The Art of the Ancient Near East


Fertile Crescent

Copper Age     5000 BCE - 3000 BCE
Bronze Age     3000 BCE - 1400 BCE
Iron Age     1400 BCE - 1 CE

For all the videos in order with a textbook and study guides please visit:

Plaster Skulls
7000 BCE
Form:  The skulls of people were separated from their bodies and covered over with plaster.  They were sculpted to look like a  person before he or she had died.  The eyes were then inlayed with shells and hair was painted onto the head and sometimes face in the case of a man having a mustache.Iconography:  They may have been icons of ancestors and used as fetish objects.  They may also be an icon of the people of Jericho's belief in an afterlife.  They were an icon of wisdom because they were consulted on serious matters.
Context:  These heads mark the beginning of larger sculpture in the Near East.  They were found under the floors of the houses in Jericho and were supposedly looked to for values and wisdom.

Catal Huyuk
6,500 BCE - 5,700 BCE
Anatolia, Turkey
Form:  This city has no streets.  The buildings are all attached and the entrances to the rooms were on the ceiling.  The houses were made of timber frames and mud brick, the insides were plastered.  There were platforms along the walls and shrines in many of the houses.  In these shrines were bulls horns, plastered breasts, wall paintings and animal heads.Iconography:  The plaster breasts found in the shrines are symbols of fertility and the bulls horns also found in the shrines are symbols of virility.  The style that the city was built in is iconographic of the need of the people for protection.  The shrines and dead people are an icon of the heavy influence of religion and possible ancestor worship.
Context:  Catal Huyuk's wealth was in the trade of obsidian which was a stone that was very useful in the making of weapons because it could easily be made into a sharp point.  The buildings being attached, with no doors or windows, formed a very protective outer wall that allowed the people to better protect themselves.  The ceiling entrance also provided the rooms with chimneys that allowed the smoke from the fire to escape.  The houses were all of similar construction even though there sizes vary.  The platforms in the houses were used to perform the days activities and to sleep upon at night.  Dead people were buried beneath the floors and shrines were in one out of three houses.

Cuneiform Writing
Process:  Developed around 3100 BCE, it was original an accounting system.  They started as pictographs, simple pictures, that were carved into damp clay.  Between 2900 BCE and 2400 BCE they developed into phonograms, representations of syllable sounds.  At the same time scribes, the people who wrote the text, began using a stylus, pictured on the bottom left.  This instrument is pushed into damp clay rapidly to form the characters in the diagram.  The illustration on the top left shows the development of the language from pictographs to later cuneiform signs.  Not many people were literate during this time.

Early Cuneiform Tablet (left)
Later Cuneiform Tablet (right)
both approximately 3"x5"
- made of clay.

Stele of Hammurabi
1780 BCE
Susa, Iran
Form:  The Stele depicts Hammurabi on the right and the sun god, Shamash on the left.  Shamash is handing the measuring rod to Hammurabi.  It is made of black basalt and has a picture on the top and writing on the bottom.  The figures are in composite view.  In a composite view, the face, feet and arms are in profile but the torso is depicted in the frontal view.  Sometimes the eyes are a frontal view although the face is in profile. Iconography:  The three steps upon which the god rests his feet are iconographic of this meeting taking place on a mountain top.  The larger seated figure is the god Shamash.  (The use of size to indicate importance is referred to by Stokstad as hieratic scale.)  Both Shamash’s size and the flames surrounding his represent his larger than life divine status.  The flames surrounding his head are icons of his role as god of light or enlightenment and they symbolize power and ideas in much the same way our comic books represent figures with a lighbulb above their heads to represent a good idea.  This meeting is symbolic of Hammurabi’s divine right to rule and pass judgment.  Shamash hands over a staff of rule or rod.  This represents Hammurabi’s divine right to act as Shamash’s earthly representative.
Context:  This is a stele that was used to ensure even treatment of people throughout the kingdom.  The punishments were set in stone so that there could be no confusion as to how to deal with a situation.  The punishment varied depending upon race, wealthy, and class.  It was one of the first documents that we have that described a legal system.

Ziggurat of King Ur-Nammu 2100 BCE
mud brick with facing of red fired clay, each level 25' to 50'
Ur, Iraq
SumerianForm:  Overall the temple is built in two levels entirely of mud brick: in the lower level the bricks are joined together with bitumen, in the top level they are joined with mortar.
According to the Brittanica, "The ziggurat was always built with a core of mud brick and an exterior covered with baked brick. It had no internal chambers and was usually square or rectangular, averaging either 170 feet square or 125  170 feet (40  50 metres) at the base. Approximately 25 ziggurats are known, being equally divided in number among Sumer, Babylonia, and Assyria."  The walls angle slightly outward and there are three staircases of one hundred steps each.
Iconography:  Ziggurats symbolize a connection between the heavens and the earth.  The monumental size and shape suggest that ziggurats are a type of man-made mountain.  In many cultures, religious leaders and figures often ascend mountains as a means to connect with a god or goddess.  In the ancient Greek faith there was Mount Olympus where the gods lived and in the Judeo Christian faith, Moses was given the tablets of the law on Mount Sinai.  Monuments of such a massive size most probably represent the power of the secular and religious rulers who commissioned them but in a more general sense they are also evidence of the organized cohesive nature of Mesopotamian civilization.
Context:  The temple was dedicated to the moon god Nanna and possibly used to communicate with him.  There used to be a temple at the very top of the ziggurat.  People would wait in the temple for the god to communicate with them.  The structure was used to intimidate enemies as well.  The shape of the ziggurat may have arisen from the building on top of older buildings until it found this height but this ziggurat did not find it's shape that way.  The walls were slanted probably to prevent rain water from ruining the brick work.
According to the Britannica,
No ziggurat is preserved to its original height. Ascent was by an exterior triple stairway or by a spiral ramp, but for almost half of the known ziggurats, no means of ascent has been discovered. The sloping sides and terraces were often landscaped with trees and shrubs (hence the Hanging Gardens of Babylon). The best-preserved ziggurat is at Ur (modern Tall al-Muqayyar). The largest, at Chogha Zanbil in Elam, is 335 feet (102 m) square and 80 feet (24 m) high and stands at less than half its estimated original height. The legendary Tower of Babel has been popularly associated with the ziggurat of the great temple of Marduk in Babylon.The city of Ur, modern Tall Al-muqayyar, or Tell El-muqayyar, important city of ancient southern Mesopotamia (Sumer), situated about 140 miles (225 km) southeast of the site of Babylon and about 10 miles (16 km) west of the present bed of the Euphrates River. In antiquity the river ran much closer to the city; the change in its course has left the ruins in a desert that once was irrigated and fertile land. The first serious excavations at Ur were made after World War I by H.R. Hall of the British Museum, and as a result a joint expedition was formed by the British Museum and the University of Pennsylvania that carried on the excavations under Leonard Woolley's directorship from 1922 until 1934. Almost every period of the city's lifetime has been illustrated by the discoveries, and knowledge of Mesopotamian history has been greatly enlarged.

Standard of Ur
2700 BCE
Ur, Iraq
Sumerian/MesopotamiaForm:  It is made of wood, shells and stone.  The Standard of Ur is broken up into the war side, middle left, and the peace side, top left.  The war side, on the bottom, features horse drawn chariots running over people.  In the middle, the prisoners have been captured and are being lead.  On the top, the prisoners have been striped naked and are being presented to a king figure.  He is the largest figure in the piece and he is also centered on the band.  On the bottom, of the peace side, men carry provisions.  In the middle they lead animals, and on the top a banquet takes place where the king figure is present again.  At this banquet there is a lyre player and a singer, they are shown in detail on the bottom left.
Iconography:  These pieces are iconographic of the morals of the culture.  Long hair is iconographic of a singer.  The hieratic scale and placement of the king figure are an icon of his power.  The standards are icons of peace and war.
Context:  Anthropologist Edmund Leach thinks that we see the world in a binary way so that is why they have the peace and war standards.  More meaning can be created, if it is used for demonstrative purposes, if there is something to compare an image against.  Scholars disagree as to weather the peace side banquet is a victory celebration or part of a cult ritual.

