What is known about the Ubaid lizard-people figurines?
I find the Ubaid lizard-people figurines visually captivating. But for obvious reasons it's difficult to search for information about them online without wading chest deep through pages of ancient aliens garbage, for little reward. So far I've managed to find pictures of several different figurines, that they were excavated at Ur, and that they date from the Ubaid period, and that they may present evidence for several varieties of body modification - though I don't know how solid that last one is.
What else do we actually know about these odd and arresting figures? Are there theories as to their origins, and significance within Mesopotamian art or religious belief? Are the majority female, as seems to be from the pictures, and what are they wearing and holding?
art archaeology mesopotamia sumer sculpture
New contributor
add a comment |
I find the Ubaid lizard-people figurines visually captivating. But for obvious reasons it's difficult to search for information about them online without wading chest deep through pages of ancient aliens garbage, for little reward. So far I've managed to find pictures of several different figurines, that they were excavated at Ur, and that they date from the Ubaid period, and that they may present evidence for several varieties of body modification - though I don't know how solid that last one is.
What else do we actually know about these odd and arresting figures? Are there theories as to their origins, and significance within Mesopotamian art or religious belief? Are the majority female, as seems to be from the pictures, and what are they wearing and holding?
art archaeology mesopotamia sumer sculpture
New contributor
add a comment |
I find the Ubaid lizard-people figurines visually captivating. But for obvious reasons it's difficult to search for information about them online without wading chest deep through pages of ancient aliens garbage, for little reward. So far I've managed to find pictures of several different figurines, that they were excavated at Ur, and that they date from the Ubaid period, and that they may present evidence for several varieties of body modification - though I don't know how solid that last one is.
What else do we actually know about these odd and arresting figures? Are there theories as to their origins, and significance within Mesopotamian art or religious belief? Are the majority female, as seems to be from the pictures, and what are they wearing and holding?
art archaeology mesopotamia sumer sculpture
New contributor
I find the Ubaid lizard-people figurines visually captivating. But for obvious reasons it's difficult to search for information about them online without wading chest deep through pages of ancient aliens garbage, for little reward. So far I've managed to find pictures of several different figurines, that they were excavated at Ur, and that they date from the Ubaid period, and that they may present evidence for several varieties of body modification - though I don't know how solid that last one is.
What else do we actually know about these odd and arresting figures? Are there theories as to their origins, and significance within Mesopotamian art or religious belief? Are the majority female, as seems to be from the pictures, and what are they wearing and holding?
art archaeology mesopotamia sumer sculpture
art archaeology mesopotamia sumer sculpture
New contributor
New contributor
edited 4 hours ago
Flux
New contributor
asked 4 hours ago
FluxFlux
605
605
New contributor
New contributor
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
There are many theories & interpretations, but relatively little evidence to support most of them. Of course, there are no written sources from the Ubaid period to support them.
The one you have at bottom left (and top right) is interpreted as holding / nursing a baby. A similar figure, in this case missing the head, can be seen in this example from the British Museum:
- Image Source British Museum (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)
Figures generally appear to be naked. The marks on the bodies may indicate tattoos or ritual scarification (or a combination of the two).
We have figures representing both males and females, but sexual dimorphism is less evident in figures of the Ubaid period (in stark contrast to figures from earlier periods). You have male figure in the bottom-right of your picture.
Instead, Ubaid figurines tend to show male and female figures with similar proportions, instead tending to emphasise the forms of body ornamentation (assuming the marks do actually represent tattoos or ritual scarification), and cranial deformation common to both.
We seem to be on much more secure ground when it comes to the shape of the heads of the figurines.
These almost certainly represent skulls that were bound in infancy to deliberately modify the shape (a practice known from many other cultures, and which is still practised in Vanuatu, for example). We have good osteological evidence for the practice from excavated human remains from the period.
The practice of intentional cranial deformation by binding the skull in infancy is strongly supported by skeletal evidence from a number of fifth-millennium sites in the region. These sites include
- Değirmentepe (Özbek, 2003)
- Arpachiyah (Molleson and Campbell, 1995)
In addition, we may have evidence from Eridu (Lorentz 2010, p128), although this is a little less certain due to the fragmentary nature of the remains.
I'll mention just two studies here:
Özbek's 2003 study of the skeletal remains from 31 individuals at Değirmentepe, which provided solid evidence for artificial cranial deformation, probably achieved by binding the skull in infancy.
Özbal's study, also in 2003, revealed 13 skeletons showing evidence for deliberate cranial deformation. In this case, the practice was observed across all age-ranges from the sample. The evidence strongly suggested that the required deformation was achieved by binding the head with bandages. This caused flattening or compression of the frontal bone of the skull. (Özbal 2003).
(I'd also highly recommend the paper by Molleson & Campbell, although I should declare an interest since Theya Molleson was my tutor when I studied human osteology as part of my Archaeology master degree)
In addition, you might find the 2011 PhD thesis, The Social Life of Human Remains: Burial rites and the accumulation of capital during the transition from Neolithic to urban societies in the Near East by Gareth David Brereton of UCL, of interest. He mentions these and other figurines of the period, together with the evidence from burials as discussed above.
Sources
Deams, A and K. Croucher: Artificial Cranial Modification in Prehistoric Iran:
Evidence from Crania and Figurines. Iranica Antiqua 42, 2007, pp 1-21.Lorentz, K. O: Ubaid Headshaping: Negotiations of Identity Through Physical
Appearance? In R. A. Carter and G. Philip (eds.), Beyond the Ubaid. Transformation
and Integration in the Late Prehistoric Societies of the Near East, The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 2010, pp 124-148.Molleson, T., and S, Campbell: Deformed Skulls at Arpachiyah: The Social
Context. In S. Campbell and A. Green (eds.), The Archaeology of Death in the Ancient
Near East, 1995, pp 45-55. Oxbow Monographs 51. Oxford.Özbal, R: Tell Kurdu'nda Mikro Arkeolojik Çalişmalar, 2003
Özbek, M: 2001. Cranial Deformation in a Subadult Sample From
Deĝirmentepe (Chalcolithic, Turkey), American Journal of Physical
Anthropology, Volume 115, Issue 3, July 2001, pp 238-244
Excellent, thanks. Aside from the cranial deformation, which sounds like it's pretty much cinched going by those remains, is there any reasonable speculation as to why they're so reptilian? (Going by the bug-eyes, snouts, and open nostrils, in the homeland of Gilgamesh and the Enuma Elish.) Or is there just not enough context available to say anything much about that? Secondarily, if you know, are those odd holes below the lips believed to be anything in particular? Piercings?
– Flux
1 hour ago
1
@Flux There are lots of guesses about the appearance, but the truth is that we simply don't know. It could just be that was the artistic style of the time. It may have something to do with the function of the statuettes (we don't know what that was). Without texts or some other evidence it's all just guesswork. Since the soft tissues don't survive, the suggestion that the marks are tattoos or scarification are also guesses (in that case, based on evidence from ethnographic parallels, but still guesses).
– sempaiscuba♦
1 hour ago
Ah, figured that would be the case.
– Flux
1 hour ago
This is plausible for cranial features, but the facial ones? Why no parallel to Egyptian gods with animal heads, chimeras?
– LangLangC
16 mins ago
@LangLangC In Egypt we have supporting evidence from other sources (texts especially) to support interpretation. These figures are much earlier and we have no such supporting sources. We don't know the relationships with what went before or with what came later. Like I said, apart from the cranial deformation, for which we have osteological evidence from contemporary burial sites, we simply do not know. There are lots of guesses, but no evidence to support them.
– sempaiscuba♦
4 mins ago
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "324"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Flux is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fhistory.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f52154%2fwhat-is-known-about-the-ubaid-lizard-people-figurines%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
There are many theories & interpretations, but relatively little evidence to support most of them. Of course, there are no written sources from the Ubaid period to support them.
The one you have at bottom left (and top right) is interpreted as holding / nursing a baby. A similar figure, in this case missing the head, can be seen in this example from the British Museum:
- Image Source British Museum (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)
Figures generally appear to be naked. The marks on the bodies may indicate tattoos or ritual scarification (or a combination of the two).
We have figures representing both males and females, but sexual dimorphism is less evident in figures of the Ubaid period (in stark contrast to figures from earlier periods). You have male figure in the bottom-right of your picture.
Instead, Ubaid figurines tend to show male and female figures with similar proportions, instead tending to emphasise the forms of body ornamentation (assuming the marks do actually represent tattoos or ritual scarification), and cranial deformation common to both.
We seem to be on much more secure ground when it comes to the shape of the heads of the figurines.
These almost certainly represent skulls that were bound in infancy to deliberately modify the shape (a practice known from many other cultures, and which is still practised in Vanuatu, for example). We have good osteological evidence for the practice from excavated human remains from the period.
The practice of intentional cranial deformation by binding the skull in infancy is strongly supported by skeletal evidence from a number of fifth-millennium sites in the region. These sites include
- Değirmentepe (Özbek, 2003)
- Arpachiyah (Molleson and Campbell, 1995)
In addition, we may have evidence from Eridu (Lorentz 2010, p128), although this is a little less certain due to the fragmentary nature of the remains.
I'll mention just two studies here:
Özbek's 2003 study of the skeletal remains from 31 individuals at Değirmentepe, which provided solid evidence for artificial cranial deformation, probably achieved by binding the skull in infancy.
Özbal's study, also in 2003, revealed 13 skeletons showing evidence for deliberate cranial deformation. In this case, the practice was observed across all age-ranges from the sample. The evidence strongly suggested that the required deformation was achieved by binding the head with bandages. This caused flattening or compression of the frontal bone of the skull. (Özbal 2003).
(I'd also highly recommend the paper by Molleson & Campbell, although I should declare an interest since Theya Molleson was my tutor when I studied human osteology as part of my Archaeology master degree)
In addition, you might find the 2011 PhD thesis, The Social Life of Human Remains: Burial rites and the accumulation of capital during the transition from Neolithic to urban societies in the Near East by Gareth David Brereton of UCL, of interest. He mentions these and other figurines of the period, together with the evidence from burials as discussed above.
Sources
Deams, A and K. Croucher: Artificial Cranial Modification in Prehistoric Iran:
Evidence from Crania and Figurines. Iranica Antiqua 42, 2007, pp 1-21.Lorentz, K. O: Ubaid Headshaping: Negotiations of Identity Through Physical
Appearance? In R. A. Carter and G. Philip (eds.), Beyond the Ubaid. Transformation
and Integration in the Late Prehistoric Societies of the Near East, The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 2010, pp 124-148.Molleson, T., and S, Campbell: Deformed Skulls at Arpachiyah: The Social
Context. In S. Campbell and A. Green (eds.), The Archaeology of Death in the Ancient
Near East, 1995, pp 45-55. Oxbow Monographs 51. Oxford.Özbal, R: Tell Kurdu'nda Mikro Arkeolojik Çalişmalar, 2003
Özbek, M: 2001. Cranial Deformation in a Subadult Sample From
Deĝirmentepe (Chalcolithic, Turkey), American Journal of Physical
Anthropology, Volume 115, Issue 3, July 2001, pp 238-244
Excellent, thanks. Aside from the cranial deformation, which sounds like it's pretty much cinched going by those remains, is there any reasonable speculation as to why they're so reptilian? (Going by the bug-eyes, snouts, and open nostrils, in the homeland of Gilgamesh and the Enuma Elish.) Or is there just not enough context available to say anything much about that? Secondarily, if you know, are those odd holes below the lips believed to be anything in particular? Piercings?
– Flux
1 hour ago
1
@Flux There are lots of guesses about the appearance, but the truth is that we simply don't know. It could just be that was the artistic style of the time. It may have something to do with the function of the statuettes (we don't know what that was). Without texts or some other evidence it's all just guesswork. Since the soft tissues don't survive, the suggestion that the marks are tattoos or scarification are also guesses (in that case, based on evidence from ethnographic parallels, but still guesses).
– sempaiscuba♦
1 hour ago
Ah, figured that would be the case.
– Flux
1 hour ago
This is plausible for cranial features, but the facial ones? Why no parallel to Egyptian gods with animal heads, chimeras?
– LangLangC
16 mins ago
@LangLangC In Egypt we have supporting evidence from other sources (texts especially) to support interpretation. These figures are much earlier and we have no such supporting sources. We don't know the relationships with what went before or with what came later. Like I said, apart from the cranial deformation, for which we have osteological evidence from contemporary burial sites, we simply do not know. There are lots of guesses, but no evidence to support them.
– sempaiscuba♦
4 mins ago
add a comment |
There are many theories & interpretations, but relatively little evidence to support most of them. Of course, there are no written sources from the Ubaid period to support them.
The one you have at bottom left (and top right) is interpreted as holding / nursing a baby. A similar figure, in this case missing the head, can be seen in this example from the British Museum:
- Image Source British Museum (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)
Figures generally appear to be naked. The marks on the bodies may indicate tattoos or ritual scarification (or a combination of the two).
We have figures representing both males and females, but sexual dimorphism is less evident in figures of the Ubaid period (in stark contrast to figures from earlier periods). You have male figure in the bottom-right of your picture.
Instead, Ubaid figurines tend to show male and female figures with similar proportions, instead tending to emphasise the forms of body ornamentation (assuming the marks do actually represent tattoos or ritual scarification), and cranial deformation common to both.
We seem to be on much more secure ground when it comes to the shape of the heads of the figurines.
These almost certainly represent skulls that were bound in infancy to deliberately modify the shape (a practice known from many other cultures, and which is still practised in Vanuatu, for example). We have good osteological evidence for the practice from excavated human remains from the period.
The practice of intentional cranial deformation by binding the skull in infancy is strongly supported by skeletal evidence from a number of fifth-millennium sites in the region. These sites include
- Değirmentepe (Özbek, 2003)
- Arpachiyah (Molleson and Campbell, 1995)
In addition, we may have evidence from Eridu (Lorentz 2010, p128), although this is a little less certain due to the fragmentary nature of the remains.
I'll mention just two studies here:
Özbek's 2003 study of the skeletal remains from 31 individuals at Değirmentepe, which provided solid evidence for artificial cranial deformation, probably achieved by binding the skull in infancy.
Özbal's study, also in 2003, revealed 13 skeletons showing evidence for deliberate cranial deformation. In this case, the practice was observed across all age-ranges from the sample. The evidence strongly suggested that the required deformation was achieved by binding the head with bandages. This caused flattening or compression of the frontal bone of the skull. (Özbal 2003).
(I'd also highly recommend the paper by Molleson & Campbell, although I should declare an interest since Theya Molleson was my tutor when I studied human osteology as part of my Archaeology master degree)
In addition, you might find the 2011 PhD thesis, The Social Life of Human Remains: Burial rites and the accumulation of capital during the transition from Neolithic to urban societies in the Near East by Gareth David Brereton of UCL, of interest. He mentions these and other figurines of the period, together with the evidence from burials as discussed above.
