ed., Fifty Years of Mesopotamian Discovery, London: British

School of Archaeology in Iraq, pp. 11-21. Legge, A.J. – Rowley-Conwy, P.A.

1987 “Gazelle Killing in Stone Age Syria,” Scientific American 257/August: 76-83.

Page 15: Gazelle Jar

THE ‘GAZELLE JAR’ FROM TELL QARA QÛZÂQ (SYRIA): AN ESSAY OF INTERPRETATION

413

Nicolás Pérez, Mª E. 2001 “Informe preliminar de las alteraciones antrópicas realizadas sobre la fauna de Tell Qara Qûzâq,

campaña de 1992”, in G. Del Olmo - J.-L. Montero - C. Valdés, eds., Qara Qûzâq - II. Campañas IV-VI (1992-1994), Barcelona: Ausa (Aula Orientalis-Supplementa 17), pp. 455-481.

Olávarri, E. 1995 “Rapport des fouilles de Qara Qûzâq, campagne 1994,” Orient Express 1995: 37-39. Osten-Sacken, E.V.D. 1991 “Hürden und Netze,” Mitteilungen der Deutchen Orient Gesellschaft 123: 133-148. Rosen, B. - Perevolotsky, A. 1998 “The Function of ‘Desert Kites’ - Hunting or Livestock Husbandry?” Paléorient 24/1: 107-111. Simpson, St. J. 1995 “Gazelle-hunters and Salt-collectors : A Further Note on the Solubba,” Bulletin of the American

Schools of Oriental Research 293: 79-81. Strommenger, E. et al. 1989 “Ausgrabungen in Tall Bi>a, 1987,” Mitteilungen der Deutchen Orient Gesellschaft 121: 5-63. Valdés, C. 1994 “La cerámica de la Edad del Bronce en Tell Qara Qûzâq, Siria. Campaña de 1991,” in G. Del

Olmo Lete (ed.), Qara Qûzâq - I. Campañas I-III (1989-1991), Barcelona: Ausa (Aula Orientalis-Supplementa 4), pp. 35-143.

1999 “Tell Qara Qûzâq (Tishrin Dam Area): a summary of the first results,” in G. Del Olmo - J.-L. Montero, eds., Proceedings of the International Symposium on the Archaeology of the Upper Syrian Euphrates (Tishrin Dam Area), University of Barcelona, January 28th-30th. Barcelona: Ausa (Aula Orientalis-Supplementa 16), pp. 117-127.

2000 “Excavations at Tell Qara Qûzâq, Northern Syria (Tishreen Dam Area),” in P. Matthiae et al., eds., Proceedings of the Ist International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East (‘La Sapienza’, Roma, May 1998), Roma, pp. 1691-1702.

van Berg, P.-L. - Picalause, V. 2003 “Structures archéologiques et art rupestre à Khishâm (Hassake, Syrie): campagne 1999,” in M.

Lebeau – A. Suleiman, eds., Tell Beydar, the 1995-1999 Seasons of Excavations. A Preliminary Report. Brussels: Brepols (Subartu X), pp. 555-568.

2006 Archéologie et art rupestre du Hemma (Djezireh syrienne) - Travaux de la Mission de Khishâm (1998-2006). http://www.espasoc.org/2006/travaux.html.

van Berg, P.-L. – Vander Linden, M. – Lemaitre, S. – Cauwe, N. – Picalause, V. 2004 “Desert-kites of the Hemma Plateau (Hassake, Syria),” Paléorient 30/1: 89-100. Vila, E. 1998 L’exploitation des animaux en Mésopotamie aux IVe et IIIe millénaires avant J.-C.

Paris : CNRS Editions. Zeder, M. A. 1995 “The Archaeobiology of the Khabur Basin,” Bulletin of the Canadian Society of Mesopotamian

Studies 29: 21-32. 1998 “Environment, Economy, and Subsistence on the Threshold of Urban Emergence in Northern

Mesopotamia,” in M. Fortin – O. Aurenche, eds., Espace naturel, espace habité en Syrie du Nord (10e - 2e millénaires av. J-C, Lyon: Maison de l’Orient Méditerranéen (BCSMS 33), pp. 55-67.

Page 16: Gazelle Jar

CARMEN VALDÉS PEREIRO

414

Provenience of the figures. Fig. 1: Valdés 1994: fig. 27, p. 54, 121, pl. VIe. Fig. 2: P. Van Berg, Mission of Khishâm, www.espasoc.org. Fig. 3: 2) Tabqa region, Böhme 1992, Abb.3, p.116; 3) Tell Bi>a, Strommenger 1989, Abb.37; 3) Halawa, Hempelmann 2001, Taf. 1.4. Fig. 4: P. Van Berg, Mission of Khishâm, www.espasoc.org. Fig. 5: a) Van Berg et al. 2004, fig.2 lower part; b) Rock carvings, P. Van Berg, Mission of Khishâm, www.espasoc.org; c) Echallier – Braemer 1995, p. 57 (after G.L. Harding, “The Cairn of Hani”, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 2 (1953): 8-56). Fig. 6: 2) Halawa, Hempelmann 2001, Taf. 1.1; 3) Halawa, ibídem, Taf. 1.5, detail; 4) Halawa, Akkermans – Schwarts 2003, fig. 7.10, detail; 5) Dhuwaila, Betts 1987, fig. 2, detail; 6) Sabi Abyad, Akkermanns 1987, fig. 4:4; 7) Kefra, Van Berg et al. 2004, fig.2 lower part, detail. Fig. 7: left, © Trident Press. www.arkive.org; right, © Brent Huffman, www.ultimateungulate.com. Fig. 8: 2) http://www.ucl.ac.uk/prehistoric/index.html, report by B. Bewley and D. Kennedy, “An aerial survey contribution to Prehistoric Archaeology in Jordan, 1998”, fig, 2; 3) Echallier – Braemer 1995, fig. 20, p. 50. Fig. 9: b) Betts – Helms 1986, fig. 3: 6, rock carving, Jordan; c, d) Betts - Helms 1987, Saudi Arabia, fig. 10: 2, and Syria, fig. 12: 2 ; e) Echallier – Braemer 1995, fig. 11. Fig. 10: Osten-Sacken 1991. b) Abb. 1, tabloid from Tepe Giyan, after R. Barnet, “Homme Masqué ou Dieu-ibex?”, Syria 43: 259-276; c) Abb. 4, seal from a Berlin museum, after E. Heinrich, Bauwerke in der altsumerischen Bildkunst, 1957, Abb. 15; d) Abb. 10, ED seal from Ur (SIS 4), after Heinrich ibídem, Abb. 23; e) Abb. 14, Assurbanipal palace at Ninive, after B. Meissner – D. Opitz, Studien zum Bit Hilani im Nordpalast Assurbanipals zu Ninive, 1939. Figure below: Valdés 1994: fig. 4:2; Betts - Helms 1987, fig. 11:2.