Accelerat ing t he world's research.

"It's Magic!": Artistic and Symbolic

Material manifestations from the
Gilgal Sites
Anna Belfer-Cohen, Debbi Hershman

Gilgal. Early Neolithic occupations in the Lower Jordan Valley. The excavations of Tamar Noy

Cite this paper Downloaded from Academia.edu 

Get the citation in MLA, APA, or Chicago styles

Related papers Download a PDF Pack of t he best relat ed papers 

FOOD PROCESSING T OOLS AND OT HER GROUNDST ONE

Danny Rosenberg

Bar-Yosef, O., A. N. Goring-Morris, A. Gopher & S. K. Kozlowski 2010. Gilgal and It s Place Among Early Ne…
Nigel Goring-Morris

St ones in t heir symbolic cont ext : Epipalaeolit hic – Pre-Pot t ery Neolit hic cont inuit y in t he Jordan Valley
dani nadel
Gilgal
Early Neolithic Occupations in the Lower Jordan Valley:
The Excavations of Tamar Noy

Edited by Ofer Bar-Yosef, A. Nigel Goring-Morris, and Avi Gopher

Oxbow Books
Oxford and Oakville
 11
“IT ’S MAGIC!”: ARTISTIC AND SYMBOLIC MATERIAL
MANIFESTATIONS FROM THE GILGAL SITES
Debby Hershman and Anna Belfer-Cohen
Introduction
The majority of items included here are of Pre-
Pottery Neolithic A context (mostly from Gilgal I
with a few items from Gilgal III). Although there
are some objects from the Natufian Gilgal II, the
assemblage is very small and most of the study
revolves around the Neolithic findings. Bearing
in mind that these finds originate from one of
the first hamlets recognized in the prehistoric
record (see Chapter 19), it is of the greatest
interest to explore the cultural baggage of the
early Neolithic Gilgal dwellers and their ties
with their Natufian forebears.
The common denominator of the items inves-
tigated herein is that they all seem to relate, to a
certain degree, to the symbolic realm. It is
common knowledge that mundane artifacts,
ornaments, and unique items have all been used
within human societies to identify and assign
people to specific groups within a particular
social context (age-group, gender, parental status,
etc.). Needless to say symbolism has been always
part and parcel of spiritual and cultic behaviors.
Thus, we are aware that “style” (in the most sim-
plistic interpretation as “the particular way things
are done, shaped, or designed”) is considered and
used as a social attribute (e.g., Wobst 1977). Yet
our current state of knowledge precludes the
option of assigning the studied items to any par-
ticular domain (social or sacred) or a specific
encoded symbolic content. Actually there are
claims that there is no way one can separate the
mundane from the spiritual domains of primeval
human societies when people had holistic
attitudes towards the world in which they lived
and interacted (Rappaport 1999:460–461).
Indeed, there were most probably other items
pertaining to the spiritual or symbolic realm. Yet,
since they lack particular attributes or look
similar to rather mundane artifacts, they were
not included in the following description and dis-
cussion, but within other chapters dealing with
other material remains from the Gilgal sites (e.g.,
among the groundstone artifacts).
The fabric of human existence underwent
dramatic changes at the end of the Paleolithic.
Whether through gradual or sudden processes it
is clear that the Neolithic perception of the
world changed (to whatever degree) from that of
earlier Paleolithic hunter-gatherers (Cauvin
2000 and references therein).
PPNA societies are considered to be a
prelude to the following fully-fledged Neolithic
entities. One of the main questions pertaining to
this observation is whether the Neolithic
existence per se and its spiritual world in partic-
ular, had firm roots in the preceding Natufian,
slightly modified to fit in with the new way of
existence. The other option is that with the PPNA
we encounter new beginnings, which while
retaining Natufian elements do represent a
different symbolic map, created by the Neolithic
farmers to deal with a transformed world.
Undoubtedly, there are new elements not
known before in the artistic and symbolic
representations, which go hand in hand with
186 Gilgal
the economic revolution of agriculture, not only
in the Levant but throughout the whole Near East.
Here we present detailed descriptions and
parallels for each of the enumerated finds and
attempt to discern possible traces of this concep-
tual turnover in the symbolic ideas of early
Neolithic people.
General observations on the inventory
Before proceeding with the detailed description,
it should be stated that a few items mentioned
by the late Tamar Noy as belonging to this
category unfortunately were not available for
the present study. From the illustrations and
Table 11.1 Inventory of symbolic items from Gilgal I (GI), Gilgal II (GII), and Gilgal III (GIII)
short descriptions on the surviving index cards
these include four limestone pebbles, incised (to
a lesser or greater extent) on one or both
surfaces. Nothing further can be added without
actual observations of the items themselves. No
mention was found as to the original find spots
of these items. In our discussion we attempt to
present every indication of the exact prove-
niences and contexts based upon the excavators’
documentation. This may be of great signifi-
cance, as for example, this information implies
that most of the items from Locus 11 in Gilgal I
were found in close proximity to one another
(see Chapter 2 and Chapter 6).

Figure 11.1 Gilgal I: 1) human figurine;
2) human figurine; 3) engraved plaque.
Artisitic and Symbolic Material Manifestations 187
Figure 11.2 Gilgal I Human figurine: two views, a and b
(see Figure 11.1 for scale).
Gilgal I—PPNA (see Table 11.1)
1. Human Figurine (Figures 11.1:1; 11.2a–b). This
figurine is made of soft, chalky limestone.
Attributed to the PPNA occupation at Gilgal I, it
was recovered (in two pieces) from a living floor of
Locus 10 (?), adjacent to two polished stone axes.
The modeling of the item follows that observed in
the Neolithic clay figurines as noted by Tamar Noy
(Yizraeli-Noy 1999). The distal end, depicting the
head and the upper torso, is elongated, flat and
tapers into a square, straight line (ca. 30 mm). In
the original publication, Noy (1990) had
described a head with vertical lines of shaping
and no facial features, which she assumed were
most probably drawn in color, although no traces
of it are currently visible. Twelve incisions are
apparent on the frontal (?) surface of the figurine,
delineated within an area (ca. 20 mm long),
which protrudes, more obviously in its upper
region, from the rest of the rather flat torso. One
may see it (as indeed observed by Noy 1990) as a
188 Gilgal
cord skirt or an apron, thus placing it on an
imaginary waistline, descending over broadening
hips towards the straight and squarish end of the
figurine. There is no continuity of incisions on the
other (dorsal?) face of the figurine. It is also quite
possible to interpret these incisions as depicting
some kind of an upper garment, covering the
region of the chest (Soffer et al. 2000). Beneath
the rather shallow striations, there is a central,
irregular yet deep incision, indicating legs or a
vulva. It is tempting to see here an earlier version
of what appears as a pattern of decoration (?) or
clothing (?) depicted in black and red vertical
strokes on various body parts of the full-sized
statues of Cache I at PPNB ‘Ain Ghazal. The
greatest similarity is observed with Figure 37,
“Pescennia Nigra” (see Tubb and Grissom
1995:fig. 12 and Schmandt-Besserat 1998a:fig.
2), where it seems to indicate clearly a garment
(shawl? and see yet later examples in Garfinkel
1992:figs. 101, 102.1, 107.2, etc.). The ‘Ain
Ghazal “Pescennia Nigra” is also unique in that it
is the only figure that is depicted with a
pudendum (Schmandt-Besserat 1998a:fig. 2).
On the back (?) of the figurine there is another
vertical line that begins more or less at the same
level as the central line on the frontal surface, yet
it is located on the (right) side rather than in the
center of the figurine.
Our own observations bring us to note the
following: a) there are some feeble traces of eye
outlines in the area considered by Noy as the face;
and b) on closer examination it seems that the
description of a face is applicable also to the
obverse side, with two deep, slanted incisions rep-
resenting eyes, reminiscent of the coffee-bean
eyes of the following Pottery Neolithic Yarmukian
style. Thus we can interpret the deeper groove as
representing the spine.1
There is indeed a resemblance with the clay
figurines. In both cases, there is a depiction of
some essential features rather than the naturalis-
tic contours and details of a human body. There is
no hint of a neck or limbs, and an obvious lack in
facial and torso details.
Yet, on most of the clay figurines there are
clear indications of breasts, absent from all the
stone figurines. It should be borne in mind that,
although the stone figurines differ in size, one can
observe the same basic treatment of the human
figure. In all three of the examples discussed
herein there is a face with eyes, while the dorsal
region is treated more realistically than the front2.
2. Human figurine (Figure 11.1:2). This is a flat
limestone pebble, highly polished on both
surfaces, and buffed at the narrow end. The mod-
ification most apparent in the upper third, where
the pebble narrows through some flaking, creates
a separation, either between head and body or
simply indicating a waistline. On one of the
surfaces, in the general area of the pudenda, there
is a natural groove, which perhaps was the trigger
to modify this particular pebble into a schematic
human representation. It brings to mind two
other items described below, which are also con-
sidered as schematic human representations from
Gilgal III: 1) the grooved pebble (Figure 11.13:3);
and 2) the “figurine” made of soft limestone
(Figure 11.13:1). The present item and that made
of soft limestone are of very similar dimensions.
3. Engraved plaque (Figures 11.1:3, 11.3a–b). This is
a flat, incised limestone plaque with a plano-
convex cross-section, as if it was originally cut or
polished longitudinally. The context within which
this item was recovered, as well as the nature of
the associated finds, on the floor of Locus 11
indicate that most probably they all relate to cult
practices (see detailed discussion below; Noy
1989:fig. 4:1). It is difficult to relate this item to
any functional use per se.

Figure 11.3 Gilgal I Engraved plaque: two views, a and b (see Figure 11.1 for scale).
On the flat surface there is a straight long
groove, which is not sufficiently deep for use as
a shaft-straightener (or for sharpening); no
obvious use-wear signs can be observed
(contrary to other items recovered on-site and
related to sharpening activities). This surface is
also polished. The pattern engraved on the other
face is ladder-like with three lines creating an
open asymmetric rectangle, confining eight
clear-cut horizontal lines that were undercut by
the vertical ones. There are additional feeble,
shallow lines on both surfaces. On the flat
surface they are parallel to the central deep
groove and can be considered to result from the
polishing action. There are fewer sporadic lines
on the convex face that are both vertical and hor-
izontal to the patterned lines. Both narrow ends
of the item bear signs of hammering.
The patterned lines on the convex surface are
quite irregular and reminiscent of incised
Artisitic and Symbolic Material Manifestations 189
patterns on items from the Natufian layer at
Hayonim cave (Belfer-Cohen 1991; Marshack
1997). The ladder pattern is known even earlier,
on items from Epipaleolithic Urkan e-Rubb II in
the Jordan Valley and at Ökuzini in Anatolia
(Hovers 1990; Otte et al. 1995). Marshack (1995,
1997) sees these as cueing marks, sets and
subsets accumulated through time with internal
“cueing signs” and differentiation among the
individual markings and the mark sets.
In the present instance the incised pattern is
located in the center, on its own, with empty space
surrounding it and recalls more than anything else
notations. Whether these are cueing marks, or a
“seal”, indicating ownership is pure speculation. Of
interest is that this item was found close to artifacts
related to basketry work (bone tools and asphalt
fragments with burnt pieces of wood still attached
to them; Noy 1989:13). Accordingly, we can also
bring up the notion that the incised plaque is part
190 Gilgal
of this ensemble, and though it seems far-fetched,
could have been used in textile dyeing (?). We
should also add that Tamar Noy refers to an illus-
tration of a similar limestone item (from el-
Khiam), with just the groove in the middle, as
depicting a human figurine (Echegaray 1966:fig.
28; Yizraeli-Noy 1999:31: ill. 1).
4. Figurine Head (Figures 11.4, 11.7:2). This item
was also recovered from the upper phase of
Locus 11. It greatly resembles the seated female
clay figurines from Netiv Hagdud (a fact
observed and commented upon by Noy, Yizraeli-
Noy 1999:33), which generally consist of a head
continuing directly unto a body without any
indication of a neck. Since there is no torso, no
sex indications are visible, and thus we cannot
tell whether it is female or male (i.e., the Netiv
Hagdud figurines display a very similar head but
also two bumps on the torso, which are taken to
indicate breasts). The item is broken obliquely,
at an angle, and the edges of the break are rather
ragged, as can be seen from the cross-section. It
looks indeed like an accidental break rather
than a ceremonial snapping off.
The only facial features depicted are two
deeply gouged eye sockets with, perhaps, traces
of asphalt infill. The brows are indicated by
small indentations made by fingernails (?).
There are feeble traces of what can be consid-
ered as a nose, a thin engraved line and a very
small swelling (which can actually be only
tactilely felt). Even though Tamar Noy claimed to
see a mouth and three lines, which she inter-
preted as teeth, we could observe only two
vertical lines, which are cut off as part of the
figurine breakage. It is of interest to note that,
even though the analogous cylinder figurines
from Netiv Hagdud are more complete, they
possess eyes, brows, and indications of a nose,
but no traces of a mouth.
Figure 11.4 Gilgal I: Figurine head
(see Figure 11.7 for scale).
The rather unique feature of this particular
broken figurine is the shape of the upper part of
the head. It is flat, widening and has a concave top,
indicating for Noy headgear of some kind. She
mentioned a similar item from Mureybet II, on the
Euphrates at the end of the ninth millennium B.C.
(Yizraeli-Noy 1999:31; see Cauvin 1978:fig. 24:1).
It is also interesting to observe that the specimens
from Netiv Hagdud comprising this group of cylin-
drical female figurines have flat tops with indica-
tions of some kind of headgear. The latter vary in
its depiction, from a net-pattern, to a thickening
around the edges of the head, or an incised
triangle on the third item (Bar-Yosef and Gopher
1997:177, fig. 6–1.2).
5. Human (?) figurine (Figures 11.5; 11.7:5). This
item, from Locus 11, is an elongated cylinder
made of slightly fired clay, of the type called “pillar
figurines”. It is broken at its lower end (possibly an
old breakage), as the edge seems to present more
a crumbling effect rather than a clean break. The
upper part (i.e., the “head”) is wider than the
lower part (the “body”). The top of the head is flat,
rounded and slightly concave. Along the edge
 Artistic and Symbolic Material Manifestations 191

around the head is a bulging or a thickening with

a clearly seen separation line, perhaps indicating
some kind of headgear? A protuberance that was
thought to represent quite a prominent nose can
actually be seen as only a small part of an even
greater bulge that broke off in antiquity. We were
unable to identify the eyes mentioned by Noy
(Yizraeli-Noy 1999:32:fig. 9). There are no addi-
tional realistic features to speak of, except a dec-
orative motif (?) which consists of “fingernail”
(i.e., semi-circular) imprints, clustered in three
(?) distinct vertical columns, each differing in
length (the shorter running directly beneath the
above-described “nose”). The “nail” imprints in
each column vary in number, and their arrange- Figure 11.5 Gilgal I: Human figurine
ment creates a wavy contour. Is this mere deco- (see Figure 11.7 for scale).
ration, or a notation of some kind? The wavy
pattern is considered by some to represent “rain”
or “cosmic waters” (Gimbutas 1982:114:figs. 72,
74–77, pls. 77, 86).
Though it differs in details and size from the
other cylinder clay figurines (found at Gilgal and
Netiv Hagdud), it does seem to belong to the
same family in light of its head moulding, the flat
top, and the absence of a neck connecting the
“head” to the “body”.

6. Human figurine (Figures 11.6; 11.7:3). Recovered

from Locus 11, this item is nearly complete, with
only part of the lower end crumbled away,
perhaps due to bad firing (hence its darkish
color). The head is wider than the cylindrical
“body” and is elongated rather than rounded, as if
pulled upward. The facial features comprise
distinct eyes executed by fingernail incisions. Noy Figure 11.6 Gilgal I: Human figurine
observed also a nose defined by the sunken (see Figure 11.7 for scale).
cheeks (Yizraeli-Noy 1999:32: Item 10). She also
noted that some features of the face were affected
by the poor quality of the clay firing. There are representing body parts—that were glued onto the
clear-cut attachment spots on the torso, indicat- torso. Most probably they fell off long ago without
ing that most probably there were appendages— leaving any traces of their shape or function.
192 Gilgal

Figure 11.7 Gilgal I: 1) bird figurine; 2) figurine head; 3) human figurine; 4) grooved pebble; 5) human figurine.

7. Bird figurine (Figure 11.7:1). “The bird figurine
was carved of soft limestone with a naturalistic
approach, except for the legs and the wings.
Only one leg is depicted and the wing-tips are
similar to human hands” (Noy 1989:17). This
figurine was recovered together with three clay
figurines, all of which were standing on a clay
shelf near a wall in Locus 11.
Bird figurines and depictions are also
reported from the Pre-Pottery Neolithic layers
of: Göbekli Tepe (Schmidt 2000); Nemrik 9
(Kempisty and Kozlowski 1990); Hallan Çemi
(transitional Epipaleolithic/PPNA, Rosenberg
1994); Mureybet layer III (Pichon 1985); Nevali
Çori (Hauptmann 1993); and Çafar Höyük
(Cauvin 1985).
The species of this generic bird is impossible
to ascertain due to its schematic representation.
It is tempting to identify it as a dove, since this
species plays an important role in the pantheon
shared by most eastern Mediterranean basin
inhabitants. The dove is an attribute of the
Mother/Love Goddess, which under various
names displays the same attributes. The first
appearance of this motif is documented in the
fourth millennium B.C. Ubaid culture, and has a
long duration as evidenced from a clay model of
a shrine with a dove perched above the entrance,
its wings outspread, dated to the tenth century
B.C. in Transjordan (see Ziffer 1998:37:fig. 16
and references therein).
The head of the Gilgal bird is elongated and
flat-topped, just like the soft limestone and clay
human figurines. A far-flung association that
comes to mind are the giant T-shaped columns
from Göbekli Tepe, which also end with a flat,
wide surface, sometimes pitted with numerous
cup-holes, sometimes simply flat and smooth
(Schmidt 1998).
Indeed, one can observe a swelling in the
breast area, which is very dove-like (and see the
Artisitic and Symbolic Material Manifestations 193
bird from Nevali Çori in Hauptmann 1999:figs.
14a–b). Though the latter lacks its head, there is
a certain similarity in the rounded shape of the
chest area (if indeed it should be reconstructed
as a bird figure), as well as in the depiction of
the folded wings. At the same time, one should
bear in mind that the Nevali Çori figure is much
larger, similarly made on soft limestone and is
part of a composite figure, ca. 1 m in height—a
totem figure? Hauptmann (1993, 1999) states
that at Nevali Çori there are several bird figures
in different compositions, yet the clearest case is
that referred to here.
The bottom end of our specimen thins out
with a peg-like leg parallel to the peg-like tail,
while the intervening area is concave. This is
exactly the same shape as that of the soft
limestone horned items from Nahal Ein Gev II
(Bar-Yosef and Belfer-Cohen 2000:fig. 8:4) and
Hallan Çemi (Rosenberg 1999:25–33:fig. 9).
Interestingly, the seated cylindrical female
figurine from Netiv Hagdud—the only complete
figurine of its kind—also ends in a similar, horned
and concave outline (Bar-Yosef and Gopher
1997:figs. 6-1.1–2). Additionally, miniature terra-
cotta horns were reported from central European
Neolithic contexts (Gimbutas 1982:93).
“Bits and pieces”: Clay fragments
These are short cylindrical clay fragments of
poor quality firing and temper, some of which
indeed display signs of crumbling. As there is
very little clay usage on-site, the major
exception being items related to symbolic or
cultic objects, these fragments most probably
represent parts of clay figurines of the kind
described above. Whether they represent
broken figurines per se, or appendages repre-
senting body parts or limbs that were attached
to the torso is difficult to say (and see discus-
sion below).
194 Gilgal

Figure 11.8 Gilgal I: 1–4) clay fragments; 5–6) grooved pebbles; 7) mace head; 8) “stopper”-like seal(?).

8. Clay fragment (Figure 11.8:1). This fragment
(recovered from Locus 11) is cylindrical and
smooth, of relatively high firing quality (at least
as compared to the other clay fragments
described herein). In light of its general appear-
ance it may also represent part of a figurine’s
torso, similar to that of figurine No. GI.6 (Figure
11.7:3, see above).
9. Clay fragment (Figure 11.8:2). This fragment
(recovered also from Locus 11) is of light and
more porous clay, cylindrical and rough in
appearance and texture, some of which is most
probably due to longitudinal “shaving” (based on
the traces observed on the item). Some of the
observed striations are rather deep, creating
grooves on both sides along its central axis. On the
other hand, some of these signs are perhaps
actually imprints of straw/reeds that were used
either for mechanical purposes, as part of the clay
temper, or as an integral part of the overall design
of the cult object (Tubb 1985 and references
therein; Yizraeli-Noy 1999:113, 117, ills. 3–4).
The item appears to us more like a fallen-off
appendage rather than part of a figurine’s torso.
10. Clay fragment (Figure 11.8:3). The fragment
(found in Locus 11) is lightly and poorly fired.
The cross-section is plano-convex and appears
more obviously (than previously described
items) like an appendage that was attached to
another item, because there is a smooth and
squarish facet that creates a flat surface, the
“plano-” part of the cross-section.
11. Clay fragment (Figure 11.8:4). Made of light,
poor quality clay (also recovered from Locus
11), it too seems to represent an appendage
rather than a figurine fragment. It is quite
narrow, cylindrical in cross-section and has a
deep groove twisting along its long axis.
Artisitic and Symbolic Material Manifestations 195
Whether this groove is intentional or is a post-
firing result is difficult to tell. There are addi-
tional, feeble incisions, perhaps even lined up,
but due to the bad preservation it is difficult to
tell whether they are intentional or not.
Grooved pebbles
The following three items are controversial,
since they were relegated at various times by
different scholars to either the mundane
category of stone weights or to the symbolic
realm of sex organ representations.
According to the observations of Gopher and
Orrelle (1995:63), the main difference between
stone weights and grooved symbolic items lies in
the shape of the groove (though they also relate
to the length of the groove and whether it
actually divides the item in half). While items
with regular and straight grooves are assigned to
the former category, items with wavy/curved
grooves are relegated to the latter. The following
items might be either, yet they were incorporated
within the category of symbolic items simply
because of their rarity and unique dimensions
(i.e., small size) as compared to other stone items
recovered from the Gilgal sites. If indeed these
items were stone weights, they would most
probably have been used for looms, in making
basketry and fabrics (and see the basketry
remains described in Chapter 15). The grooves
are quite shallow, thus if the items were
suspended for one purpose or another, the string
would in any case have had to be quite delicate.
Alternatively, it might indicate that actually they
were shaped for symbolic purposes.
12. Grooved pebble (Figure 11.7:4). This is a small
oval limestone pebble. A narrow (ca. 1.5 mm),
quite shallow and straight groove runs all
around the central circumference of the pebble.
Although the groove is quite regular (and thus
196 Gilgal
according to the above-mentioned criterion of
Gopher and Orrelle the item should be consid-
ered as a stone weight), there is another indica-
tion of it having a symbolic meaning. A short
incision (ca. 14 mm) runs perpendicularly to the
circumferential groove from the narrower end of
the pebble towards its middle, a feature not
mentioned in the descriptions of stone weights
of this period (Gopher and Orrelle 1995). Due
to its small size, it is also possible to regard this
item as some kind of a pendant, the groove
intended for its suspension.
13. Grooved pebble (Figure 11.8:5). Although
similar to the item described above, this grooved
pebble (and the one that follows) lacks any other
attributes besides the circumferential groove. It
is also quite small, and the groove is regular and
more or less straight, slightly deeper than that of
the previous item. Thus it can be a stone weight,
a symbolic item, or simply a decorative element
(a pendant).
14. Grooved pebble (Figure 11.8:6). The straight
groove (ca. 2 mm wide) follows the breadth axis
of the pebble (in contrast to the grooves of the
previous items, which are perpendicular to the
breadth axes of the items). All that was said
about item No. 11 applies also to the present
item. There is additionally a miniature stone
bead of the same shape (see Chapter 14).
Varia: Clay
15. “Mace Head”(?) (Figure 11.8:7). This artifact is
broken longitudinally, nearly in half, and there is
a clear imprint of the hollow, which was
supposed to lodge the stick/ handle on which it
was placed. There is a sharp contrast between
the broken margins of the polished and
smoothed “cavity”, as well as of the polished and
rounded exterior of the item.
While it is possible to consider this item as
some sort of a handle or haft of a functional tool
(as for instance a chisel or an awl), its close
resemblance to—admittedly later—Chalcolithic
mace heads is very striking (see Bar-Adon
1980:116–131). If indeed this is a mace head (or
a proto-mace head), then perhaps it does belong
within the symbolic realm, as do its counterparts
from the Chalcolithic period. It should be
pointed out that it was also recovered from the
vicinity of Locus 11.
16. “Stopper”-like seal (?) (Figure 11.8:8). Nearly
complete, with a rounded, smooth and
polished surface on one end and some kind of
a stem on the other, this clay object bears a
superficial resemblance, on morphological
grounds, to both a stopper and a seal. It is
decorated most curiously around its circumfer-
ence by a running diamond design, accom-
plished by minute holes, in a pointillist
manner. The design is obfuscated since the
surface of the item shows signs of wear and
attrition. It was also recovered from Locus 11.
17. Amorphous clay fragment (Figure 11.9:1). There
is a clear difference between the outer surface
and the inner core of this item. The surface is
smooth, with a clearly observed but enigmatic
pattern of criss-crossed lines (actually narrow
grooves). Perhaps this is indeed a fragment of yet
another seal-like (both in shape and function)
item, similar to the object described above
(Figure 11.8:8). It is nearly identical to an item
from Salibiya IX described as a hard mud
fragment with reed (?) imprints on one surface
(Enoch-Shiloh and Bar-Yosef 1997:fig. 2.15:5).
18. Decorated clay fragment (Figure 11.9:2). Like
many of the unique clay objects, this item was
recovered from Locus 11. It is a most curiously
 Artisitic and Symbolic Material Manifestations 197

Figure 11.9 Gilgal I: 1) amorphous clay fragment; 2) decorated clay fragment; 3) pebble (figurine?);
4) stone “seal”(?); 5) soft limestone “chunk”; 6) unmodified pebble; 7) stone “figurine”(?).

shaped fragment, part of an item we cannot
even begin to reconstruct (the only thing to be
said is that it appears to have been well-fired).
The fragment bears a meticulously executed
decoration of a motif, which is intermediate
between a continuous zigzag and a herringbone
pattern. The impressions are evenly spaced and
standardized, as opposed to the fingernail
impressions found on other items reported
herein, where there is a difference in the depths
of each individual impression. This was accom-
plished using a sharp implement, and there is a
difference between the two flat faces of the item
as the decorative motif covers more of one face
than of the other and goes over to the other side.
The orderly character of the item, both as
concerns its texture and its design is rather
exceptional in comparison to the other items
198 Gilgal
comprising this group. It has more in common
with finds reported from later Neolithic
cultures, such as the Yarmukian with its similar
ceramic decorative motifs (e.g., Garfinkel
1999:figs. 11:9, 30:2).
Varia: Stone
19. Pebble (Figurine?) (Figure 11.9:3). It is a dark,
smooth and rolled pebble, with an eroded
appearance. Though much smaller in size, it is
quite reminiscent of the Natufian pebble
figurines (e.g., Weinstein-Evron and Belfer-
Cohen 1993). Without binocular observations it
is difficult to determine how much of the
general shape is modified through human inter-
ference and how much is natural, with human
intervention more to do with enhancing existing
lines rather than creating them. Since it was
recovered from within Locus 11, it seems to us
that it was indeed retained as a symbolic object.
We fancy seeing on it a tripartite division, as
well as a difference between the “dorsal” and
“ventral” aspects – perhaps the front and back? Its
general appearance resembles a seated figurine.
There is a head, a torso and the lower part of the
body (i.e., buttocks and folded legs) – the three
parts being separated by deep, horizontal
incisions (perhaps following the natural contours).
At the “back” only one such division exists,
between the head and the body at large.
It is of interest to note the general similarity
to a later, soft limestone figurine from Yarmukian
Sha’ar Hagolan (Stekelis 1966:fig. 52:1).
20. Soft limestone “chunk” (Figure 11.9:5). Another
unique item from Locus 11 is cylindrical, squat,
and its general appearance is intermediate
between a pestle and a chisel. It has been
modified all over by some sort of “combing” mod-
ification, with striations covering its surface
including the elliptical, flat and complete end.
The distal (if we consider the flat surface as the
base) end of the item bears signs of usage as a
chisel rather than as a pestle (hammering rather
than pounding). It seems as if the item was first
modified into a particular shape and later used
for a different purpose. The later signs of utiliza-
tion sometimes abolish, change and obliterate the
particular original morphology of the item
achieved through extensive modification, as
evidenced by the numerous lines of incisions
covering the whole item. It is quite possible that
the item went through two phases of use – the first
one tying it in with other cultic items made of the
same raw material (soft, chalky limestone, and see
above) and the second as a chisel/hammerstone.
It must be said that due to its softness, it is difficult
to imagine that the initial purpose of modifying
this item was to make it into a chisel/ hammer-
stone. Perhaps the fact that it was recovered from
a pit indicates that it became obsolete and was put
away in a pit within a structure, which ties it in
with cult, thus heralding the custom of special
treatment of discarded items pertaining to the
ritual domain (Garfinkel 1994).
21. “Denticulated” disc (Figure 11.10). Made of a
very soft (chalky) limestone, this seems to be a
nearly complete plano-convex stone disc, remi-
niscent in its shape of a shell, with denticulated
margins around its circumference. Its unique
shape brings to mind similarly “unique” items
made of the same raw material from Nahal Ein
Gev II (Bar-Yosef and Belfer-Cohen 2000).
22. Stone “figurine”(?) (Figure 11.9:7). In a very
general way, this item is similar to that
described above (Figure 11.9:5) and perhaps
the differences are partly due to the difference
in the raw material (soft limestone for the
former item, as opposed to the hard rock of the
present piece). The raw material also dictates

Figure 11.10 Gilgal I: Denticulated disc.
the appearance of the surfaces; though having
been meticulously smoothed, they still have a
rough appearance because of the natural structure
of the basalt.
It has an elongated cylindrical shape, the
wider (basal?) end being flat and elliptical, while
the tapering distal end bears signs of usage as a
chisel or a hammerstone. Of interest is a slight
groove/narrowing running around the upper third
of the item. Its function or meaning is difficult to
comprehend. Is it an abstract human figurine, a
phallic object, or a miniature pestle? We cannot
be sure about any of these and perhaps it served
as all three or, alternatively, for some totally
different purpose.
23. Stone “seal”(?) (Figure 11.9:4). The item is made
of white soft limestone, and appears to be inten-
tionally shaped and modified all over. One surface
is flat and smooth with a minuscule round cupola.
The opposite face has a squarish protrusion with
Artisitic and Symbolic Material Manifestations 199
etched margins all around, bringing to mind the
concept of a “seal”.
24. Unmodified pebble (Figure 11.9:6). Similar
pebbles were mostly recovered from Natufian
Gilgal II (see below). There are no clear traces of
modification, and it seems to be more a manuport
that was picked up and retained because of its
regular shape and smooth texture. Speculations
about symbolic meaning of such items belong to
the realm of pure imagination.
Gilgal II: Late Natufian
1. Human statue (Figure 11.11). The chronological
assignment of this item is rather problematic. The
late Tamar Noy claimed that although Gilgal II is
a Natufian occurrence, the item most probably
derives from the nearby Neolithic sites of either
Gilgal I or Gilgal III (Yizraeli-Noy 1999:38). The
described item is very similar to a much smaller
figurine from Salibiya IX (Yizraeli-Noy 1999:
200 Gilgal
Figurine 16). Noy saw a resemblance between
lithics recovered near the statuette and those
recovered in the “silo” (i.e., Locus 11) at
Neolithic Gilgal I (most of the Gilgal I figurines
were recovered from that structure).
This is a unique find, mainly because of its
size, as most human figurines from the Natufian
and Pre-Pottery Neolithic cultures are much
smaller (and see the metric properties of the
items described herein). Nevertheless, one
should mention an as yet unpublished item
(Hershman and Belfer-Cohen in preparation)
recovered from the surface at Nahal Oren. That
specimen is broken and retains only the distinc-
tive lower part. It is of interest to note that Nahal
Oren has both Natufian and PPNA occupations.
The Gilgal statuette is nearly complete,
missing only a small part of the left side of the
Figure 11.11 Gilgal II:
Human statue.
head (reconstructed) and an even smaller part at
its lower end. The particular features of the item
were depicted through carving in a precise
manner. No neck connects the rounded head
with the broad shoulders. The facial features
include heavy brows and a long nose. It is of
interest to note that the mouth, which is only
cursorily shaped (as opposed to the other facial
features), may perhaps reflect a later addition,
and secondary use of the artifact.
The upper part of the statuette is broad and
tapers downward, this tendency being particu-
larly pronounced in the area of the waist, and
down towards the hips.
There is no modeling of any details between
the head and the lowermost end of the figure
except for the basic outline of the torso. Thus there
are no breasts, no abdomen or navel, etc. Neither

Figure 11.12 Gilgal II:
1) figurine(?) fragment;
2) unmodified pebble;
3) modified(?) pebble;
4) modified pebble;
5) modified pebble.
are there any clear indications of hands or legs.
While one may imagine that the upper limbs were
depicted extending along the length of the body,
the lower part of the torso ends with a notch
running through the middle, representing either
the vulva or, less probably, the beginning of the
legs. It should be noted that the left margins of the
torso (?) are rounded, while the right side is rough
and chipped.
Interestingly, the dorsal face of the figure
displays greater “investment” in a more natura-
listic manner. The details of the back anatomy
are more clear-cut. Thus, there is a deep longitu-
dinal groove, representing most probably the
spine, and there is a bulge of a sort (“love
handles”?) just above the narrowing hips,
beneath the waistline. There are similar bulges
on the item from Nahal Oren mentioned above
Artisitic and Symbolic Material Manifestations 201
(Hershman and Belfer-Cohen, in preparation), as
well as on items described by Stekelis (1960).
While the longitudinal notch on the front of the
item could be conceived as indicating the
beginning of the demarcation between the legs
and the torso, at the back it is more obvious as rep-
resenting the buttocks rather than the upper part
of the lower limbs.
While one can accept the sex of the figurine as
female looking at it from the front, the back has
some male characteristics, prominent among
them being the musculature along the spine and
the narrowness of the hips and buttocks. It should
be added that the shape of the item precludes the
reconstruction of how it was poised.
2. Figurine (?) fragment (Figure 11.12:1). This is an
amorphous fragment, broken at both ends, repre-
senting quite a large item (relative to those
202 Gilgal
described above). It is not an appendage but
rather the “bulk” of a figurine. Its shape is
unique and it is difficult to tell whether this is a
human or animal figurine.
Even though there is clearly a difference in
chronology, a resemblance is observed in the
general shape of the body to that of a clay ibex
figurine from the lowest level of Beidha,
currently attributed to the PPNB, although
isolated el-Khiam points were also retrieved
(Kirkbride 1966:fig. 4:2 and pl. XVI:A).
The other finds included in our discussion
comprise a group of pebbles of different dimen-
sions, which are similar to items reported from
various Natufian contexts (e.g., Belfer-Cohen in
Valla et al. 1998, 2001) rather than the
modified pebbles of later, Neolithic contexts.
Minimally treated, their merit lies in their
Figure 11.13 Gilgal III:
1–2) “figurines”; 3) incised
pebble; 4) clay fragment.
being chosen and curated, as most of them lack
any traces of modification.
3. Unmodified pebble (Figure 11.12:2). This phos-
phorite item is the least treated of the pebbles. It
is rather rounded and broken off at one end.
4. Modified (?) Pebble (Figure 11.12:3). This is a
complete pebble, the only indication of treatment
being some longitudinal striations covering both
of its faces. It is impossible at the present stage of
research to be certain whether these striations are
natural or human made.
5. Modified pebble (Figure 11.12:4). This is a
rounded, bullet-like limestone pebble, which is
polished on one surface with feeble traces of lon-
gitudinal (artificial?) striations. The other surface
 Artisitic and Symbolic Material Manifestations 203

bears concretions, as if the item had lain with its

smoothed face on top, exposed to the elements.
One of the ends is neatly truncated.

6. Modified pebble (Figure 11.12:5). Smoothed and

polished all around, with feeble striations covering
the entire surface, it does look as if human hands
did the polishing. Both rounded ends bear some
signs of usage (?) as a hammerstone.

