Anthropomorphic figurines from the north Caucasus.

Anthropomorphic figurines from the north Caucasus. A report on human representations in cast bronze and terracotta froma Late Bronze Age Bronze Age,period in the development of technology when metals were first used regularly in the manufacture of tools and weapons. Pure copper and bronze, an alloy of copper and tin, were used indiscriminately at first; this early period is sometimes called the cemetery near Grozni in the Checken region of thenorthwest Caucasus.The brilliant culture of the Late Bronze Age in the north Caucasian North Caucasus may mean: North Caucasus North Caucasian languages North Caucasian peoples region is well known from the distinctive sites of Koban type. Duringthe last 30 years, new bronze items have been found on the territory ofthe Koban culture The Koban culture (ca. 1100 to 400 BC) is a late Bronze Age and Iron Age culture of the northern and central Caucasus. It is preceded by the Colchian culture of the western Caucasus. especially in its eastern part (Krupnov 1960;Kozenkova 1977; 1982).The Sergen-jurt cemeteryThe remarkable and technologically complicated anthropomorphic Having the characteristics of a human being. For example, an anthropomorphic robot has a head, arms and legs. objects described here, a good evidence of an ancient rich and complexspiritual life, were found in the Sergen-jurt cemetery in the valley ofthe Hulhulau river, near to Grozni in the northwestern Caucasus datingto the 10th/9th centuries BC.Bronze pin from tomb N 41In tomb N 41 a bronze pin has been found which is a real masterpieceof ancient art. It is 17 cm long with round shaft and smoothed surface.The pin is crowned by a rectangular plate on which stand tiny femalestatuettes. The three figurines of young girls hold hands. The right andthe left press one hand to the breast. The base of the figurines isdecorated with six oblique incisions. There is a hole in the upper partof the pin. The object is probably made by lost-wax casting techniques.This splendid piece, obviously a part of a very complicated head-dressof the woman interred in the tomb, could indicate her high social rank.Although the pin from tomb N 41 has no close analogies, it is verysimilar to other anthropomorphic figures of Koban plastic art,especially to ones from its central area at the time of its flowering,12th-9th centuries BC (Uvarnova 1900; Tekhov 1977; Domansky 1984). Somebronze figurines of nude women were found also in the mid-1st-millenniumBC shrines of the north Caucasian and Daghestan mountains (Markovin1986).The three girls on the top of the pin evoke the Greek myth of theThree Graces -- attendants of Aphrodite Aphrodite(ăfrədī`tē), in Greek religion and mythology, goddess of fertility, love, and beauty. Homer designated her the child of Zeus and Dione. who personified feminine charm,brilliance and joy of life. In the Caucasus this subject is moreancient, a chronological difference which provokes the supposition thatthe Greeks adopted it from here -- like the myth of Prometheus, chainedto a Caucasian rock.Bronze pin from tomb N 81Another pin of high artistic quality was found in tomb N 81 ofSergen-jurt cemetery, dated a little earlier than tomb N 41. This pin,8.6 cm long with a round shaft, and a detail of dress decoration,probably pinned the cloak. On its top a human bust is placed, handsraised in 'adorant' pose, with rugged features -- large nose,heavy chin, large protruding pro��trude?v. pro��trud��ed, pro��trud��ing, pro��trudesv.tr.To push or thrust outward.v.intr.To jut out; project. See Synonyms at bulge. ears. The clearly indicated breasts showthat it is a female representation. On the reverse side of the figurineis a loop. The pin was also made by the lost-wax technique.Like the first, this very individual object has no exact analogy. Itsstyle and canonical pose of 'adorant' may be compared with thebronze female figurines from early tombs of the Koban cemetery (Virchov1883) and later ones from different Caucasus sites (Markovin 1986). Thepin from tomb N 81 may be one of the most ancient items with'adorant' representation made of bronze, taking anintermediate position in the evolutionary line from clay to metal'adorant' figurines. More than 70 clay statuettes of this typewere discovered in the habitation HABITATION, civil law. It was the right of a person to live in the house of another without prejudice to the property. 2. It differed from a usufruct in this, that the usufructuary might have applied the house to any purpose, as, a store or manufactory; whereas site near Sergen-jurt cemetery thatbelongs to the Bronze-Early Iron Age (Kozenkova 1977).Figurines of 'praying men'Anthropomorphic figurines, with arms stretched up and forward, arerather primitive but demonstrate the pose of a praying man. Inpublishing the clay figurines (Kozenkova 1966), I supposed that bothclay and bronze 'adorant' statuettes represented the samesubject, characteristic of Caucasian art from very ancient times. Theclay 'adorant' sculptures of the Sergen-jurt settlement werefound near a bowl-shaped hearth which certainly had a sacral sacral/sa��cral/ (sa��kral) pertaining to the sacrum. sa��craladj.In the region of or relating to the sacrum.sacral,adj pertaining to the sacrum. function,arguing for the ritual character of the clay figurine and -- by analogy-- to the bronze pin.DiscussionTo produce a figurine in bronze demands more labour and skill than inclay. I propose they were used during solemn rituals, includingfunerals, which is why the bronze figurines are found usually in tombsor in the special places on the mountain peaks where pagan gods wereworshipped (Kruglov 1946). In the settlements, clay idols were usedinstead; in spite of their primitiveness, it is clear that the ancientartist aimed to match the pose and gesture of the bronze model.The majority of specialists consider that the anthropomorphicsculptures were connected with ideology and beliefs of the ancientCaucasian population, to whom they possibly represented gods likeShamash or Zeus (Zakharov 1928; 1933; Djavakhishvily & Glonty 1962;Tzitlanadze 1976). This supposition is based on ethnological eth��nol��o��gy?n.1. The science that analyzes and compares human cultures, as in social structure, language, religion, and technology; cultural anthropology.2. datadescribing the survivals of pagan cults, whose rites conserved evidenceabout their wide use in sacral ceremonies of the anthropomorphic idols:Telepinus-Tulepia of Georgians, Kviria of Pshavas and Hevsurs, Tusholiof the Chechens and Ingushes, etc. (Djanashin 1917; Shilling 1931;Semenov 1951; Bardavelidze 1957).By analogy with later objects one can consider that theanthropomorphic figurines from Sergen-jurt cemetery and settlement werethe artistic picture of powerful forces of Nature which stronglyinfluenced the human fate. Some might represent the gods of fertility,others the ancestor images and spirit-patrons of the family. Aconnection with primitive magic is probable: they had some artificialdepressions on the body and arms. There is a supposition that thefigurines might also represent the dancers, participants of ritualceremonies (Amiranashvily 1963) possibly similar to Dionysian mysteries The Dionysian Mysteries probably began as an ancient initiation society, or family of similar societies, centred on a primeval nature god (and his consort), apparently associated with horned animals, serpents and solitary predators (primarily big cats), later known to the Greeks in .The anthropomorphic items from Sergen-jurt and neighbouring sitesgive information about the origin and development of this plastic art inthe Chechen-Ingushian region. One can look for its roots in the NearEast and Asia Minor. Although clay representations of human beings arenot so abundant at the early Caucasian sites as in Neolithic andEneolithic Mesopotamia, Asia Minor, Syria and North Iraq, it is possibleto see, at any case from the Early Bronze Age, a specifically Caucasianstyle of human figurines. Soviet scholars (A.A. Zakharov, B.A. Kuftin,Sh. Amiranashvily, V.I. Markovin et al.) showed that the idea of asimple adoption of plastic art into the Caucasus from the south,expressed in the 1920s (Muller 1929), was absolutely incorrect. Theoriginal character of Caucasian style and its independent developmentwere convincingly demonstrated. In view of all the clay and bronzeanthropomorphic sculptures discovered, it is quite clear that thefigurines from the settlements and cemetery of the late 2nd to early 1stmillennium BC were not an occasional phenomenon but the result of a longdevelopment of artistic traditions.The finds from Kvatzhelebi, Amiranis-gora, Shresh-blur, and theseEarly Bronze Age items from the Sergen-jurt settlement, testify not toan identity in shape between the Caucasian and the southern figurinesbut to a similarity in their primitive style. In the Caucasus thisstyle, characteristic of clay statuettes, was later influenced by bronzemetallurgy, when a new type of clay figurine appeared with moresophisticated shapes imitating bronze prototypes.From this point, figurines of clay and bronze developed in parallel.The inter-dependent development moved from primitive clay sculptures tomore complicated objects in both materials. Bronze, and the possibilityof considerable sophistication so��phis��ti��cate?v. so��phis��ti��cat��ed, so��phis��ti��cat��ing, so��phis��ti��catesv.tr.1. To cause to become less natural, especially to make less naive and more worldly.2. in objects, was itself directly connectedwith skill in clay work when making moulds for lost-wax casting.B.A. Kuftin (1949), pointing to the intimate link between clay andbronze sculpture bronze sculpture.Bronze is ideal for casting art works; it flows into all crevices of a mold, thus perfectly reproducing every detail of the most delicately modeled sculpture. It is malleable beneath the graver's tool and admirable for repoussé work. , explained the primitiveness of bronze objects byreference to models made from clay prototypes. In his opinion thesignificant role belonged 'to necessity and tradition to useterracotta in one occasion and to pass to the metal object inanother'.It seems unconvincing un��con��vinc��ing?adj.Not convincing: gave an unconvincing excuse.un to explain the appearance in the Caucasus ofbronze anthropomorphic sculptures only by Syro-Hittite influence, asTallgren (1930) supposed. The majority of Caucasian bronze figurines aredistinct from those from Asia Minor. The similarity is more inideological significance than in shape, a similarity which originatednot in direct Phoenician or Hittite influence but in the existence ofsome personages sharing the same meaning in Caucasian and Near Easternmythology (Bossert 1942; Antonova 1977). Only the statuettes of a nakedgod in helmet and with belt might be explained by direct adoption fromSyria. These, found mainly in Daghestan, demonstrated featurescharacteristic in Syro-Hittite art -- a circumstance which does not ruleout the independent development of anthropomorphic plastic art theCaucasian late Bronze and early Iron ages.In comparison with Near Eastern sculpture, the Caucasian one isarchaic, conserving the old tradition side by side with the new, as wesee in the discovery of very archaic figurines in the late Bronze toearly Iron Age deposit of the Sergen-jurt settlement. Anothercharacteristic of Caucasian sculpture is the prevalence of animalrepresentations; at Sergen-jurt the anthropomorphic figurines made uponly 6% of all sculpture.This group of anthropomorphic statuettes thus throws light on ancientCaucasian ideology, giving evidence both about the origin of localplastic art and the interdependence of ceramic and metal sculpture.ReferencesAMIRANASHVILY, SH. 1963. The history of Georgian art. Moscow.ANTONOVA, E.V. 1977. The anthropomorphic sculpture of the ancientagriculturalists of western and central Asia. Moscow.BARDAVELIDZE, V.V. 1957. The most ancient religious beliefs andritual graphic art of Georgians. Tbilisi: Metsniereba.BOSSERT, H.TH. 1942. Altanatolian. Berlin.DJANASHIA, N. 1917. The Abkhasian cult and everyday life. TheChristian east 5(3), 2.DJAVAKHISHVILY, A.I. & L.I. GLONTY. 1962. Urbnisi: thearchaeological excavations of 1954-61 at Kvatzhelebi settlement.Tbilisi: Metsniereba.DOMANSKI, G.V. 1984. The ancient bronze art in the State Hermitage Hermitage, museum, St. Petersburg, RussiaHermitage(ĕr'mētäzh`), museum in St. Petersburg, Russia, one of the world's foremost houses of art. It was reconstructed in the neoclassical style in the 19th cent. collection. Moscow: Iskusstvo.ESAJAN, S.A. 1980. The sculpture of ancient Armenia. Erevan:Publication of the Academy of Sciences.KOZENKOVA, V.I. 1966. The anthropomorphic statuettes fromSergen-jurt. (Brief Communication of the Institute of Archaeology The Institute of Archaeology is an academic department of University College London (UCL), in the United Kingdom. The Institute is located in a separate building at the north end of Gordon Square, Bloomsbury. of theAcademy of Sciences of USSR USSR:see Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. 108.)1977. Koban culture: eastern region. Moscow: Nauka. (Collection ofarchaeological data of USSR B2-5.)1982. Typology typology/ty��pol��o��gy/ (ti-pol��ah-je) the study of types; the science of classifying, as bacteria according to type. typologythe study of types; the science of classifying, as bacteria according to type. and chronological classification of Koban cultureobjects: eastern region. Moscow: Nauka. (Collection of archaeologicaldata of USSR B2-52.)1989. Koban culture of Caucasus: the European steppes inScytho-Sarmatian epoch. Moscow: Nauka. (Archaeology of USSR.)KRUPNOV, E.I. 1960. The ancient history of North Caucasus The North Caucasus is the northern part of the Caucasus region between Europe and Asia. The term is also used as a synonym for the North Caucasus Economical Region of Russia. . Moscow:Nauka.KUFTIN, B.A. 1949. The material for archaeology of Kholhida 1.Tbilisi: Metsniereba.MARKOVIN, V.I. 1986. The ritual plastic art of Caucasus. Moscow:Nauka. (New in the archaeology of north Caucasus.)MULLER, W. 1929. Fruhe Plastik in Griechenland und Kleinastien.Augsburg.SEMENOV, L.P. 1951. The monument of Ossetian ancient cult/the bronzeidol head from the Nahr village. (Materials and investigations in thearchaeology of USSR 23.)SHILLING, E. 1931. Ingushes and Chechens. Moscow. (Religious beliefsof the USSR peoples 2.)TALLGREN, A.M. 1930. Kaukasische anthropomorphe Figuren und derVorderasiatische Kulturkreis. Berlin. (Jahrbuch fur Prahistorischeethnographische Kunst.)TEKHOV, B.V. 1977. Central Caucasus in XVI-X centuries BC. Moscow:Nauka.TZITLANADZE, L.G. 1976. Archaeological sites of Khevi (Kazbektreasure). Tbilisi.UVAROVA, P.S. 1900. The cemeteries of North Caucasus. Moscow.(Materials for Caucasian archaeology 8.)VIRCHOW, R. 1883. Dos Graberfeld yon Koban. Atlas. Berlin: Asher.ZAKHAROV, A.A. 1928. Caucasus, Asia Minor and Aegean world:Proceedings of the Archaeological Section In archaeology a section is a view in part of the archaeological sequence showing it in the vertical plane, as a cross section, and thereby illustrating its profile and stratigraphy. This may make it easier to view and interpret as it developed over time. of the Institute ofArchaeology and Art. Moscow. (Russian Association of the Institutes forSocial Sciences. (RANION) 2.)1963. Material for the archaeology of the Caucasus: anthropomorphicbronze statuettes, Swiatowit 15.