The Nature of Prehistoric Anatolian Religions – An Ethnoarchaeological Perspective

Jak Yakar

TR EN

Abstract

Anadolu Prehistorik Dinlerin Yapısı – Etnolojik Açıdan Bir Bakış

Abstract

Göbekli Tepe, Nevali Çori, Çatalhöyük ve Köşk Höyük gibi hem erken ve hem de gelişmiş Neolitik yerleşimlerde açığa çıkarılan sanat eserleri, bunları yaratan toplumların dinî inançlarını kısmen de olsa yansıtırlar. Bu konuyla ilgili zaman ve mekân bakımından değişik kültürlere ait etnolojik belgeler bize dinî ayinlerin ve törenlerin düzeni ve tatbiki ile ilgili farklılıklarına rağmen, benzer inançları paylaştıklarını gösterir.

Keywords

Anadolu, etnografi, Şaman, ikonografi, rituel

The Nature of Prehistoric Anatolian Religions – An Ethnoarchaeological Perspective

Abstract

The highly symbolic nature of images in the visual prehistoric art of Anatolia suggests that the religious practices of hunter-gatherers and farmers were animistic in character in which the mediation between the visible and spirit worlds required the intervention of shaman-like sacred figures. It is also likely that human, animal and hybrid figures in the prehistoric iconography are mentally perceived images of genetically and cross culturally transmitted enigmatic spiritual notions relating to the power of forces of nature or mythical ancestors, and their role in ensuring the continuity of life for all living beings

Keywords

Anatolia, ethnography, iconography, Shaman, ritual

References

Adhikary, A. K. 1984 Society and World View of the Birhor, Calcutta.
Balzer, M. M. 1997 Shamanic Worlds: Rituals and Lore of Siberia and Central Asia, New York.
Binford, L. R. 1971 “Mortuary practices: their study and their potential”, J. Brown (ed.), Approaches to the Social Dimensions of Mortuary Practices, Washington: 6-29.
Bischoff, D. 2002 “Symbolic worlds of central and southeast Anatolia”, F. Gerard – L. Thissen (eds.), The Neolithic of Central Anatolia: Internal Developments and External Relations during the 9th – 6th Millennia Cal. BC. Proceedings of the International CANeW Istanbul, November 23-24, 2001, Istanbul: 237-252.
Boivin, N. 2000 “Life rhythms and floor sequences: excavating time in rural Rajasthan and Neolithic Çatalhöyük”, World Archaeology 31/3: 367-388. Clottes, J. – D. Lewis-Williams
1998 The Shamans of Prehistory: Trance and Magic in the Painted Caves, New York.
Descola, P. 1996 The Spears of Twilight: Life and Death in the Amazon Jungle, London.
Durkheim, É. 1995 The Elementary Forms of Religious Life (trans. K. E. Fields), New York.
Eliade, M. 1969 The Quest, Chicago.
2004 Shamanism: Archaic Techniques of Ecstasy, Princeton.

Esin, U. – S. Harmankaya 1999 “Aşıklı”, M. Özdoğan – N.Başgelen (eds.), Neolithic in Turkey: Cradle of Civilization, Istanbul: 25-33.
Hauptmann, H. 1993 “Ein Kultgebäude in Nevali Çori“, M. Frangipane – H. Hauptmann – M. Liverani – P. Matthiae – M. Mellink (eds.), Between the Rivers and the Mountains, Archaeologica Anatolica et Mesopotamica Alba Palmieri Dedicata, Rome: 37-69.
1999 “The Urfa region”, M. Özdoğan – N. Başgelen (eds.), Neolithic in Turkey: Cradle of Civilization, Istanbul: 65-86.
Hodder, I. 1999 “Renewed work at Çatalhöyük”, M. Özdoğan – N. Başgelen (eds.), Neolithic in Turkey: Cradle of Civilization, Istanbul: 157-164.
Hodder, I. – C. Cessford 2004 “Daily practice and social memory at Çatalhöyük”, American Antiquity 69/1: 17-40.
Holsbeke, M. 1996 The Object as Mediator: on the Transcendental Meaning of Art in Traditional Cultures, Antwerp.
Hoppál, M. 2006 “Music of shamanic healing,” G. Kilger (ed.), Macht Musik. Musik als Glück und Nutzen für das Leben, Köln.
2007a “Is shamanism a folk religion?”, Shamans and Traditions 13: 11-16.
2007b “Eco-animism of Siberian shamanhood”, Shamans and Traditions, 13: 17-26.
Metcalf, P. – R. Huntington 1991 Celebrations of Death: The Anthropology of Mortuary Ritual, Cambridge.
Lewis-Williams, D. J. 2008 “Religion and archaeology: an analytical materialist account”, D. S. Whitley – K. Hays-Gilpin (eds.), Belief in the Past: Theoretical Approaches to the Archaeology of Religion, California: 23-42.
Lewis-Williams, D. J. – D. Pearce 2005 Inside the Neolithic Mind. Consciousness, Cosmos and the Realm of the God, London.
Lévi-Strauss, C. 1963 Totemism, Boston.
Mack, J. 1986 Madagascar; The Island of the Ancestors, London.
Mainage, Th. 1921 Les Religions de la Préhistoire, Paris.
Malinowski, B. 1954 Magic, Science and Religion, New York.
Mellaart, J. 1967 Çatal Hüyük, A Neolithic Town in Anatolia, London.
Narby, J. – F. Huxley 2004 Shamans through time: 500 years on the path to knowledge, Penguin.
Pearson, M. P. 2005 The Archaeology of Death and Burial, Texas.
Peschlow-Bindokat, A. 1998 “Latmos (Beşparmak)dağlarındaki kaya resimleri”, Arkeoloji ve Sanat 20/84: 13-22.
2003 “Frühe hochzeitbilder zur Deutung der weiblichen Figuren auf den prähistorischen Felsbildern des Latmos (Besparmak)”, M. Özdoğan – H. Hauptmann – N. Başgelen (eds.), From Village to Cities: Early Villages in the Near East, Istanbul: 199-215.
Peters, J. – K. Schmidt 2004 “Animals in the symbolic world of Pre-Pottery Neolithic Göbekli Tepe, south-eastern Turkey: a preliminary assessment”, Anthropozoologica 39/1: 179-218.
Rawcliffe, D. H. 1969 Occult and Supernatural Phenomena, New York.
Roth, W. E. 1897 Ethnological Studies among the North-West-Central Queensland Aborigines. Brisbane.
Russel, N. – L. Martin – K. C. Twiss 2009 “Building memories: communication deposits at Çatalhöyük”, Anthropozoologica 44: 103-124.
Schmidt, K. 2000 “Göbekli Tepe and the rock art of the Near East”, TÜBA-AR 3: 1-14.
2006 Sie bauten die ersten Tempel. Das rätselhafte Heiligtum der Steinzeitjäger, München.
Schultes, R.V. 1988 Where the gods reign: Plants and peoples of the Colombian Amazon, Arizona.
Smidt, D. 1996 “Sepik art: supernatural support in earthly situations”, M. Holsbeke (ed.), The Object as Mediator: on the Transcendental Meaning of Art in Traditional Cultures, Antwerp: 60-67.
Tedlock, B. 1992 Time and the Highland Maya. University of New Mexico Press: Albuquerque.
Verhoeven, M. 2002a “Transformations of society: the changing role of ritual and symbolism in the PPNB and the PN in the Levant, Syria and South-East Anatolia”, Paléorient 28/1: 5-13.
2002b “Ritual and Ideology in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B of the Levant and Southeast Anatolia”, Cambridge Archaeological Journal 12/2: 233-258.
Vitebsky, P. 1995 The Shaman (Living Wisdom), London.
2001 The Shaman: Voyages of the Soul-Trance, Ecstasy and Healing from Siberia to the Amazon, London.
2008 “Loving and forgetting: moments of inarticularity in tribal India”, Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 14/2: 243-261.
Yakar, J. 1991 Prehistoric Anatolia. The Neolithic Transformation and the Early Chalcolithic Period. Monograph Series 9, Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv.
2003 “The spiritual world of sedentirized hunter-gatherers in Anatolia”, M. Özbaşaran – O. Tanındı- A.Boratav (eds.), Archaeological Essays in Honour of Homo amatus: Güven Arsebük, Istanbul: 311-319.

Details

Primary Language

English

Subjects

Neolithic Age Archeology, Old Anatolian History

Journal Section

Research Article

Authors

Jak Yakar This is me

Publication Date

June 1, 2009

Submission Date

February 2, 2009

Acceptance Date

February 12, 2009

Published in Issue

Year 2009 Number: 8

IZ

https://izlik.org/JA76XX36GH

APA

Yakar, J. (2009). The Nature of Prehistoric Anatolian Religions – An Ethnoarchaeological Perspective. Colloquium Anatolicum, 8, 291-324. https://izlik.org/JA76XX36GH

AMA

1.Yakar J. The Nature of Prehistoric Anatolian Religions – An Ethnoarchaeological Perspective. Colloquium Anatolicum. 2009;(8):291-324. https://izlik.org/JA76XX36GH

Chicago

Yakar, Jak. 2009. “The Nature of Prehistoric Anatolian Religions – An Ethnoarchaeological Perspective”. Colloquium Anatolicum, nos. 8: 291-324. https://izlik.org/JA76XX36GH.

EndNote

Yakar J (June 1, 2009) The Nature of Prehistoric Anatolian Religions – An Ethnoarchaeological Perspective. Colloquium Anatolicum 8 291–324.

IEEE

[1]J. Yakar, “The Nature of Prehistoric Anatolian Religions – An Ethnoarchaeological Perspective”, Colloquium Anatolicum, no. 8, pp. 291–324, June 2009, [Online]. Available: https://izlik.org/JA76XX36GH

ISNAD

Yakar, Jak. “The Nature of Prehistoric Anatolian Religions – An Ethnoarchaeological Perspective”. Colloquium Anatolicum. 8 (June 1, 2009): 291-324. https://izlik.org/JA76XX36GH.

JAMA

1.Yakar J. The Nature of Prehistoric Anatolian Religions – An Ethnoarchaeological Perspective. Colloquium Anatolicum. 2009;:291–324.

MLA

Yakar, Jak. “The Nature of Prehistoric Anatolian Religions – An Ethnoarchaeological Perspective”. Colloquium Anatolicum, no. 8, June 2009, pp. 291-24, https://izlik.org/JA76XX36GH.

Vancouver

1.Jak Yakar. The Nature of Prehistoric Anatolian Religions – An Ethnoarchaeological Perspective. Colloquium Anatolicum [Internet]. 2009 Jun. 1;(8):291-324. Available from: https://izlik.org/JA76XX36GH

Lisanslar – Creative Commons Türkiye . File:Open Access PLoS.svg - Wikipedia

All articles published in Colloquium Anatolicum are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0), unless otherwise stated.

This license permits users to copy, distribute, and reuse the material, provided that appropriate credit is given, but does not allow commercial use.

Authors retain the copyright of their work and grant the journal the right of first publication. Published content may be shared and reused by third parties with proper attribution.

For more information about the license, please visit:
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

Abstract

Abstract

Anadolu Prehistorik Dinlerin Yapısı – Etnolojik Açıdan Bir Bakış

Abstract

Keywords

The Nature of Prehistoric Anatolian Religions – An Ethnoarchaeological Perspective

Abstract

Keywords

References

Details

Primary Language

Subjects

Journal Section

Authors

Publication Date

Submission Date

Acceptance Date

Published in Issue

IZ

Cite