Gilgal III: PPNA

1. “Figurine” (Figures 11.13:1, 11.14). This item is
shaped on soft limestone, a raw material that
was quite frequently used for modifying
figurines and other cultic items. It is plano-
convex in cross-section with the narrow end
rounded, while the lower (?), wider end is
squarish and flat.
One facet is smooth all over and the whole
surface is lined with vertical, shallow striations,
which portray the way the item was modified
(i.e., through “shaving”). There are slight indica-
tions of a tripartite division along this face. The
opposite face is similarly shaped, though there is
a thickening at both ends, minor at the narrow,
upper one and quite prominent at the wider
lower end. The thicker areas are defined by
oblique depressions running along the surface
width. The identity of the figurine, whether it is
realistic or symbolic, eludes us.
2. “Figurine” (Figure 11.13:2). This is a fragment of
a figurine (?), generally quite similar to the item
(Figure 11.13:1) described above. Diminutive in
size, it is made of the same raw material and in
the same way (as evidenced by the longitudinal
striations). It seems to us that the fragment
portrays the wider end of the figurine, with a clear
perpendicular line separating the thick end and
the thin “body” of the figurine. Here, also, the end
is square and flat.
Figure 11.14 Gilgal III: Figurine
(see Figure 11.13 for scale).
3. Incised pebble (Figures 11.13:3, 11.15a–b).
When first published, this item was considered
as a human (or even more specifically, female)
figurine (Yizraeli-Noy 1999:36). It is an
elongated limestone pebble, only slightly
modified by incisions on its wider part, creating
some rather irregular vertical (ca. 30 mm long)
lines. Its resemblance to the human body (or
any part of it) is rather a question of faith. While
Noy saw it as a vulva, one can consider the stria-
tions as indicating the separation of the legs. It
seems that in all the instances of stone figurines,
such lines of separation are essential features.
There are some signs indicating that the
pebble was used as a hammerstone. Some
shallow incisions on the obverse face of the
pebble can also be observed, but there does not
appear to be a pattern and whether the lines
204 Gilgal
are intentional or accidental is difficult to
ascertain.
4. Clay fragment (Figure 11.13:4). This tiny
fragment is identical to the clay fragments
described above from Gilgal I, as perhaps a limb
appendage of a figurine (and see discussion
therein). It is cylindrical and smooth, relatively
well fired.
Discussion
As the detailed description of the symbolic
items incorporates some of the issues pertaining
to the general discussion (and see above), we
shall confine ourselves herein only to a few
specific points that merit yet more in-depth
reference.
Firstly, we would like to say that we disagree
with Binford’s (1987) statement that it is impos-
sible to infer from the archaeological remains
the frame of mind of prehistoric people.
Conversely, we would like to adhere to the
Figure 11.15 Gilgal III: Incised pebble
(see Figure 11.13 for scale).
notion expressed by Renfrew and others that as
archaeologists, it is our duty to try to recover
ancient mindsets as expressed through the
archaeological material remains (Renfrew et al.
1993). In accordance with this approach, and
contrary to the more common attitude of dealing
mainly with the most obvious symbolic items,
such as figurines, we have tried to relate to the
whole array of items that may reflect the
Neolithic universal perceptions, within the par-
ticular setting of the Gilgal sites. Although some
of the items enumerated above are of Natufian
origin, the focus of the following discussion will
be Neolithic phenomena, as they comprise the
majority of the finds.
Indeed, a repertoire incorporating such items
as the one dealt with presently can be traced in
other contemporaneous Neolithic assemblages.
Yet, we should bear in mind that there are also
differences reflecting geographic distances,
varying local traditions, chronology, etc. Yizraeli-
Noy (1999:31), who first studied the Gilgal

material, stated that there is a difference in the
presentation of the same motifs in the Levantine
sites as compared to the assemblages from
eastern Anatolia and northern Iraq. For
example, the shaping and presentation of
human and bird images differ between these
regions. She also claimed that there are certain
elements present in the north and east of the
Levant, which are not found within the south-
central Levant, such as feline figures and snakes.
It seems to us that the latter statement is only
partially correct, since depictions reminiscent of
the snake shape were recovered from early
Neolithic contexts in the Levant, specifically
from the PPNA site of Netiv Hagdud, where they
are described as a “meander” motif (Gopher
1997:fig. 5.18).
The general impression is that indeed, the
finds from the Gilgal sites (in particular Gilgal I),
resemble items from the nearby site of Salibiya
IX, as well as those from other Levantine assem-
blages (e.g., Ramad II and Mureybet II), as enu-
merated by Enoch-Shiloh and Bar-Yosef (1997).
All of these assemblages are attributed to the
earlier stages of the Pre-Pottery Neolithic A (i.e.,
the Khiamian, which precedes the Sultanian).
On the other hand, the Gilgal I finds bear resem-
blance also to the later finds from Sultanian
Netiv Hagdud (Bar-Yosef and Gopher 1997). It
is of interest to note that similar conclusions
were reached also as regards comparisons of the
lithic assemblages (and see Chapter 5). It seems
that the iconographic realm of the Pre-Pottery
Neolithic A sites in the lower Jordan valley
exhibits a temporal continuum, with the Gilgal I
assemblage bridging its earlier and later stages.
In general (with but a few exceptions) each
and every item described here is quite unique.
There are still no codes of formalization, and thus
they are not “iconic” representations in a definite
and agreed upon format. The exceptions to this
Artisitic and Symbolic Material Manifestations 205
statement are the items from Gilgal III (Figure
11.13:1–2), both of which display great similarity
in morphology and raw material (i.e., soft, chalky
limestone). Another example of similarity in
concepts of shaping is the large figurine
recovered from the surface of Gilgal II and the
item from Nahal Oren (see above for details).
Contexts
The contexts of the finds also have some bearing
on their meaning and function. Thus 14 of the
described items from Gilgal I (comprising more
than 50% of all the finds from this site) were
found on (or close-by) one of the living floors in
Locus 11, which contained a “silo” on its northern
side (see Chapter 6). Noy (1989) claimed that this
silo and its environs served a cultic function. It
seems to us that the Gilgal I occupation repre-
sents an intermediate phase in the development
of cult and religion, before the establishment of
“special buildings” incorporating cultic activities,
which seemingly appear in the PPNB (e.g., in ‘Ain
Ghazal, see Rollefson 1998). A concentration of
clearly symbolic items within a mundane context
is a world-wide phenomenon, typical of pre- and
proto-agricultural human societies. Such a con-
centration of symbolic items invokes the concept
of a shaman’s hut claimed to exist as early as the
Upper Paleolithic at Dolni Vestonice, Moravia
(Klima 1963). Still, it is tempting when faced
with the particular case of Locus 11 to correlate
between cereals, agriculture, and a building with
cultic functions (“ritual buildings” according to
Verhoeven 2002), as such a correlation indeed
occurs in later Neolithic sites in Anatolia
(Verhoeven 2002).
The items derived from Locus 11 are mostly
unique in the context of the Gilgal sites, incorpo-
rating most of the clay-modified items (including
the human figurines, the “seal”, and the “mace
head”). It must be stated that the other items
206 Gilgal
from Gilgal I are less spectacular and were
recovered from locations devoid of any obvious
significance. Apart from the clustering of symbolic
items in Locus 11 in Gilgal I, there is no evident
discard pattern for the other symbolic items
derived from the Gilgal sites. Whether this reflects
Neolithic reality or the limitations of recent excava-
tions is beyond the scope of current discussion.
Raw materials
Both clay and stone artifacts were made on
local raw materials as clearly indicated by the
clay objects (see Chapter 12), although there
are obvious preferences for particular sources.
Some easily obtainable local materials were not
used at all due to their crumbly nature. Certain
clays are found further away than others, still the
former were selected, indicating either particu-
lar preferences or perhaps the items were them-
selves transported from other locations or sites.
The raw materials of the modified items
included here have less to do with the pliability of
the materials or the technicalities of modification
than previously assumed. It seems to us that the
choice between clay and stone (when both were
available) has more to do with symbolic meanings
than with the difficulties of handling the raw
material. It is of interest to add that the introduc-
tion of clay as a raw material pertains mainly to
the shaping of symbolic objects. It is only much
later, in the Pottery Neolithic (ca. 5500 B.C.) that
clay became the most common raw material for
shaping vessels. Though the use of clay in the
Natufian is still unexplored, the meagre evidence
points towards the possibility that, as in the case of
the PPNA, clay was used to shape unique objects
(e.g., see Belfer-Cohen 1991). The tradition of clay
use for shaping figurines and other symbolic rep-
resentations goes back to the European Upper
Paleolithic (Bahn and Vertut 1997). Rare
instances of such use are reported also from late
Upper Paleolithic of North Africa (Belfer-Cohen
1991:31). Still, since clay was a novel raw material
in the context of the Levantine Neolithic, it
appears that the artisans were not sufficiently
skilled in shaping the items, so that the figurines
comprised a main “body”, i.e., a clay cylinder
“core”, onto which parts were stuck and
attached. Various inherent features such as
breasts were shaped by simply pinching the wet,
not yet set clay – this technique of shaping
human clay figurines is documented ethno-
graphically among Ethiopian villagers (Gavish
and Baumgarten 1992). Indeed, from the bits
and pieces of clay recovered and described
above, it is difficult to tell whether they
represent broken figurines per se, or
appendages depicting body parts, or limbs that
were attached to the torso.
On the other hand, perhaps this has to do
with Bartel’s (1981) observation that the clay
models, which he examined microscopically, had
their breaking points at the attachment seams of
body parts. He uses this to validate his theory that
acceptance or rejection of figurine parts (and not
the figurine as a whole or its meaning) character-
ized local developments. Whether one accepts
his finding or not, there is the difference between
materials—the observations about the breaking
points are relevant only for ceramic work. It is
possible to conclude that the construction of clay
figurines was additive, the additions being body
members rather than formal attributes. At least in
those figurines examined by Bartel there was no
holistic grasp of the figure. The shift in attitude
from additive to holistic techniques must have
occurred coincidentally with increasing
reductive abstraction.
Of special interest is the use of soft, chalky
limestone for shaping symbolic artifacts, which
is known also from other, earlier, contemporane-
ous, or slightly later sites (e.g., Nahal Ein Gev II,

Hallan Çemi and Nevali Çori) as discussed
above (e.g., see the bird figurine, Figure 11.7:1).
The stone was worked in the same manner in all
the observed instances: first the initial shaping of
the items through “shaving” and later modifica-
tions by combing, grooving and finally
polishing. It is of interest to note that while
items of similar shapes appear in later contexts,
there is no continuity in using this particular
raw material for symbolic manifestations.
Motifs
There are a number of motifs depicted in the
symbolic assemblages described in the present
report. Some of them need further discussion
and clarification.
Human representations
The first to be detailed here is the human repre-
sentation and its assumed role in the Neolithic
spiritual domain. The issue of Natufian versus
Neolithic contexts arise repeatedly, and though
there are human depictions during the earlier
Natufian, it is interesting to note that they are
represented mostly by the face (and a similar
observation is valid also for most of the animal
representations; see Bar-Yosef 1997; Bienert
1995). Still, the Natufian symbolic realm clearly
contains a different repertoire and most
symbolic manifestations are abstract. Thus it
seems that the human figurines described
herein, as well as similar items from other PPNA
sites, belong most probably to the symbolic
realm. This shift in iconography is most probably
related in some manner to the “agricultur-
al/Neolithic revolution”. As there is continuity of
a kind between the final Natufian and the
earliest manifestations of the Neolithic (i.e., the
Khiamian, and see the site of Salibiya IX), it is
possible that changes in symbolic attributes
occurred already at the end of the Natufian.
Artisitic and Symbolic Material Manifestations 207
Indeed, it seems tempting when dealing with
the symbolic realm of the Near East Neolithic to
refer to observations concerning the appearance
of human figurines in the fifth millennium
Balkans (Bailey 1996:294). “This was a period in
which the scale of the manipulation of people and
resources increased through the application of
new abilities to rearrange reality to suit individual-
s’ needs and in doing so, to create an artificial
world of illusion.” In this context it is also of
interest to note Bailey’s comparison of the influ-
ences and changes in human perception
stemming from the introduction of photographic
images as described by Sontag (Bailey 1996) and
the appearance of three-dimensional miniature
representations (namely figurines) in the Neolithic
Balkans. Also in the Levant the introduction of
three-dimensional human figurines “… intro-
duced also a new way of seeing and conceptualiz-
ing. The emergence of this new way of seeing was
deeply embedded in contemporary social,
political and productive contexts” (Bailey 1996).
Before summarizing the human representa-
tions (realistic and otherwise) from the Gilgal
sites, one should note that the issue of gender is of
little importance in the Levantine PPNA, most
probably because what the people had in mind
was a depiction of a generic human being, rather
than a reference to a particular gender. Thus one
should not try to reconcile the observed charac-
teristics into the single coherent image of a
female or male depiction (as, for example, a
crude face and elaborate buttocks—is this a male
or a female figure?). It seems that the obvious
change between the Natufian and the Neolithic is
the introduction of the human figure into the
artistic repertoire. We think that it is legitimate to
assume that, at least in the beginning of the
process, the depiction was a generic human
proto-type rather than the portrayal of one gender
or the other. For example, out of the whole
208 Gilgal
assemblage of the so called “female figurines”
from PPNB and later ‘Ain Ghazal, only 40%
portray clear-cut female features (McAdam
1997:138). It is only much later, during Pottery
Neolithic Yarmukian times that we can tell the
sex of the human representations. Schmandt-
Besserat (1998b:111–113) claims that the early
Neolithic figurines comprise aspects of both
female and male and that they are actually
androgynous. It seems to us that they represent
the human being as a whole.
Still, one has to refer to the fact that human
figurines come in different raw materials, sizes
and styles. The main observed division is
between the stone and clay figurines. While all
of the former lack gender identity, the clay
figurines include several specimens that are def-
initely female, as described above.
The stone and clay figurines differ not only
in their gender attributes, but also in general
size. All of the larger examples (ca. 8–10 cm and
more in height) are made of stone, while most
clay figurines are ca. 2.5–4 cm (Table 11.1). The
clay figurines are very fragile, and most are
broken and represented by fragments. There are
also differences in the depiction of the face and
body details. The clay figurines bear some facial
details (including brows, eyes, and nose), while
most stone figurines are more general, with no
recognizable facial features. Clothing is scarce in
both groups apart from a hat on some clay
figurines and a dress/skirt on one of the soft
limestone figurines (Figure 11.1:1). There is a
greater similarity among the items of the stone
figurine group, and thus some of the smaller
specimens are strikingly similar to the largest
figurine (actually a statue) from this context (e.g.,
Figures 11.1:2, 11.9:7, and 11.11).
As noted above most researchers believe that
the large stone statue from the surface of
Natufian Gilgal II is most probably Neolithic. It
seems to belong to a group of stone figurines
recovered from Nahal Oren (Stekelis 1960).
Unfortunately, two of those were also surface
finds and it was thus impossible to attribute
them with certainty either to the Late/Final
Natufian or to the PPNA occupations at that site.
Still, one of the items clearly derives from a
Neolithic context (Yizraeli-Noy 1999:38, fig.
20). According to Noy the iconography of these
figurines is obviously Neolithic and she includes
in this group also the much smaller stone
figurine from the adjacent early Neolithic
Khiamian Salibiya IX (Yizraeli-Noy 1999:figs.
16, 18–20). She claimed that it is only from the
Neolithic onward that a central groove was
applied to the lower parts of figurines to denote
either the division of the item into two parts or
the sex organ. This marking does not exist in the
rare Natufian human figurines (most of which
are represented by heads only).
Beside the three specimens from Nahal Oren,
the Salibiya IX figurine and the statue from Gilgal
II, we can also include in this group the ‘Ain Sakhri
“copulating couple” (Boyd and Cook 1993), which
we believe should be observed from the same per-
spective as the items from Nahal Oren. Another
related figurine may be the one recovered at
Gilgal I (GI.1, Figures 11.1:1–11.2a–b).
Detailed discussion of the role of human
figurines, in particular those of the Levantine
Neolithic, is beyond the scope of the present
report. This issue has been dealt with extensively
by many researchers (for a recent overview and
literature see Lesure 2002; Voigt 2000, and ref-
erences therein). Lesure’s detailed analysis
concludes that the role of female figurines in the
Levantine Early Neolithic was more within social
contexts than as representations of female deities
(Lesure 2002:598). As most discussions relating
to figurines in general and those of females in
particular are based on assemblages that are

later than those presently discussed, it is very
difficult to place the Gilgal assemblage in any of
the particular slots suggested in the relevant lit-
erature. Still, it is of interest to note that some
observations, though the evidence is scant, are
valid for Near Eastern PPNA human figurines.
Concerning the present assemblage, it
seems to us that there was a difference in the
role of the stone figurines, as opposed to those of
the much smaller clay ones. While the former,
in particular the statue from Gilgal II, are of a
symbolic nature, the latter are most probably
related to magic activities. The same conclusion
was reached by Schmandt-Besserat (1998b) in
her research of the ‘Ain Ghazal figurines. The
smaller clay figurines are considered by her to
have been produced for domestic, short-term
use, probably related to magic-making activities.
The fragility of the clay figurines, as well as those
made of soft stone, and their patterns of discard
(observed in particular at the site of Gilgal I)
clearly indicate relatively rapid use and aban-
donment, implying a limited, domestic use
within a social context. It seems to us that these
figurines were indeed “vehicles of magic”
(Lesure 2002:600), contrary to the idea of
Cauvin (2000) that they are representations of
specific deities. The clay items from the present
assemblage, assigned to the category of human
figurines, are too fragmentary and broken to
guess their gender. Yet, because of similarities
with complete items recovered from the more or
less contemporaneous, neighboring site of Netiv
Hagdud (Bar-Yosef and Gopher 1997; Yizraeli-
Noy 1999:figs. 11–13), it stands to reason that
most of the clay figurines were probably female.
It is of interest to note that the gender of the
figurines is thought by some researchers as indi-
cating production, use and discard by females
for their own needs in domestic circumstances
(Lesure 2002).
Artisitic and Symbolic Material Manifestations 209
The stone figurines and in particular the large
statue (Figure 11.11) seem to play a different role
in the Neolithic context. It is fascinating to
observe the similarity of the large statue with the
smaller stone items (Figures 11.1:2; 11.9:7), an
observation already made by Bar-Yosef (1980). In
contrast with what has been said about the
gender of the clay figurines, the stone figurines in
the present assemblage are sexually ambiguous,
and the large statue is especially so. It seems that
this is intentional, as the figurines may represent
neither the female nor the male sex, but rather
the human entity at large. This is most pro-
nounced in the large statue, where the modifica-
tion efforts concentrated on the general shape of
the body and the facial features of eyes and nose.
This brings to mind the big plaster statues from
‘Ain Ghazal (lacking sexual distinction but pos-
sessing eyes and noses) and their iconographic
concept. According to Schmandt-Besserat
(1998a, 1998b) the plaster statues, like the large
stone statue from the same site, most probably
represent deities. Other researchers contest this
idea, arguing that the concept of deities came to
fruition only in the sixth millennium (e.g., Voigt
2000). Another approach posits that the plaster
statues (and perhaps this is applicable also to the
stone items presented here) are actually repre-
sentations of ghosts of the “ancestors” (Schuster
1995). It seems to one of us (Hershman 2005)
that yet another explanation is more appropriate.
Namely, the iconography implicit in the plaster
statues distinguishes them as an elite group of
spirits, part of a spirit cult, serving as protectors of
the human community. The similarities between
the iconography of the PPNB plaster statues and
the PPNA stone figure described herewith could
indicate similar functions for both. Since this
statue is not the only one of its kind (and see the
above-described item from Nahal Oren), it is
possible that we are presented here with the
210 Gilgal
prototype of a cult that became widespread later
on, and is known ethnographically to represent
agricultural societies.
Animal representations
Whereas during the Natufian most animal
figurines depict wild species, and the majority of
PPNB figurines represent primarily domesticated
cattle, the intermediate PPNA stands out with its
scarcity of animal figurines. Thus, in the present
assemblage, there are no animal figurines with
the exception of the soft stone bird. Exquisitely
shaped, the bird figurine conjures up a plethora of
ideas and concepts.
According to various traditions a bird repre-
sents “rain and cosmic water” (Gimbutas
1982:114). Dare we say that these themes
indicate an agricultural frame of mind? In this
context it is worth mentioning the “pillar
figurine” (Figure 11.7:5 from Gilgal I), where the
imprinted arrangement is wavy. This meander
pattern is considered by some to represent “rain”
or “cosmic waters” (Gimbutas 1982:114:figs. 72,
74–77, pls. 77, 86). Perhaps this meander
pattern may indicate that “rain” and/or “cosmic
waters” were an important motif in the PPNA
symbolic repertoire.
Another interesting point raised by Gimbutas
(1982) is that in early Neolithic sixth millennium
B.C. Europe “rain and cosmic water” are repre-
sented also by the snake. Thus the symbol of the
bird and the symbol of the snake are interchange-
able, while “The combination of a water snake
and a water bird is a peculiarity of the Old
European symbolism representing divine ambiva-
lence” (Gimbutas 1982:112).
Perhaps we are faced here with universal
symbolism, since in Neolithic Anatolia and
northern Iraq the bird and the snake motifs occur
in tandem (as is the case at Göbekli Tepe, Nevali
Çori, and Çafar Höyük, see references above). But
this does not hold in the present assemblage, as
we could not identify any of the motifs as
depicting a snake—which is probably why
Yizraeli-Noy (1999:149: Note 1) wrote that the
Levantine Neolithic assemblages do not conform
to this pattern. On the other hand it is rather
tempting to consider the wavy pattern observed
on a unique item recovered from nearby PPNA
Netiv Hagdud as representing an abstraction of
the snake motif (Gopher 1997:170, fig. 5.18).
Garfinkel (1995:22) claims that the cattle
figurines so common in the later PPNB assem-
blages “replace” those of birds. Still, since there
are so few of the latter in the earlier Neolithic as
compared to the numbers of later cattle figurines,
this idea has yet to be verified by future research.
Other motifs
As stated elsewhere, most of the symbolic items
described herein are one of a kind, and appear in
single numbers. Still, we would like to refer to
certain items that can be conceived as precursors
of artifacts that were subsequently to become
much more common.
Three items from Gilgal I come to mind,
namely the so-called “mace head” (Figure 11.8:7)
and “seal” (Figure 11.8:8), both made of clay, and
one “seal-like” item on soft white limestone
(Figure 11.9:4). The clay objects were recovered
from Locus 11.
Indeed, both the mace head and the seal were
to become part of the formal arsenal during the
later Neolithic and Chalcolithic periods (e.g.,
Garfinkel 1999:figs. 11:9, 30:2). Both motifs
came to be identified as representing the organi-
zational domain, yet at the same time retaining
some symbolic status.
Summary and conclusion
The PPNA symbolic world as portrayed through
the symbolic items presented above significantly

differs from that of the preceding Natufian and the
succeeding PPNB. A PPNA innovation includes,
for example, the introduction of clay as a raw
material for shaping these unique items, an occur-
rence that is rather rare in the Natufian – though
see the example from Hayonim Cave (Belfer-
Cohen 1991). Another point of difference from
the Natufian is that previously most of the
symbolic repertoire was made on bone, while
most of the Neolithic bone tools in general and
those from the Gilgal sites in particular are appar-
ently strictly or mostly of mundane use (see
Chapter 10). During both the PPNA and Natufian
symbolic items are generally quite scarce, but
there is nonetheless a sharp increase during the
PPNA if we consider the number and extent of
Natufian excavations. Detailed comparisons
between the Natufian and PPNA were made in
the description and discussion above, so suffice it
to state that, though different, one can see some
elements of continuity between the later Natufian
and the early Neolithic. This may reflect on the
intrinsic relationship assumed to exist between
the two successive cultures. The same can be said
as regards comparisons between the PPNA and
PPNB symbolic realms. While specific similarities
and differences were pointed out above, it can be
stated that there is also continuity between the
PPNA and PPNB. For example, can one say that
the line pattern observed on the flat head on item
GI.4 (Figure 11.7:2) is reminiscent of the
decorated human skull from PPNB Nahal Hemar
(Yakar and Hershkovitz 1988)? Additionally, the
contexts of the finds, namely the unique Locus 11
at Gilgal I, may indicate a transitional stage
between a shaman’s hut (i.e., a Paleolithic lifeway)
and cultic/ritual buildings that became increasing-
ly formalized in sedentary, agricultural societies.
This preliminary stage of matters may explain
the fact that the items described above lack stan-
dardization in the sense of a fixed and repetitive
Artisitic and Symbolic Material Manifestations 211
iconography. At the same time, there are elements
that are rather uniquely PPNA. For example, the
head of the Gilgal bird is elongated and flat-
topped, just like the heads of the soft limestone
and clay human figurines! A far-flung association
that comes to mind are the giant T-shaped
columns from Göbekli Tepe, which also end with
flat, wide surfaces, sometimes pitted with
numerous cup-holes and sometimes simply flat
and smooth (Schmidt 1998).
To sum up, the presently described PPNA
symbolic items indeed portray an obviously transi-
tional stage between the world of hunter-
gatherers and that of fully-fledged farmers, while
at the same time reflecting the unique circum-
stances of such a transition, which literally trans-
formed the human world.
Endnotes
1 The deep groove representing the spine is reminis-
cent of that on the large statue from Gilgal II (Figure
11.11, see below) as well as the human figurine
from Salibiya IX (Enoch-Shiloh and Bar-Yosef
1997:fig. 2.17). It seems to us that the partitioning of
the body is similar in both cases: there is a head, no
shoulders, a waistline more or less in the middle of
the figurine, and yet another line running along the
end of the buttocks and a deep groove indicating the
two legs. The same observations are true for both
figurines from PPNA Nahal Oren published by Noy
side-by-side with those from PPNA Gilgal (Yizraeli-
Noy 1999:38–39, ills. 19–20). Another illustrative
example is the figurine from Mureybet II, which rep-
resents the lower part of a human torso with two per-
pendicular lines depicting the division between the
torso and the lower limbs, with part of the lower
spinal groove (of a triangular shape, see Cauvin
1977:fig. 9). It is of interest to note that the spine-line
and the hip-line are emphasized even on figurines
that lack other bodily details. This tendency is
observed starting with Natufian and/or PPNA
figurines (and see Stekelis 1960 for comparisons
between the ‘Ain Sakhri and Nahal Oren figurines).
2 For the issue of correlating specific raw materials with
particular symbolic objects see the Discussion section.
212 Gilgal

References
Bahn, P. G., and J. Vertut
1997 Journey through the Ice Age. Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London.
Bailey, D.
1996 The interpretation of figures: the emergence of illusion and new ways of seeing. Cambridge Archaeological
Journal 6(2):291–295.
Bar-Adon, P.
1980 The Cave of the Treasure—The Finds from the Caves in Nahal Mishmar. The Israel Exploration Society, Jerusalem.
Bar-Yosef, O.
1980 A human figurine from a Khiamian site in the Lower Jordan Valley. Paléorient 6:193–199.
1997 Symbolic expressions in later prehistory of the Levant: Why are they so few? In Beyond Art: Pleistocene Image
and Symbol, edited by O. Soffer, M. Conkey, D. Stratmann, and N. G. Jablonski, pp. 161–187. Memoirs of the
California Academy of Sciences 23, Berkeley.
Bar-Yosef, O., and A. Belfer-Cohen
2000 Nahal Ein Gev II—a Late Epi-Paleolithic site in the Jordan Valley. Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society –
Mitekufat Haeven 30:49–71.
Bar-Yosef, O., and A. Gopher
1997 Miscellaneous finds: the human figurines from Netiv Hagdud. In An Early Neolithic Village in the Jordan Valley,
Part I: The Archaeology of Netiv Hagdud, edited by O. Bar-Yosef and A. Gopher, pp. 177–180, American School of
Prehistoric Research 43, Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University, Cambridge.
Bartel, B.
1981 Cultural associations and mechanisms of change in anthropomorphic figurines during the Neolithic in the
eastern Mediterranean basin. World Archaeology 13(1):73–86.
Belfer-Cohen, A.
1991 Art items from layer B, Hayonim Cave: a case study of art in a Natufian context. In The Natufian Culture in the
Levant, edited by O. Bar-Yosef, and F. R. Valla, pp. 569–588. International Monographs in Prehistory. Ann Arbor.
Bienert, H.-D.
1995 The human image in the Natufian and Aceramic Neolithic Period of the Middle East. In Ritual, Rites and
Religion in Prehistory: 3rd Deya International Conference of Prehistory, edited by W. H. Waldren, J. A. Ensenyat, and
R. C. Kennard, pp. 75–103. BAR International Series 611, Oxford.
Binford, L.
1987 Archaeological science. Man 22:397–404.
Boyd, B., and J. Cook
1993 A reconsideration of the “Ain Sakhri” figurine. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 59:399–405.
Cauvin, J.
1977 Les fouilles de Mureybet (1971–1974) et leur signification pour les origines de la sédentarisation au Proche-
Orient. Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research 44:19–48.
1978 Les premiers villages de Syrie-Palestine du IXe au VIIe millénaire avant J.C. CMO 4, Arch. 3. Diffusion de Bocar, Paris.
 Artisitic and Symbolic Material Manifestations 213

1985 Le néolithique de Çafer Höyük (Turquie): bilan provisoire après quatre campagnes (1979–1983). Cahiers de
l’ Euphrate 4:123–133.
2000 The symbolic foundations of the Neolithic Revolution in the Near East. In Life in Neolithic Farming Communities.
Social Organization, Identity, and Differentiation, edited by I. Kuijt, pp. 235–252. Kluwer Academic/Plenum, New York.
Echegaray, J. G.
1966 Excavaciones en la terraza de “El Khiam” (Jordania), Bibliotheca Praehistorica Hispana. Vol. 5, Part II.Consejo
Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas, Madrid.
Enoch-Shiloh, D., and O. Bar-Yosef
1997 Salibiya IX. In An Early Neolithic Village in the Jordan Valley, Part I: The Archaeology of Netiv Hagdud, edited by
O. Bar-Yosef and A. Gopher, pp. 13–40. American School of Prehistoric Research 43. Peabody Museum of
Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University, Cambridge.
Garfinkel, Y.
1992 The Material Culture in the Central Jordan Valley in the Pottery Neolithic and Early Chalcolithic Periods.
Ph.D. dissertation, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem (in Hebrew).
1994 Ritual burial of cultic objects: the earliest evidence. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 4:159–188.
1995 Human and Animal Figurines at Munhata. Les Cahiers du Centre de Recherche Français de Jérusalem 8.
Association Paléorient, Paris.
1999 Neolithic and Chalcolithic Pottery of the Southern Levant. Qedem 39 (Monographs of the Institute of Archaeology).
The Hebrew University, Jerusalem.
Gavish, G., and Y. Baumgarten
1992 The Sheba Connection. The Negev Museum, Beer-Sheva.
Gimbutas, M.
1982 The Goddesses and Gods of Old Europe. University of California Press, Berkeley.
Gopher, A.
1997 Groundstone tools and other stone objects from Netiv Hagdud. In An Early Neolithic Village in the Jordan Valley.
Part I: The Archaeology of Netiv Hagdud, edited by O. Bar-Yosef and A. Gopher, pp. 151–156. American School of
Prehistoric Research 43. Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University, Cambridge.
Gopher, A., and E. Orrelle
1995 The Ground Stone Assemblages of Munhata. Les Cahiers des Missions Archéologiques Françaises en Israël 7.
Association Paléorient, Paris.
Hauptmann, H.
1993 Ein kultgebaude in Nevali Çori. In Between the Rivers and Over the Mountains: Archaeologica Anatolica et
Mesopotamia. Alba Palmieri Dedicata, edited by M. Frangipane, H. Hauptman, M. Liverani, P. Matthiae and
M. Mellink, pp. 37–69. Università Degli Studi Di Roma “La Sapienza”, Rome.
1999 The Urfa region. In Neolithic in Turkey: The Cradle of Civilization. New Discoveries, edited by M. Özdoğan, and
N. Başgelen, pp. 65–86. Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayınları, Istanbul.
Hershman, D.
2005 The Rise of Religion in the Southern Levant. Ph.D. dissertation, Tel-Aviv University (in Hebrew).
214 Gilgal

Hovers, E.
1990 Art in the Levantine Epi-Palaeolithic: an engraved pebble from a Kebaran site in the Lower Jordan Valley.
Current Anthropology 31:317–322.
Kempisty, A., and K. Kozlowski
1990 Objects of art. In Nemrik 9. Pre-Pottery Neolithic Site in Iraq, edited by S. K. Kozlowski, pp. 155–162.
Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego, Warsaw.
Kirkbride, D.
1966 Five seasons at the Pre-Pottery Neolithic village of Beidha in Jordan. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 98:8–72.
Klima, B.
1963 Dolni Vestonice. Nakladatelstvi Ceskoslovenske Adademie Ved., Praha.
Lesure, R. G.
2002 The goddess diffracted. Current Anthropology 43:587–610.
Marshack, A.
1995 Variabilité de catégorie dans l’imagerie symbolique d’Ökuzini et de Karain (Turquie). L’Anthropologie
99:586–594.
1997 Paleolithic image making and symboling in Europe and the Middle East: a comparative review. In Beyond Art:
Pleistocene Image and Symbol, edited by O. Soffer, M. Conkey, D. Stratmann and N. G. Jablonski, pp. 53–91.
Memoirs of the California Academy of Sciences 23, Berkeley.
McAdam, E.
1997 The figurines from the 1982–5 season of excavations at ‘Ain Ghazal. Levant 29:115–145.
Noy, T.
1988 Gilgal I—an early village in the Lower Jordan Valley. Preliminary report of the 1987 winter seasons. The Israel
Museum Journal VII:113–114.
1989 Gilgal I: a Pre-Pottery Neolithic site, Israel. The 1985–1987 seasons. Paléorient 15(1):11–18.
1990 An anthropomorphic figurine from the Pre-Pottery Neolithic A site at Gilgal. ‘Atiqot 10:155–156 (in Hebrew).
Otte, M., I. Yalcinkaya, J.-M. Leotard, M. Kartal, O. Bar-Yosef, J. Kozlowski, I. L. Bayon, and A. Marshack
1995 The Epi-Palaeolithic of Ökuzini cave (SW Anatolia) and its mobiliary art. Antiquity 69:931–44.
Pichon, J.
1985 A propos d’une figurine aviare à Mureybet (phase III A) 8000–7700 avant J.C. Cahiers de l’ Euphrate 4:261–264.
Rappaport, R. A.
1999 Ritual and Religion. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Renfrew, C., C. S. Peebles, I. Hodder, B. Bender, K. V. Flannery, and J. Marcus
1993 What is cognitive archaeology? Viewpoint. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 3(2):247–270.
Rollefson, G. O.
1998 ‘Ain Ghazal (Jordan): ritual and ceremony III. Paléorient 42(1):43–58.
Rosenberg, M.
1994 Hallan Çemi Tepesi: some further observations concerning stratigraphy and material culture. Anatolica
20:121–140.
 Artisitic and Symbolic Material Manifestations 215

1999 Hallan Çemi. In Neolithic in Turkey. The Cradle of Civilization. New Discoveries, edited by M. Özdoğan, and
N. Basgelen, pp. 25–33. Arkeolojie ve Sanat Yayınları, Istanbul.
Schmandt-Besserat, D.
1998a ‘Ain Ghazal “monumental” figures. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 310:1–17.
1998b A stone metaphor of creation. Near Eastern Archaeology 61(2):109–117.
Schmidt, K.
1998 Beyond daily bread: evidence of Early Neolithic ritual from Göbekli Tepe. Neo-Lithics 2/98:1–5.
2000 Göbekli Tepe and the rock art of the Near East. Tuba-AR III:1–14.
Schuster, A. H. M.
1995 Ghosts of ‘Ain Ghazal. Archaeology 49(4):65–66.
Soffer, O., J. M. Adovasio, and D. C. Hyland
2000 The “Venus” figurines. Current Anthropology 41(4):511–537.
Stekelis, M.
1960 The Mesolithic art of Eretz Israel. Eretz Israel 4:21–24 (in Hebrew).
1966 The Yarmukian Culture. Museum of Prehistory, Sha’ar Hagolan (in Hebrew).
Tubb, K. W.
1985 Preliminary report on the ‘Ain Ghazal statues. Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 117:117–134.
Tubb, K. W., and C. A. Grissom
1995 ‘Ain Ghazal: a comparative study of the 1983 and 1985 statuary caches. Studies in the History and Archaeology
of Jordan V:437–447.
Valla, F. R., H. Khalaily, N. Samuelin, F. Bocquentin, C. Delage, B. Valentin, H. Plisson, R. Rabinovich,
and A. Belfer-Cohen
1998 Le Natoufien Final et les nouvelles fouilles à Mallaha (Eynan), Israël 1996–1997. Journal of the Israel Prehistoric
Society – Mitekufat Haeven 28:105–176.
Valla, F. R., H. Khalaily, N. Samuelian, R. March, F. Bocquentin, B. Valentin, O. Marder, R. Rabinovich, G. Le Dosseur,
L. Dubreuil, and A. Belfer-Cohen
2001 Le Natoufien Final de Mallaha (Eynan), deuxième rapport préliminaire: les fouilles de 1998 et 1999. Journal
of the Israel Prehistoric Society – Mitekufat Haeven 31:43–184.
Verhoeven, M.
2002 Ritual and Ideology in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B of the Levant and Southeast Anatolia. Cambridge
Archaeological Journal 12(2):233–258.
Voigt, M. M.
2000 Çatal Höyük in context: ritual and early Neolithic sites in central and eastern Turkey. In Life in Neolithic Farming
Communities—Social Organization, Identity, and Differentiation, edited by I. Kuijt, pp. 253–293. Kluwer
Academic/Plenum, New York.
Weinstein-Evron, M., and A. Belfer-Cohen
1993 Natufian figurines from the new excavations of the el-Wad Cave, Mt. Carmel, Israel. Rock Art Research
10:102–106.
216 Gilgal

Wobst, H. M.
1977 Stylistic behavior and information exchange. In For the Director: Research Essays in Honor of J. B. Griffin, edited
by C. E. Clelland, pp. 317–342. Anthropological Papers 61. University of Michigan, Museum of Anthropology.
Yakar, R., and I. Hershkovitz
1988 Nahal Hemar Cave. The modeled skulls. ‘Atiqot 18:59-63.
Yizraeli-Noy, T.
1999 The Human Figure in Prehistoric Art in the Land of Israel. Israel Museum and the Israel Exploration Society,
Jerusalem.
Ziffer, I.
1998 “O my Dove, that art in the clefts of the Rock”: The Dove—allegory in Antiquity. Eretz Israel Museum, Tel-Aviv.