Some theoretical approaches to animal imagery

‘Archaeological investigation continually confronts us with material contexts that show in no uncertain terms that people in the past classified animals in a myriad of ways different from those of the modern world’ (Boyd Reference Boyd2017, 300). Given this, archaeological analysis requires multiple, shifting classifications, converging from different viewpoints (Serjeantson Reference Serjeantson and Rowley-Conwy2000). Animal symbolism (Ryan & Crabtree 2015) may be considered as a widespread form of animal exploitation, largely inspired, of course, by banal anthropocentric concerns. In this regard, Boyd (Reference Boyd2017, 302) argues that, until two decades ago,

At present, in contrast, there is a trend in anthropology to consider animals not simply as dependent objects, but rather as complex causative agents, encouraged by the fact that in the wider and crucial spheres of Anthropocene geopolitics and planetary ecology, human–non-human animal relationships are now core issues of discussion. Admittedly, when dealing with semantic systems extinguished 4000 years ago, any claim of confidently dismissing anthropocentrism on the part of the human actors would be unrealistic, and also of little use. And any post-processual social zooarchaeology (i.e. the investigation of the archaeological record from the viewpoint of the reflexive relationship between ideas on the animal worlds and social strategies), animal agency issue, or relativistic zoontology would risk remaining as anthropocentric as the most deterministic research based on statistics concerning prehistoric exploitation of animals for meat.

The current case study suggests, however, that in early complex societies, the conception and representation of animals was not limited to simplistic anthropocentric views. The Halil Rud carved artefacts, in fact, show many complex scenes of wild animals scavenging the carcasses of domestic ones. Here, neither the scavenger nor carcasses of animals are depicted as sources of human food, since both of these were and still are despised for such purposes. Nor are they shown as static icons, conveying the usual prestige implications. Instead, the image of the scavenger is that of an agent species, and it could be true that for us, who care to study such iconography,

Perhaps this pre-postmodern perspective could help us understand the social dynamics of an early Bronze age polity, from which we have as yet no readable texts. What were the effects of these images in the cognitive and psychological processes of the intended viewers, embedded in urban elites? The aim of this study is, then, to investigate the potential meanings behind such a distinctive set of iconographic choices, recurring in the repertory of the most important early Bronze age cultural complex of southeastern Iran, but completely unknown in other contemporary civilizations (see this and similar issues posited in McMahon Reference McMahon2016, 178).

Description of the imagery

None of the animal protagonists of the subject Jiroft vessel have any evident sexual characterization, suggesting that rather than being of interest for their individual sexual roles, they may have been viewed as interacting species. On the other hand, the representation of these bovine, feline and other creatures leaves open the possibility that they could all be female. The uncertainty is intriguing: our current research, in fact, has documented instances where the Halil Rud sculptors clearly took pains to represent male and female specimens, particularly when showing herds or groups. Other considerations are that animals are often shown on chlorite in crouched position, negating the distinction of sex; lions are very rarely shown with male organs (the presence or absence of a mane is not indicative, given that male Asiatic lions lack the full mane of their African cousins); cheetahs/leopards are never portrayed with sexual attributes; bulls may be shown with large organs, but mostly when in prominent positions and while emitting powerful water flows, which might suggest their powers of fertility. Animal carcasses are never shown with penises. Given these considerations, in our own following discussion we intentionally use ‘lions’, ‘bovines’ and other animal names without suggestion of sex.

The larger fragment of the subject vessel shows the forequarters of a large lion and the head with open jaws (Fig. 4). The entire forequarters are covered with horizontal bands of alternating oblique segments, while the legs and the muzzle bear zig-zag lines. The head, seen in profile, is animated by a large round eye, pointed ear and a narrow crescent indicating the mane. The lion stands facing a palm with four bunches of dates; behind the trunk of the palm is a bovine lying supine with upturned legs—apparently dead (Fig. 5).

Figures 4 & 5.

(4, right) The central part of the fragmentary vase: lion attacking or scavenging a dead bovine, accompanied by other animals; (5, left) Left side of the fragmentary vase: detail of a second dead bovine under a date-palm.

The space between the feline and its prey is occupied by a smaller carnivore which crouches to bite the throat of the bovine, and which, as we shall soon demonstrate, can be identified as a hyena (Fig. 6). Another similar creature, still smaller, appears in a similar position between the legs of the lion (Fig. 7). Although the poorer preservation of this smaller carved figure hinders identification, this could be a cub of the same carnivore species. A small raptor, wings tucked in diving position, arrives below the larger carnivore, very near the head of the dead bovine (Fig. 6, bottom). Of another raptor, carved above the back of the feline, only the tail and parts of a wing survive. On the side of the palm opposite the first lion/lioness, there appears the head of another (Fig. 8), at the same height as the first, which seems to bite the tail of a smaller bovine, shown in the peculiar position of a headstand (Fig. 9).

Figure 6.

Detail of a carnivore, identified as a hyena (see text), scavenging the larger dead bovine.

Figure 7.

Detail of a smaller animal under the belly of the lion, possibly a hyena cub(?).

Figure 8.

Detail of the head of a second lion in symmetric setting beside the palm. The mouth bites the tail of a second upturned bovine.

Figure 9.

Detail of the second smaller upturned bovine, attacked by the second lion.

A smaller fragment completes the body of the first lion, adding part of an erect tail, and shows enough of the rear quarters and tail of another animal to conclude that the frieze probably continued with another symmetrical lion. The third and uppermost shard (Figs 2 & 10) shows that the upper frieze, now lost, featured one or more couples of undisturbed bovines in a heraldic posture, perhaps as a prequel to the events below.

Figure 10.

The third fragment, joined at the upper left corner, indicates the presence of two other bulls, probably in symmetric/heraldic position (as reconstructed in Figure 2).

There are no coloured inlays, and the background of all fragments is densely filled by dots worked with a pointed tool.Footnote ³ The lower frieze clearly represents a scene of three kinds of animals engaged in the killing of bovines or scavenging of their carcasses. While the dimensions of the prey would rule out any other actor as the authors of the kill, it is impossible to understand if the lions are indeed responsible, or just opportunistic actors.

Previous studies have not provided specific comment on images of this kind, even though our survey has found publication of at least 14 different chlorite artefacts (Table 1) dealing in similar subject matter. The rest of this paper discusses the zoological identities and possible symbolism of the actors involved in the scenes of this particular vessel.

Table 1.

A list of all known animal scavenging scenes on carved chlorite vessels of the Halil Rud tradition, with bibliographic references. NI: not identified.

^a A modern forgery, according to Muscarella (Reference Muscarella1993, 151), but we question this opinion.

^b Also considered a modern forgery by Muscarella (Reference Muscarella1993, 151) and, again, we disagree.

Techniques of execution

The surfaces of the vessel fragments bear evidence of the techniques of fabrication. The interior remains rough, which is a unique case among vessels of the Halil Rud corpus. From this observation, and considering the relatively thin vessel walls, it would appear the vessel broke before the stage of finishing the interior. Observation by the naked eye reveals the use of different specialized tools. The interior (Fig. 11) retains a dense tracery of shallow gouges left by a relatively large chisel, slanted both laterally and into the thickness of the stone as the work proceeded. The inner bottom edges of the fragments show signs of a rotating device, probably left by a gouge operated by hand in a rotating motion (Fig. 12). The outer surfaces show traces of work using different tools: a fine-bladed flat chisel (e.g. for textured detailing of the lion's head: Fig. 8); a pointed tool, used to remove triangular chips from backgrounds and other areas (e.g. surrounding the lion's head: Fig. 8); and most likely another chisel with a curved blade (e.g. for the mouth and possibly brow/muzzle of the same lion's head).

Figure 11.

Detail of the rough interior of the fragmented vessel.

Figure 12.

Detail of the rough interior of the fragmented vessel: trace left by a large rotating gouge.

The artisanal equipment for the final stages of execution of this particular piece therefore included not less than five different tools. Neither our own research nor the bibliographic sources have provided other exemplars of chlorite works with the pecked background seen in these fragments. This, with the scarce polishing of the outer surfaces, strengthens the supposition of a failure towards the final stages of execution. In view of the lack of the pecked effect on other known pieces, it seems probable that the next stages of the work would have involved lowering and finely polishing these areas, and further finishing of the interior, perhaps by operators of different skill levels, but that a breakage caused abandonment before these steps could be executed. All these observations and assumptions would imply a well-endowed workshop, operating with more than the five tools used in these early steps of execution, and possibly with two or more levels of skilled artisans.

Previous interpretations of the Halil Rud chlorite artefact imagery

Although there has been great interest in southeastern Iranian carved chlorite artefacts over the past 50 years,Footnote ⁴ there have been few attempts at interpreting their abundant iconographic content in any kind of coherent framework. Until recently, the paradigm conception of the ‘intercultural style’ vessels had directed research and iconographic interpretation towards only the most generic and readily apparent readings, potentially shared by the different cultures across all the regions of distribution, rather than seeking their significance with respect to the social contexts of origin.

D. Potts (Reference Potts1978) searched for religious inspirations in the chlorite artefacts, stressing that that scholars should not be ‘mesmerised’ by the sole interests of production and exchange (D. Potts Reference Potts1978, 481–2). He considered the possibility that some of the carved signs and representations could be ‘divine emblems’ of different Mesopotamian divinities, such as rosettes or solar signs, associated with the sun-god Utu; the ibex with Enki; dogs with Nininsina; while the lion-headed bird would be associated with Ningirsu-Ninurta.

C.C. Lamberg-Karlovsky (Reference Lamberg-Karlovsky1988) attempted the first holistic quantitative analysis, by means of counts of the motifs recognized at the time and their associations with one another and the different object types. The analyses suggested the existence of two main ‘iconographic clusters’: the hut or temple-façade motif (door with a curved lintel) and snakes in combat. He proposed that the repertory of images was associated with beliefs and behaviours involving death and burial. The analyses did not mention the iconography of predator/scavenger scenes.

S. Winkelmann applied a similar analytical approach. Intuitively, she identified 17 basic iconographic associations, among them: eagle on a tree; lions/snakes flanking a tree; feline/snake attacking hoofed animal; bird of prey landing on hoofed animal. She then argued that the ‘hoofed animal with bird of prey’ would be the narrative embryo of a broader story of the ‘hoofed animal killed by a lion with diving bird of prey’, or more specifically a ‘diving vulture’ (Winkelmann Reference Winkelmann, Franke Vogt and Weisshaar2005, 187), and reasoning rather freely that all 17 associations would pertain to a single ‘intercultural myth’ shared from Mesopotamia to Iran and South Central Asia, eventually emerging in written form as the celebrated Old Babylonian myth of Etana (Hess & Streck Reference Hess and Streck2009; Kinnier Wilson Reference Kinnier Wilson1985).

Perrot and Madjidzadeh (Reference Pereira, Owen-Smith and Moleón2005; Reference Perrot and Madjidzadeh2006) proposed that single elements of the Jiroft iconographic repertoire composed an overall semantic system, and that each would have certain associations, with some being inspired by aspects of the local environment (mountains, water), another representing a ‘transcendental portal’, and others serving as totemic symbols.

The representations of the various animals would be expressions of their qualities in a cultural view, in terms either of positive forces (e.g. zebu = strength; ibex = agility; lion = regal) or negative ones, represented by creatures such as snakes, scorpions and a small scavenging raptor (Perrot & Madjidzadeh Reference Perrot and Madjidzadeh2005, 144). The entire semantic system would have served in a funerary context. Surveying this entire system, the same authors remarked that although one can propose various interpretations of the images, their deepest meanings would remain elusive (Perrot & Madjidzadeh Reference Perrot and Madjidzadeh2006, 108). Still, their sense was that the semantic core of the Jiroft iconography was the search of a human order over nature (Perrot & Madjidzadeh Reference Perrot and Madjidzadeh2005, 146), or the generic contrast between life and death, culture and nature. Finally, this opposition would have been the basis for the later dualism of Iranian religions.

More recently, H.-P. Francfort (Reference Francfort, Meyer, Vila, Mashkour, Casanova and Vallet2020) recognized a less systemic iconography of ‘elementary life and death cycles’, featuring lethal predators (felines, scorpions, raptors) composed in ‘groups of death’, who kill and/or feed on ungulates turned upside down, with the scavenger birds being vultures.Footnote ⁵ The ‘groups of life’ are instead composed of a being of human appearance, kneeling or seating on a zebu and holding flows of water, associated with sun and crescent-moon emblems and often trees.Footnote ⁶ The deeper meanings of this fundamental opposition are not further explored.

M. Vidale (Reference Vidale2015; Reference Vidale2017), one of the present authors, has previously tried to relate the potential significance of the hut or temple-façade motif, the probable motif of a rainbow, and some specific depictions of multiple actors, to parts of an archaic Iranian version of the flood myth (see Lambert Reference Lambert1965; Lambert & Millard Reference Lambert and Millard1969), an association that could also account for the presence, on many chlorite objects, of palm trees loaded with bunches of dates. Moreover, similarly to Winkelmann, Vidale (Reference Vidale2015) recognizes a part of the Etana myth, in which the eagle hides in a carcass in search of revenge on the snake, as originating in one or more Iranian narratives involving scavenging animals.

The vessel: discussion of the animal imagery

Hyenas

The second carnivore species, with pointed muzzle and upraised ears, such as potentially to represent some kind of canid, can be much better understood as a member of the Hyaenidae family, neither dog nor cat (AbiSaid & Dloniak Reference AbiSaid and Dloniak2015), and specifically as the Asian striped hyena. The foxes and jackals of the Canidae can be excluded, since the current convention is that these are depicted on the Halil valley works with much more slender form and gracile posture (e.g. Fig. 13 a,b).Footnote ⁷ The other convincing factor is the aggressively hunched posture of the carnivores on the subject vessel, particularly for the one on the left (Fig. 6), which compares extremely well with the typical posture, features and even colouration of the Asian striped hyena (compare Fig. 13 c & d): robust body, substantially larger than the head; large erect ears, furry tail; stripes on the legs, haunches and abdomen.

Figure 13.

(a, b) Wild canids portrayed on other chlorite vessels (a, accompanied by a small raptor, from an unpublished vessel of the Jiroft Museum collection; b, from Piran & Hesari Reference Piran and Hesari2005, 51); (c) The carnivore on the fragmentary vessel discussed in this article, also accompanied by a small raptor. The carnivore may be compared with the striped hyena illustrated in (d) (from Habibi Reference Habibi2004, 67): note the close similarity of muzzle and ears, and particularly of the stripes on the legs and on the rear, while the forepart of the fur is almost blank.

The detail of the almond-shaped eye seems potentially anomalous, since in the known art of the chlorite objects, carnivores are always observed with large round eyes, while the herbivores are shown with the almond shape. However, hyenas, like foxes and jackals, will also willingly eat fruit and vegetables, meaning they are omnivorous carnivores, whereas the lion and raptors, both shown with the round eyes, are exclusively carnivorous.

Although the striped hyena is native to a very wide range, from North Africa to the Caucasus and the Indian subcontinent, their nocturnal habits and current low population densities have contributed to making them the least studied of the Hyaenidae. This species, smaller than the brown and spotted hyenas, survives nowadays in peripheral regions of Israel and the Middle East, Afghanistan, Baluchistan, southern Punjab, Cholistan and Sindh (Frembgen Reference Frembgen1998). Known as kaftār in Persian, it was still common in Iran through the nineteenth century, and sighted as late as 1933 near large cities like Tehran. It is now rare in the north but remains relatively more common along the Persian Gulf (Anderson Reference Anderson2012). According to Monchot and Mashkour (Reference Monchot and Mashkour2010), it may still be encountered in marginal niches of the Halil valley. In spite of the anthropization of the entire Iranian region, there are no reports of attacks on humans.

In Africa, striped hyenas scavenge the carcasses of large and medium-sized ungulates, including zebras, gazelles and impalas, and also eat fruit, insects, birds, hares, rodents and reptiles (Howard Reference Howard1999). At present, in the Gir Wildlife Sanctuary of Gujarat, ‘the availability of safe refuge, with human and livestock presence (alternative food from carcasses by natural causes and by predators) may govern their population’ (Shamshad Alam et al. Reference Shamshad Alam, Akhtar Khan and Pathak2015, 37). A study specifically on the current feeding habits of striped hyenas in Kutch, Gujarat (Bopanna Reference Bopanna2013), finds that in the moderately anthropized rural environment hyenas are opportunistic predators and scavengers. Here, more than 50 per cent of their diet consists of vertebrate meat, of which the carcasses of domestic cattle, goats and sheep comprise the main part, followed by those of dogs and jackals. The remaining diet of this population consists of a wide range of vertebrate and invertebrate prey and vegetal foods (Bopanna Reference Bopanna2013, 95). Monchot and Mashkour (Reference Monchot and Mashkour2010, 17) add that ‘their behavioral adaptations are directly connected to modifications in their environment, such that it may be considered as a commensal animal associated with human activities’.

Habibi (Reference Habibi2004, 68) reports that in recent decades, ‘Hyenas are trapped by professional hunters in Kandahar, from their dens and forced to fight dogs, with tails tied to a pole or peg. However, they are released after being kept in captivity for a short period of time.’ Similar practices are reported across western and southern Asia, where striped hyenas are generally considered as creatures of the night, incarnations of jiins, vehicle of wizards and witches, and mystically powerful creatures. All bodily parts, but in particular the sexual organs and excrements, are ingredients of a variety of practices connected with love magic, sexuality, fertility and warding off evil (Frembgen Reference Frembgen1998).

Food web interconnection and hierarchy

Beginning in the early–middle Holocene, ‘domestic ungulates became a major food source for vultures and other carrion eaters in many regions’ (Moleón et al. Reference Moleón, Sánchez-Zapata, Margalida, Carrete, Owen-Smith and Donázar2014, 397). Intensification of herd management and domestic animal consumption in territories of early south Eurasian demographic concentration would have dramatically increased the supply of carcasses, providing an ‘anthropogenic subsidy’ to the primary scavengers and thereby deeply altering their specific ecological niches and thus the entire complex of interactions between humans and the other local species of big cats, raptors, hyenas, wild canids and secondary scavengers. In more arid peripheral landscapes, domesticated animals would have suffered a higher death rate due to climatic crises, malnutrition and related diseases,Footnote ⁹ with different effects compared to those in other areas.

Among humans of the Bronze Age, as today, it would be the shepherds and communities of specialized herders that would be the direct witnesses of the important role of the primary scavengers (Morales-Reyes et al. Reference Morales-Reyes, Martín-López and Moleón2019). As stated by McMahon (Reference McMahon2016, 180, 181),

As we have seen, however, vultures are and were not the only scavengers, and the same patterns likely held true for lions, hyenas and other smaller carnivore-scavengers. Animal deaths and the ensuing disposal patterns would have triggered foci of dynamic transformation involving multiple ecological actors, beginning with intense competition among vertebrate competitors for the nutrients in carrion and descending through the food chain of the invertebrates, microbial agents and finally the in situ vegetation. Vertebrate scavengers could also consume the lower-level invertebrates and microbes present in carrion; however, the ecological relations involving carrion should not be viewed as strictly hierarchical, since the transformations in populations and roles of a species would extend into the general ecosystem in a myriad of ways (Devault et. al. Reference DeVault, Beasley, Olson, Moleón, Carrete, Margalida, Sánchez-Zapata, Şekercioğlu, Wenny and Whelan2016).

No wonder, then, that the development of complex villages and then early urban societies was also a period in which ‘spiritual, religious, and aesthetic values inspired by scavengers flourished worldwide’ (Moléon et al. Reference Moleón, Sánchez-Zapata, Margalida, Carrete, Owen-Smith and Donázar2014, 397; see McMahon Reference McMahon2009; Reference McMahon2016), to the extent that, in a particular ecological community, ‘The decline of vultures … could lead to the loss of these ancient cultural and spiritual services’ (Devault et al. Reference DeVault, Beasley, Olson, Moleón, Carrete, Margalida, Sánchez-Zapata, Şekercioğlu, Wenny and Whelan2016, 246).

According to Steinbeiser et al. (Reference Steinbeiser, Wawrzynowski, Ramos and Olson2018, 30), ’The presence of scavengers and the occurrence of predator effects could be intertwined … vertebrate scavengers maintain their roles as predators even while engaged in the search for carrion. From the perspective of prey species near a carcass, an influx of scavengers could therefore enhance predation’. In short, the death of a larger animal triggers the temporary presence of a highly competitive trophic chain, with tangled sequences of access to the meat (Beasley et al. Reference Beasley, Olson, Devault, Benbow, Tomberlin and Tarone2015, 111–13). Today, in Africa, the dominant scavengers are lions, hyenas and vultures, which consume nearly 50 per cent of small carcasses and nearly 100 per cent for medium and large ones. Vultures are obligate scavengers, able to take very little live prey, while hyenas and lions are opportunistic predator-scavengers. All of these compete for access and dominance on carcasses within the framing context of the regional geography, with success then being further determined by seasonal climate, factors of microsite habitat such as the presence of trees, and even the time of day, all of which will favour differing group sizes of one species over the other (Beasley et al. Reference Beasley, Olson, Devault, Benbow, Tomberlin and Tarone2015, 111).

Vultures, differently from lions and hyenas, are daylight scavengers. Their advantage over lions is the speed with which they sight carcasses from air, exploiting hot air currents not available at night. They thus have carrion encounter rates much higher than their terrestrial competitors, and are often the initial consumers of carcasses. Lions and hyenas, in fact, locate carcasses through the presence of columns of spiralling birds, and lions also learn about the locations from the sounds of hyenas. Vultures can also swallow and depart with carrion meat at impressive speed, having evolved highly acidic stomachs which allow them to digest even putrefied flesh without being affected in the slightest (Beasley et al. Reference Beasley, Olson, Devault, Benbow, Tomberlin and Tarone2015; De Vault et al. Reference DeVault, Beasley, Olson, Moleón, Carrete, Margalida, Sánchez-Zapata, Şekercioğlu, Wenny and Whelan2016).

The striped hyena may in some cases attack larger animals, including the young of domestic species, but mainly feed upon carcasses. After diurnal rest in underground burrows or caves, they begin solo trips in search of food in the early hours of darkness. Although their sight is relatively poor, they have the advantage of being able to scent a rotting carcass from a distance of 4 km and, compared to other carnivores, can cover great distances rapidly and without fatigue. Relying on their strong forelegs, they can dig out carrion cached by other animals (Habibi Reference Habibi2004, 67). Lions, and particularly hyenas, have anatomy suited to opening thick bones for access to their nutrient contents. Bearded vultures can do the same by dropping the bones from height onto rocks (Kane et al. Reference Kane, Healy, Guillerme, Ruxton and Jackson2017, 327–31).

Smaller carcasses are more difficult to spot by dominant scavengers and are mainly exploited by small-sized carnivores like mongooses and genets (Moleón & Sánchez-Zapata Reference Moleón and Sánchez-Zapata2015, 1007).

Once the carnivore-scavengers are present at the scene of larger carcasses, success in interspecies competition depends on group size, body size and aggressivity. Vultures, although often numerous, are necessarily respectful of the large carnivores, and obliged to stand aside. The striped hyena, if isolated or few in number, will submit to the apex predator, generally the lion, and indeed ‘lions can acquire much of their carrion through kleptoparasitism of hyena kills’ (Kane et al. Reference Kane, Healy, Guillerme, Ruxton and Jackson2017, 329).Footnote ¹⁰ Hyenas are also known to submit even to cheetahs, leopards and caracal cats (Wagner et al. Reference Wagner, Frank and Creel2008). In the case of sufficient numbers of hyenas, however, they can abandon the usual safe distance and outcompete the apex predator for the carcass (Howard Reference Howard1999). In Africa, although lions may fairly often kill hyenas, hyenas can also kill young lions. Eventually, no matter how thorough the work of the big cats at the scavenging sites, the hyena will still find food in what is left (Pereira et. al. Reference Pereira, Owen-Smith and Moleón2014).

To sum up, obliged as we are to refer to African scenarios, a reconstructed hierarchy of interacting scavengers on the Iranian Plateau of the third millennium bc would have lions at the top, followed by other big cats (leopards, cheetahs), then striped hyenas, and finally large raptors (including bearded vultures). This is precisely the same threefold hierarchy expressed through the size and spacing of the iconographic elements on our chlorite vessel: the imposing lion in centre, hyenas nearby, raptors (readily understood as vultures) aside or in the background.