147
146
Kilia figure
Western Anatolia
Chalcolithic – Early Bronze Age
(3300–3000 BC)
Private
Collection, UK
(courtesy RWAA)
(cat. 39, detail)
SchemAtic fiGureS
from AnAtoliA
A
natolia had a long tradition of depicting human figures: if the monumental
stone building of the tenth
millennium recently discovered at Gobekli tepe
was sculpted with images of wild animals only, in the neolithic instal-
lations of haçilar and catal hüyük dated to the seventh to fifth millennia, narra-
tive paintings and three-dimensional figurines associate a dominant steatopygous
“lady”, and
a few male figures, with felines and birds of prey. By the end of the
fourth millennium, as in the most of the near east and the mediterranean, drastic
changes brought the emergence of new social landscapes. new visual perceptions
took the appearance of abstract shapes for the depiction of the traditional female
figure. Schematic types appeared all over Anatolia and were distributed from the
littoral to the hinterland, making it difficult to pinpoint the exact origin of each
type. the chronological evolution is equally uneasy to follow during the course of
the third millennium (
cat. 38
). types are conventionally
designated by the name of
the site where they have been first discovered or published. Several cultural areas
may be recognized: the littoral had close contacts with the eastern islands of the
mediterranean and the cyclades; the troy, Beycesultan and Kusura types were
distributed in Western Anatolia; in the hinterland and cappadocia, the Kültepe
1
Anthr
opomorphic figurine
Kocumbeli –
Ankara
III millennium BC
METU Archaeological Museum of
Ankara
149
148
disk-shaped idols emerged at the end of the third millennium; eastern Anatolia
was in relation with northern Syria, through the upper valley of the euphrates,
probably where the “eye idols” originated (ca. 3300 Bc) before migrating through
mesopotamia and Western iran.
Stone figures were part of a larger production
of anthropomorphic images, next to
numerous terracotta and a few rare metal figures, and should be considered in that
context. different materials may have been assigned to different forms, within similar
abstraction processes: taking for instance, the body abbreviated in a semi-circular
disk, there were variations between the metal pieces (as in the Alaça hüyuk “twin”
idols) and the clay ones (as in Koçumbeli-Ankara). Another variation is found in the
formal interplay between the head and the body: both parts
are often rendered in a
similar shape, disk-like or semi-circular, but inverted and in different proportions and
respective size. in the stone figures, generally left with a plain surface, the play on
respective proportions of the different parts of the body is important in the balance
and rhythm of the figure; in the clay pieces, engraved details are often repeated on
the head and the body, but upside down, in a mirror image and what is the right
way up is left ambiguous.
most Anatolian schematic figures are ambiguous as to their sex; even the obvi-
ously sexed females may be bisexual and present phallic
elements, a phenomenon
observed also in cyprus. repair and breakage patterns suggest that the figurines
were handled, displayed and discarded and that they had a “life” and social status
before they were deposited, in public or domestic contexts.
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: