مطالعة پراکنش جغرافیایی پیکرک‌های انسانی نشسته در دورة نوسنگی خاورنزدیک

نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشجوی مقطع دکتری باستان شناسی، دانشگاه تربیت مدرس.

2 دانشیار گروه باستان شناسی دانشگاه تربیت مدرس

3 استاد گروه باستان شناسی دانشگاه تربیت مدرس.

4 استاد گروه باستان شناسی دانشگاه سیدنی استرالیا.

10.22084/nbsh.2019.17673.1847

چکیده

در دوره‌ی نوسنگی، در منطقه‌ی خاورنزدیک ساخت پیکرک‌های گلی به شکل انسان و حیوان رایج شد که رواج آن، ابتدا در هلال حاصلخیزی و سپس با فاصله‌ی کوتاهی در نقاط مختلف خاورنزدیک رخ داد. فراوانی پیکرک‌ها در محوطه‌های نوسنگی، نشانه‌ی اهمیت این آثار در نزد این جوامع است. در سبک ساخت و حالت پیکرک‌ها، در نواحی جغرافیایی یاد شده، اشتراکاتی دیده می‌شود. یکی از فرم‌های مشترک، فرم پیکرک‌های انسانی به صورت نشسته است که از دوره‌ی نوسنگی، آغاز و در محوطه‌های متعدد خاورنزدیک یافت شده است. سبک پیکرک‌های انسانی به شکل نشسته در دوره‌ی پارینه‌سنگی جدید رواج نداشته و از دوره‌ی نوسنگی است که مورد توجه قرار گرفته است. این نوشتار در پی آن است که در نگاهی کلی به ترسیم نقشه‌ی پراکنش جغرافیایی پیکرک‌های انسانی به حالت نشسته در دوره‌ی نوسنگی خاورنزدیک با افزودن داده‌های به‌دست آمده از ایران بپردازد. گستره‌ی زمانی مطالعه از اوایل دوره‌ی نوسنگی تا دوره‌ی گذار مس‌و‌سنگ را دربر می‌گیرد. هدف اصلی این پژوهش دستیابی به چگونگی ارتباط شکلی و نوع نمایش در پیکرک‌های محوطه‌های خاورنزدیک در دوره‌ی نوسنگی است. پرسش محوری این پژوهش این است که پیکرک‌سازی دوره‌ی نوسنگی در هر محوطه تنها در پی تجربیات فردی و محلی بوده و یا در کنار تبادلات فرهنگی، فرم پیکرک‌ها نیز انتشار یافته و تبادل شده است؟ داده‌های این پژوهش براساس مطالعات موزه‌ایی و منابع کتابخانه‌ایی جمع‌آوری و مورد قیاس تطبیقی قرار گرفته است. شیوه‌ی تجزیه و تحلیل اطلاعات از گونه‌ی کیفی بوده است. از نظر ماهیت، پژوهش در دسته‌ی پژوهش‌های تاریخی-فرهنگی قرار می‌گیرد. نتیجه‌ی حاصل شده نشان می‌دهد، سبک پیکرک‌های انسانی به حالت نشسته از دوره‌ی نوسنگی (حدود هزاره‌ی نهم قبل‌ازمیلاد) تا اوایل مس‌و‌سنگ جغرافیایی بزرگی از لوانت تا قفقاز از یک سو و تا شمال‌شرق مرکز فلات ایران از سوی دیگر، را دربر گرفته است. برمبنای همزمانی تقریبی انتشار محصولات اهلی‌ شده و رواج پیکرک‌های انسانی و حیوانی از گل و تکرار برخی فرم‌های مشترک از جمله پیکرک‌های انسانی به حالت نشسته با پاهای دراز شده، به‌نظر می‌رسد علاوه‌بر انتشار ایده‌ی پیکرک‌سازی، برخی فرم‌ها نیز انتشار یافته و تبادل شده است.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات


عنوان مقاله [English]

Study on Geographical Distribution of Neolithic Seated Figurines of Near East

نویسندگان [English]

  • Marziyeh Zarekhalili 1
  • hamed vahdati nasab 2
  • Alireza Hejebri Nobari 3
  • Barbara Helwing 4
1 Ph.D. Candidate, Tarbiyat Modares University
2 Associate Professor, Tariyat Modares University
3 Professor, Tarbiyat Modares University
4 Professor, University of Sydney
چکیده [English]

In the Neolithic period, the production of clay figurines in animal and human shapes became common in Fertile Crescent and soon became prevalent in most sites of the Near East. The abundance of the figurines in many Neolithic sites shows its importance by the mentioned societies. Although there is a considerable variety in the forms of the Neolithic human figurines, some striking similarities are distinguishable. One of the common form is the form of seated figurines which has been common in many Neolithic sites. It was only from the early Neolithic period when this style got common while in prior period, Upper Paleolithic, this style was not considered. The result shows that the seated figurines from Neolithic to early Chalcolithic period covers a vast geographical area from West Levant to North East part of Iran’s central plateau. In this paper, by adding some data from Iran, it is attempted to draw geographical distribution of seated human figurines in Near East. The main aim of this research is to see how the figurines were related together based on the form and style. While the figurines of some sites of Iran were in hand in this study, the rest information was gathered based on the publications. The method of this study is comparative study of the figurines forms to see their relation together. With the cultural historic point of view, this research is attempted to provide an overview to the geographical and timetable dispersion of the human seated figurines of Neolithic to Chalcolithic period. Based on the coincidence of the domestication distribution and the clay figurines manufactory in many sites of Near East on one hand and the repetition of some forms like seated figurines on the other hand, it seems that some forms of figurines were affected by the cultural interactions. 
Keywords: Figurine, Seated Figurines, Near East Figurines, Neolithic Figurines, Human Figurines.
 
Introduction
In the long process of Neolithisation, strike changes happened in the social and economic structures of Near East societies which caused in increasing diversity of symbolic behaviors which were performance in different ways. On the other hand, in this period, population growth and need for food increased the economical exchanges, especially in the area of equal latitudes in the way that the agriculture life style of south West of Asia reached to Europe, Egypt and Indian valley with the average speed of 1.1 kilometer in year (Diamond 1999: 178). In the result of economic and social interaction, the culture exchange too (Voigt 2002: 289). Among the cultural idea which got involved in cultural exchanges was the idea of manufacturing clay human, animal figurines and also geometric forms. According to the evidence, the tradition of clay human and animal figurines in Near East started at the early pre pottery Neolithic period (PPNA) in some parts of fertile crescent and soon after it was prevalent in most of the Near East sites. Most of these figurines are out of clay, in small size and most of them have been dried under the sun or heated with low temperature. Many of these figurines have been found in the household dump and trash bins. Based on what is mentioned, this article with an art historical point of view, aims to clarify the connection and exchange of the figurines form and style in different Neolithic and Chalcolithic sites of Near East. In the other word, it is attempted to response this question that did the tradition of figurine production in each sites was only based on the personal and local forms? Where the manufactures of each sites made the figurines only based on what they have seen in their society? Or this tradition was effected by the cultural interaction and therefore the idea, form and the kind of performances were exchanged too?
 
Seated Figurines
In contrast to Upper Paleolithic figurines which were always performed in standing position, in Neolithic period the form of seated figurines appears and stand for a several millennia. The oldest seated figurines has been obtain from PPNA site of Murybet III in Syria (Bar Yosef et al., 1991). During the PPNB the number of figurine and seated figurines increased. In Syria the seated figurines have been found in some sites include Seker al Aheimar (Nishiaki 2007), Netiv Haghdud (Bar Yosef et al., 1991). In Turkey, from Mezraa Teleilat (Hansen 2006), Çayönü (Broman-Morles 1990, plat: 23) and also in Çatal Höyük. In Catal Höyük, the form of seated figurine have been use to performance some very abbreviation forms which might be a combination of seated human form and horned animal too (Nakumara & Meskel 2008. Fig: 146). The geography of Turkey like a bridge connected the Mesopotamia to South East Europe so it is not strange if the figurines of Turkey and South East Europe to have some interaction (Hansen 2006).  In Iran the seated figurines have been obtain from Sheikh-e Abad (Mohamadifar et al., 2010 fig), Chogha Golan (Zeidi et al., 2012, fig 8.3). Chogha Banut (Alizadeh 2003, Plat 18), Ali kosh (Hole et al., 1969: 225) Sarab (Brman Morales 1990), Singe Chaxmaq and the early Calclothic site of Zaghe. The position of seated figurines have been interpreted as the moment of giving birth (Noy 1985: 64) but not all seated figurines shows the female gender, in some few cases like Halaf, the same position has been used to show the male figurine. On the other hand, the form of the figurines brings to mind if this position helps the figurines to be seated at some place but some seated figurines like Zaghe figurines are not stable and shows that the seated position in these small clay object had no practical functions.
 
