Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-jwnkl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-11T14:16:33.311Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Twin Shrines of Beycesultan

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 December 2013

Jak Yakar
Jak Yakar
Affiliation:
Tel Aviv University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In the last two decades, extensive excavations and new discoveries have thrown more light on the little known early religions of Anatolia. Certain religious concepts and symbols of the Neolithic and Chalcolithic periods, which are best illustrated in the religious architecture and art of Çatal Hüyük and Hacilar, may now be considered ancestral to some of the traditions and beliefs in the later Anatolian religions.

Sites like Troy, Kusura, Beycesultan, Karahüyük (Konya), Alişar, Kültepe, Alaca Hüyük, Horoztepe, Pulur (Keban) and Tarsus have provided us with material on the religious architecture and art of Bronze Age Anatolia, but, with the exception of Beycesultan, their contribution to the understanding of the early Anatolian pantheons and religions has so far been fragmentary. At Beycesultan, the various changes observed in the altar assemblages of the twin shrines, through the cultural periods of the Bronze Age, may reflect the alterations, additions and conservatism in the religions practised in South-Western Anatolia, and possibly in the other regions of Anatolia as well.

Type
Research Article
Information
Anatolian Studies , Volume 24 , December 1974 , pp. 151 - 161
Copyright
Copyright © The British Institute at Ankara 1974

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 Mellaart, James, Çatal Hüyük, A Neolithic Town in Anatolia, London and Southampton 1967Google Scholar.

2 Mellaart, James, Hacilar, Vols. I, II, Edinburgh 1970Google Scholar.

3 Room 402 in Level IV a, and House 501 in Level V b housed altar-like structures. They may have been domestic shrines. See Blegen, Carl, Caskey, John and Rowson, Marion, Troy, Vol. II, Part 1 (Princeton, 1951), pp. 144, 258Google Scholar. The Anta House in Level VI h, and the Tower VI i with the four large monolithic pillars set in a row in front of it, seem to have been used as sanctuaries. See, Blegen, , Caskey, and Rowson, , Troy, Vol. III, Part I (Princeton, 1953), 95–8 and 251–2Google Scholar.

4 Room 8 in Kusura Period B, stages 4–6, seems to have been a shrine. See Lamb, Winifred, “Excavations at Kusura near Afyon Karahisar”, Archaeologia, Vol. LXXXVII (1937), 225Google Scholar. The Shrine of Period C at Kusura has a complex altar comparable to the “horn”-shaped altars of the L.B. Beycesultan twin shrines (Lamb, W., “Some Early Anatolian Shrines”, AS VI (1956), 87, pl.V)Google Scholar.

5 For the E.B. shrines see Lloyd, Seton and Mellaart, James, Beycesultan Vol. I (London, 1962), 29–55Google Scholar. For the M.B. and L.B. religious architecture of Beycesultan see Lloyd, Seton and Mellaart, James, Beycesultan, Vol. II (London, 1965), 39–59Google Scholar; Beycesultan, Vol. III, Part I (London, 1972), pp. 24 ff.Google Scholar; AS VI (1956), pl. 116Google Scholar, pl. Xb, and AS VIII (1958), 108–11Google Scholar.

6 For the M.B. sanctuaries see Alkım, U. Bahadır, Anatolie I (Genève, 1968), 121Google Scholar.

7 The Level M. 9 Shrine at Alishar (E.B.II) is furnished with a “fire-altar” comparable to that of Kusura B. See Schmidt, Erich, The Alishar Hüyük Seasons of 1928–29, Vol.IV, Part 1 (Chicago, 1932), 33–7Google Scholar. At Alishar Period II, Building B in Complex 1 seems to have been a large sanctuary (ibid., 90).

8 Özgüç, Nimet, “Marble Idols and Statuettes from the Excavations at Kültepe”, Belleten, Vol.XXI (1957), 71 ffGoogle Scholar. Karum Level I b, Shrines I b, B (P 19/20) and I b, A (E–F). See Özgüç, Tahsin and Özgüç, Nimet, Kültepe Kazısı Raporu, 1949 (Ankara, 1953), 4–6Google Scholar. Also, Özgüç, Tahsin, Kültepe-Kaniş, (Ankara, 1959), p. 107Google Scholar.

9 For the statuettes, disc and animal standards see, Akurgal, Ekrem, The Art of the Hittites (London, 1962), 24–9.Google Scholar, also, Hançar, F., “Die Kult der Grossen Mutter im kupferzeitlichen Kleinasien. Zur Deutung der Kultstandarten des Alaca Hüyüks”, Archiv fur Orientforschung, XIII (1939–1941), 289–307Google Scholar.

10 For the religious art of Horoztepe see Özgüç, Tahsin and Akok, Mahmut, Horoztepe: An Early Bronze Age Settlement and Cemetery (Ankara, 1958), 46–7Google Scholar.

11 In Area A2, building level XI, in two rooms separated by a mudbrick wall, two altars were discovered by Hamit Koşay. Five more shrines were discovered in levels VIII, IX and X. These shrines were probably dedicated to the goddess of fertility and her consort (Koşay, , “Pulur (Sakyol) Excavations”, Keban Project 1968 Summer Work (Ankara, 1970), 143–6Google Scholar, pls.3–6 also, Keban Project 1969 Activities (Ankara, 1971), 103–6, pls. 74–7Google Scholar).

12 At Tarsus, the “Street” in level 21·15 m. (E.B.I) was bordered on its west and east sides by altar-like structures. This “street” may have been used as an open sanctuary. See Goldman, Hetty, Tarsus, Vol.II (Princeton, 1956), 10–11Google Scholar.

13 Lloyd, Seton and Mellaart, James, Beycesultan, Vol.I, 32Google Scholar.

14 Lloyd, Seton and Mellaart, James, Beycesultan, Vol.IIGoogle Scholar.

15 Lloyd, Seton, AS, IX, pl.2Google Scholar.

16 Lloyd, Seton, Beycesultan, Vol.I, 32Google Scholar. Mellaart, James, “Anatolia c.4000–2300 B.C.”, CAH Vol.I, Chapter XVIII (Cambridge, 1965), 29Google Scholar.

17 “Horned Objects in Anatolia and the Near East and Possible Connections with the Minoan ‘Horns of Consecration’”, AS, XIX (1969), 147–77Google Scholar.

18 James Mellaart, loc. cit., Figs. 235–7.

19 Blegen, loc. cit., 155–7, pl.190.

20 Blegen, loc. cit., 252, pls. 47, 55b., De Vaux, Roland, El Far'ah, Tell, Revue Biblique, Vol.LX (1953), 222, 428–9Google Scholar.

21 In the first phase of the temple the altar assemblage in the holy of holies consisted of two stone stelae (maṣṣeboth), and two fire altars. The third stele (maṣṣebah) belongs to the later phase of the sanctuary. See Aharoni, Y., “Excavations at Tel Arad”, IEJ, Vol.XVII, No.4 (1967), 247–9 pl.47Google Scholar.

22 Pritchard, James B., The Ancient Near East in Pictures (Princeton, 1954), pl. 619Google Scholar.

23 Koşay: “Pulur Excavations, 1968”, pls. 8–9.

24 Lamb, : AS VI, pl.5Google Scholar.

25 Nilsson, Martin P., The Minoan-Mycenaean Religion and its Survival in Greek Religion (Lund, 1968), 184Google Scholar.

26 Ibid., 183.

27 SirEvans, A. J., Palace of Minos, Vol. I, (New York, 1964), 632, 708, Fig. 470Google Scholar.

28 Nilsson: loc. cit., 248.

29 Ibid., Vol. II, 182.

30 Amiran, Ruth, “A Cult Stele from Arad”, IEJ Vol.XXII, Nos. 2–3 (1972), 86–8, pls. 14–15Google Scholar.

31 Pritchard: loc. cit, pl. 306.

32 Gray, John, Near Eastern Mythology (London, 1969), 59Google Scholar.

33 Ibid.

34 Ibid.

35 Pritchard: loc. cit., pl.672.

36 Ibid., pl.464.

37 John Gray: loc. cit., 62

38 Buhl, Marie-Louise, “The Goddess of the Egyptian Tree Cult”, JNES, VI (1947), 84–97Google Scholar.

39 Ibid., 86.

40 Ibid., 93.

41 Ibid.

42 Ibid., 95.

43 Nilsson: loc. cit., 264, Fig. 158.

44 Guthrie, W. K. C., The Greeks and their Gods (London, 1968), 62–3, 67 No.2Google Scholar.

45 Marinatos, S. and Hirmer, M., Crete and Mycenae (London, 1960), 151–2Google Scholar.

46 The type of ritual in connection with sacred trees is best illustrated on a shell plaque from Ur. A priest is depicted standing in front of a wooden post. In his right hand he holds a libation jug, and he gets ready to pour the contents over the post. See Pritchard: loc. cit, pl. 605.

47 Mellink, Machteld J., “Excavations at Karataş-Semayük 1966”, AJA Vol.LXXI, No.3, 254Google Scholar, Fig. 77. Bittel, Kurt, “Ein Gräberfeld der Yortan Kultur bei Babâköy”, Afo XIII (1939–1941), 1–28Google Scholar.