Заглавная страница Избранные статьи Случайная статья Познавательные статьи Новые добавления Обратная связь КАТЕГОРИИ: АрхеологияБиология Генетика География Информатика История Логика Маркетинг Математика Менеджмент Механика Педагогика Религия Социология Технологии Физика Философия Финансы Химия Экология ТОП 10 на сайте Приготовление дезинфицирующих растворов различной концентрацииТехника нижней прямой подачи мяча. Франко-прусская война (причины и последствия) Организация работы процедурного кабинета Смысловое и механическое запоминание, их место и роль в усвоении знаний Коммуникативные барьеры и пути их преодоления Обработка изделий медицинского назначения многократного применения Образцы текста публицистического стиля Четыре типа изменения баланса Задачи с ответами для Всероссийской олимпиады по праву Мы поможем в написании ваших работ! ЗНАЕТЕ ЛИ ВЫ?
Влияние общества на человека
Приготовление дезинфицирующих растворов различной концентрации Практические работы по географии для 6 класса Организация работы процедурного кабинета Изменения в неживой природе осенью Уборка процедурного кабинета Сольфеджио. Все правила по сольфеджио Балочные системы. Определение реакций опор и моментов защемления |
Many structures discovered at Early Bronze Age sites have been interpreted as
Shrines, based foremost on the equipment which consists of anthropomorphic figu- Rines and vessels. Mentioned most often in this context are tower R in the Southern 79 Gate of Troy I (where stone stelae were discovered, one with a carved human face), the ‘shrines’ from successive phases of Troy (II, III and Vb), from phase B in Kusura 8 * and layer 9 M at Alisjar Höyük, 82 the megaron from layer 12 of the Kältepe Mound, and the shrines from layers XI and X-VIII at Pulur on the Upper Euphra- R- 85 tes (where altars were identified, as in the Hall Complex at nearby Korucutepe'). But unlike the Mesopotamian and Syrian temples from the same period, the Anatolian ones (possibly with the exception of the megaron in Kültepe) were not distinguished 76 Frangipane 2003: 15411., Figs 4 & 5. Cf. Frangipane 2003: 157: “Arslantepe period VII pottery, for exampie, has its own formal Features, with nothing in common with Early or Middle Urufc potterv.” Gates F.; Fi Vmgipane 1997; 20C 13; 154, 158, Figs 4 & 6: cf, also Sharp Joukowsky 1996: 178, Cf. M Eliaart 1959b: Sharp Jouko’ Ivsky 1996: 149, 150 Fig. 5.5. Melk Art 1959b: 15S L; ef, also Popko IS )95a: 41. - § La mb PL Va; 1973: 28. Schm Idt 1932: 33ff. , 90, j Cf. LI Fig. 34. See also 3 Viel link 1958: 93f.; 1983: 175f. VCT joon - Gütertx Ick 1972; van Loon I (ed.) 1978: 20tf. Ohalcouthic and Early Bronze Age 21 In any way from the surrounding architeeture. In most cases, they presumably rep Resented dornestic cults. The best evidence of cult has been recorded in the shrines which constituted an Integral part of the yillage architeeture from layers XVII-XIV at Beycesultan. Two Twin shrines were discovered in successive phases. Each was composed of a main Chamber and a small adjacent room. The most important element of the aitar on The east side of the room was a double clay stela covered with a layer of plaster. In Front of it there was a hearth with a characteristic pot-stand in the form of horns And behind it, vessels or clay basins sunk into the floor. The excavators interpreted A hole in the floor in front of the stelae as a place for a wooden pole. The structure With an outlet charmel, situated by the north wall, was interpreted as an aitar for Blood sacrifices. The shrines yieided numerous violin-shaped Idols of stone and 87 ■ votive vessels. But contrary to what can be read in the literature,' there is abso- Lutely no evidence for a pair of deities, a goddess and her male partner, having been Worshiped here. The most important testimony of domestic cult found at many sites are natural- Istic and schematic female statuettes, as well as anthropomorphic and zoomorphic Vessels known already from the late Neolithic, e.g., from layer VI at Hacilar and Kösjk Höyük. Vessels of this kind from the Early Bronze Age have been recorded at Troy starting from layer II, 9 as well as Demircihöyük near Eski§ehir, Karahöyük in the Konya Plain, and AIi§ar Höyük near Yozgat. Mentions of similar vessels in Hittite texts from the second millennium BC lead to the assumption that they were Used in cult praetiees also in earlier times.
The tradition of small anthropomorphic statuary in Anatolia goes back to the Neolithic. Female imagery predominates; male figures do not occur before the EB III Period. Among nearly 1000 anthropomorphic statuettes known to date from the Chal Colithic and Early Bronze Age, 1 the biggest number is schematic, the most typical Shape being the so-called violin-shaped idols from Western Anatolia and the EB III Lloyd - Meilaart 1957; 1962: 37; Yakar 1974; cf. also Sharp Joukowsky 1996: 158f. See n. 86. 88 Greaves — Helwing 2003: 80 (vessel in the shape of a deer’s he ad); Schoop 2005: 1.18; Yildmm — Gates 2007: 280 (an anthropomorphic pot). Cf. Sharp Joukowsky 1996: 154ff. Meilaart 1963b: 216. fig. 10. Bilgi 1972, See now Makowski 2005 with referenees. 22 Pbkuistoric Anatolia Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age Cappadoeian alabaster idols with discoid bodies and with one to four heads set
|
|||||
Последнее изменение этой страницы: 2022-09-03; просмотров: 59; Нарушение авторского права страницы; Мы поможем в написании вашей работы! infopedia.su Все материалы представленные на сайте исключительно с целью ознакомления читателями и не преследуют коммерческих целей или нарушение авторских прав. Обратная связь - 3.22.249.158 (0.01 с.) |