Sumerian Billy Goat and Tree from Ur
20" Tall
Wood, gold, lapis lazuli 
Form:  It is made out of wood, gold and lapps lazuli.  Great attention to detail has gone in to the making of this piece.  Each of the flowers have eight points and each little ruffle in the goats wool is depicted.Iconography:  Goats are symbols of fertility, power, and mans struggle with his animalistic side.  The tree may be a symbol for the tree of life.  The goat may also represent the fertility god Tammuz.
Context:  This is a tiny statue that was recovered at a royal burial site at Ur.  This statue is part of a pair that were found, both were crushed.  They may have been used as supports for an offering table.

Lyre of Queen Puabi
(Bull Lyre from the
tomb of
King Abargi)
2700 BCE
Ur, Iraq
Form:  This is a musical instrument that is made of wood, gold, lapis lazuli. and shell.  The head of the bull is very naturalistic despite the beard.  The top register of inlayed shell, directly beneath the bulls beard, depicts an athletic man holding two bulls with human faces.  The second register shows animals, walking like men, bringing food for a feast.  The third register shows the animals making music.  Finally, the fourth register shows a scorpion man being offered cups from a gazelle.Iconography:  The panels on the Lyre are iconographic of the humanization of animals.  It is iconographic of the after life and the animals might be icons of the ones that guard the gate to heaven.  It is a symbol of death because it was played at Queen Puabi's funeral.
Context:  Harps like this one were used in the funerary rights of the dead person and then buried with them.  There were songs that were chanted during these burials and copies of them have been found on cuneiform tablets.  The theme of this piece is the civilization of our wild nature.  See Summary of the Epic of Gilgamesh
The title of this work is open to a bit of debate.  Gardener's Art Through the Ages refers to this work as the "Bull headed lyre from the tomb of Puabi, Royal cemetery."  Stokstad refers to it as "Bull Lyre from the tomb of King Abargi."  You may use either one.

Victory Stele of Naram-Sin
2300 BCE
limestone 6'6"
Susa, Iran
Form:  This is a low relief carving on limestone. The figures are all in composite form.Iconography:  Proportionately the main figure of the king Naram Sin is exaggerated to emphasize his status.   When a figure's scale is emphasized in this manner it is referred to as hieratic scale.  (You will also see this in Egyptian art.  Naram-Sins helmet is adorned with bull horns.  Since bulls are powerful and virile creatures the horns are associated with his physical power as warrior. horns on his head are also an icon for power and virility, also symbols of a king.  The stars or sun in the right hand corner are symbols of divine support.  He's also holding a newer kind of weapon in his left hand called a composite bow which could also represent the Akkadian armies innovative battle technology.
Context:  This commemorates Naram Sin's defeat of the Lullubi.  It is inscribed twice, once in honor of this event and again when it was taken as booty when someone captured the city where it stood.
"Originally this stele was erected in the town of Sippar, centre of the cult of the Sun god, to the north of Babylon. lt was taken as booty to Susa by an Elamite king in the 12th century BC. lt illustrates the victory over the mountain people of western lran by Naram-Sin, 4th king of the Semite dynasty of Akkad, who claimed to be the universal monarch and was deified during his lifetime. He had himself depicted climbing the mountain at the head of his troops. His helmet bears the horns emblematic of divine power. Although it is worn, his face is expressive of the ideal human conqueror, a convention imposed on artists by the monarchy. The king tramples on the bodies of his enemies at the foot of a peak; above it the solar disk figures several times, and the king pays homage to it for his victory." - Louvre 
Head of an Akkadian Ruler
(Sargon of Akkad?)
bronze 12" 2200 BCE

