1Despite the end of the terracottas session last year, communications on this production were again present at the 2022 ASOR meeting in Boston. In a few cases, communications only mentioned terracottas when discussing antiquities theft (“Prevention of Illicit Trafficking of Cultural Property in Jordan” by Helen Malko, Ahmed Fatima Kzzo, Jehad Haron, Pearce Paul Creasman), or as a term of comparison (e.g., “The Study of Oriental Influences on Minoan Headdress: Emulating ‘Amorite’ Sculpture: A Stone Wig from Knossos Re-identified,” by Robert B. Koehl, Hunter College, or the analysis of Syrian and Mesopotamian seals, in “Decent Exposure: Female Nudes in Near Eastern Glyptic,” by Diana L. Stein, University of London). Only four communications dealt exclusively with terracottas. One was devoted to the discovery of figurines, another to Mesopotamian ritual texts mentioning figurines, and two were more interpretative.

2At Tall Jalul, one of the most prominent sites on the Madaba Plains in central Jordan, 12 figurines were found in an Iron Age II-Persian period house (Abelardo J. Rivas, Andrews University, USA, “Sacrad Time at Home Part I: The Figurines from Tall Jalul Field G,” Session Archaeology of Jordan). The figurines are interpreted as an important trace of domestic religion. The author emphasizes the eclectic character of the figurines, which show Egyptian, Mesopotamian, Syrian, Transjordanian and West Bank features. But their study has only just begun.

3In the session, “Style and Identity in Ancient Near Eastern Art II” two communications on terracottas were particularly interesting. Stephanie Langin-Hooper (Southern Methodist University, “Cultural Identity in Public and in Private: Style Variation in the Hellenistic Babylonian Miniatures”) analyzes the complex relations between style, identity and society. Hellenistic Babylonian figurines use Greek- or Babylonian-style. The traditional interpretation is that Greek-style figurines belonged to the Greeks and Babylonian-style figurines to the Babylonians. The interpretation proposed by Langin-Hooper, on the other hand, suggests that in this multicultural milieu the style is not dependent on ethnicity or culture, but on the medium. Figurines are the most privately-used miniatures and show the greatest range of cultural hybridity. Coinage, on the contrary, was only of Greek style, because it was sanctioned by the palace and produced in official mints. Seals and jewelry occupied a middle ground between these two extremes; this likely reflected their private ownership, but their use in public, often showy and performative, contexts. The communication demonstrates that any individual in Hellenistic Babylonia could – and often did – own and use objects with different cultural styles, and yet find those objects nevertheless authentically reflective of his or her “identity.” In fact, identity is not fixed, but can vary with social context. The agentive properties of style also make such multivalency possible, as style was not a fixed quality with a consistent meaning, but rather played a particular and object-specific functional role.

4Anastasia Amrhein (University of Pennsylvania, “Stylistic Continuity in the Terracottas of Arabia and Mesopotamia, 1st M. B.C.E. - C.E.: A Prolegomena to Late Antique Interactions?”) questions the continuity not only of iconography, but also of style of clay figurines over the course of the rise and fall of empires. She takes into consideration the camel and horse-and-rider figurines from a vast region formed by Mesopotamia, Arabia, and the Gulf from the Neo-Babylonian to the Parthian period. She suggests that the continuity of terracotta types across these vast regions of western Asia may be indicative of the presence of Arabian caravan merchants or traders. And that the style transcends manufacture (some features can be found in both handmade and mold-made figurines). Finally, she attempts to determine whether such objects may have been made locally or transported from elsewhere.

5The last communication concerns the allusion to figurines in texts. In the session dedicated to “Dress and the Body,” Gina Konstantopoulos (University of California, Los Angeles) studies the allusions to figurines in Mesopotamian incantation texts (“Clothe Them with Garments for One Day: Dress and Figurines in Mesopotamian Incantations”). The production and manipulation of figurines was an essential aspect of many Mesopotamian incantations. Based on the principles of sympathetic reasoning and substitution, figurines were created and manipulated to achieve what they represented. Representing a wide range of beings, from positive and protective spirits to negative and decidedly antagonistic ones, their manipulations were most often described in lengthy ritual passages in the incantation text. These texts are very precise about the nature of the materials, the clothing and the accessories that the figurines must have. Positive figures are provided with rich clothing, gold jewelry, and even weapons of precious metals. Negative figures are provided with specific colors and clothing "for one day" (ūmakkal), which is still difficult to understand.

6The constant presence of communications focusing on terracottas, or taking them as a term of comparison, demonstrates their growing importance in the understanding of the ancient Near East. However, there remains a certain intellectual reluctance to tackle a subject which, if treated, would break all resistance and show all its richness!