What is known about the Ubaid lizard-people figurines? Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Planned maintenance scheduled April 17/18, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern)What kind of incense was used by the Sumerians?Why is Sulla's nose in the bust in Munich Glyptothek broken?How is it known that Phidias used the golden ratio in the Parthenon?What was the purpose of a tally stick?Whom does this statue to the left of the cordonata leading up to Piazza del Campidoglio depict?What are early archeological clues of humans boiling food?What colors were used as paint in the construction of the ziggurats in early Sumer?Are there “Sumerian” figurines from the Uruk and Ubaid periods?What is the oldest known depiction of Isis with wings?How many people were there in a average Magdalenian group? (And what about Gravettian groups?)

At the end of Thor: Ragnarok why don't the Asgardians turn and head for the Bifrost as per their original plan?

Storing hydrofluoric acid before the invention of plastics

Resolving to minmaj7

Using et al. for a last / senior author rather than for a first author

Single word antonym of "flightless"

Why is my conclusion inconsistent with the van't Hoff equation?

Why are Kinder Surprise Eggs illegal in the USA?

Check which numbers satisfy the condition [A*B*C = A! + B! + C!]

How discoverable are IPv6 addresses and AAAA names by potential attackers?

What is a non-alternating simple group with big order, but relatively few conjugacy classes?

Apollo command module space walk?

How come Sam didn't become Lord of Horn Hill?

Is it ethical to give a final exam after the professor has quit before teaching the remaining chapters of the course?

How to answer "Have you ever been terminated?"

Bete Noir -- no dairy

How to react to hostile behavior from a senior developer?

Why is "Consequences inflicted." not a sentence?

When were vectors invented?

Is the Standard Deduction better than Itemized when both are the same amount?

The logistics of corpse disposal

Short Story with Cinderella as a Voo-doo Witch

Error "illegal generic type for instanceof" when using local classes

How to tell that you are a giant?

What is the logic behind the Maharil's explanation of why we don't say שעשה ניסים on Pesach?



What is known about the Ubaid lizard-people figurines?



Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara
Planned maintenance scheduled April 17/18, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern)What kind of incense was used by the Sumerians?Why is Sulla's nose in the bust in Munich Glyptothek broken?How is it known that Phidias used the golden ratio in the Parthenon?What was the purpose of a tally stick?Whom does this statue to the left of the cordonata leading up to Piazza del Campidoglio depict?What are early archeological clues of humans boiling food?What colors were used as paint in the construction of the ziggurats in early Sumer?Are there “Sumerian” figurines from the Uruk and Ubaid periods?What is the oldest known depiction of Isis with wings?How many people were there in a average Magdalenian group? (And what about Gravettian groups?)










4















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?



lizard statues










share|improve this question









New contributor




Flux is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
























    4















    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?



    lizard statues










    share|improve this question









    New contributor




    Flux is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.






















      4












      4








      4








      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?



      lizard statues










      share|improve this question









      New contributor




      Flux is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.












      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?



      lizard statues







      art archaeology mesopotamia sumer sculpture






      share|improve this question









      New contributor




      Flux is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.











      share|improve this question









      New contributor




      Flux is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.









      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question








      edited 4 hours ago







      Flux













      New contributor




      Flux is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.









      asked 4 hours ago









      FluxFlux

      605




      605




      New contributor




      Flux is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.





      New contributor





      Flux is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.






      Flux is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.




















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          2














          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:



          Ubaid figure of woman nursing a child



          • 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






          share|improve this answer

























          • 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
            21 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
            10 mins ago











          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.









          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          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









          2














          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:



          Ubaid figure of woman nursing a child



          • 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






          share|improve this answer

























          • 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
            21 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
            10 mins ago















          2














          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:



          Ubaid figure of woman nursing a child



          • 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






          share|improve this answer

























          • 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
            21 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
            10 mins ago













          2












          2








          2







          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:



          Ubaid figure of woman nursing a child



          • 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






          share|improve this answer















          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:



          Ubaid figure of woman nursing a child



          • 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







          share|improve this answer














          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer








          edited 2 hours ago

























          answered 2 hours ago









          sempaiscubasempaiscuba

          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
            21 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
            10 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







          • 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
            21 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
            10 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
          21 mins ago





          This is plausible for cranial features, but the facial ones? Why no parallel to Egyptian gods with animal heads, chimeras?

          – LangLangC
          21 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
          10 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
          10 mins ago










          Flux is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.









          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          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.




          draft saved


          draft discarded














          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





















































          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







          Popular posts from this blog

          Invision Community Contents History See also References External links Navigation menuProprietaryinvisioncommunity.comIPS Community ForumsIPS Community Forumsthis blog entry"License Changes, IP.Board 3.4, and the Future""Interview -- Matt Mecham of Ibforums""CEO Invision Power Board, Matt Mecham Is a Liar, Thief!"IPB License Explanation 1.3, 1.3.1, 2.0, and 2.1ArchivedSecurity Fixes, Updates And Enhancements For IPB 1.3.1Archived"New Demo Accounts - Invision Power Services"the original"New Default Skin"the original"Invision Power Board 3.0.0 and Applications Released"the original"Archived copy"the original"Perpetual licenses being done away with""Release Notes - Invision Power Services""Introducing: IPS Community Suite 4!"Invision Community Release Notes

          Canceling a color specificationRandomly assigning color to Graphics3D objects?Default color for Filling in Mathematica 9Coloring specific elements of sets with a prime modified order in an array plotHow to pick a color differing significantly from the colors already in a given color list?Detection of the text colorColor numbers based on their valueCan color schemes for use with ColorData include opacity specification?My dynamic color schemes

          Ласкавець круглолистий Зміст Опис | Поширення | Галерея | Примітки | Посилання | Навігаційне меню58171138361-22960890446Bupleurum rotundifoliumEuro+Med PlantbasePlants of the World Online — Kew ScienceGermplasm Resources Information Network (GRIN)Ласкавецькн. VI : Літери Ком — Левиправивши або дописавши її