Head of an Akkadian Ruler
(Sargon of Akkad?)
2200 BCE
Nineveh, Iraq
Form:  Made from bronze, this portrait head was probably part of a larger work.  Perhaps a full figure.  The shape and proportions of the face and head are naturalistic but the shape and texture of the eyebrows and hair are stylized in a geometric fashion.  Other stylizations or distortions occur in the exaggerated size of his eyes and nose.  These stylizations and exaggerations are attempts to idealizethis ruler and make him more handsome or beautiful than he probably was according to the ideals of physical perfection in the ancient near east. Iconography:  In most cultures, beauty and goodness are equated as being one in the same thing.  Certainly the cultures of Mesopotamia felt this way as well.  Therefore the portraits beauty is also equated with Sargon's inner beauty and or virtue.  His "virtuous" nature is symbolically enhanced by his beard.  Beards are icons of wisdom and because in order to grow a beard one needs to have matured to appoint beyond childhood.  (This same idea is evidenced in several versions of the Arthurian legends in which although King Arthur was able to pull the sword from the stone, his brothers still refer to him as "beardless"  and therefore too inexperienced or young to rule.
Context:  This statue is not in its original state.  This head was once part of a complete statue that was vandalized.  The ears were mutilated, the eyes gouged out, and the ears and part of the beard broken off.  It has been vandalized (literally defaced) in order to dishonor the ruler it once represented.  Originally the eyes in this head would have been inlayed with precious and semiprecious stones.
The tearing down of effigy monuments to symbolize the destruction or change in a regime is common to every era.  When US troops "liberated" Iraq in 2004 many of the statues of Sadam Hussein were either defaced or torn down from there pedestals.  In ancient Egypt, often older monuments constructed by previous pharaohs were recarved to resemble the newer rulers.

For all the videos in order with a textbook and study guides please visit:

Sargon the Great of Akkad is the first in a long (and possibly ever-extending) line of people whose life is driven by conquest. He was the first emperor of the world’s first empire. However, like most of the people who followed him, his empire didn’t last long.According to legend, Sargon’s mother was “changeling,” meaning a demon or a prostitute. He was probably born around 2350 BCE. He served as the cup-bearer of a king of the Sumerian city-state of Kish, but the king, sensing something divine in him, had Sargon killed. Sargon escaped the plot, rallied some tribesmen to his cause, and built a new city north of Sumer – Akkad. Sargon’s career has soared ever since. From Akkad, his armies blazed southward to conquer Sumer, Kish and all. From the Persian Gulf, he made a northwestward sweep to Lebanon.
The Akkadian Empire was a very wealthy empire; it derived its wealth not just from plunder but also from trade. Sumer was smack in the middle of the trade routes that connected the Indus Valley, Egypt, and Mediterranean civilizations. Akkad wasn’t actually the first city to enjoy the benefits of trade in the Mesopotamian region, and it wasn’t going to be the last.
Sargon tried to keep his empire in the hands of his sons, but his successors lacked Sargon’s power; the city-states of Sumer rebelled against Akkad, destroying the Akkadian Empire.

Statues from Tell Asmar
2,900 BCE - 2,600 BCE
made from painted gypsum
Tell Asmar, Iraq
SumerianForm:  The statues are made of gypsum and inlayed with shell and black limestone.  The men have long hair, beards, belts, and fringed skirts.  The women wear dresses that leave the right shoulder bare.  The eyes are exaggerated, while the hands are downplayed.
Iconography:  The figures are iconographic of real people not deities.  The large eyes may symbolize eternal wakefulness or the need to approach a god with an attentive gaze.  They are iconographic of the early religious practices of the Sumerians.
Context:  The were buried beneath the floor of a temple.  Donors may have commissioned these statues to be built in their image so that their prayers are forever being said to the gods.