Sources
Deams, A and K. Croucher: Artificial Cranial Modification in Prehistoric Iran:
Evidence from Crania and Figurines. Iranica Antiqua 42, 2007, pp 1-21.Lorentz, K. O: Ubaid Headshaping: Negotiations of Identity Through Physical
Appearance? In R. A. Carter and G. Philip (eds.), Beyond the Ubaid. Transformation
and Integration in the Late Prehistoric Societies of the Near East, The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 2010, pp 124-148.Molleson, T., and S, Campbell: Deformed Skulls at Arpachiyah: The Social
Context. In S. Campbell and A. Green (eds.), The Archaeology of Death in the Ancient
Near East, 1995, pp 45-55. Oxbow Monographs 51. Oxford.Özbal, R: Tell Kurdu'nda Mikro Arkeolojik Çalişmalar, 2003
Özbek, M: 2001. Cranial Deformation in a Subadult Sample From
Deĝirmentepe (Chalcolithic, Turkey), American Journal of Physical
Anthropology, Volume 115, Issue 3, July 2001, pp 238-244
Excellent, thanks. Aside from the cranial deformation, which sounds like it's pretty much cinched going by those remains, is there any reasonable speculation as to why they're so reptilian? (Going by the bug-eyes, snouts, and open nostrils, in the homeland of Gilgamesh and the Enuma Elish.) Or is there just not enough context available to say anything much about that? Secondarily, if you know, are those odd holes below the lips believed to be anything in particular? Piercings?
– Flux
1 hour ago
1
@Flux There are lots of guesses about the appearance, but the truth is that we simply don't know. It could just be that was the artistic style of the time. It may have something to do with the function of the statuettes (we don't know what that was). Without texts or some other evidence it's all just guesswork. Since the soft tissues don't survive, the suggestion that the marks are tattoos or scarification are also guesses (in that case, based on evidence from ethnographic parallels, but still guesses).
– sempaiscuba♦
1 hour ago
Ah, figured that would be the case.
– Flux
1 hour ago
This is plausible for cranial features, but the facial ones? Why no parallel to Egyptian gods with animal heads, chimeras?
– LangLangC
16 mins ago
@LangLangC In Egypt we have supporting evidence from other sources (texts especially) to support interpretation. These figures are much earlier and we have no such supporting sources. We don't know the relationships with what went before or with what came later. Like I said, apart from the cranial deformation, for which we have osteological evidence from contemporary burial sites, we simply do not know. There are lots of guesses, but no evidence to support them.
– sempaiscuba♦
4 mins ago
add a comment |
There are many theories & interpretations, but relatively little evidence to support most of them. Of course, there are no written sources from the Ubaid period to support them.
The one you have at bottom left (and top right) is interpreted as holding / nursing a baby. A similar figure, in this case missing the head, can be seen in this example from the British Museum:
- Image Source British Museum (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)
Figures generally appear to be naked. The marks on the bodies may indicate tattoos or ritual scarification (or a combination of the two).
We have figures representing both males and females, but sexual dimorphism is less evident in figures of the Ubaid period (in stark contrast to figures from earlier periods). You have male figure in the bottom-right of your picture.
Instead, Ubaid figurines tend to show male and female figures with similar proportions, instead tending to emphasise the forms of body ornamentation (assuming the marks do actually represent tattoos or ritual scarification), and cranial deformation common to both.
We seem to be on much more secure ground when it comes to the shape of the heads of the figurines.
These almost certainly represent skulls that were bound in infancy to deliberately modify the shape (a practice known from many other cultures, and which is still practised in Vanuatu, for example). We have good osteological evidence for the practice from excavated human remains from the period.
The practice of intentional cranial deformation by binding the skull in infancy is strongly supported by skeletal evidence from a number of fifth-millennium sites in the region. These sites include
- Değirmentepe (Özbek, 2003)
- Arpachiyah (Molleson and Campbell, 1995)
In addition, we may have evidence from Eridu (Lorentz 2010, p128), although this is a little less certain due to the fragmentary nature of the remains.
I'll mention just two studies here:
Özbek's 2003 study of the skeletal remains from 31 individuals at Değirmentepe, which provided solid evidence for artificial cranial deformation, probably achieved by binding the skull in infancy.
Özbal's study, also in 2003, revealed 13 skeletons showing evidence for deliberate cranial deformation. In this case, the practice was observed across all age-ranges from the sample. The evidence strongly suggested that the required deformation was achieved by binding the head with bandages. This caused flattening or compression of the frontal bone of the skull. (Özbal 2003).
(I'd also highly recommend the paper by Molleson & Campbell, although I should declare an interest since Theya Molleson was my tutor when I studied human osteology as part of my Archaeology master degree)
In addition, you might find the 2011 PhD thesis, The Social Life of Human Remains: Burial rites and the accumulation of capital during the transition from Neolithic to urban societies in the Near East by Gareth David Brereton of UCL, of interest. He mentions these and other figurines of the period, together with the evidence from burials as discussed above.
Sources
Deams, A and K. Croucher: Artificial Cranial Modification in Prehistoric Iran:
Evidence from Crania and Figurines. Iranica Antiqua 42, 2007, pp 1-21.Lorentz, K. O: Ubaid Headshaping: Negotiations of Identity Through Physical
Appearance? In R. A. Carter and G. Philip (eds.), Beyond the Ubaid. Transformation
and Integration in the Late Prehistoric Societies of the Near East, The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 2010, pp 124-148.Molleson, T., and S, Campbell: Deformed Skulls at Arpachiyah: The Social
Context. In S. Campbell and A. Green (eds.), The Archaeology of Death in the Ancient
Near East, 1995, pp 45-55. Oxbow Monographs 51. Oxford.Özbal, R: Tell Kurdu'nda Mikro Arkeolojik Çalişmalar, 2003
Özbek, M: 2001. Cranial Deformation in a Subadult Sample From
Deĝirmentepe (Chalcolithic, Turkey), American Journal of Physical
Anthropology, Volume 115, Issue 3, July 2001, pp 238-244
There are many theories & interpretations, but relatively little evidence to support most of them. Of course, there are no written sources from the Ubaid period to support them.
The one you have at bottom left (and top right) is interpreted as holding / nursing a baby. A similar figure, in this case missing the head, can be seen in this example from the British Museum:
- Image Source British Museum (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)
Figures generally appear to be naked. The marks on the bodies may indicate tattoos or ritual scarification (or a combination of the two).
We have figures representing both males and females, but sexual dimorphism is less evident in figures of the Ubaid period (in stark contrast to figures from earlier periods). You have male figure in the bottom-right of your picture.
Instead, Ubaid figurines tend to show male and female figures with similar proportions, instead tending to emphasise the forms of body ornamentation (assuming the marks do actually represent tattoos or ritual scarification), and cranial deformation common to both.
We seem to be on much more secure ground when it comes to the shape of the heads of the figurines.
These almost certainly represent skulls that were bound in infancy to deliberately modify the shape (a practice known from many other cultures, and which is still practised in Vanuatu, for example). We have good osteological evidence for the practice from excavated human remains from the period.
The practice of intentional cranial deformation by binding the skull in infancy is strongly supported by skeletal evidence from a number of fifth-millennium sites in the region. These sites include
- Değirmentepe (Özbek, 2003)
- Arpachiyah (Molleson and Campbell, 1995)
In addition, we may have evidence from Eridu (Lorentz 2010, p128), although this is a little less certain due to the fragmentary nature of the remains.
I'll mention just two studies here:
Özbek's 2003 study of the skeletal remains from 31 individuals at Değirmentepe, which provided solid evidence for artificial cranial deformation, probably achieved by binding the skull in infancy.
Özbal's study, also in 2003, revealed 13 skeletons showing evidence for deliberate cranial deformation. In this case, the practice was observed across all age-ranges from the sample. The evidence strongly suggested that the required deformation was achieved by binding the head with bandages. This caused flattening or compression of the frontal bone of the skull. (Özbal 2003).
(I'd also highly recommend the paper by Molleson & Campbell, although I should declare an interest since Theya Molleson was my tutor when I studied human osteology as part of my Archaeology master degree)
In addition, you might find the 2011 PhD thesis, The Social Life of Human Remains: Burial rites and the accumulation of capital during the transition from Neolithic to urban societies in the Near East by Gareth David Brereton of UCL, of interest. He mentions these and other figurines of the period, together with the evidence from burials as discussed above.
Sources
Deams, A and K. Croucher: Artificial Cranial Modification in Prehistoric Iran:
Evidence from Crania and Figurines. Iranica Antiqua 42, 2007, pp 1-21.Lorentz, K. O: Ubaid Headshaping: Negotiations of Identity Through Physical
Appearance? In R. A. Carter and G. Philip (eds.), Beyond the Ubaid. Transformation
and Integration in the Late Prehistoric Societies of the Near East, The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 2010, pp 124-148.Molleson, T., and S, Campbell: Deformed Skulls at Arpachiyah: The Social
Context. In S. Campbell and A. Green (eds.), The Archaeology of Death in the Ancient
Near East, 1995, pp 45-55. Oxbow Monographs 51. Oxford.Özbal, R: Tell Kurdu'nda Mikro Arkeolojik Çalişmalar, 2003
Özbek, M: 2001. Cranial Deformation in a Subadult Sample From
Deĝirmentepe (Chalcolithic, Turkey), American Journal of Physical
Anthropology, Volume 115, Issue 3, July 2001, pp 238-244
edited 2 hours ago
answered 2 hours ago
sempaiscuba♦sempaiscuba
54.7k6187237
54.7k6187237
Excellent, thanks. Aside from the cranial deformation, which sounds like it's pretty much cinched going by those remains, is there any reasonable speculation as to why they're so reptilian? (Going by the bug-eyes, snouts, and open nostrils, in the homeland of Gilgamesh and the Enuma Elish.) Or is there just not enough context available to say anything much about that? Secondarily, if you know, are those odd holes below the lips believed to be anything in particular? Piercings?
– Flux
1 hour ago
1
@Flux There are lots of guesses about the appearance, but the truth is that we simply don't know. It could just be that was the artistic style of the time. It may have something to do with the function of the statuettes (we don't know what that was). Without texts or some other evidence it's all just guesswork. Since the soft tissues don't survive, the suggestion that the marks are tattoos or scarification are also guesses (in that case, based on evidence from ethnographic parallels, but still guesses).
– sempaiscuba♦
1 hour ago
Ah, figured that would be the case.
– Flux
1 hour ago
This is plausible for cranial features, but the facial ones? Why no parallel to Egyptian gods with animal heads, chimeras?
– LangLangC
16 mins ago
@LangLangC In Egypt we have supporting evidence from other sources (texts especially) to support interpretation. These figures are much earlier and we have no such supporting sources. We don't know the relationships with what went before or with what came later. Like I said, apart from the cranial deformation, for which we have osteological evidence from contemporary burial sites, we simply do not know. There are lots of guesses, but no evidence to support them.
– sempaiscuba♦
4 mins ago
add a comment |
Excellent, thanks. Aside from the cranial deformation, which sounds like it's pretty much cinched going by those remains, is there any reasonable speculation as to why they're so reptilian? (Going by the bug-eyes, snouts, and open nostrils, in the homeland of Gilgamesh and the Enuma Elish.) Or is there just not enough context available to say anything much about that? Secondarily, if you know, are those odd holes below the lips believed to be anything in particular? Piercings?
– Flux
1 hour ago
1
@Flux There are lots of guesses about the appearance, but the truth is that we simply don't know. It could just be that was the artistic style of the time. It may have something to do with the function of the statuettes (we don't know what that was). Without texts or some other evidence it's all just guesswork. Since the soft tissues don't survive, the suggestion that the marks are tattoos or scarification are also guesses (in that case, based on evidence from ethnographic parallels, but still guesses).
– sempaiscuba♦
1 hour ago
Ah, figured that would be the case.
– Flux
1 hour ago
This is plausible for cranial features, but the facial ones? Why no parallel to Egyptian gods with animal heads, chimeras?
– LangLangC
16 mins ago
@LangLangC In Egypt we have supporting evidence from other sources (texts especially) to support interpretation. These figures are much earlier and we have no such supporting sources. We don't know the relationships with what went before or with what came later. Like I said, apart from the cranial deformation, for which we have osteological evidence from contemporary burial sites, we simply do not know. There are lots of guesses, but no evidence to support them.
– sempaiscuba♦
4 mins ago
Excellent, thanks. Aside from the cranial deformation, which sounds like it's pretty much cinched going by those remains, is there any reasonable speculation as to why they're so reptilian? (Going by the bug-eyes, snouts, and open nostrils, in the homeland of Gilgamesh and the Enuma Elish.) Or is there just not enough context available to say anything much about that? Secondarily, if you know, are those odd holes below the lips believed to be anything in particular? Piercings?
– Flux
1 hour ago
Excellent, thanks. Aside from the cranial deformation, which sounds like it's pretty much cinched going by those remains, is there any reasonable speculation as to why they're so reptilian? (Going by the bug-eyes, snouts, and open nostrils, in the homeland of Gilgamesh and the Enuma Elish.) Or is there just not enough context available to say anything much about that? Secondarily, if you know, are those odd holes below the lips believed to be anything in particular? Piercings?
– Flux
1 hour ago
1
1
@Flux There are lots of guesses about the appearance, but the truth is that we simply don't know. It could just be that was the artistic style of the time. It may have something to do with the function of the statuettes (we don't know what that was). Without texts or some other evidence it's all just guesswork. Since the soft tissues don't survive, the suggestion that the marks are tattoos or scarification are also guesses (in that case, based on evidence from ethnographic parallels, but still guesses).
– sempaiscuba♦
1 hour ago
@Flux There are lots of guesses about the appearance, but the truth is that we simply don't know. It could just be that was the artistic style of the time. It may have something to do with the function of the statuettes (we don't know what that was). Without texts or some other evidence it's all just guesswork. Since the soft tissues don't survive, the suggestion that the marks are tattoos or scarification are also guesses (in that case, based on evidence from ethnographic parallels, but still guesses).
– sempaiscuba♦
1 hour ago
Ah, figured that would be the case.
– Flux
1 hour ago
Ah, figured that would be the case.
– Flux
1 hour ago
This is plausible for cranial features, but the facial ones? Why no parallel to Egyptian gods with animal heads, chimeras?
– LangLangC
16 mins ago
This is plausible for cranial features, but the facial ones? Why no parallel to Egyptian gods with animal heads, chimeras?
– LangLangC
16 mins ago
@LangLangC In Egypt we have supporting evidence from other sources (texts especially) to support interpretation. These figures are much earlier and we have no such supporting sources. We don't know the relationships with what went before or with what came later. Like I said, apart from the cranial deformation, for which we have osteological evidence from contemporary burial sites, we simply do not know. There are lots of guesses, but no evidence to support them.
– sempaiscuba♦
4 mins ago
@LangLangC In Egypt we have supporting evidence from other sources (texts especially) to support interpretation. These figures are much earlier and we have no such supporting sources. We don't know the relationships with what went before or with what came later. Like I said, apart from the cranial deformation, for which we have osteological evidence from contemporary burial sites, we simply do not know. There are lots of guesses, but no evidence to support them.
– sempaiscuba♦
4 mins ago
add a comment |
Flux is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Flux is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Flux is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Flux is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Thanks for contributing an answer to History Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fhistory.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f52154%2fwhat-is-known-about-the-ubaid-lizard-people-figurines%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown