Introduction: Vegetal Motifs in Prehistoric Art

The topic of prehistoric mathematics seems at first glance to be beyond the borders of knowledgeability. Without written evidence it is difficult to assess the degree of the mathematical abilities possessed by prehistoric communities, how this knowledge was used and for what purposes. In this article we argue that the vegetal decoration of Halafian pottery vessels enables some understanding of these aspects.

The earliest artistic expressions of the European Upper Paleolithic era (c. 40,000–10,000 BC), which were both depicted on walls of caves and engraved on small portable objects, focused on anthropomorphic and zoomorphic figures. A few depictions were understood by Marshack as vegetal motifs (1991, figs. 65a, 66b, 67b, 94a, 105, 187), but Paul Pettitt (personal communication) debated this interpretation and argued that most of these depictions represent spears.

In the Near East only a few Upper Paleolithic artistic expressions have been found. They include two small plaques, one depicting a horse and the other part of an anthropomorphic figure and a schematic animal (Belfer-Cohen & Bar-Yosef, 1981, fig. 8; Belfer-Cohen & Bar-Yosef, 2009, p. 26). Later, around 14,000 BC in the Natufian culture of the Epi-Paleolithic era, there is an increase in the number of artistic expressions (Grosman et al., 2017; Rollefson, 2008; Yizraeli-Noy, 1999). In the Neolithic era (c. 9000–6000 BC), zoomorphic and anthropomorphic figures appear in large quantities and in almost every site (Garfinkel et al., 2010; Rollefson, 2008; Schmandt-Besserat, 2013; Yizraeli-Noy, 1999). However, to the best of our knowledge, vegetal motifs were introduced only around 6200 BC in the Halafian culture of north Mesopotamia, and were already depicted in a rather impressive manner.

The lack of vegetal motifs is rather surprising, since plants have always been extensively exploited by humans. Ethnographic observations on hunter-gatherer societies indicate that plants supply most of the human intake of calories. An association of plants with human symbolic behavior has been suggested for the Middle Paleolithic Neanderthal burials of Shanidar, but this suggestion has proved problematic (Sommer, 1999). A clear association of this kind, however, has been observed in burials of the Natufian culture at Raqefet Cave, Mt. Carmel, Israel, where plants and flowers were used to line graves (Nadel et al., 2013).

With the beginning of agriculture in the Near East in the Neolithic period, plant cultivation was essential to the economy, and yet plants were not depicted by these communities. The only possible symbolic connection suggested so far is the introduction of green beads, reflecting the desired color of cultivated fields (Bar-Yosef Mayer & Porat, 2008). The earliest depictions of vegetal motifs in the Near East are evident in the Halafian culture (Fig. 1), which flourished in northern Mesopotamia and the northern Levant from c. 6200 to 5500 BC (Akkermans, 2000; Gómez-Bach et al., 2016; Campbell, 2007; Watson, 1983a). The pottery of this culture, which is characterized by its high quality, elaborate shapes and outstandingly meticulous painting, is one of the peaks of ancient Near Eastern pottery in its aesthetics and craftsmanship (Davidson & McKerrell, 1976; İpek, 2019; LeBlanc & Watson, 1973; Nieuwenhuyse, 2007; Von Wickede, 1986). Previous studies of Halafian painted pottery have focused on aspects like the typology, production centers and geographical distribution of the motifs. Although scholars have sometimes noted vegetal motifs (Mallowan, 1936, fig. 27:14–16; Mallowan & Cruikshank Rose, 1935, figs. 77:7, 10, 17, & 78:11; Nieuwenhuyse, 2007, pp. 350–351, nos. 241, 249, 957, 263; Watson, 1983b, fig. 206:15–16, 26, 30), or motifs that we interpret as vegetal, none of these analyses has focused entirely on this phenomenon. Moreover, it was not recognized that this is the earliest appearance of vegetal motifs in Near Eastern symbolic expression.

Fig. 1

Map of the Near East showing the location of the Halafian sites examined in the research

The analysis of Halafian vegetal motifs presented here will attempt to answer four questions:

1. 1.

What was chosen to be depicted? This aspect involves iconographic analysis of the vegetal motifs.

1. 2.

How common are the vegetal motifs within Halafian painted pottery?

1. 3.

Were these motifs distributed in restricted regions or over the entire Halafian territory? Did vegetal motifs spread into neighboring regions, such as eastern Mesopotamia or the southern Levant?

1. 4.

Why were vegetal motifs introduced into human artistic expression in this particular era? Are there other developments in the Halafian culture that can be connected to the introduction of vegetal motifs?

Halafian Vegetal Motifs: Methodological Aspects

The data presented in our analysis derives from 29 Halafian sites and a regional survey in the Şirnak region. For some sites detailed book-length final excavation reports have been published, while others are represented only by short preliminary accounts. Together they present several tens of thousands of painted pottery sherds. The painted pottery bears various motifs, mainly geometric patterns but depictions of animals, human figures and plants as well. In each site only a small number of sherds were decorated with vegetal motifs, which have consequently received little attention in the research. It is only when the relevant data from the various reports is combined that the outstanding importance of the vegetal motifs becomes apparent.

Our methodology took into consideration the following aspects:

1. General issues with artistic expression. It should be emphasized that identifying artistic motifs involves a certain degree of interpretation. Indeed, many pottery sherds presented here as decorated with vegetal motifs were not recognized as such by the archaeologists who published them. The uncertainties inherent in visual perception and the analysis of artistic motifs are well-known issues that have been extensively discussed in research—both generally (Arnheim, 1974; Gell, 1998; Gombrich, 1982; Hasson et al., 2001; Kennedy, 1974; Palmer et al., 2013; Rubin, 1915; Todorović, 2020; Wade, 1982), and in the context of painted Halafian pottery (Garfinkel, 2003, pp.125–133; 2005; 2025). Thus, some of the items presented here may receive a different interpretation in the future. Nevertheless, we believe that once awareness is raised regarding the intensive use of vegetal motifs in Halafian pottery, these motifs will be better recognized in the art of the prehistoric Near East and beyond.

2. Sample strategy. All relevant reports on Halafian painted pottery available to us were included in the study, presented in alphabetical order in Table 1. We did not divide the Halafian sites into regions or chronological sub-phases, since the vegetal motifs are so rare that they currently cannot support reliable conclusions on these aspects.

3. Iconographic analysis of the vegetal motifs. The identification and iconographic analysis of the vegetal motifs are not always clear cut. In schematic styles, it is sometimes difficult to distinguish between a flower and a ‘star,’ or between a tree branch and a geometric design of parallel diagonal lines. In the same way, leaves are sometimes so schematically depicted that they have lost their natural characteristics. We first focus on vegetal motifs that can be identified without hesitation, and then suggest that similar, more abstract representations depict the same motif.

4. Iconographic analysis. Since the vegetal motifs are rare, and in many cases the pottery sherds as preserved contain only part of the entire depiction, we have classified the motifs into four basic categories: flowers, shrubs, branches and trees. This typology is based on the nature of the plant or the part of a plant that was chosen to be depicted. It is not always easy to distinguish branches from shrubs when only a segment of the depiction is preserved on the pottery sherd.

5. Statistical aspects. Only a few excavation reports present statistical data on the frequencies of the various decorated motifs unearthed at the site. How can a systematic and consistent picture be achieved for all the Halafian sites? The methodology that we chose was to count the number of sherds decorated with vegetal motifs out of the total number of decorated sherds published in each report. While this count indeed involved various biases, in the current stage of research this was the only way to achieve any kind of statistical picture.

For some sites the same decorated pottery sherd has been published twice, in a technical drawing and in a photograph. In such cases we were not always able to identify different presentations of the same sherd, and hence it is possible that in a very few instances the same sherd has been counted twice.

Another problem that we faced is the existence of both a preliminary report and an advanced or final report for the same site. In some cases the preliminary report presents vegetal motifs that were not included in the final report; such cases are Tepe Gawra (compare Speiser, 1927 with Tobler, 1950), Yarim Tepe II (compare Merpert & Munchaev, 1987 with Merpert & Munchaev, 1993a) and Umm Qseir (compare Hole & Johnson, 1986–87 with Hole, 2017). When the two reports present a very similar picture, Table 1 includes only data from the advanced publication. Nevertheless, interesting examples that are published only in preliminary reports have sometimes been included in the figures.

Vegetal motifs were employed in almost all Halafian sites. In the few cases where vegetal motifs are not reported, such as the sites of Tell Rifa‘at and Tell Zeidan, it is presumably because the entire assemblage was so small (20 and 14 sherds respectively). An indication that the vegetal motifs were fairly popular is the average frequency of 15.3% given at the end of Table 1.

Halafian Vegetal Motifs: The Data

The use of vegetal motifs in the decoration of Halafian pottery was observed by scholars when the first sites of this culture were excavated, although no detailed typological analysis of the motifs was carried out at the time. Even a recent detailed study of the decoration of Halafian pottery presents all the vegetal depictions under a single category (İpek, 2019). Moreover, no one seems to have noticed that this is one of the world’s earliest extensive uses of vegetal motifs, and the earliest in the Near East.

We classified the vegetal motifs into four basic categories: flowers, shrubs, branches and trees (Fig. 2). There are two additional groups, one consisting of decorated vessels with two different types of vegetal motifs and the other comprising vegetal motifs together with zoomorphic representations.

Fig. 2

The classification of the vegetal motifs into four basic categories: 1–2 flowers, 3–4 shrubs, 5–6 branches, 7–8 trees

Flowers

This is the most common vegetal motif in Halafian painted pottery, of which 375 examples have been identified. The depictions of flowers can be classified into seven sub-groups.

1. 1.

Seasonal short-leaved plants with two leaves, a tall stalk and a flower (Fig. 3). The leaves appear on both sides of the stalk, have an oval outline, and are covered with black dots. There are only two examples of leaves without dots (Fig. 3:9–10). The flowers are arranged on the vessel in a horizontal row, usually close to the base in bowls and on the base of the neck in jars. They are depicted schematically as a black circle, except for two unusual depictions in which the flower on top of the stalk is not rounded but more triangular in outline (Fig. 3:9–10).

1. 2.

Small flowers with four petals inside the black squares of a checkerboard pattern (Fig. 4). In some cases each petal is divided into two by a black line (Fig. 4:4–6). The white squares are full of dots. This motif was arranged in horizontal bands on the vessels. In one case the pattern is different, with a single large flower (Fig. 4:6). Some scholars have emphasized the dots but did not recognize the motifs as flowers, describing the depictions as ‘horizontal dot-and-quatrefoil motif’ (Hole, 2017, fig. 17.3). This is the most common Halafian vegetal motif and is known from most sites; it generally appears more frequently than other plant motifs.

Fig. 3

Seasonal short-leaved plants with two leaves, a tall stalk and a flower: 1. Yarim Tepe II (Merpert & Munchaev, 1987, fig. 15:9), 2. Yarim Tepe II (Merpert & Munchaev, 1987, fig. 8.25:6), 3. Arpachiyah (Hijara, 1997, pl. XXXV:243), 4. Yarim Tepe II (Merpert & Munchaev, 1987, fig. 15:1), 5. Yarim Tepe II (Merpert & Munchaev, 1987, fig. 15:4), 6. Arpachiyah (Mallowan & Cruikshank Rose, 1935, fig. 77:17), 7. Şirnak Valley (Erdalkιran, 2008, fig. 4:28), 8. Chagar Bazar (Mallowan, 1936, fig. 27:14), 9. Arpachiyah (Mallowan & Cruikshank Rose, 1935, fig. 20), 10. Chagar Bazar (Gómez-Bach et al., 2016, fig. 4)

Fig. 4

Small flowers with four petals inside black squares of a checkerboard pattern: 1. Tell Halula (Cruells, 2013, fig. 14:1860), 2. Tell Amarna (Cruells, 2004, fig. 5.12:10,577), 3. Arpachiyah (Hijara, 1997, fig. 82:5), 4. Arpachiyah (Mallowan & Cruikshank Rose, 1935, fig. 66:6), 5. Arpachiyah (Mallowan & Cruikshank Rose, 1935, fig. 66:7), 6. Tell Halaf (Von Oppenheim, 1943, pl. LXXV:2)

There are less-common variations of this motif, lacking the checkerboard pattern. Sometimes the flowers are arranged in a horizontal row, sometimes a flower touches a flower, and sometimes two flowers are arranged vertically (Fig. 5:1–5). There is also the arabesque style, in which the same petal is common to two different flowers (Fig. 5:6–10).

Fig. 5

Small flowers with four petals in various compositions: 1. Tell Halaf (Von Oppenheim, 1943, pl. XCIII:6), 2. Chagar Bazar (Mallowan, 1936, pl. II:6), 3. Ugarit (De Contenson, 1992, fig. 191:1), 4. Ugarit (De Contenson, 1992, fig. 212:8), 5. Chagar Bazar (Mallowan, 1936, pl. II:8), 6. Arpachiyah (Mallowan & Cruikshank Rose, 1935, fig. 60:3), 7. Tell Halaf (Von Oppenheim, 1943, pl. LI:7), 8. Tell Halaf (Von Oppenheim, 1943, pl. LI:8), 9. Tell Halaf (Von Oppenheim, 1943, pl. LI:10), 10. Tell Halaf (Von Oppenheim, 1943, pl. LI:4)

1. 3.

A meticulously executed drawing of a single large flower, depicted in a symmetrical arrangement that is typical of plants of the Compositae (Asteraceae) family. This family, one of the largest in the botanical world, is characterized by round, symmetrical flowers. Each flower usually consists of two parts: a dense inflorescence in the center and protruding petals around the entire circumference. Many of the flowers in this family, such as daisies, chrysanthemums and sunflowers, are striking in their color. The depictions on the pottery vessels, however, are too schematic to enable the identification of specific plants.

The flowers, usually placed on the bases of rounded bowls, were depicted with elongated petals. In such cases the drawing divides the circle symmetrically into four (Fig. 6:1–3), eight (Fig. 6:4–8), 16 (Fig. 7:1–2) and 32 petals (Fig. 7:3–4). In one case two flowers with eight petals were drawn one above the other on the body of a closed vessel (Fig. 6:8). In another bowl from Arpachiyah the division of the space was completely different: the base was divided into a checkerboard pattern of three rows and three columns. In four alternating squares four flowers were drawn in each of four rows, making a total of 16 flowers in each square and 64 flowers altogether (Fig. 7:5). The numbers 4, 8, 16, 32 and 64 create a mathematical series, which will be discussed below.

Fig. 6

A meticulously executed drawing of a single large flower, depicted in a symmetrical arrangement with four or eight petals: 1. Tepe Gawra (Tobler, 1950, pl. CXI:17), 2. Tepe Gawra (Tobler, 1950, pl. CXII:20), 3. Arpachiyah (Mallowan & Cruikshank Rose, 1935, fig. 61.2), 4. Tepe Gawra (Tobler, 1950, pl. CXI:16), 5. Chagar Bazar (Mallowan, 1936, pl. II:7), 6. Tell Bagum (Hijara, 1997, pl. XCII:3), 7. Arpachiyah (Hijara, 1997, pl. LXV:441), 8. Yarim Tepe II (Merpert & Munchaev, 1987, fig. 11:7)

Fig. 7

A meticulously executed drawing of a single large flower, depicted in a symmetrical arrangement with 16 or 32 petals, and a bowl with 64 (+ 12) flowers: 1. Arpachiyah (Mallowan & Cruikshank Rose, 1935, pl. XV), 2. Tepe Gawra (Tobler, 1950, pl. CXI:15), 3. Tepe Gawra (Tobler, 1950, pl. CX:12), 4. Arpachiyah (Mallowan & Cruikshank Rose, 1935, frontispiece), 5. Arpachiyah (Mallowan & Cruikshank Rose, 1935, pl. XVIII)

In a small number of examples a different number of petals was carefully drawn: six (Fig. 8:1–2), seven (Fig. 8:3–5), 12 (Fig. 8:6–7) and 13 (Fig. 8:8). It is possible that the numbers 6 and 12 were chosen intentionally, but in the absence of the numbers 3 and 24 we cannot suggest a geometric series here. The numbers 7 and 13 may have been chosen without special intent.

1. 4.

A free-hand depiction of a large flower, lacking the meticulous arrangement and quality of the previous group (Fig. 9:1–7). There are also a few examples of somewhat different flowers (Fig. 9:8–9).

1. 5.

A rather sloppy drawing of a large flower on the base of a bowl (Fig. 10:1–2, 4–5) or the body of a vessel (Fig. 10:6–7). The depiction is sometimes more crowded, consisting of a number of smaller flowers (Fig. 10:3, 8–9). As in the previous group, the drawing divides the circle into 4, 8 or 16 petals, but a division into 32 petals has not been observed.

1. 6.

Schematically drawn flowers with a dark, emphasized round center, surrounded by a circle of dots (Fig. 11). A large number of such flowers are depicted on each vessel, in various arrangements: horizontal rows (Fig. 11:2, 5–7), vertical rows (Fig. 11:8), diagonal rows (Fig. 11:9) and a concentric arrangement on the base of a bowl (Fig. 11:4). Similar flowers, with leaves and a stalk, appear in the first group (Fig. 3:1, 3, 6–7).

1. 7.

Schematic flowers expressed by concentric circles of various types (Fig. 12): a black dot, an emphasized circle, an outer circle of dots and, most schematically of all, a simple dotted circle (Fig. 12:10–12). Similar flowers, with leaves and a stalk, appear in the first group (Fig. 3:2, 4–5).

Fig. 8

A meticulously executed drawing of a single large flower, depicted in a symmetrical arrangement with six, seven, 12 or 13 petals: 1. Arpachiyah (Mallowan & Cruikshank Rose, 1935, fig. 57.1), 2. Ugarit (De Contenson, 1992, fig. 211:10), 3. Yarim Tepe III (Merpert & Munchaev, 1993, fig. 9.9:2), 4. Arpachiyah (Mallowan & Cruikshank Rose, 1935, fig. 53.2), 5. Tell Halaf (Von Oppenheim, 1943, pl. LV:9), 6. Tepe Gawra (Tobler, 1950, pl. CX:13), 7. Tepe Gawra (Tobler, 1950, pl. CXI:14), 8. Arpachiyah (Mallowan & Cruikshank Rose, 1935, pl. XIII)

Fig. 9

A free-hand depiction of a large flower lacking meticulous arrangement (1–7) and examples of different flowers (8–9): 1. Hama (Thuesen, 1988, pl. XV:10), 2. Hama (Thuesen, 1988, pl. XV:9), 3. Hama (Thuesen, 1988, pl. XIV:4), 4. Yarim Tepe II (Merpert & Munchaev, 1993, fig. 8.25:3), 5. Tell Halaf (Von Oppenheim, 1943, pl. XC:6), 6. Cavi Tarlasi (Von Wickede & Herbordt, 1988, fig. 7:10), 7. Tell Turlu (Breniquet, 1991, pl. XII:20), 8. Tell Halaf (Von Oppenheim, 1943, pl. LV:5), 9. Tepe Gawra (Speiser, 1927, fig. 51)

Fig. 10

Sloppy drawings of large or small flowers: 1. Arpachiyah (Mallowan & Cruikshank Rose, 1935, fig. 72:1), 2. Tepe Gawra (Tobler, 1950, pl. CXIX:72), 3. Shams ed-Din (Gustavson-Gaube, 1981, pl. III:11), 4. Cavi Tarlasi (Von Wickede & Herbordt, 1988, fig. 6:10), 5. Ugarit (De Contenson, 1992, fig. 192:3), 6. Tell Halaf (Von Oppenheim, 1943, pl. LV:3), 7. Şirnak Valley (Erdalkιran, 2006, fig. 4:29), 8. Tell Halaf (Von Oppenheim, 1943, pl. LV:4), 9. Tell Halaf (Von Oppenheim, 1943, pl. LV:2)

Fig. 11

Schematically drawn flowers with a dark, emphasized round center, surrounded by a circle of dots: 1. Yarim Tepe II (Merpert & Munchaev, 1987, fig. 18:1), 2. Arpachiyah (Hijara, 1997, pl. LI:355), 3. Arpachiyah (Hijara, 1997, pl. LXIII:426), 4. Arpachiyah (Hijara, 1997, pl. LXXIII:506), 5. Arpachiyah (Hijara, 1997, pl. XXVIII:194), 6. Arpachiyah (Hijara, 1997, pl. XXXI:223), 7. Arpachiyah (Hijara, 1997, pl. L:349), 8. Tell Amarna (Cruells, 2004, fig. 5.51:10,517), 9. Arpachiyah (Hijara, 1997, pl. XLII:297)

Fig. 12

Schematic flowers expressed by concentric circles of various types: 1. Yarim Tepe II (Merpert & Munchaev, 1987, fig. 16:3), 2. Tell Halaf (Von Oppenheim, 1943, pl. LV:7), 3. Tell Halaf