Terracottas in the Yale Babylonian Collection

Les Carnets de l’ACoSt Association for Coroplastic Studies 23 | 2023 Varia Terracottas in the Yale Babylonian Collection Laura Battini Electronic version URL: https://journals.openedition.org/acost/3386 DOI: 10.4000/acost.3386 ISSN: 2431-8574 Publisher ACoSt Electronic reference Laura Battini, “Terracottas in the Yale Babylonian Collection”, Les Carnets de l’ACoSt [Online], 23 | 2023, Online since 15 July 2023, connection on 20 October 2023. URL: http://journals.openedition.org/acost/ 3386 ; DOI: https://doi.org/10.4000/acost.3386 This text was automatically generated on October 20, 2023. The text only may be used under licence . All other elements (illustrations, imported files) are “All rights reserved”, unless otherwise stated. Terracottas in the Yale Babylonian Collection Terracottas in the Yale Babylonian Collection Laura Battini 1 Since 20181 I have been studying for publication a little-known group of Mesopotamian terracottas held in the Yale Babylonian Collection of the Yale Peabody Museum of Natural History in New Haven, with the permission of the curator Agnete Wisti-Lassen.2 A selection of these terracottas had already been published in 1930 by Elisabeth van Buren in a book that listed the Near Eastern terracottas of the most important European and American museums.3 While the Yale collection was included, the encyclopedic nature of the book did not allow for in-depth analysis of its objects, nor did it allow for complete photographic documentation. Since then, other terracottas also have entered the collection that have never been published. But more importantly, a century of archaeological reflection and new methodological analyses require a rethinking for the publication of this material. This is the goal of my research program, which is funded by CNRS4 for the most part and by my laboratory, funded by the Collège de France, the CNRS, and the École Pratique des Hautes Études. However, my goal is not simply to publish a catalogue with synthetic chapters. Rather, the aim is to renew coroplastic research for the ancient Near East. I intend to show how the study of the neglected areas of the terracotta object—the back and the sides— contributes to a better understanding of the object itself, how it was produced, and how it was handled. This catalogue is also a “manifesto.” Indeed, research into Syro-Mesopotamian terracottas has not taken into account the ‘revolution’ that has occurred in coroplastic studies relative to the Greek world.5 In the domain of the ancient Near East recent studies on terracottas are few and mostly are limited to publishing objects discovered in excavations. But this study also is an appeal in general for the publication of museum collections, in re-contextualizing material that arrived in museums without provenience and context, which is important for other similar materials. It also is necessary to understand how the objects arrived in museums. Reconstructing this recent history of the object is important because it is part of it. Les Carnets de l’ACoSt, 23 | 2023 1 Terracottas in the Yale Babylonian Collection 1. Interest in the study of terracottas 2 The study of terracottas is not often found among Near Eastern archaeologists because these objects were not official works. It was a production considered as “minor” —with all the pejorative meaning of this term— since it did not concern the elite, nor emanate from a royal or religious power. Terracottas were made of poor material, and they have suffered more from the passage of time because of that.6 They often are found broken (fig. 1) and missing their colors. But their importance, first of all, lies in the fact that they have been found everywhere, in every period, and they are present in houses, as well as in palaces, temples, and graves. Secondly, they are an incredible source of information7 on the feelings, needs, and concerns of people in the past, on their techniques, on the organization of work, on the exchanges between Mesopotamian cities, and between official and popular art. 8 Fig. 1. Broken classical and Mesopotamian terracottas from the Yale Babylonian Collection © L. Battini. Courtesy of the Yale Babylonian Collection 2. Methodology 3 It took me some time to figure out how to approach these terracottas. Before I went to New Haven, I had studied terracottas from publications. However, when I arrived at Yale, the shock was enormous. The materiality of the object imposed itself with all its richness. It was immediately apparent that I had to find an analytical protocol to study all the objects homogeneously. For this reason, I initially relied on publications of Near Eastern material. But none of these publications took into account the “neglected” surfaces, the back of the figurine or of the plaque, where I could see tool marks (fig. 2), Les Carnets de l’ACoSt, 23 | 2023 2 Terracottas in the Yale Babylonian Collection fingerprints, concretions accumulated on the surface due to the type of soil in which the plaques have been preserved for millennia. So, I started reading studies conducted by specialists working on Greek-period terracottas,9 which brought me back to the early years of my Italian university training. There, I finally discovered new approaches, new interpretations and, above all, the materiality of the object, which I was also able to investigate from an anthropological point of view. Ingold's studies and articles were of paramount importance to me. As I touched, examined, and measured the terracottas, I understood the importance of “materiality,” which has been at the center of archaeological reflection for several years. It is not the materiality of agency theory, which is an intellectualization that basically distances us from the objects. The materiality that I mean here is the real substance that comprises the objects—the materials.10 As did Ingold,11 I studied not only technical aspects, but rather the complex link between technique, functions, use, and iconography. Tactile sensations, sound qualities, color, and visual impressions are essential for understanding the power and meaning of objects,12 especially ancient terracottas that were held in hand, moved from place to place, dusted, embellished, and occasionally filled with other objects.13 Fig. 2. Marks of tools on the back, NBC 4438 © L. Battini. Courtesy of the Yale Babylonian Collection 4 I also read manuals on archaeological drawing.14 Despite the absence of generally accepted conventions in the study of terracottas, I believe that drawing is essential. Through it, the researcher is obliged to grasp all aspects of the object: the iconography, as well as certain technical elements that may escape notice, but that appear clearer when drawn. I draw not only the front face of the object with its iconography, but also the back and the sides. 5 In order to have a better understanding of technique, among my readings there also are manuals on ceramics, especially the paste, modeling, and pottery firing.15 Last but not least, I am trying experimental archaeology. Like most who live in industrialized societies and are accustomed to advanced technologies, I have no idea how to fire Les Carnets de l’ACoSt, 23 | 2023 3 Terracottas in the Yale Babylonian Collection pottery and I have never had one direct experience in the steps required to make a clay figurine. Learning through experimental archaeology has helped me to avoid serious and misleading mistakes. 6 It took me some time to define a new way of studying and interpreting the terracottas. In my approach, the iconographic motif, that which is strictly dependent on the sphere that in a broad sense could be defined as "philosophical" (involving a reflection on life, death, and need), is as important as the materials. This is understood not only as technique, but also as actual traces of an artisan, whose imprints on the terracotta have remained by chance and can be read as traces of manipulation before firing.16 In the past, archaeologists only looked at the face with the iconography. Today, and thanks to the change in perspective generated by the classicists, it also is crucial to look at the back, because each terracotta is not only an image, but it is also an object. 7 The back is full of information on how the object was made, who made it, what tools were used. In more than half of the terracottas fingerprints cover the back and sometimes also the front face bearing the iconography (fig. 3). Fig. 3. Fingerprints on the face with iconographic details, YBC 10 026 © L. Battini. Courtesy of the Yale Babylonian Collection 8 Fingerprints are important because they indicate who made the plaque, male or female (men's and women's fingerprints are different). And they can indicate in some cases how the plaque was removed from the mold (fig. 4). Les Carnets de l’ACoSt, 23 | 2023 4 Terracottas in the Yale Babylonian Collection Fig. 4. Impressions and cavities caused by the fingers when the terracotta was pulled from its mold, NBC 4470 © L. Battini. Courtesy of the Yale Babylonian Collection 9 On the back there also are traces of reed tools used to flatten the plaque, or to eliminate fingerprints in some cases. The breaks also can help in understanding the object. There are old breaks, sometimes restored with bitumen in ancient times (there is an example in Chicago17and probably an example in the Yale Babylonian Collection) and there are modern breaks. Modern breaks, made at the time of excavations, show the inside of the fabric. Thus, it is possible to know if the artisan successfully controlled the firing, or if the paste was well mixed or not. I noticed that the best clay that is without inclusions, bubbles, or straw, and therefore very pure, was used for plaques of the first millennium B.C.E. with representations of apotropaic beings (fig. 5), while even for the representation of the Old-Babylonian gods the paste was only minimally cleaned and mixed, resulting in a poor-quality clay. (fig. 6). Les Carnets de l’ACoSt, 23 | 2023 5 Terracottas in the Yale Babylonian Collection Fig. 5. Apothropaïc figures of the first millenium B.C.E., YBC 10 087 and 10 096 © L. Battini. Courtesy of the Yale Babylonian Collection Fig. 6. Bad quality of the paste in an Old Babylonian representation of divinity, YBC 10 003 © L. Battini. Courtesy of the Yale Babylonian Collection Les Carnets de l’ACoSt, 23 | 2023 6 Terracottas in the Yale Babylonian Collection 10 It is clear that this work of analysis takes time because it requires touching the object, looking at it under several lights,18 taking it in hand, feeling it, photographing it, drawing it, weighing it—in a word making it speak as clearly as possible. 3. Preliminary presentation of the Yale Babylonian Collection 11 The collection comprises 358 terracottas, of which two-thirds are pre-classical, and 1/3 are Hellenistic (fig. 7). They are classified according to 4 different series of inventory numbers, two major and two minor, which belong to the history of their arrival in the collection. Their provenance is varied: donations from private collections, or objects from regular excavations (e.g., Nippur). The four inventory systems are not only a reality of arrival in the collection, but also of storage, with the two main series (YBC and NBC) in contiguous drawers. The two other minor inventory series are located with the objects that carry the same inventory series. This new organization of the collection, carried out during the pandemic, has the merit of making access to the objects more coherent and easier. Indeed, the Yale Babylonian Collection is not a museum like others. It may be the last public “cabinet of curiosities,” comprising an impressive number of tablets and seals, and a smaller number of other objects, including terracottas, that are kept in old wooden drawers of the type used for mineralogical or entomological collections. Working on this collection is already a dive into history! Fig. 7. Hellenistic period figurine, YBC 10 059 © L. Battini. Courtesy of the Yale Babylonian Collection Les Carnets de l’ACoSt, 23 | 2023 7 Terracottas in the Yale Babylonian Collection 12 The collection consists of three categories of terracottas: figurines, plaques, and threedimensional models (fig. 8). The most common are the plaques, much less numerous are the figurines and the three-dimensional models. The figurines represent humans, animals, or toys. Plaques represent different subjects, the most common being nude females and gods. There are also demons, animals, and sometimes unusual subjects, such as fruit picking. Three-dimensional models include chariots, boxes, stands, and buildings. The figurines are modest in size and can be carried easily. Plaques come in various sizes, but are no larger than 15 cm, and are light enough to be carried by hand. They range in weight from 30 to 250-300 grams, while the three-dimensional models are heavier, up to a few kilos. For the most part they were not designed to be transported,19 but they could have been moved if necessary. The figurines are handmade, the plaques are moldmade, and the three-dimensional models are partly handmade and partly moldmade. As already noted, the Old Babylonian terracottas were made in general with a poorly prepared clay that is full of inclusions, among which is straw. The cracking that occurred during firing was the result of the improperly mixed paste and possibly incomplete firing. All in all, this type of clay contrasts with the high quality of the clay of the inscribed tablets and nails. This suggests that the artisan who produced the terracottas did not produce the tablets, which must have been made in the scribal milieu. The Old Babylonian terracottas were cheap products precisely because they were mass-produced and because they are made using a poor-quality clay. Fig. 8. Plaque (YBC 10 156), figurine (YBC 2235) and three-dimensional model (YBC 10 073) © L. Battini. Courtesy of the Yale Babylonian Collection 13 The Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian terracottas, on the other hand, were made with a better clay. The Neo-Assyrian examples fire to a red fabric, and are sometimes inscribed (fig. 5). The subject represented (apotropaic) is well adapted to such a type of clay,20 so the quality of the fabric is in some cases linked to the iconography, but not always. While the Old Babylonian plaques representing deities are made in a very poor- Les Carnets de l’ACoSt, 23 | 2023 8 Terracottas in the Yale Babylonian Collection quality clay, the Neo-Babylonian terracottas that represent women with infants or those with votaries have a fairly pure white fabric. Finally, the terracottas of the Hellenistic period were made in a more refined fabric, many by means of a double mold, but others with a simple, frontal mold. Most of these originally were painted.21 Even if the traces of paint are more legible on the Hellenistic terracottas (fig. 9), if one looks closely at the Mesopotamian terracottas, there are traces of painting on all kinds of terracottas and of all periods. Black and red were used since the beginning of the second millennium B.C.E., and azure since the second half of the second millennium B.C.E.22 Slight traces are visible to the naked eye, but analyses are planned to confirm these observations. It is already interesting to note that these traces of color are more frequent than one might think.23 Fig. 9. Traces of red paint on a terracotta of Hellenistic period, NBC 4451 © L. Battini. Courtesy of the Yale Babylonian Collection 4. Publishing in two volumes 14 The terracottas in the Yale Babylonian Collection will be published in two volumes in the Yale Oriental Series (YOS). A single book on such a disparate collection would require more time to be prepared, and it also seemed to me more appropriate to distinguish the two major periods of manufacture and to present the new methodology used in the analysis of these terracottas. 15 Thus the 358 terracottas have been grouped in chronological order. The first volume will concern the Mesopotamian terracottas, while the second will focus on the Hellenistic terracottas. The first volume includes an introductory chapter that presents the collection with a discussion of its formation. This is followed by a series of analytical chapters in chronological order, then by chapters in which the material is Les Carnets de l’ACoSt, 23 | 2023 9 Terracottas in the Yale Babylonian Collection synthesized, the actual catalogue of the terracottas, tables of equivalence, and a catalogue of drawings and photographs. In order to have more thematic unity, I have chosen to group the terracottas according to broad themes within which the objects are arranged in chronological order. I start with “the divine world” that includes divine figures, apotropaic beings, the plaques with divine symbols, and the 3D models of temples or chariots. I chose to start with this theme because terracottas representing the divine world are more limited than the number of terracottas representing humans. But above all, the motivations for the iconographic choices, human needs and fears, appear more clearly in these “divine” representations than in the images of humans. The analytical chapters that concern “the human world” focus on human figures, animal figurines, objects of daily life (toys and rattles). These are more numerous than the “divine” terracottas in the broadest sense. 16 The analytical chapters are followed by chapters that synthesize chronological developments, techniques, and functions. The objects then are presented in the catalogue in card form in order of inventory number, which makes for easier reading. The catalogue also includes drawings and photographs of the front, back, and sides, as well as informative details, such as traces of paint, fingerprints, wear, quality of the paste and firing, among other observations. 17 This first volume is almost completed and lacks only the synthesis chapters and some drawings. The second volume on Hellenistic terracottas is still to be written, but it will be organized on the same model as the first. Conclusions 18 What were the functions of terracottas? Generally speaking, they were different, since their types and dimensions are different, and the context of their discovery varies. In general, such terracottas are found mainly in private houses and temples, but also can be found in palaces and graves. When they are found in the house, or in the palace, they were used as pious images of the gods, as a talisman to protect the inhabitants of the house, as toys (there are rattles that still make noise!), or for board games. Some figurines and plaques could have been used for magical purposes. There are erotic images as well, of which one example was found in a royal grave.24 When found in graves, the terracottas most likely were toys left by the parents for the child they had just lost to accompany him in the afterlife.25 In temples they were mostly votive offerings to a god in fulfillment of a vow, or an offering for the vow to be fulfilled. But uses for magical purposes also cannot be ruled out. 19 As for the terracottas of the Yale Babylonian Collection, their function is more difficult to understand because they arrived without precise contexts (except for 2-3 cases). So, in order to try to figure out how they were used, I had to find an experimental way that was based only on the object itself. Thus, I take into account the subject represented, the type of support, the weight and the traces of wear, which seem to me to be able to be reconciled not with the passage of time, but with the use of the object. For example, the divine subjects were more often intended for domestic use, much like the santons, or nativity figurines that are still used today in some parts of the Christian world. But it is necessary to take into account also the support: a divine representation on a plaque that is two-dimensional does not have the same function as one on a three-dimensional support.26 Moreover, even the weight is different: the first one is light and could be Les Carnets de l’ACoSt, 23 | 2023 10 Terracottas in the Yale Babylonian Collection carried on one's person (fig. 10), while the three-dimensional model could not be used as a lucky charm, and could not be put in a bag or a pocket. Finally, some terracottas show wear27 that seems to have occurred before the burial of the object in the ground, and some parts of the divine figures seem to have been more affected than others, which indicates a specific and individual use. Fig. 10. Transportable object, YBC 2143 © L. Battini. Courtesy of the Yale Babylonian Collection 20 The presence of fingerprints on the entire surface of the terracotta is an indication of a nonchalance that would be quite explicable if a layer of paint covered the object. This colored dimension of the object is missing, but we have the clues to restore it with computer tools. Today, we also have the methods to analyze the fingerprints that could lead to gender research. But these fingerprints are also the very light trace of the physical existence of real artisans and to have it in one's hands always raises a certain emotion. BIBLIOGRAPHY Adkins, Adkins 1989 : L. Adkins, R. Adkins, Archaeological Illustration (1989). Arnheim 1969 : R. Arnheim, Visual Thinking (1989). Atkin 2005 : J. Atkin, La poterie sans tour: plaques, colombins, modelage, moulage (2005). Banning 2000 : E. D. Banning. The Archaeologist’s Laboratory (2000). Les Carnets de l’ACoSt, 23 | 2023 11 Terracottas in the Yale Babylonian Collection Barry 1997 : A. M. Barry, Visual Intelligence: Perception, Image, and Manipulation in Visual Communication (1997). Battini 1999 : L. Battini, L’espace domestique en Mésopotamie de la IIIe dynastie d'Ur à l'époque paléobabylonienne (1999). Battini 2015 : L. Battini, « Relecture de la plaquette IB 1956: les fonctions des plaquettes et l’échange entre productions populaire et officielle », AfO 53 (2015), 67-72. Battini 2017a : L. Battini, « L’épiphanie divine en Mésopotamie à travers les terres cuites » Akkadica 138 (2017), 69-106. Battini 2017b : L. Battini, « et , ou comment la vie entre dans la mort… » NABU- Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires (2017), 49-51. Battini 2021 : L. Battini, « A New Analysis Protocol for the Studying of Ancient Terracottas », AshSharq 5 (2021), 58-73. Battini 2022 : L. Battini, « A 3D Model Recovers its Current Location », Ash-Sharq 6 (2022), 172-192. Cazzella 1987 : A. Cazzella, « Le figurine antropomorfe preistoriche. Problemi d'interpretazione », La Ricerca Folklorica 16 (1987), 7-14. Cordova 2022 : C. Cordova, Mastering Sculpture: The Figure in Clay: A Guide to Capturing the Human Form for Ceramic Artists (2022). Collett 2017 : L. Collett, An Introduction to Drawing Archaeological Pottery (2017). Griffiths et al. 2002 : N. Griffiths, A. Jenner, C. Wilson, Drawing Archaeological Finds: A Hanbook (2002). Hussein 2016 : M. M. Hussein, Nimrud. The Queens' Tombs (2016). Ingold 2007 : T. Ingold, « Materials Against Materiality », Archaeological Dialogues 14 (2007), 1-16. Ingold 2009 : T. Ingold, « Stories Against Classification: Transport, Wayfaring and the Integration of Knowledge », in S. Bamford, J. Leach (éds), Kinship and Beyond: The Genealogical Model Reconsidered, Fertility, Reproduction and Sexuality 15 (2009), 193-213. Ingold 2012 : T. Ingold, « Toward an Ecology of Materials », Annual Review of Anthropology 41 (2012), 427-442. Langin-Hooper 2020 : S. M. Langin-Hooper, Figurines in Hellenistic Babylonia: Miniaturization and Cultural Hybridity (2020). Lassen 2017 : A. W. Lassen, « Salisbury's Seals, 160 Years Later », in K. Polinger Foster (éd.), Ex Oriente Lux et Veritas. Yale, Salisbury, and Early Orientalism, Yale Babylonian Collection Occasional Papers (2017), 76-79. Lassen 2020 : A. W. Lassen, « Woman and Seals in the Ancient Near East », in A. W. Lassen, K. Wagensonner (éds), Women at the Dawn of History (2020), 25-37. Lassen et al. 2019 : A. W. Lassen, E. Frahm, K. Wagensonner (eds), Ancient Mesopotamia Speaks– Highlights of the Yale Babylonian Collection (2019). Lassen, Wagensonner 2020 : A. W. Lassen, K. Wagensonner (éds), Women at the Dawn of History (2020). Lesure 2011 : R. G. Lesure, Interpreting Ancient Figurines: Context, Comparison, and Prehistoric Art (2011). Les Carnets de l’ACoSt, 23 | 2023 12 Terracottas in the Yale Babylonian Collection Martin, Langin-Hooper 2018 : S. R. Martin, S. M. Langin-Hooper (éds), The Tiny and the Fragmented. Miniature, Broken, or Otherwise Incomplete Objects in the Ancient World (2018). Moorey 2004 : P. R. S. Moorey, Idols of the People. Miniature Images of Clay in the Ancient Near East. The Schweich Lectures of the British Academy 2001 (2004). Muller 1994 : A. Muller, « La coroplathie un travail de petite fille ? Les figurines de terre cuite, de l’atelier à la publication: questions de méthode », Revue Archéologique 1994/1 (1994), 177-187. Muller 1997 : A. Muller, « Description et analyse des productions moulées: propositions de lexique multilangue, suggestion de méthode », in A. Muller (éd.), Le moulage en terre cuite dans l'Antiquité. Création et production dérivée, fabrication et diffusion (1997), 437-463. Muller 1998 : A. Muller, « Fabrication des moules, diffusion des produits moulés. À propos d’une “figurine patrice” du Musée de Volos », BCH 122 (1998), 91-107. Muller 1999 : A. Muller, « Copillage et bidouillage d’images dans l’antiquité. L’exemple de la terre cuite », in D. Mulliez (éd.), La transmission de l'image dans l'Antiquité (1999), 65-77. Muller 2000 : A. Muller, « Artisanat, technique de production et diffusion: le cas de la coroplathie », in F. Blondé, A. Muller (éds), L'artisanat en Grèce ancienne 2. Les productions, les diffusions (2000), 91-106. Muller 2003 : A. Muller, « Fabriquer des figurines d’animaux dans l’Antiquité: techniques et matériaux », Anthropozoologica 38 (2003), 11-16. Muller 2009 : A. Muller, « De l’atelier au sanctuaire et à la tombe. La coroplathie grecque: nouvelles approches (Original French text of the conference given in Budapest in November 2008 and published in Hungarian), Okor 8/2 (2009), 62-69. Muller 2014 : A. Muller, « L’atelier du coroplathe: un cas particulier », Perspective. Revue de l'INHA 1(2014), 68-82. Muller 2018a : A. Muller, « Coroplasty, a Women’s Affair... but not Only! », Communication given to the Eidolio Symposium of Thessaloniki (11–13 October 2018). Muller 2018b : A. Muller, « Coroplastic Studies: What’s New? », ARepLond 64 (2018), 153-169. Muller, Lafli 2015 : A. Muller, E. Lafli (éds), Figurines de terre cuite en Méditerranée grecque et romaine. II: Iconographies et Contextes (2015). Muller, Lafli 2016 : A. Muller, E. Laflı (éds), Figurines de terre cuite en Méditerranée grecque et romaine. I: Production, diffusion, étude, BCH Suppl. 54 (2016). Nunn, Piening 2020 : A. Nunn, H. Piening, Mesopotamian Sculpture in Colour (2020). Oesterritter 2020 : L. Oesterritter, Mastering Kilns and Firing (2020). Renoué 2001 : M. Renoué, Sémiotique et perception esthétique (2001). Roβberger 2017 : E. Roβberger, « Re-contextualizing Clay Figurines, Models, and Plaques from Išali », Ash-Sharq 1/1 (2017), 177-186. Shea 2007 : J. J. Shea, « Microwear Analysis of the Lithic Assemblages Associated with Middle Paleolithic Homo Sapiens in Qafzeh Cave Levels XV-XXIV », Mitekufat Haeven: Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society (2007), 5-35. Sinopoli 1991 : C. M. Sinopoli. Approaches to Archaeological Ceramics (1991). Steiner 2005 : M. Steiner, Approaches to Archaeological Illustration, A Handbook. CBA Practical Handbook in Archaeology 18 (2005). Les Carnets de l’ACoSt, 23 | 2023 13 Terracottas in the Yale Babylonian Collection Thavapalan 2019 : S. Thavapalan, The Meaning of Color in Ancient Mesopotamia (2019). Ucko 1962 : P. J. Ucko, « The Interpretation of Prehistoric Anthropomorphic Figurines », The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland 92/1 (1962), 38-54. Uhlenbrock 1990 : J. P. Uhlenbrock, The Coroplast’s Art: Greek Terracottas of the Hellenistic World (1990). Uhlenbrock 1993 : J. P. Uhlenbrock, « The Study of Greek Terracottas: A Historiography of the Discipline », BHarvMus 1/3 (1993), 7-27. Uhlenbrock 2009 : J. P. Uhlenbrock, « Coroplastic Studies in the Early 21st Century », AJA 113/4 (https://www.ajaonline.org/online-review-article/633). Uhlenbrock 2013 : J. P. Uhlenbrock, « La Coroplastica Greca. Metodologie per lo studio di produzioni, contesti e immagini », Les Carnets de l’ACoSt 10 (2013) (https://doi.org/10.4000/acost. 787). Uhlenbrock 2016 : J. P. Uhlenbrock, « Research Perspectives in Coroplastic Studies: The Distribution, Trade, Diffusion, and Market Value of Greek Figurative Terracottas », Les Carnets de l’ACoSt 15 (2016) (https://journals.openedition.org/acost/926). Uhlenbrock 2019 : J. P. Uhlenbrock, « The Study of Figurative Terracottas: A Cautionary Tale from a Personal Perspective », Les Carnets de l’ACoSt 19 (2019) (http://journals.openedition.org/acost/ 1703). Buren 1930 : E. D. van Buren, Clay Figurines of Babylonia and Assyria. YOSR XVI (1930). Verhoeven 1999 : M. Verhoeven, « Traces and Spaces: Microwear Analysis and Spatial Context of Later Neolithic Flint Tools from Tell Sabi Abyad, Syria », Paléorient 25/2 (1999), 147-166. NOTES 1. And with a two-year break due to the pandemic. 2. Working at the Yale Babylonian Collection has been a special experience. For me it is one of the more intriguing Mesopotamian collections in the world. The Yale curators of the collection have been very kind and helpful, which makes the work much easier, so it is a pleasure for me to thank them: Agnete Wisti-Lassen, Klaus Wagensonner, and Eckart Frahm. 3. Van Buren 1930. 4. For this project CNRS gave me an SMI (Supports to International Mobility) for three years (2018, 2019, and 2021). But in 2021 I had to give up the funding because of the pandemic. I take this opportunity to thank CNRS and my laboratory for supporting my research. 5. Uhlenbrock 1990, 1993, 2009, 2013, 2016; Muller 1994, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2003; see also Les Carnet de l’ACoSt. 6. Terracottas of the Hellenistic period tend to be more intact than those of the pre-Classical periods. 7. For Greek terracottas see, at least Uhlenbrock 1990, 2009, 2013, 2019; Muller 1994, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2003; Muller, Laflı 2015 and 2016; and the online journal Les Carnet de l’ACoSt. For the Near East see Moorey 2004; Battini 2017a; Martin, Langin-Hooper 2018; Roβberger 2018; Langin-Hooper 2020. See also Ucko 1962, Cazzella 1987 and Lesure 2011, who, although focused on prehistoric figurines, have interesting insights. 8. About the exchanges between popular and official art see Battini 2015. And about the possibility of exchanges between Mesopotamian cities see my forthcoming book on the ‘geese goddess.’ Les Carnets de l’ACoSt, 23 | 2023 14 Terracottas in the Yale Babylonian Collection 9. Especially Uhlenbrock (1990, 1993, 2009, 2013, 2016, 2019) and Muller (1994, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2003, 2009, 2014, 2018a, 2018b). 10. Similar issues are found in the studies undertaken by the curators of the Yale Babylonian Collection. See for example Lassen 2017 and 2020; Lassen et al. 2019; Lassen, Wagensonner 2020. 11. Ingold 2007, 2009, 2012. 12. Arneheim 1969, Barry 1997 13. Battini 2017a: certain three-dimensional models have lost the divine figure that once filled them. In any case, in the models that have kept the divine figure or that have lost it, the free space inside allows us to think that offerings, flowers or perfumes could have been placed there. 14. For archaeological drawing see: Adkins, Adkins 1989; Sinopoli 1991; Banning 2000, 185-210; Griffiths et al. 2002; Steiner 2005, 9-22; Collett 2017. 15. For ceramics and modelling: Atkin 2005; for firing techniques, Cordova 2022, 160-166; Oesterritter 2020. 16. Battini 2021. 17. A 8435 : https://oi-idb.uchicago.edu/id/ae766ad3-bf50-43d3-8297-ad84d90f38fc 18. Renoué 2001. 19. Except the chariots, which are lighter, between 100 and 560 grams. 20. Because it is related to magic. 21. The paint helpes to hide the poor quality of the paste. 22. Battini 2022. 23. As in other artistic genres: cf. Nunn et al. 2020; Thavapalan 2019. 24. Princely tombs of Nimrud (Hussein 2016, 6-9). The erotic terracotta has been studied by Battini (2017b, 49-51). 25. For example, at Ur, see Battini 1999, 216-220. 26. Battini 2017a. 27. This is a topic not previously explored for Near Eastern coroplasty. I have borrowed from scattered articles that deal only rarely with ceramics (e.g., Verhoeven 1999 and Shea 2007). ABSTRACTS This article presents a publication project concerning the terracottas in the Yale Babylonian Collection that began in 2018, suspended by the pandemic, and resumed in 2022. After defining the difficulties and the methodology, it presents an overview of the study and concludes by describing the publication plan. INDEX Keywords: terracottas, coroplastic, context, technique, paste, firing, fingerprints, traces of tools, paint, Old Babylonian, Neo-Assyrian, Neo-Babylonian, Hellenistic, figurines, plaques, and threedimensional models, handmade, mold-made, portability vs. non- portability Les Carnets de l’ACoSt, 23 | 2023 15 Terracottas in the Yale Babylonian Collection AUTHOR LAURA BATTINI UMR 7192, CNRS-PSL [email protected] Les Carnets de l’ACoSt, 23 | 2023 16