Reconstruction of Statues from Tell Asmar
2,900 BCE - 2,600 BCE
made from painted gypsum
Tell Asmar, Iraq
Museum of Natural History, NYC
Web ArtLex n [ME bithumen mineral pitch, fr. L bitumin-, bitumen] (15c) 1: an asphalt of Asia Minor used in ancient times as a cement and mortar 2: any of various mixtures of hydrocarbons (as tar) often together with their nonmetallic derivatives that occur naturally or are obtained as residues after heat-refining natural substances (as petroleum); specif: such a mixture soluble in carbon disulfide -- n -- bi.tu.mi.nize vt
composite view     A view of the human body in Egyptian and Mesopotamian art in which several points of view of the human body are merged into one.  Often the figure is depicted with the head, legs and arms in a profile point of view while the torso of the figure is depicted in a frontal view.  The head which is depicted in a profile view often depicts the eyes in a frontal view.  This is especially so in Egyptian art but in Mesopotamian art it is less consistent.  The purpose of the this point of view is probably both symbolic and formal.  In terms of form, it is often easier to depict parts of the body in profile.  This is certainly so in prehistoric art. n, pl -gies [MF effigie, fr. L effigies, fr. effingere to form, fr. ex- + fingere to shape--more at dough] (1539): an image or representation esp. of a person; esp: a crude figure representing a hated person -- in effigy : publicly in the form of an effigy 
gyp.sum n [L, fr. Gk gypsos] (14c) 1: a widely distributed mineral consisting of hydrous calcium sulfate that is used esp. as a soil amendment and in making plaster of paris adj [ME ydeall, fr. LL idealis, fr. L idea] (15c) 1: existing as an archetypal idea 2 a: existing as a mental image or in fancy or imagination only; broadly: lacking practicality b: relating to or constituting mental images, ideas, or conceptions 3 a: of, relating to, or embodying an ideal b: conforming exactly to an ideal, law, or standard: perfect --compare real 2b(3) 4: of or relating to philosophical idealism ²ideal n (15c) 1: a standard of perfection, beauty, or excellence 2: one regarded as exemplifying an ideal and often taken as a model for imitation 3: an ultimate object or aim of endeavor: goal 4: a subset of a mathematical ring that is closed under addition and subtraction and contains the products of any given element of the subset with each element of the ring syn see model -- adj 
pro.file n [It profilo, fr. profilare to draw in outline, fr. pro- forward (fr. L) + filare to spin, fr. LL--more at file] (ca. 1656) 1: a representation of something in outline; esp: a human head or face represented or seen in a side view 2: an outline seen or represented in sharp relief: contour 3: a side or sectional elevation: as a: a drawing showing a vertical section of the ground b: a vertical section of a soil from the ground surface to the underlying unweathered material 4: a set of data often in graphic form portraying the significant features of something ; esp: a graph representing the extent to which an individual exhibits traits or abilities as determined by tests or ratings 5: a concise biographical sketch 6: degree or level of public exposure syn see outline ²profile vt pro.filed ; (1715) 1: to represent in profile or by a profile: produce (as by drawing, writing, or graphing) a profile of 2: to shape the outline of by passing a cutter around -- n 

Courses on Udemy:


Art of the Ancient Near East, Gobekli Tepe, Turkey

The context surrounding the study of art from the Neolithic Near East, sometimes referred to as the Fertile Crescent, is almost as important as the artifacts themselves.

The way in which we study the Neolithic and Fertile Crescent has gone some monumental changes since the 1960s. The three major sites Gobekli Tepe, Jericho and Catal Huyuk (there are multiple spellings for these sites so don’t be surprised to see strange looking spellings of these.)  Jericho and Catal Huyuk are the ones that introduced us to the Neolithic ancient near East when mankind first became sedentary and started to develop agriculture. The picture we got in the 1960s was that there was a so-called, “Neolithic Revolution,” in which humankind settled down into communities because humans discovered agriculture. Much of the extrapolation of the artifacts of art from cultures was based on this supposition, however, there are different theories describe why mankind became sedentary, settled into communities, and began to farm.

For all the videos in order with a textbook and study guides please visit:

The “Neolithic Revolution” theory is being questioned now in the light of some discoveries made since 1990 at Catal Huyuk, Turkey and another site nearby called Gobekli Tepe, Turkey.  

Gobekli Tepe is important because the excavations done in 2008 show that the culture dates from around 10,000 BC is around 2,000 years earlier than historians and scientists have been able to show the beginnings of agriculture by humankind. Most scientists and historians agree that, at least in the Neolithic Fertile Crescent, agriculture didn’t begin until 8000 BCE and this is evidenced by scientific research of the different kinds of grains found in that region. Gobekli Tepe is a site in which a series of large stone megaliths were constructed around 10,000 BCE and a community which was fairly sedentary but not a farming settlement sprang up around this series of carved monumental stones. A civilization of 3,000 to 6,000 people lived there for at least 1,000 years if not to 2,000.

Gobekli Tepe is important because it shows evidence of a community of thousands of people living around a ceremonial center in a village even though mankind had not yet invented farming and also demonstrates a use of resources such as labor and skilled artisans to construct a large permanent monument(s) adorned with carvings by skilled artisans. This evidence has made scholars adjust or reexamine traditionally accepted theories that suggested Neolithic mankind settled into villages because of environmental factors such as the availability of food and climate.  The theory that seems most popular now to explain the shift from nomadic peoples to part time villagers has to do with the study of how the brain works called neuroscience.

Contemporary neuroscientific studies and theory suggest that human beings’ brains evolved to allow us to socialize and cooperate as a survival mechanism.  In effect, we are “hardwired” to network with each other to socialize and problem solve.  Furthermore, the brain is capable of tracking intricate relationships a little more over 100 other people and this is why were able to live in large communities before we developed agriculture.  It also appears that human beings found the creation of art important enough to devote considerable resources and labor to making it.

In the case of Gobekli Tepe the artifacts that support this are the remains of architecture such as dwellings and a ring of “T” shaped stones each one carved with images of people, insects, and animals.  There is no botanical imagery at the site but there are some geometric designs.  Some of the iconography seems to be very consistent with art created in the Paleolithic era.    

Another important find, probably found at the same site is a life size carving of a probably male figure. However, the provenance (circumstances of how and where the figure was found) indicates that it was found near the main site in Urfa.  This figure often referred to as the “Urfa Man” because Gobekli Tepe is located near the town of Urfa Turkey. 

It’s tempting to interpret or try to explain what these objects represent or mean however, the best place to begin with analyzing these artifacts is in a close physical inspection of the objects without too much interpretation or imagination. 

For example, the “Urfa Man,” is a carved single piece of stone.  It is carved in the subtractive process. In subtractive carving the sculpture would take a block of stone or work from a piece of stone that was roughly cut to the size and shape of the completed project and then using other stone tools the sculpture would be chipped and ground away through a process of grinding and friction with other stones to complete the form.  There is an element of relief carving in this sculpture in the be like forms that are around the neck. These bands in a V shape are in a higher or raised relief from the torso.

Although the shape is anthropomorphic (man shaped) the overall proportions of the figure’s anatomy is slightly unrealistic.  It looks roughly the size and shape of a human being and is probably a male figure because it does not have breasts.  The artifact is broken below the knee and missing legs. It doesn’t seem to have any traces of pigments (colors or paint.)  This does not mean it wasn’t painted at one time.  

Many of the features are generalized or stylized in some way.  The torso is based on rectangular or boxlike form, the arms and fingers are tube-like or based on cylinders and the head is oval or egg like in form.

The shoulders are too narrow and have an abrupt ninety-degree angle which gives the figures’ and shoulders a shape that is based on a square or “t” shape.  The elbows are generalized curves and don’t have elbows but the arms terminate in hands that are engaged over the figure’s stomach.  Each hand has five fingers and the hands may be holding a bird or another animal.

There are two “v” shaped bands across the neck that are raised from the surface of the torso.  The bands correspond to wear a necklace or collar are.

The eyes have pieces of obsidian in the sockets.  The size and placement of the features of the head are consistent with people however the sizes and shapes are slightly unrealistic and a bit disproportionate.  For example, the ears or a “c” shaped tube-like form. The nose is a wedge or a triangle.  The head appears to lack hair and the size of the head is also larger than is natural. 

We are lacking a firm knowledge of where this was found and how it was found, but, since most scholars seem to agree that it comes from Gobekli Tepe, we can make the assumption that it is from their and therefore it may allow us to do some interpretation of what this thing means. Another way of describing this is to describe the iconography of the figure. 

For example, it is reasonable to assume that this sculpture is a life-size representation of a human being and probably a male. At the site, there are various carvings and incisions on some of the megaliths that look very similar to this sculpture. The hands of the sculpture look very similar to what look like the hands on the front of one of these large megaliths. It’s also possible to conclude that the figure is holding an animal like one of the carvings from Gobekli Tepe and is possible that this figure represents the same kind of figured that some of the megaliths represent.

Some of the evidence about Gobekli Tepe suggests that the site is a type of Temple that contains large megalithic sculptures that represent human beings and are adorned with animal like forms. You can apply this same logic to this figure and it’s possible, although it’s still very speculative to believe so, this figure may represent one of the same figures that the megaliths represent.

If we compare figures like this to several other cultures that we know a little bit more about, for example can compare figures that look like this from the place in the Fertile Crescent from several thousand years later, found in a similar context, and we’ve been able to conclude fairly confidently that those figures are sculptures that represent worshipers. Perhaps this sculpture represents a worshiper or a hero or a God or a priest or an important person. There isn’t enough evidence to confidently conclude that this sculpture represents any of those things specifically.  One possible idea about using this sculpture as a point of departure to interpret other artworks found at the site is that this sculpture might be a smaller version of the megalithic sculptures that exist at the site. 

The megaliths are tall possibly anthropomorphically shaped figures that have relief carvings on the services that could represent, tattoos, clothing, body paint, or a type of compound imagery that is similar to the Native Americans of the northwest coasts of the American continent. It’s hard to determine what these are relief sculptures that decorate the surfaces of the megaliths represent.  Taken as individual images one can see a variety of creatures, designs, and possibly even anatomical features represented such as hands and loincloths.

Dr. Ian Hodder has suggested that these megaliths are T-shaped figures that represent male human forms. He goes on to further state that many of the features such as the loincloth and hands carved in an engaged bass relief, on the front of these megaliths further support that these are anthropomorphic sculptures.

Hodder has also suggested that these figures are also mailed because they are adorned with many animals that are male and exhibit erect penises.

Given what we know about the life-size figure and its shape and form please are reasonable interpretations. It’s also possible that the megaliths originally had hands on them that were removed. One of the things that is important is that these megaliths were preserved because the people who lived at the site around 9000 or 8000 BCE carefully buried the figures in the ground and that is why they are so well preserved. Perhaps they had heads that were removed at that time?

As in the case of Paleolithic culture and some of the cave paintings that we looked at from places like Chauvet and Lascaux, we see a number of dangerous wild animals such as wild pigs, felines, and wild cattle. There are also some images of scorpions and carrion birds such as vultures. Many of these are the wild game that Neolithic hunter gatherers would hunt. Some of the figures are composite creatures that are made of animals and have some human features. This is also common in some of the sculptures from the Paleolithic period and in a painting that we studied of a bird headed man possibly hunting a disemboweled bison.

The standard interpretation of including animals like this in actual contexts often is explained that these figures are an attempt through some sort of sympathetic magic or religion to control the animals and/or affect the natural world. Another possible explanation for the depiction of these kinds of animals and creatures aside from a religious or magical one is possibly to document or record some sort of history in visual form.

As in the case of several of the Paleolithic caves we have studied, the creation of images and sculptures like this is not something that could be casually accomplished. The conventions and forms that depict the animals and creatures would’ve taken some sort of training or sophistication that would have been multigenerational. Artist would have been trained in a kind of style and would have learned different ways of depicting animals. These are not clearly childish or childlike drawings that are crude these are sophisticated and would’ve taken time to learn how to make. The same is also true about the construction of the megaliths and the ability and training it would’ve taken to be able to carve such sophisticated and complex images and shapes. Carving is something that takes a lot of practice and so does drawing and these incised relief carvings are the result of several generations of training.

For all the videos in order with a textbook and study guides please visit:

Courses on Udemy: