Araştırma Makalesi
BibTex RIS Kaynak Göster

PREHISTORİK DÖNEMDE KARIŞIK VARLIKLAR VE GÜCÜN TEMSİLİ

Yıl 2018, , 97 - 124, 01.10.2018

Sevgi Dönmez

https://doi.org/10.1501/Tarar_0000000695

Öz

A great change in humankind's cognitive and symbolic world with the start of the Upper Paleolithic period around 40 thousand B.C.E. Depicted works of art describing hybrid creatures have emerged during the Upper Paleolithic period in parallel with emergence of hunter cultures. Ancient forms of Shamanism, a popular belief system among hunter cultures, had an effect on emergence of these hybrid figures. Imitation of the strong and the intelligent within the animal kingdom and the humankind's thirst for merging developing its physical and intellectual capacity with this power are among the main dynamics behind emergence of hybrid figures. The humankind of the Upper Paleolithic period, which has seen the world with a sense of permeability among species and an animalistic sensitivity and vigor, had a cognitive world within which things and humans must have been at the same level and forming a unity. During breakage of this unity and a sense of "togetherness," the hunter tries to balance the fear and suspense caused by prohibition of violence against those that exist at the same level and spiritual unity with mythical thinking. Prohibition of violence gave way to a cognitive status that identifies with the prey. This new symbolic consciousness which has emerged during the Upper Paleolithic period has tried to find a balance between controlling the suspense and fear caused by violence directed against the strong and the wild and the strength of the victim. While there were human-animal hybrids at first, emergence of hybrids of multiple animals and humans during the Neolithic period is of vital importance, as this shows the level of cognitive development of the humankind. Because cultural permeability, continuity, and mobility were substantially prevalent in hunter-gathering societies this study focused on two regions especially where the hybrid symbols are intensively seen, the Upper Paleolithic Europe and Neolithic Near East

Anahtar Kelimeler

Hybrid Beings Symbolic Threshold Hunter-gathering Cultures

Kaynakça

  • Bailey, D., Prehistoric Figurines: Representation and Corporeality in the Neolithic, Roudledge Taylor and Francis Group, London and New York 2005.
  • Bataille, G., Prehistoric Painting: Lascaux or the Birth of the Art (The Great Centuries of Painting), Trans: A. Wainhouse, Switzerland, Skira 1955.
  • Beal, T. K., Religion and Its Monsters, Roudledge Press, New York 2002.
  • Belfer-Cohen, A. and O., Bar-Yosef, 2002, “Early Sedentism in the Near East: A Bumpy Ride to Village Life”, G. M. Feinman and T.D. Price (eds.) Life in Neolithic Differentation, Kluwer Academic Publishers, New York et al, 2002, pp. 19-37. Social Organization, Identity, and
  • Borić, D., “Images of Animality: Hybrid Bodies and Mimesis in Early Prehistoric Art”, C. Renfrew and I. Morley (eds.) Image and Imagination: a global prehistory of figurative representation, Oxford: Oxbow Books, 2007 pp. 89-105.
  • Breuil, H. A., Four Hundred Centuries of Cave Art. Centre d’Études et de Documentation Préhistoriques, Trans: M. E. Boyle, Montignac 1952.
  • Carter, E., “On Human and Animal Sacrifice in the Late Neolithic at Domuztepe”, A. M. Porter and G. M. Schwartz (eds.) Sacred Killing The Archaeology of Sacrifice in the Ancient Near East, Eisenbrauns Inc. Winona Lake, Indiana 2012, pp. 97-124.
  • Cauvin, J., The Birth of the Gods and the Origins of Agriculture, Trans: T. Watkins, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2000.
  • d’Errico, F., et al., “Archaeological Evidence for the Emergence of Language, Symbolism, and Music-An Alternative Multidisciplinary Perspective”, Journal of World Prehistory 17/1, 2003, pp. 1-70.
  • Dönmez, S., “Eski Mezopotamya Toplumlarında Korku ve Güç İlişkisi Üzerine Bir Değerlendirme”, The Journal of Academic Social Science Studies 53 / Winter II, 2016, pp. 213-226.
  • Eliade, M., 2014, Şamanizm: İlkel Esrime Teknikleri, Çev. İ. Birkan, İmge Kitabevi Yayınları, 3. Baskı, İstanbul 2014.
  • Garfinkel, Y., Dancing at the Dawn of Agriculture, University of Texas Press, Austin 2003.
  • Floss, H., “A New Type of Society Creates a New Type of Objects. Aurignacian Ivory Sculptures From the Swabian Jura (Southern Germany)”, M.S. Corchón and M. Menéndez (eds.) Cien Aňos De Arte Rupestre Paleolítico: Centenario Del Descubrimiento De La Cueva De La Peňa De Candamo (1914-2014), Salamanca 2014, pp. 53-62.
  • Gane, C.E., Composite Beings in Neo-Babylonian Art, Doctoral Dissertation, University of California at Berkeley, 2012. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/3p25f7wk, (12.01.2018).
  • Girard, R., Şiddet ve Kutsal, Çev. N. Alpay, Birinci Baskı. Pusula Yayıncılık, İstanbul 2003.
  • Haarmann, H., and J. Marler, “The Unfolding of Old European Ritual Life: A Mesolithic Heritage”, The Journal of Archaeomytology, Vol. 7, 2011, pp. 73-88.
  • Hahn, J., Kraft und Agression. Die Botschaft der Eiszeitkunst im Aurignacien Süddeutschlands? Tübingen: Verlag Archaeologica Venatoria 1986.
  • Hauptmann, H., “The Urfa Region”, M. Özdoğan (eds.) Neolithic in Turkey, Archaeology and Art Publications, İstanbul 1999, pp. 65-86.
  • Hodder, I., Çatalhöyük Leoparın Öyküsü: Türkiye’nin Antik “Kasaba”sının Gizemleri Günışığına Çıkıyor. Çev. D. Şendil, Yapı Kredi Yayınları. İstanbul 2006.
  • Hodder, I., “Probing Religion at Çatalhöyük: An Interdisciplinary Experiment”, Religion in the Emergence of the Civilization, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge et al. 2010, pp. 1-31.
  • Hodder, I. and L. Meskell, “The Symbolism of Çatalhöyük in Its Regional Context”, Religion in the Emergence of the Civilization, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge et al. 2010, pp. 32-72.
  • Hodder, I., Studies in Human-Thing Entanglement, Creative Common Attribution (CC BY 4.0) 2016.
  • http://www.ian-hodder.com/books/studies-human-thing-entanglement (12.01.2018).
  • Hoppal, M., “Sibirya Şamanizminde Doğa Tapınımı”, Ankara Üniversitesi Dil ve Tairh Coğrafya Fakültesi Dergisi 41/1, Çev: G. Erginer, 2001, pp. 209-225.
  • Ishii, M., “Playing with Perspectives: Spirit Possession, Mimesis, and Permeability in the Buuta Ritual in South India”, Journal of the Anthropological Institute 19/4, 2013, pp. 795-812.
  • Jilek, W. G., “Transforming the Shaman: Changing Western Views of Shamanism and Altered States of Consciousness”, Investigación en Salud VII/1, 2005, pp. 8- 15.
  • Karul, N., “Gusir Höyük”, M. Özdoğan, N. Başgelen and P. Kuniholm (eds.) The Neolithic in Turkey Vol. 1, Archaeology and Art Publications, İstanbul 2011, pp. 1-17.
  • Kearney, R., Yabancılar, Tanrılar ve Canavarlar, Çev: B. Özkul, Metis Yayınları, İstanbul 2012.
  • Kristeva, J., Korkunun Güçleri: İğrençlik Üzerine Bir Deneme, Çev. N. Tutal, Ayrıntı Yayınları, İstanbul 2004.
  • Kuijt, I., “Negotiating Equality through Ritual: A Consideration of Late Natufian and Prepottery Neolithic A period Mortuary Practices”, Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 15, 1996, pp. 313-336.
  • Kuijt, I., “Life in Neolithic Farming Communities: An Introduction”, G. M. Feinman; T. D. Price (eds.) Life in Neolithic Farming Communities: Social Organization, Identity, and Differentation, Kluwer Academic Publishers, New York et al. 2002, pp. 3-13.
  • Levi-Strauss, C., Mit ve Anlam, Çev: G.Y. Demir, İthaki Yayınları, İstanbul 2013.
  • Lewis-Williams, D., and T.A. Dowson, “Through the Veil: San Rock Paintings and The Rock Face”, South African Archaeological Bulletin 45, 1990, pp. 5-16.
  • Lewis-Williams, D., The Mind in the Cave: Consciousness and Origins of Art. Thames & Hudson. London 2002.
  • Makkay, J., “An Important Proof to the prehistory of Shamanism – The Interpretation on the Masked Human Portrait of the Cave Les Trois Frères.” Alba Regia (Szekesfeherfar) II-III, 1953, pp. 5-10.
  • Marler, J., and H. Haarmann, “The Goddess and Bear Hybrid Imagery and Symbolism at Çatalhöyük”, The Journal of Archaeomythology 3/1, 2007, pp. 48- 79.
  • Martin, L., and L. Meskell, “Animal Figurines from Neolithic Çatalhöyük: Figural and Faunal Perspectives”, Cambridge Archaeological Journal 22/3, 2012, pp. 401-419.
  • Mellaart, J., Çatal Höyük: A Neolithic Town in Anatolia, Thames & Hudson, London 1967.
  • Meskell, L., “The nature of the beast: curating animals and ancestors at Çatalhöyük”, World Archaeology 40/3, 2008, pp. 373-389.
  • Meskell, L., “A society of things: animal figurines and material scales at Neolithic Çatalhöyük”, World Archaeology 47/1, 2015, pp. 6-19.
  • Mithen, S., The Prehistory of the Mind. A search for the Origins of Art, Religion and Science. Phoenix, London 1996.
  • Nakamura, C., and L. Meskell, “Articulate Bodies: Forms and Figures at Çatalhöyük”, Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 16/3, 2009, pp. 205-230.
  • Neumann, E., The Origins and History of Consciousness, Trans: R. F. C. Hull, Princeton University Press, Princeton 1969.
  • Nixon, G., “Myth and Mind: The Origin of Human Consciousness in The Discovery of the Sacred”, Journal of Consciousness Explorations & Research, 1/3, 2010, pp. 289-337.
  • Özbek, M., “Köşk Höyük (Niğde) Neolitik Köyünde Kil Sıvalı İnsan Başları”, Hacettepe Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Dergisi 26/1, 2009, pp. 145-162.
  • Özkaya, V., and O. San, “Körtik Tepe”, Vor 12.000 Jahren in Anatolien: Die Ältesten Monumente der Menschheit/12.000 Yıl Önce Anadolu: İnsanlığın En Eski Anıtları Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı Yayınları, 2007, pp. 78+436 +301-313.
  • Özkaya, V., and A. Coşkun, “Körtik Tepe Excavations”, The Ilısu Dam and HEP Project Excavations: Seasons 2004-2008, Diyarbakır, 2013, pp. 1-38.
  • Peters, J., and K. Schmidt, “Animals in the Symbolic World of Pre-Pottery Neolithic Göbekli Tepe, South-eastern Turkey: A Preliminary Assessment”, Anthropozoologica 39, 2004, pp. 179-218.
  • Russell, N., and K.J. McGowan, 2003, “Dance of the Cranes: Crane Symbolism at Çatalhöyük and Beyond”, Antiquity 77, 2003, pp. 445-455.
  • Schebesch, A., “Five Anthropomorphic Figurines of the Upper Paleolithic- Communication Through Body Language”, Mitteilungen der Gesellschaft für Urgesschichte 22, 2013, pp. 61-100.
  • Schmidt, K., “Göbekli Tepe Southeastern Turkey. A Preliminary Report on the 1995-1999 Excavations”, Paléorient 26/1, 2000, p. 45-54.
  • Schmidt, K., “Göbekli Tepe - The Stone Age Sanctuaries. New Result of Ongoing Excavations with a Special Focus on Sculptures adn High Reliefs”, Documenta Praehistorica XXXVII, 2010, pp. 239-256.
  • Taborin Y., “De l’art magdalénien figuratif à Étiolles (Essone, Bassin parisien)” Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 98-1, 2001, pp. 125-128.
  • Türkcan, A. U., “Çatalhöyük Stamp Seals from 2000-2008”, I. Hodder (eds.) Substantive Technologies at Çatalhöyük: Reports from the 2000-2008 Seasons, Çatalhöyük Research Project Series Vol.9, British Institute at Ankara (BIAA) Monograph 48, London 2013, pp. 235-246.
  • Watkins, T., “Architecture and the Symbolic Construction of New Worlds”, E.B. Banning and M. Chazan (eds.) Domesticating Space: Consturction, Community and Cosmology in the Late Prehistoric Near East, Ex Oriente, Berlin 2006, pp. 15-24.
  • Watkins, T., “Ritual Performance and Religion in Early Neolithic Societies”, N. Laneri (eds.) Defining the Sacred: Approaches to Archaeology of Religion in the Near East, Oxbow Books, United Kingdom 2015, pp. 153-163.
  • Wengrow, D., “Gods and Monsters: Image and Cognition in Neolithic Societies”, Paléorient 37, 2011a, pp. 153-163.
  • Wengrow, D., “Cognition, Materiality, Monsters: The Cultural Transmission Counterintuitive Forms in Bronze Age Societies”, Journal of Material Culture 16/2, 2011b, pp. 131-149.
  • Wiggermann, F. A. M., Mesopotamian Protective Spirits: The Ritual Texts, Cuneiform Monographs I; STYX &PP Publications, Groningen 1992.
  • Wiggermann, F. A. M., “Mischwesen A-B”, Reallexikonder Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie 8, 1994, pp. 222-264.
  • Wiggermann, F. A. M., “The Mesopotamian Pandemonium: A Provisional Census”, Studi e Materiali di Storia delle Religioni 77/2, 2011, pp. 298-322.
  • Winkelman, M., “Shamanism and Cognitive Evolution”, Cambridge Archaeological Journal 12/1, 2002, pp. 71-101.

Hybrid beings and representation of power in the prehistoric period

Yıl 2018, , 97 - 124, 01.10.2018

Sevgi Dönmez

https://doi.org/10.1501/Tarar_0000000695

Öz

MÖ 40 binlerde Üst Paleolitik dönemin başlaması ile birlikte, insanın bilişsel ve sembolik dünyasının gelişiminde büyük bir değişim ortaya çıkar. Karışık varlıkların tasvirli sanat eserlerinde ilk defa ortaya çıkışı, Üst Paleolitik avcı kültürlerin gelişimi ile paralellik göstermiştir. Karışık varlık figürlerinin ortaya çıkışında, avcı kültürler içerisinde yaygın bir inanç sistemini oluşturan şamanizmin ilkel biçimlerinin etkisi söz konusudur. Doğada güçlü ve zeki olana özenme, insanın fiziksel ve zihinsel kapasitesini bu güçle birleştirme arzusu, karışık varlık figürlerinin doğuşunun ana dinamiklerinden biridir. Dünyayı türler arası geçirgenliğe sahip, hayvansal bir duyarlılık ve canlılıkla algılayan Üst Paleolitik dönem insanın bilişsel dünyasında şeyler ve insan aynı düzlemde ve bir bütünlük içinde yer alıyor olmalıydı. Bu bütünlüğün ve “birlik” algısının kırılmasında, avcının, aynı düzlemde, aynı ruhsal birlik içerisinde yer alana karşı uyguladığı yasaklanmış şiddet olgusunun yarattığı korku ve gerilim, mitik düşünce yoluyla dengelenmeye çalışılmıştır. Yasaklanmış şiddet, kurban ile özdeşleşen bir bilinç durumu yaratmıştır. Üst Paleolitik ile başlayan bu yeni sembolik bilinç, güçlü ve vahşi olana yönelen şiddetin yarattığı gerilim ve korkunun kontrolünü, kurbanın gücü ile özdeşleşerek dengelemeye çalışmıştır. Başlangıçta insanhayvan karışık varlıkların sunumları söz konusu iken, Neolitik dönem ile birlikte, ilk defa iki farklı hayvan ve insan birleşimi karışık varlıkların da ortaya çıkması, insanın bilişsel gelişiminin ulaştığı seviyeyi göstermesi bakımından önemlidir. Avcı toplayıcı toplumlarda kültürel geçirgenlik, devamlılık ve hareketlilik oldukça yaygın olduğundan bu çalışma, özellikle karışık varlık sembollerinin yoğun olarak görüldüğü iki bölge, Üst Paleolitik Avrupa ve Neolitik dönem Yakındoğu’ya odaklanmıştır

Anahtar Kelimeler

Karışık Varlıklar Sembolik Eşik Avcı Toplayıcı Kültürler

Kaynakça

  • Bailey, D., Prehistoric Figurines: Representation and Corporeality in the Neolithic, Roudledge Taylor and Francis Group, London and New York 2005.
  • Bataille, G., Prehistoric Painting: Lascaux or the Birth of the Art (The Great Centuries of Painting), Trans: A. Wainhouse, Switzerland, Skira 1955.
  • Beal, T. K., Religion and Its Monsters, Roudledge Press, New York 2002.
  • Belfer-Cohen, A. and O., Bar-Yosef, 2002, “Early Sedentism in the Near East: A Bumpy Ride to Village Life”, G. M. Feinman and T.D. Price (eds.) Life in Neolithic Differentation, Kluwer Academic Publishers, New York et al, 2002, pp. 19-37. Social Organization, Identity, and
  • Borić, D., “Images of Animality: Hybrid Bodies and Mimesis in Early Prehistoric Art”, C. Renfrew and I. Morley (eds.) Image and Imagination: a global prehistory of figurative representation, Oxford: Oxbow Books, 2007 pp. 89-105.
  • Breuil, H. A., Four Hundred Centuries of Cave Art. Centre d’Études et de Documentation Préhistoriques, Trans: M. E. Boyle, Montignac 1952.
  • Carter, E., “On Human and Animal Sacrifice in the Late Neolithic at Domuztepe”, A. M. Porter and G. M. Schwartz (eds.) Sacred Killing The Archaeology of Sacrifice in the Ancient Near East, Eisenbrauns Inc. Winona Lake, Indiana 2012, pp. 97-124.
  • Cauvin, J., The Birth of the Gods and the Origins of Agriculture, Trans: T. Watkins, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2000.
  • d’Errico, F., et al., “Archaeological Evidence for the Emergence of Language, Symbolism, and Music-An Alternative Multidisciplinary Perspective”, Journal of World Prehistory 17/1, 2003, pp. 1-70.
  • Dönmez, S., “Eski Mezopotamya Toplumlarında Korku ve Güç İlişkisi Üzerine Bir Değerlendirme”, The Journal of Academic Social Science Studies 53 / Winter II, 2016, pp. 213-226.
  • Eliade, M., 2014, Şamanizm: İlkel Esrime Teknikleri, Çev. İ. Birkan, İmge Kitabevi Yayınları, 3. Baskı, İstanbul 2014.
  • Garfinkel, Y., Dancing at the Dawn of Agriculture, University of Texas Press, Austin 2003.
  • Floss, H., “A New Type of Society Creates a New Type of Objects. Aurignacian Ivory Sculptures From the Swabian Jura (Southern Germany)”, M.S. Corchón and M. Menéndez (eds.) Cien Aňos De Arte Rupestre Paleolítico: Centenario Del Descubrimiento De La Cueva De La Peňa De Candamo (1914-2014), Salamanca 2014, pp. 53-62.
  • Gane, C.E., Composite Beings in Neo-Babylonian Art, Doctoral Dissertation, University of California at Berkeley, 2012. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/3p25f7wk, (12.01.2018).
  • Girard, R., Şiddet ve Kutsal, Çev. N. Alpay, Birinci Baskı. Pusula Yayıncılık, İstanbul 2003.
  • Haarmann, H., and J. Marler, “The Unfolding of Old European Ritual Life: A Mesolithic Heritage”, The Journal of Archaeomytology, Vol. 7, 2011, pp. 73-88.
  • Hahn, J., Kraft und Agression. Die Botschaft der Eiszeitkunst im Aurignacien Süddeutschlands? Tübingen: Verlag Archaeologica Venatoria 1986.
  • Hauptmann, H., “The Urfa Region”, M. Özdoğan (eds.) Neolithic in Turkey, Archaeology and Art Publications, İstanbul 1999, pp. 65-86.
  • Hodder, I., Çatalhöyük Leoparın Öyküsü: Türkiye’nin Antik “Kasaba”sının Gizemleri Günışığına Çıkıyor. Çev. D. Şendil, Yapı Kredi Yayınları. İstanbul 2006.
  • Hodder, I., “Probing Religion at Çatalhöyük: An Interdisciplinary Experiment”, Religion in the Emergence of the Civilization, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge et al. 2010, pp. 1-31.
  • Hodder, I. and L. Meskell, “The Symbolism of Çatalhöyük in Its Regional Context”, Religion in the Emergence of the Civilization, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge et al. 2010, pp. 32-72.
  • Hodder, I., Studies in Human-Thing Entanglement, Creative Common Attribution (CC BY 4.0) 2016.
  • http://www.ian-hodder.com/books/studies-human-thing-entanglement (12.01.2018).
  • Hoppal, M., “Sibirya Şamanizminde Doğa Tapınımı”, Ankara Üniversitesi Dil ve Tairh Coğrafya Fakültesi Dergisi 41/1, Çev: G. Erginer, 2001, pp. 209-225.
  • Ishii, M., “Playing with Perspectives: Spirit Possession, Mimesis, and Permeability in the Buuta Ritual in South India”, Journal of the Anthropological Institute 19/4, 2013, pp. 795-812.
  • Jilek, W. G., “Transforming the Shaman: Changing Western Views of Shamanism and Altered States of Consciousness”, Investigación en Salud VII/1, 2005, pp. 8- 15.
  • Karul, N., “Gusir Höyük”, M. Özdoğan, N. Başgelen and P. Kuniholm (eds.) The Neolithic in Turkey Vol. 1, Archaeology and Art Publications, İstanbul 2011, pp. 1-17.
  • Kearney, R., Yabancılar, Tanrılar ve Canavarlar, Çev: B. Özkul, Metis Yayınları, İstanbul 2012.
  • Kristeva, J., Korkunun Güçleri: İğrençlik Üzerine Bir Deneme, Çev. N. Tutal, Ayrıntı Yayınları, İstanbul 2004.
  • Kuijt, I., “Negotiating Equality through Ritual: A Consideration of Late Natufian and Prepottery Neolithic A period Mortuary Practices”, Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 15, 1996, pp. 313-336.
  • Kuijt, I., “Life in Neolithic Farming Communities: An Introduction”, G. M. Feinman; T. D. Price (eds.) Life in Neolithic Farming Communities: Social Organization, Identity, and Differentation, Kluwer Academic Publishers, New York et al. 2002, pp. 3-13.
  • Levi-Strauss, C., Mit ve Anlam, Çev: G.Y. Demir, İthaki Yayınları, İstanbul 2013.
  • Lewis-Williams, D., and T.A. Dowson, “Through the Veil: San Rock Paintings and The Rock Face”, South African Archaeological Bulletin 45, 1990, pp. 5-16.
  • Lewis-Williams, D., The Mind in the Cave: Consciousness and Origins of Art. Thames & Hudson. London 2002.
  • Makkay, J., “An Important Proof to the prehistory of Shamanism – The Interpretation on the Masked Human Portrait of the Cave Les Trois Frères.” Alba Regia (Szekesfeherfar) II-III, 1953, pp. 5-10.
  • Marler, J., and H. Haarmann, “The Goddess and Bear Hybrid Imagery and Symbolism at Çatalhöyük”, The Journal of Archaeomythology 3/1, 2007, pp. 48- 79.
  • Martin, L., and L. Meskell, “Animal Figurines from Neolithic Çatalhöyük: Figural and Faunal Perspectives”, Cambridge Archaeological Journal 22/3, 2012, pp. 401-419.
  • Mellaart, J., Çatal Höyük: A Neolithic Town in Anatolia, Thames & Hudson, London 1967.
  • Meskell, L., “The nature of the beast: curating animals and ancestors at Çatalhöyük”, World Archaeology 40/3, 2008, pp. 373-389.
  • Meskell, L., “A society of things: animal figurines and material scales at Neolithic Çatalhöyük”, World Archaeology 47/1, 2015, pp. 6-19.
  • Mithen, S., The Prehistory of the Mind. A search for the Origins of Art, Religion and Science. Phoenix, London 1996.
  • Nakamura, C., and L. Meskell, “Articulate Bodies: Forms and Figures at Çatalhöyük”, Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 16/3, 2009, pp. 205-230.
  • Neumann, E., The Origins and History of Consciousness, Trans: R. F. C. Hull, Princeton University Press, Princeton 1969.
  • Nixon, G., “Myth and Mind: The Origin of Human Consciousness in The Discovery of the Sacred”, Journal of Consciousness Explorations & Research, 1/3, 2010, pp. 289-337.
  • Özbek, M., “Köşk Höyük (Niğde) Neolitik Köyünde Kil Sıvalı İnsan Başları”, Hacettepe Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Dergisi 26/1, 2009, pp. 145-162.
  • Özkaya, V., and O. San, “Körtik Tepe”, Vor 12.000 Jahren in Anatolien: Die Ältesten Monumente der Menschheit/12.000 Yıl Önce Anadolu: İnsanlığın En Eski Anıtları Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı Yayınları, 2007, pp. 78+436 +301-313.
  • Özkaya, V., and A. Coşkun, “Körtik Tepe Excavations”, The Ilısu Dam and HEP Project Excavations: Seasons 2004-2008, Diyarbakır, 2013, pp. 1-38.
  • Peters, J., and K. Schmidt, “Animals in the Symbolic World of Pre-Pottery Neolithic Göbekli Tepe, South-eastern Turkey: A Preliminary Assessment”, Anthropozoologica 39, 2004, pp. 179-218.
  • Russell, N., and K.J. McGowan, 2003, “Dance of the Cranes: Crane Symbolism at Çatalhöyük and Beyond”, Antiquity 77, 2003, pp. 445-455.
  • Schebesch, A., “Five Anthropomorphic Figurines of the Upper Paleolithic- Communication Through Body Language”, Mitteilungen der Gesellschaft für Urgesschichte 22, 2013, pp. 61-100.
  • Schmidt, K., “Göbekli Tepe Southeastern Turkey. A Preliminary Report on the 1995-1999 Excavations”, Paléorient 26/1, 2000, p. 45-54.
  • Schmidt, K., “Göbekli Tepe - The Stone Age Sanctuaries. New Result of Ongoing Excavations with a Special Focus on Sculptures adn High Reliefs”, Documenta Praehistorica XXXVII, 2010, pp. 239-256.
  • Taborin Y., “De l’art magdalénien figuratif à Étiolles (Essone, Bassin parisien)” Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 98-1, 2001, pp. 125-128.
  • Türkcan, A. U., “Çatalhöyük Stamp Seals from 2000-2008”, I. Hodder (eds.) Substantive Technologies at Çatalhöyük: Reports from the 2000-2008 Seasons, Çatalhöyük Research Project Series Vol.9, British Institute at Ankara (BIAA) Monograph 48, London 2013, pp. 235-246.
  • Watkins, T., “Architecture and the Symbolic Construction of New Worlds”, E.B. Banning and M. Chazan (eds.) Domesticating Space: Consturction, Community and Cosmology in the Late Prehistoric Near East, Ex Oriente, Berlin 2006, pp. 15-24.
  • Watkins, T., “Ritual Performance and Religion in Early Neolithic Societies”, N. Laneri (eds.) Defining the Sacred: Approaches to Archaeology of Religion in the Near East, Oxbow Books, United Kingdom 2015, pp. 153-163.
  • Wengrow, D., “Gods and Monsters: Image and Cognition in Neolithic Societies”, Paléorient 37, 2011a, pp. 153-163.
  • Wengrow, D., “Cognition, Materiality, Monsters: The Cultural Transmission Counterintuitive Forms in Bronze Age Societies”, Journal of Material Culture 16/2, 2011b, pp. 131-149.
  • Wiggermann, F. A. M., Mesopotamian Protective Spirits: The Ritual Texts, Cuneiform Monographs I; STYX &PP Publications, Groningen 1992.
  • Wiggermann, F. A. M., “Mischwesen A-B”, Reallexikonder Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie 8, 1994, pp. 222-264.
  • Wiggermann, F. A. M., “The Mesopotamian Pandemonium: A Provisional Census”, Studi e Materiali di Storia delle Religioni 77/2, 2011, pp. 298-322.
  • Winkelman, M., “Shamanism and Cognitive Evolution”, Cambridge Archaeological Journal 12/1, 2002, pp. 71-101.
Toplam 62 adet kaynakça vardır.

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil Türkçe
Bölüm Araştırma Makalesi
Yazarlar

Sevgi Dönmez

Yayımlanma Tarihi 1 Ekim 2018
Yayımlandığı Sayı Yıl 2018

Kaynak Göster

APA Dönmez, S. (2018). Hybrid beings and representation of power in the prehistoric period. Tarih Araştırmaları Dergisi, 37(64), 97-124. https://doi.org/10.1501/Tarar_0000000695
AMA Dönmez S. Hybrid beings and representation of power in the prehistoric period. TAD. Ekim 2018;37(64):97-124. doi:10.1501/Tarar_0000000695
Chicago Dönmez, Sevgi. “Hybrid Beings and Representation of Power in the Prehistoric Period”. Tarih Araştırmaları Dergisi 37, sy. 64 (Ekim 2018): 97-124. https://doi.org/10.1501/Tarar_0000000695.
EndNote Dönmez S (01 Ekim 2018) Hybrid beings and representation of power in the prehistoric period. Tarih Araştırmaları Dergisi 37 64 97–124.
IEEE S. Dönmez, “Hybrid beings and representation of power in the prehistoric period”, TAD, c. 37, sy. 64, ss. 97–124, 2018, doi: 10.1501/Tarar_0000000695.
ISNAD Dönmez, Sevgi. “Hybrid Beings and Representation of Power in the Prehistoric Period”. Tarih Araştırmaları Dergisi 37/64 (Ekim 2018), 97-124. https://doi.org/10.1501/Tarar_0000000695.
JAMA Dönmez S. Hybrid beings and representation of power in the prehistoric period. TAD. 2018;37:97–124.
MLA Dönmez, Sevgi. “Hybrid Beings and Representation of Power in the Prehistoric Period”. Tarih Araştırmaları Dergisi, c. 37, sy. 64, 2018, ss. 97-124, doi:10.1501/Tarar_0000000695.
Vancouver Dönmez S. Hybrid beings and representation of power in the prehistoric period. TAD. 2018;37(64):97-124.