Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-rnpqb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-25T19:47:09.289Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Horned Objects in Anatolia and the Near East and possible connexions with the Minoan “Horns of Consecration”

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 December 2013

Steven Diamant  and
Jeremy Rutter
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Numerous interpretations of the meaning, function, and derivation of the Minoan “horns of consecration” have been put forward since Evans discovered the first object of this kind in his excavations at Knossos. As yet, not one of the various theories proposed has been universally accepted. Consequently, the authors of this article would prefer not to be so presumptuous as to claim that they have indeed solved the problem of the usage and origins of the Minoan “horns”; on the other hand they believe that excavations in the past twenty years have strongly suggested that the Minoan “horns” have their origins in Anatolia and that the object's function, originally at least, was a pot-support in a hearth.

In Anatolia, horned objects which we consider served as precursors of the Minoan “horns of consecration” fall into three classes. Examples of the first of these classes have been found in EB II hearths at Beycesultan and at Tarsus. Survivals of this type of “horns” are also found in Late Bronze Age [hereafter LB] Kusura C and Beycesultan III–II. The second class consists of the pot-stands or andirons connected with Khirbet Kerak ware in the 'Amuq, Palestine, north-east Anatolia, and the Caucasus.

Type
Research Article
Information
Anatolian Studies , Volume 19 , December 1969 , pp. 147 - 177
Copyright
Copyright © The British Institute at Ankara 1969

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Nilsson, M. P., The Minoan-Mycenaean Religion and Its Survival in Greek Religion (Lund, 1950) 165 ffGoogle Scholar.

2 This theory is not new. Sjövall, J., “Zur Bedeutung der altkretischen Horns of Consecration,” Archiv für Religionswissenschaft XXIII (1925), 185–92Google Scholar, suggested the derivation of the “horns” from andirons.

3 Lloyd, S. and Mellaart, J., Beycesultan I (London, 1962), 29–53Google Scholar; Goldman, H., Excavations at Gözlü Kule, Tarsus, II (Princeton, 1956) 13, 16, 19, 26–7, 36, 41, 46Google Scholar.

4 Lamb, W., “Excavations at Kusura near Afyon Karahisar,” Archaeologia 86 (1936) 12, 37–9Google Scholar; Lloyd, S. and Mellaart, J.,“Beycesultan Excavations,” AS VIII (1958), 108–10Google Scholar.

5 Mallowan, M. E. L., “Excavations at Brak and Chagar Bazar”, Iraq IX (1947), 184Google Scholar.

6 Starr, R. F. S., Nuzi (Cambridge, 1939), 363, 443Google Scholar.

7 Garstang, J., Prehistoric Mersin (Oxford, 1953), 134, 138, 166, 172Google Scholar.

8 Speiser, E. A., Excavations at Tepe Gawra, I (Philadelphia, 1935), 73Google Scholar; Tobler, A.J., Excavations at Tepe Gawra, I (Philadelphia, 1950), 173Google Scholar.

9 von der Osten, H. H., The Alishar Hüyük, I (Chicago, 1937), 270Google Scholar.

10 Frödin, O. and Persson, A. W., Asine (Stockholm, 1938), 232–3Google Scholar.

11 S. Lloyd and J. Mellaart, op. cit. (supra n. 4), 110; Lloyd, S. and Mellaart, J., “Beycesultan Excavations” AS V (1955), 44–5Google Scholar.

12 H. Goldman, op. cit. (supra n. 3), 319.

13 Dümmler, F., “Mitteilungen von den griechischen Inseln” AM XI (1886), 19, ClGoogle Scholar.

14 The “horns” from Tepe Hissar do not belong to any of the three classes outlined above. Their provenance, far to the east of any other site discussed in this paper, makes it unlikely that they are in any way connected with the Cretan “horns”.

15 S. Lloyd and J. Mellaart, op. cit. (supra n. 3), 29–53. Some of the “shrines” contained open hearths as well as the “altars,” while others did not.

16 Although Lloyd and Mellaart make no reference to the Tarsus hearths in their discussion of the Beycesultan “altars”, there can be no denying the close connection between the two.

17 H. Goldman, op. cit. (supra n. 3), 13 and Fig. 62.

18 ibid., 16 and fig. 63.

19 ibid., 19 and fig. 43.

20 ibid., 26 and figs. 84–5.

21 ibid., fig. 86.

22 ibid., 26–7 and figs. 65–7.

23 ibid., 36 and fig. 108.

24 The basis for Lloyd's identification of the Beycesultan buildings as “shrines” is the finding of marble figurines and votive pottery in these buildings. The Tarsus parallels to the Beycesultan “altars” suggest, however, that the Beycesultan “altars” may have been derived from domestic hearths. A personal communication from Professor Lloyd inclines the authors to accept his identification of the fixtures in the Beycesultan EB II “shrines” as altars, but we would still maintain that such a usage for the fixture was derived from a usage as a hearth.

25 H. Goldman, op. cit., (supra n. 3), 16.

26 W. Lamb, op. cit., (supra n. 4), 12 and pl. 5, 4.

27 This was mistakenly identified by Lamb at first as a column, but she observes “…it is really a larger version of the horn-shaped objects described on pp. 37, 39.”

28 Lamb, op. cit., (supra n. 4), 39 and fig. 17.

29 For a reconstructed version of such a pot-stand, see Lamb, W., “Some Early Anatolian Shrines” AS VI (1956), 87–94, fig 1Google Scholar.

30 Özgüç, T., “Excavations at Kültepe. Level II Finds”, Belleten XIX (1955), 453–61Google Scholar, fig. 4.

31 H. Goldman, op. cit., (supra n. 3), 41 and figs. 134–5.

32 Arik, R. O., “Bitik Kazısı ve Hatay Tetkikleri Hakkında Kısa Rapor” Belleten VIII (1944), 342–84, pl. 59, fig. 15Google Scholar.

33 S. Lloyd and J. Mellaart, op. cit., (supra n. 4), 108–10 and pls. 24–5, fig. 7. The close resemblance between these hybrid hearths and the Class I types of Kusura C imply a similar function. By the same token, the resemblance between these late Beycesultan hearths and the example from Bitik Hüyük, also in western Anatolia, link the “altars” of Beycesultan to simple domestic hearths (see supra n. 15). For fragments of other hybrid hearths from Beycesultan, , see the same authors, AS V. (1955), 44–5Google Scholar

34 Chubinishvili, T. N., “The Interconnections Between the Caucasian (“Kura Araxes”) and the Near East Cultures in the Third Millennium,” Contributions to the Archaeology of the Soviet Union…, The Russian Translation Series of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University, vol. III, no. i, 167–173Google Scholar.

35 ibid., fig. 31.

36 Amiran, R., “Connections between Anatolia and Palestine in the Early Bronze Age”, IEJ II (1952), 89–103Google Scholar.

37 W. Lamb, op. cit. (supra n. 29).

38 Albright, W. F. in Chronologies in Old World Archaeology (Chicago, 1965), 57Google Scholar.

39 Partial bibliography of the Khirbet Kerak problem: see Hood, S., “Excavations at Tabara El Akrad, 1948–9”, AS I (1951), 116, n. 1, 117Google Scholar, n. 2, for works up to 1951. Thereafter: R. Amiran, op. cit., (supra n. 36), “Yanık Tepe, Shengavit, and the Khirbet Kerak Ware”, AS XV (1965), 165–196Google Scholar, and “Chronological Problems of the Early Bronze Age, I–II : The City of Arad. III: The Khirbet Kerak Ware”, AJA 72 (1968), 316–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Burney, C. A., “East Anatolia in the Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age”, AS VIII (1958), 157–209Google Scholar; W. S. Lamb, op. cit., (supra n. 29), 87–94; Mellink, M.J., “The Prehistory of Syro-Cilicia”, Bibliotheca Orientalis 19 (1962), 221–6Google Scholar; Chubinishvili, op. cit., (supra n. 34); Lang, D. M., The Georgians (London, 1966), 36–9Google Scholar.

40 T. N. Chubinishvili, op. cit., (supra n. 34).

41 Kuftin, B. A., “The Urartian Columbarium at the Foot of Mt. Ararat, in the Eneolithic Stage of the Kura-Araks Basin”, Tiflis Museum Bulletin XIIIB (1943Google Scholar).

42 T. N. Chubinishvili, op. cit., (supra n. 34), 170.

43 ibid., 167.

44 ibid., 167.

45 ibid., fig. 31.

46 Chubinishvili, T. N., Amiranis Gora: Materials on the Ancient History of Meskhet-Javakheti (Tiflis, 1963), 95 and Pls. 10–11 and fig. 4, 18Google Scholar. Also, Chubinishvili, op. cit., (supra n. 34), fig. 31, 17–9.

47 T. N. Chubinishvili, op. cit., (supra n. 46), figs. 4–5 for such spirals.

48 ibid., 95.

49 B. A. Kuftin, op. cit., (supra n. 41), 140 f., and fig. 39 (Ararat). See also fig. 51 (Nakhichevan), Pl. 17, 2–3 (Armavir), and Pl. 17, 4 and 6–7 (Ararat).

50 ibid., 143 and fig. 74.

51 ibid., 81 and Pl. 17, 1 and 5.

52 ibid., 81–3.

53 D. M. Lang, op. cit. (supra n. 39), 14.

54 ibid., 37.

55 Kuftin, B. A., Archaeological Explorations of 1945 in South Ossetia and Immerti (1949)Google Scholar. The Karaz examples appear in Koşay, H. and Turfan, K., “Erzurum-Karaz Kazisi Raporu”, Belleten XXIII (1959), 395–6Google Scholar

56 H. Goldman, op. cit. (supra n. 3), 332 and fig. 443, 30. Also, see fig. 443, 26 for an EB III example.

57 C. A. Burney, op. cit. (supra n. 39), 165–6.

58 T. N. Chubinishvili, op. cit. (supra n. 34), 170.

59 D. M. Lang, op. cit. (supra n. 39), 37 ff.

60 R. Amiran, op. cit. (supra n. 36), 93.

61 B. A. Kuftin, op. cit. (supra n. 41), figs. 37–8.

62 R. Amiran, op. cit. (supra n. 36), 94.

63 ibid., fig. 3.

64 D. M. Lang, op. cit. (supra n. 39), 38.

65 S. Hood, op. cit. (supra n. 39), 123; the “andirons” are illustrated on Pl. 11, A–B and fig. 9.

66 Tadmor, M., “Contacts between the Amuq and Syria-Palestine”, IEJ XIV (1965), 257Google Scholar.

67 Braidwood, R. J. and Braidwood, L. S., “Excavations in the Plain of Antioch”, OIP 61 (1960), fig. 333: 5Google Scholar.

68 B. A. Kuftin, op. cit. (supra n. 41), Pl. 27.

69 R. J. Braidwood, op. cit. (supra n. 67), 342; the “andirons” are illustrated on fig. 290.

70 R. Amiran, op. cit.(supra n. 36), 99–100. The Alishar fragments appear in H. H. von der Osten, op. cit. (supra n. 9), fig. 100 (e 1732), fig. 183 (d 1683), and fig. 205 (e 607, e 858, e 1283a).

71 Mellink, M. J. in Chronologies in Old World Archaeology (Chicago, 1965), 126–7Google Scholar.

72 W. Lamb, op. cit. (supra n. 29), fig. 1, reconstructed from the fragments of W. Lamb, op. cit. (supra n. 4), fig. 17.

73 J. Garstang, op. cit. (supra n. 7), 138, 166, fig. 90 (right).

74 ibid., 166 and fig. 90 (centre).

75 ibid., 166 and fig. 90 (left).

76 ibid., 166 and 172, fig. 106.

77 ibid., 105 and fig. 62.

78 A. J. Tobler, op. cit. (supra n. 8), 173 and Pl. 157, fig. 69.

79 E. A. Speiser, op. cit. (supra n. 8), 73 and Pl. 83, 3.

80 R. F. S. Starr, op. cit. (supra n. 6), 363 and Pl. 39, Z 1–2.

81 ibid., 443 and Pl. 118, A 1–2 and B 1–2.

82 M. E. L. Mallowan, op. cit.(supra n. 5), 184 and Pl. 39, 2.

83 H. H. von der Osten, op. cit. (supra n. 9), 270 and fig. 278.

84 H. Goldman, op. cit.(supra n. 3), 319 and fig. 442, 15.

85 S. Lloyd and J. Mellaart, op. cit. (supra n. 11), 44–5 and Pl. 4, b.

86 S. Lloyd and J. Mellaart, op. cit. (supra n. 4), no.

87 O. Frödin and A. W. Persson, op. cit. (supra n. 10), 232–3 and fig. 169, 7.

88 F. Dümmler, op. cit. (supra n. 13), 169–9 and Pl 2, Cl.

89 Schmidt, E. F., Excavations at Tepe Hissar (Damghan) (Philadelphia, 1937), pl. 27A, H 3670Google Scholar.

90 A. J. Tobler, op. cit.,(supra n. 8), 183 and pl. 163, figs. 82–3.

91 Evans, A. J., Scripta Minoa (Oxford, 1909), 150, P8bGoogle Scholar.

92 Seager, R. B., Explorations in the Island of Mochlos (New York, 1912), 82, 93, and fig. 48, 31Google Scholar.

93 O. Frödin and A. W. Persson, op. cit., (supra n. 10), 233.

94 Evans, A. J., The Palace of Minos at Knossos, II (London, 1928), fig. 81Google Scholar.

95 Bosanquet, R. C., “Excavations at Palaikastro II” BSA 9 (1902–1903), 274–89, 280 and fig. 2Google Scholar.

96 For an extensive list of the appearance of “horns” in Minoan art, as well as for a catalogue of the “horns” themselves, see M. P. Nilsson, op. cit., (supra n. 1), 165 ff.

97 Evans, A. J., “The Palace of Minos”, BSA 8 (1901–1902), 101Google Scholar.

98 Evans, A. J., The Mycenaean Tree and Pillar Cult (London 1901), fig. 19Google Scholar.

99 Evans, A. J., “The Palace of Knossos and its Dependencies”, BSA 11 (1904–1905), 8Google Scholar.

100 A. J. Evans, op. cit., (supra n. 94), 160.

101 Boyd, H. A., “Gournia”, Transactions, Department of Archaeology, Univ. of Pennsylvania 1 (1904), 38Google Scholar.

102 A. J. Evans, op. cit. (supra n. 94), fig. 167. It may have been an altar.

103 A. J. Evans, op. cit. (supra n. 98), fig. 2. This function may also be considered as an extension of its use either as a cult object or as an architectural member or both.

104 A. J. Evans, op. cit. (supra n. 94), fig. 100.

105 Evans, A. J., The Palace of Minos at Knossos, I (London, 1921), fig. 167Google Scholar.

106 Evans, A. J., The Palace of Minos at Knossos, IV (London, 1935), fig. 378Google Scholar.

107 ibid., fig. 376b.

108 ibid., fig. 375a.

109 We specially thank Miss Machteld Mellink and Dr. George Bass for advice and encouragement, Miss Sally Herndon for the drawings, and Miss Cynthia Jones for topography.