Conclusion
In the Neolithic period, with settling the first farming villages, the manufactory of clay figurines in human and animal shape became common. The prevalence of the clay figurines in Near East was almost coincide with the domestication distribution. With increasing the farming sites, the number of the figurines increased too. The coincidence of farming life style and figurines prevalence on one hand and the repetition of some forms like seated figurines on the other hand could shows that some forms of the figurines have been distributed. According to this study, the form of the seated figurines covers a vast geography from West of Levant to North East part of the Iran’s plateau. In Iran, based on the archaeological documents, the figurine production appears first in Western areas, where the domestication were started. Afterward, with reaching the domestication to North East part of Iran’s plateau, from Zagros area, the producing figurines appears in some sites like Sang-e Chaxmaq. In general, based on the repetition of seated figurine form in many Neolithic sites, it seems that the cultural interaction affected the distribution of mentioned style. Beside the style, some similarities like size, organs omission or performance in figurines could support this claim.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Figurine
  • Seated Figurines
  • Near East Figurines
  • Neolithic Figurines
  • Human Figurines

 

- Alizadeh. A., 2003, Excavation at the prehistoric mound of Chogha Bonut, Khuzestan, Iran. Oriental institute publication.

- Bader. N. O., 1983. “The early agricultural settlement of Tell Sotto”. In: (Yoffee. N., Clark.J) eds. Early stages in the evolution of Mesopotamian civilization. Sovie excavation on northern Iraq. University of Arizona press, 41-53.

- Bailey, D. W., 1994, “Reading prehistoric figurines as individuals”. World Archaeology, Vol. 25, No.3: 321-331

- Bar-Yosef Mayer, D. E., 2005, “The exploitation of shells as beads in the Paleolithic and Neolithic of the Levant”. Paléorient, 31(1): 176-185.

- Bar-Yosef, O., 1997, “Symbolic expressions in later prehistory of the Levant: Why are they so few”. Beyond art Pleistocene image and symbol, 23: 161-87.

- Bar-Yosef, O.; Gopher, A.; Tchernov.E. & Kislev. E. M., 1991, “Netiv Haghdud: An early Neolithic village site in the Jordan valley”. Journal of field archaeology, 18(4): 405- 424.

- Bechler, E. H., 2014, “Embodiment of the Halaf: Sixth Millennium Figurines from Northern Mesopotamia”. Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Columbia.

- Bechler, E. H., 2016, “Identifying female in Halaf: Prehistory Agency and Modern Interpretation”. Archaeology methid theory 23:  921-948

- Boyd, B. & Cook, J., 1993, “A reconsideration of the Ain Sakhri’figurine”. In: Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society. Cambridge University Press. Vol. 59: 399-405

- Broman Morales, V., 1983, “Jarmo figurines and other clay objects”. In: Braidwood. S., Braidwood. J., Howe. B., Reed. A., Watson.P.J, (eds).  Prehistoric archaeology along the Zagros flanks. Vol, 105: 369-423.

- Broman-Morales, V., 1990, Figurines and other clay objects from Sarab and Çayönü. Oriental institute of the University of Chicago.

- Bulter, J., 1990, Gender trouble: feminism and subversion of identity. New York (NY): Routlege.

- Campbell, S. & Daems, A., 2017, Figurines in prehistoric Mesopotamia. In: Insoll. T., (ed), The Oxford Handbook of Prehistoric Figurines.

- Cauvin, J., 1994, Nassiance. des divinitès, Nassiance de l’agiculture: la révolution des symbols au Nèolithic. CNRS. Paris,

- Cauvin, J., 2000, The birth of the Gods and the origin of agriculture. Cambridge: Cambridge University press.

- Cauvin. J., 2002, “The symbolic foundation of the Neolithic revolution in the Near East”. In: Jan Kuijt (ed), Life in Neolithic farming communities, social organization, identity, and differentiation. Springer. pp. 235-252

- Clark. R. C, 2007, “The social lives of figurines: recontextualizing the third millennium B.C. terracotta figurines from Harappa (Pakistan)”. Ph.D. Thesis , University of University.

- Daems, A., 2008, “Evaluating patterns of gender through Mesopotamian and Iranian human figurines, A research of the Neolithic and Chalcolithic period industries” In: Bolger, D. (ed). Gender through time in the near east, Altamira press: 77-117.

- Daems, A., 2017,. “From a bird’s eye view: prehistoric human figurines from Iran”. In: Insoll T, editor. The Oxford Handbook of Prehistoric Figurines. Oxford University Press.

- Daems. A., Croucher. K., 2007, “Artificial cranial modification in prehistoric Iran: evidence from crania and figurines”. Iranica Antiqua. Vol.42: 1-21

- Diamond, J., 1999, Guns, germs, and steel, the fates of human societies. press by: Norton & company.

- Eller, C., 2000, The myth of Matriarchal prehistory: why an invented past won’t give women a future. Boston: Beacon press.

- Eygun, G., 1992, “Les figurines humaines et animals du site néolithique de Ganj Dare (Iran)”. Paléorient, vol.18/1: 109-117

- Gimbutas, M., 1974, The Gods and goddesses of old Europe. London: Thames and Hudson.

- Gimbutas. M., 2001, The language of Goddess. London: Thames and Hudson.

- Gimbutas. M.,1991, The civilization of the Goddess. San Francisco: Harper.

- Gopher, A. & Orrelle, E, 1996. “An alternative interpretation for the material imagery of the Yarmukian, a Neolithic culture of the sixth millennium BC in the southern Levant”. Cambridge Archaeological Journal, 6(2): 255-279.

- Hansen, S., 2014, “Neolithic figurines in Anatolia”. The Neolithic in Turkey, 6, pp.265-292.

- Hansen. S., 2006, “Kleinekunst und groβplastik menschendarstellungen von vorderaisen Anatolien bis den Donauraum”. Beiträge_ANA.qxd. seite 192-206.

- Hole. F.; Flannery, K. V. & Neely, J. A., 1969, Prehistory and human ecology of the Deh Luran Plain: an early village sequence from Khuzestan, Iran (No. 1). University of Michigan

- Hourmouziadis, G. 1973, I Anthropomorphi edoloplastiki tis Neolithikis thessalias: provlimata kataskevis, typologias kai ermeinias. Volos: hetaireia thessalikon erevnon. 

- Ibánez, J. J.; Ortega, D.; Campos, D.; Khalidi, L., & Méndez, V., 2015, “Testing complex networks of interaction at the onset of the Near Eastern Neolithic using modelling of obsidian exchange”. Journal of the Royal Society Interface, 12(107), 20150210.

- Kuijit, I., 2017, Clay Ideas: Levantine Neolithic figurine trajectories and Intellectual threads. In: Insoll T, editor. The Oxford Handbook of Prehistoric Figurines. Oxford University Press.

- Kuijt I. & Goring-Morris, N., 2002, “Foraging, farming, and social complexity in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic of the southern Levant: a review and synthesis”. Journal of World Prehistory. Dec 1; 16 (4), pp 361-440.

- Kuijt, I. & Chesson, M. S., 2007, Imagery and Social Relationships: Shi ing Identity and Ambiguity in the Neolithic.

- Lacquer, R., 1990, Making sex: body and gender from the Greeks to freud. Cambridge (MA): Harvard University press.

- Lock, M., 1993, “Cultivating the body: anthropology and epistemologies of bodily practice and knowledge”. Annual review in Anthropology 22, pp. 135-155.

- Lyonnet, B.; Guliyev, F.; Helwing, B.; Aliyev, T.; Hansen, S., & Mirtskhulava, G., 2012, “Ancient Kura 2010-2011: the first two seasons of joint field work in the Southern Caucasus”. Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran und Turan, 44(1), e190.

- Martin, E., 1987, The woman in the body. Boston (MA): Beacon press.

- Matthews, R.; Mohammadifar, Y.; Matthews, W. & Motarjem., A. 2010, “Investigating the Early Neolithic of western Iran”: The Central Zagros Archaeological Project (CZAP). Antiquity, 84(323)

- Matthews. R.; Mohammadifar, Y.; Matthews. W. & Motarjem, A., 2013, “Investigating Neolithisation of society in the central Zagros of western Iran”. In: Roger Mattews and Hassam Fazeli Nashli (eds), The Neolothisation of Iran, the formation of new societies. Oxbow Books: 14-34.

- Meskell, L., 2017, The Archaeology of Figurines and the Human Body in Prehistory. The Oxford Handbook of Prehistoric Figurines.

- Nakamura. C. & Meskell. L., 2008, In Hodder, Ian, & Farid, Shahina (Eds.). Çatalhöyük 2008 archive report Catalhoyuk Research Project. London, UK: Institute of Archaeology, University College London.

- Negahban, E. O., 1984, “Clay human figurines of Zaghe”. Iranica Antiqua, 19, pp 1-20.

- Nishiaki Y. A., 2007, “Unique Neolithic Female Figurine from Tell Seker al-Aheimar, Northeast Syria”. Paléorient, 33(1): 117-125.

 

- Noy T., 1985, “Seated clay figurines from the Neolithic Period, Israel”.in: Anthony Bonanno (ed) Archaeology and Fertility Cult in the Ancient Mediterranean: 63-351.

- Ortega, D.; Ibáñez, J. J.; Campos, D.; Khalidi, L.; Méndez, V. & Teira, L., 2016, “Systems of interaction between the first sedentary villages in the near east exposed using agent-based modelling of Obsidian exchange”. Systems, 4(2), 18.

- Reihl. S.; Benz, M.; Conard, N. J.; Darabi. H.; Deckers. K.; Fazeli Nashli. H. & Zeidi-Kulehparcheh. M., 2012, “Plant use in three pre-pottery Neolithic sited of northern and eastern Fertile Crescent: a preliminary report”. Veget Hist archaeology 21: 95-106

- Riehl, S.; Asouti, E.; Karakaya, D.; Starkovich, B. M.; Zeidi, M., & Conard, N. J., 2015, Resilience at the transition to agriculture: The long-term landscape and resource development at the aceramic Neolithic tell site of Chogha Golan (Iran). BioMed research international.

- Scmandt-Besserat, D., 1997, “Animal symbols at ‘Ain Ghazal”. Expedition. Vol 39, No.1: 49-57

- Talalay, L., 1983, “Neolithic figurines of southern Greece: their form and function”. Unpublished Ph. D. Thesis, University of Indiana  

- Talalay, L., 2004, “Heady business: skulls, heads and decapitation in Neolithic Anatolia and Greece”. Journal of Mediterranean archaeology, 17(2): 139-163

- Ucko, P., 1968. “Anthropomorphic Figurines of Presynaptic Egypt and Neolithic Crete”. Occasional Papers of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 24.

- Vahdati Nasab, H. & Kazazi, M., 2011, “Metric analysis of a female figurine from Tepe Sarab”. Iran, vol. 49: 1-10

- Voigt, M. M., 1983, Haji Firouz tepe, Iran: the Neolithic settlement. University museum, University of Pennsylvania.

- Voigt, M. M., 2002, “Çatal Höyük in context. In Life in Neolithic Farming Communities Springer”. Boston: 253-294

- Weinberg, S. S., 1951, “Neolithic figurines and Aegean interrelations”. American Journal of Archaeology, 55(2), 121-133.

- Zeidi, M.; Reihl. S.; Napierala, H. & Conard, N. J., 2012, “Chogha Golan: A PPN site in the foothills of the Zagros Mountains, Ilam province, Iran” (report on the season of excavation in 2009) in: Roger Matthews and John Curtis (eds), Proceeding of the 7th international congress on archaeology of the ancient Near East .Vol.3: 259-275