The presence of large numbers of small geometric clay objects at many Neolithic Near Eastern sites has long been acknowledged, yet they are often overlooked in excavations, being left unrecorded or unpublished in final site reports. It was not until clay bullae, hollow spherical clay envelopes, marked with impressions on the outside and containing small clay objects, were first excavated at Near Eastern sites of the late 4th to 2nd millennium BC (figure 2.1) that attention focused for the first time on the
small clay objects themselves, although many were still discarded on site, overlooked in favour of more elaborate artefacts of a clear and distinct function (for example Leo Oppenheim 1959: 124). Few interpretations of the Neolithic clay objects (figure 2.2) have been proposed and thoroughly investigated. Tentative attempts at interpretation are often made in the basic classification of the objects in site reports (as reflected in the title of the chapter or appendix of the section of the publication in which they appear), yet few of these explain their assignment of a particular role, or offer supporting evidence such as contextual information. Their incongruous function has often led to the decision to exclude the publication of Neolithic clay objects altogether. Denise Schmandt-Besserat is currently the most prominent academic in the investigation of the function of Near Eastern clay objects. Since the late 1970’s, she has advanced a detailed set of theories as to the reason for the initial appearance of geometric clay objects in the Neolithic (at that time thought to be in the 8th millennium
BC) and the evolution of their form and function through time until their supposed decline with the advent of writing the in 3rd millennium BC (see below for detailed discussion of her thesis, and Schmandt-Besserat 1999a, 1999b, 1996, 1994, 1992a, 1992b, 1988, 1982a, 1982b, 1981, 1980, 1979, 1978a, 1978b, 1977a, 1977b, 1977c). She proposes the clay objects acted as counting tokens-utilised in the administration of agricultural and manufactured goods, with each type of clay object representing a set unit of a specific commodities-part of a “code” followed and understood across the entire Near East, one that remained constant for over 4,000 years. In addition to this claim, Schmandt-Besserat proposes the objects were the precursors of cuneiform
[Chapter 2]
Page | 11
script, which current research suggests was first developed at the southern Mesopotamian site of Uruk (see map figure 4.1 for location) at the end of the 4th
millennium BC. Though considering clay objects from their initial appearance in the Neolithic period, the focus of her work, and critics of it is the latter-proto and early historic period of the late 4th and early 3rd millennium cal. BC.
Aside from the theories presented by Schmandt-Besserat, few archaeological studies of the function of small geometric clay objects or “tokens” in the Near East have been undertaken. Clay objects of the prehistoric periods have been particularly neglected. Research has instead focused on investigating the evolution of writing, and the links between the use of bullae, sealings and archaic writing in the latter half of the 4th
millennium BC onwards (i.e. Nissen et. al. 1993). Most scholars have been influenced by
Schmandt-Besserat’s ideas, with detailed, independent functional analyses of Near Eastern clay objects rare, those considering the Neolithic period, rarer still (i.e. Costello 2002, Lieberman 1980, Mattessich 1994, Netz 2002, Nilhamn 2002). The few independent studies that have been undertaken again focus on the early historic period, and tend to centre on the interpretation of the objects as gaming pieces,
children’s toys or simple accounting tools (as opposed to Schmandt-Besserat’s complex theory) functioning purely as counting pieces in the administration of goods. Others still debate the existence of the clay objects as a serious artefact category, suggesting that at least the earlier, more unrefined examples are merely discarded pieces of refuse, the waste from the creation of real clay artefacts. The only group of academics to strongly contest Schmandt-Besserat’s functional interpretation of clay objects is the early historic community; the so-called “Berlin Group” of academics. Represented by Hans Nissen, Peter Damerow and contemporaries, these scholars provide strong
justification of their rebuke of Schmandt-Besserat’s ideas. Yet on the role and function
of the earliest, Neolithic clay objects, they propose no alternative argument due to their specialist focus (see section 2.4a ii below). From an alternative discipline, linguists
examining the origins of written script tend to introduce “tokens” as the precursors of
writing as a matter of course.
What many of the alternative interpretational studies have in common is the suggestion that the role and function of clay objects is not necessarily uniform at all sites across the entire Near East, and over the duration of their use (lasting over 6,000 years). Many also recognise that the classification of all small clay objects together is often arbitrary, carried out for the ease of recording in the field and publication, and
Page | 12
that differing functional uses of clay objects according to the various shapes and sizes they appear in is a strong possibility (Jasim & Oates 1986: 351-52; Kenyon & Holland 1982; Kenyon & Holland 1983; Lieberman 1980: 340-41; Leo Oppenheim 1959: 341; Voigt 1983: 95, 195; Voigt 2000: 256). Refreshingly, Christopher Woods of the University of Chicago’s’ Oriental Institute is currently working on a project, focusing on a better understanding of the exact use and meaning of clay objects and their relationship to writing. His work focuses on the study of the shape, size, range and distribution of clay objects (number, context-whether inside a sealed envelope or not, location on-site) at the crucial, transitional time period of the mid-to late 4th
millennium BC, the “proto-literate” period which saw the development of cuneiform writing (Woods 2014; Woods 2010: 33-50).