In fact, the monumental size of the ‘Ain Ghazal icons and the possibility that they could be clad with add-on ornaments and displayed on a podium or altar suggest a cult not unlike that known to have been practiced in protoliterate greater Mesopotamia.Monumental statuary was an outcome of agriculture. 7.3.1b) and, in addition, these two statues were painted around the shoulders. The idea of add-on headdresses and garments is particularly appealing because the custom seems well attested in the later statuary, such as at Tell Brak, Syria (Spycket 1981: 38), and Uruk, Mesopotamia, in the 4th millennium bc (Spycket 1981: 36-37).Contrary to the rest of the body, the visage remains unchanged except in details. The shape or color of the garments perhaps identified the gender of the figure, accounting for the general lack of sexual dimorphism. Because they had no depth, the icons were probably presented frontally. The well-balanced figures and the flat-based busts indicate that the effigies were not laid flat but were exhibited in an upright position (Rollefson 2005: 6). The largest full figures of Cache 1 measure about 84 cm, compared to 1 m for those of Cache 2. The minuscule, Neolithic clay females belonged to homes, but the large statues suggest a public display. Kenyon, herself, dismissed her hypothesis observing that, in fact, the contrasts between the two genres were more striking than the similarities (1957: 84). 7.3.1a). Finally, the breasts are thin and minimal. One of the earlier figures has straight stick-like arms, with no indication of elbows or wrists, and fully disproportionate to the torso (Pl. Grissom, the thirty-two statues of ‘Ain Ghazal were located in two separate caches. As opposed to other sites as new people migrated to ‘Ain Ghazal, probably with few possessions and possibly starving, class distinctions began to develop.The influx of new people placed stresses on the social fabric – new diseases, more people to feed from what was planted and more animals that needed grazing.There are evidences of mining activities as part of a production sequence conducted by craftspersons at the site of ‘Ain Ghazal, these potential part-time specialists in some way controlled access to such raw materials.The 9th millennium MPPNB period in the Levant represented a major transformation in prehistoric lifeways from small bands of mobile hunter–gatherers to large settled farming and herding villages in the Mediterranean zone, the process having been initiated some 2–3 millennia earlier.`Ain Ghazal people buried some of their dead beneath the floors of their houses, others outside in the surrounding terrain. In other words, can we find out for whom the icons with big eyes, upturned nose, long nostrils, and puckered mouth stood and their role in the PPNB communities?The female is not unique in executing the striking gesture. ‘Ain Ghazal was in an area that was suitable for agriculture and then grew as a result of the same dynamic. But the ‘Ain Ghazal figures of Cache 2 have a diamond-shaped iris or pupil. Scholars have estimated that a third of adult burials were found in trash pits with their heads intact. a, b; 460, Figs. The toes are cut with slashes of inconsistent lengths extending through half of the feet.
This interpretation suggests that the custom of adding on garments to the statues may have become more popular over time, replacing the bodice and pants painted on the early figures and even substituting sleeves for the former modeling of the arms.