M. Blečić Kavur 2017 - Small bodies in a big world: anthropo-ornithomorphic Iron Age pendants from Caput Adriae (original) (raw)
Related papers
Masken der Vorzeit in Europa (II). Internationale Tagung vom 19. bis 21. November 2010 in Halle (Saale), Tagungen des Landesmuseums für Vorgeschichte Halle Band 7, 2012
The anthropomorphic representations made in silver can be divided in two groups of objects, each with its own distinctive characteristics, distribution and chronology. In the first or Liburnian group, most likely datable to 3rd-2nd century BC, the representations of women heads have large eyes and lips, and a characteristic neck ornament (necklace or part of dress), with examples on pendants (Baška, Sisak), but also on flat Liburnian brooches (Nin) or a belt buckle (Asseria). The second, Iapodic group is presented by the stylized small heads or full figures on thin silver foil pendants. Based on grave associations from the Una valley cemeteries and the Lički Ribnik hoard and other analogies (Židovar), this group is datable to the last century BC. We found both categories in Sisak, an intermediary point, showing that influences, ideas and objects surely travelled in both directions.
in C.-E. Ursu, A. Poruciuc, C.-M. Lazarovici (eds.), Symbols and Signs as a Communication System. In Memory of Gheorghe Dumitroaia, Suceava, 2017
Made of different materials, the body ornamenting items acquired in time a multitude of valences illustrating both the development degree of certain communities and their relations with the neighbors, and their artistic taste and, especially, being the bearers of messages which had to be understood and revealed. Archeological finds belonging to the Ariușd-Cucuteni-Tripolye cultural complex provided extremely varied items bringing to light complex information on the topic. This paper focuses on the identification of several types of replicas present among the body ornamenting items belonging to the Cucuteni-Tripolye communities, based on both the exceptional artifacts within hoards and on isolated items found in settlements. In our view their analysis reveals several types of behavioral mechanisms covering, indirectly, a different symbolism.
Histria archaeologica 49/2018, 2019
Objects, especially decorative ones, play a central role in the mediation of heterogeneous social identities and their dimensions, and jewellery and adornment were, in a way, a symbolical representation of consciousness, thoughts, and form of existence. In the (non)verbal communication of the Iron Age social structures, the aesthetics of decorating oneself with symbolic jewellery has always served as a mediator of social, ideological, and religious concepts within their narrow community and within more widely accepted trends. The pectoral pendants from Grobnik are conceptually well-designed and artfully presented, and therefore, as a medium of a specific metaphorical message, they are interesting and suitable for new studies and various new understandings. This article, therefore, elaborates on the typological-stylistic analysis, iconographic syntax, comparison, and, where possible, the archaeological context of the pendants, for their better chronological positioning at the end of the Early Iron Age. Although their art expression is essentially reduced to a sign/symbol, semantically speaking, they were extremely powerful. As amulets, talismans, or good luck charms, despite often being rather sketchy and in a fragmented state, they mediated between the present and the past, shaping identities through their physical and metaphysical circulation, which is why their interpretation is presented from different aspects, and with a wider understanding of the Iron Age symbol aesthetics.
Material culture occupies a special place in most research conducted on Antiquity and the Middle Ages. Interdisciplinary approaches have allowed for the enrichment of traditional paradigms used by archaeologists and historians, as a follow-up to the valorisation of the social life of things, or of the agency characterising objects in any given society. Objects which are deliberately associated are more susceptible of becoming expressive in the presence of humans. From this perspective, associating objects, and exploring potential reasons for their association and for their compatibility, opens up multiple possibilities for reflection. Organisers: Ecaterina Lung (University of Bucharest), Alexandra Liţu (University of Bucharest), Alexandra Ţârlea (University of Bucharest). https://istorie.unibuc.ro/cercetare/conferinte/communicating-objects-material-literary-and-iconographic-instances-of-objects-in-a-human-universe-in-antiquity-and-the-middle-ages/
Anthropomorphic Symbols on Neolithic Vessels from Puglia
Open Archaeology, 2021
In Puglia, human representations on vessels were widespread from the Early Neolithic. Some of these have been interpreted as faces, but they could also be representations of the entire body complete with torso, arms and legs: these include some recently studied symbols from Grotta dei Cervi, which have been compared with others from Grotta delle Veneri, whose published descriptions are open to revision. From this starting point, the scope of the research was expanded to include all documented anthropomorphic symbols on Neolithic vessels from southeast Italy, taking account of their chronology, origin and context. It was possible to establish that in the sixth millennium BC, there were three different categories of human representation in Puglia: vessels decorated with human faces (face vessels), vessels decorated with wholebody human figures and vessels in the shape of human beings (anthropomorphic vessels). Some faces include all elements, while others have just some of them (e.g. the nose). In addition, some faces have extra elements such as bands or bundles of lines that can be interpreted as tattoos, beards, ornaments or clothes. The symbols may be representations of praying figures, dancers, high status or powerful members of the community, ancestors and even gods, who were tasked with either protecting the community or acting as an intermediary between the community offering the vessel and the deity of the underworld. This study examines the presence of these artefacts in settlements, caves and other cult sites, with the aim of describing this distinctive phenomenon that was particularly characteristic of Puglia during the Early Neolithic.
S. Valentini, G. Guarducci, and N. Laneri (eds.), Archaeology of Symbols: ICAS I. Proceedings of the First International Congress on the Archaeology of Symbols (MaReA vol 3), Oxford: Oxbow, 2024
This third volume in the Material Religion in Antiquity series stems from the First International Congress on the Archaeology of Symbols (ICAS I) that took place in Florence in May 2022. The archaeological process of reconstructing and understanding our past has undergone several reassessments in the last century, producing an equal number of new perspectives and approaches. The recent materiality turn emphasises the necessity to ground those achievements in order to build fresh avenues of interpretation and reach new boundaries in the study of the human kind and its ecology. Symbols must not be conceived only as allegory but also, and perhaps mainly, as reason (raison d'être) and meaning (culture). They may be considered key elements leading to interpretation, not only in their physical manifestation but by being infused with the gestures, beliefs and intentions of their creators, created in a specifi c context and with a specifi c chaîne opératoire. In this volume a variety of case studies is offered, representing disparate ancient cultures in the Mediterranean and central Europe and the Near East. The thread that connects them revolves around the prominence of symbols and allegorical aspects in archaeology, whether they are considered as expressions of iconographic evidence, material culture or ritual ceremonies, seen from a multicultural perspective. This (and subsequent ICAS) volumes, therefore, aims to embrace all the different aspects pertaining to symbols in archaeology in a specific 'place', allowing the reader to deepen their knowledge of such a fascinating and multifaceted topic, by looking at it from a multicultural perspective.
Documenta Praehistorica, 2019
The Necropolis of Chirnogi-Suvita Iorgulescu (Calarasi county) was located on the high terrace of the Danube and was investigated by Done Serbanescu (in 1989) by means of the archaeological excavations carried out for the construction of the Danube-Bucharest Channel. For this study, we analysed the archaeological assemblage preserved in the Museum of Gumelnita civilization from Oltenita (Calarasi county) coming from 10 graves, out of a total of 58, which are attributed to the Gumelnita culture (the second half of the 5 th millennium BC). The personal adornments are mainly bracelets made of Spondylus valve (16 specimens) which appear in most of the graves, along with an equal number of perforated plates made of Sus scrofa canine, this time the pieces being grouped into two graves. The funeral inventory is complemented by small cylindrical, tubular or biconvex beads, made of various raw materials: Spondylus valve, bone, malachite, coop-er and green slate. At the technical level, attention is drawn towards the technological transformation scheme of the raw material, which is extremely uniform for the two main categories of ornaments. Also, the analysed pieces showed different degrees of use-wear, demonstrating on the one hand that they were worn before the deposition in graves, and on the other that the accumulation of these items took place over time.
Semiotics of Prehisroric Artifacts: the Channels of Communication between Present and Past
Sign character of language, communication process, Fine Art, religion and others symbolic forms, has been for long time proved and several philosophers, aestheticians and semiotics as such give her sufficient attention.It must be admitted that the basic analysis is reduced and solely focused on the function, structure and usage of signs researched by linguistic approach. This traditional model of linguistic interpretation is neededto bear in mind for applications of semiotics theories. Despite morphological analyses of non-linguistic forms, for example: Fine Art, religion and culture (in general) often occurs situation when others non-lingual structures are not inserted in the research of communication process. It includes artefacts which shows some frame of Reference and are adapted for communications of some character (they use specific language) with recipient (among themselves) but how deeper to the past we come the harder we know to identify any of concrete reference. It´s possible that in the past artefacts of everyday (and cult) use entered to the communication with the user more active and intensively like in present. The given paper focuses on the period of human history of which we have knowledge only by archeology and different analogies from present. The examination will be dealt with semiotic of communication which were created, or could be created by prehistoric artefacts on examples of Slovakian Iron Age eligible for generalizingconclusionsvalid for thesigns and symbols(as such) of whole prehistoric artefacts. It would be also needed these findings raise so that they are determining and helpful for aesthetic interpretation of given artefacts and so detect possible “language” of production or perception of prehistoric objects. By reason of interrupted, modified, forgotten or maximally changed tradition, the knowledge of concrete meaning and reference (content of information) eithersymbols orcharacters are missing. This meaning is still mediated but during the time it become illegible with the loss of the “key” and therefore the research must be based on theories of different semantics, semiotics, aesthetics, philosophers and others theorist and methodologically test the application of each theories and notions. A similar problematic was debated by the author in the conference appearance in Presov. Of the main importance were texts from E. Casirer, N. Goodman and W. Dawis and “iconological analysis” of Celtic coins from L. Lengyel which offers the identification of form with certain content, mainly with mythological scenes. The given piece of paper focused more on reconsideration and determination of accurate use of the terms like symbol, representation, ornament and stylized representation in the scenes on Slovakian Celtic coins. By the preferring of term symbol (with his denotative function), the issue gradually and marginally passed into semiotic. Also later with reconsideration, modification and subsequently by application of iconological and cosmological analysis of symbols and scenes of “Celtic Fine Art” from M. Aldhouse – Green was created issue also presented in Presov. Author returned to the semiotic line of research with the issue about aesthetic analyses of thraco-scythian horizon artefacts which was presented on the conference in Ostrava and at the same time it became the first space where were prehistoric artefacts considered as the elements of communication (discourse). The results were limited to the relation myth – artefact (as symbol, respectively the representant of myth) – recipient and thus to the communication with the mythological space through artefacts but the author divined at the same time that the analysis of frame of Reference must be more detailed and wider. All reported issues (conference) had lead to concerns about relation: “artefact – recipient – reference” and thus about discourse as such and became motivating for the creation of semiotic analysis in order to determine the place of artefacts in the aesthetic perception of prehistoric man. The given analysis would be much wider in the range of authors and deeper and detailed in the defined issue. In the selecting of contributors author would be not limited on well known names (E. Cassirer, U. Eco, L. Lengyel, E. Panowský, W. Dawis, Moritz, Schiller, C. G. Jung, C. Levy-Strauss, N. Goodman, J. Mukařovský, W. Krug, K. Solger and others) but he will also work with a tradition of Slovak theorist (Bakoš?, P. Bujnák, A. Vandrák, M. Greguš, P. K. Z. Hostinský) and so offer methodologically rich but compact unit researched the chosen artefacts and their character function. The key effort would be the attempt to prove that the character function of artefacts is present; that the researched artefact has it place in communication (discourse) and also that the understanding of place of objects sui generis in the world of prehistoric man is determining for aesthetic interpretation. The main aims of this piece of paper are the followings: 1. make an opinion on the use of concept sign for prehistoric artefacts; 2. support the hypothesis of the possible functioning of prehistoric artefacts as resources in the communication process (language, discourse) of prehistoric society; 3. allocate the frame of reference for prehistoric and present recipient (comunicant, medium, recipient?) and define the process of transaction and its impact on the change of artefacts reception, their interpretation and communication-able; 4. through the semiotic approach provide one of the possible methodologies of aesthetic interpretation of prehistoric artifacts; 5. Explore the principle of communication-able of artefacts and 6. present structure, operation and function of discourse and name its constituents/facilities in application on prehistory. Central purpose of the study is to undermine the assumption that communication as such (speech, language) is limited (except speech, facial expression, gesture) on objects in which are content/reference/information obvious (Fine Art). In the spotlight of given issue is extralinguistic area of discourse and knowledge of its structure could help to identify the model of interpretation suitable for aesthetic research of prehistoric artefacts. We could therefore talk about paralinguistic reference relation between object (as a proxy for some information, or sign entering into communication) and his recipient.