Journals / Anadolu / 2021 / Cilt: 0 - Sayı: 47

SYMBOLIC PRACTICES ON BONE OBJECTS: CONCEALED SYMBOLISM OF PREHISTORIC AGES

Kemik Objelerde Sembolik Uygulamalar: Prehistorik Çağların Gizli Kalmış Sembolizmi

Journal
Anadolu
Pages
201–223
Publication Date
2022-10-11
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

In this study, the possible reflections of all these concepts and systematics on bone objects were examined, and it was tried to draw attention to their symbolic meanings and values.From this point of view, findings such as handaxes, various figurative examples, notched bones, tools, etc., whose raw material is bone, are included.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Birth, life and death… Humans, who witnessed this vital cycle realizing itself, had to face many traumatic realities that they could not fully understand.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Undoubtedly, these realities must have paved the way for a systematic that is reinforced with the perceptions arising from the unknown, the imprecise, nothingness, disappearance, and emptiness, and causing various reactions.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:In this study, the possible reflections of all these concepts and systematics on bone objects were examined, and it was tried to draw attention to their symbolic meanings and values.From this point of view, findings such as handaxes, various figurative examples, notched bones, tools, etc., whose raw material is bone, are included.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Birth, life and death… Humans, who witnessed this vital cycle realizing itself, had to face many traumatic realities that they could not fully understand. Undoubtedly, these realities must have paved the way for a systematic that is reinforced with the perceptions arising from the unknown, the imprecise, nothingness, disappearance, and emptiness, and causing various reactions. Naturally, the conviction to face this inevitable reality has had consequences in human nature. Tied up against this conviction of the unknown, human beings have built self-defense walls by nature and, in a way, found ways to restrain their fears and anxieties, as well as comfort and calm themselves. Reflections of this pursuit seem to manifest themselves in symbolization, rituals, beliefs and prayers. In this study, the possible reflections of all these concepts and systematics on bone objects were examined, and it was tried to draw attention to their symbolic meanings and values.From this point of view, findings such as handaxes, various figurative examples, notched bones, tools, etc., whose raw material is bone, are included.

Özet

Doğum, yaşam ve ölüm… Bu hayatî döngüye tanıklık eden insan, tam olarak anlamlandıramadığı pek çok travmatik gerçeklikle yüzleşmek zorunda kalmıştır. Bu gerçeklikler şüphesiz ki bilinmeyenden, anlam verilemeyenden, hiçlikten, yok olmaktan, boşluktan doğan algılarla pekişmiş ve çeşitli reaksiyonlara sebebiyet veren bir sistematiğin yolunu açmıştır. Pek tabiidir ki bu zorunlu gerçekle yüzleşme mahkumiyeti insan doğasında birtakım değişim ve gelişimlere sebebiyet vermiştir. Bilinmezlik mahkûmiyeti karşısında eli kolu bağlanan insan, doğası gereği kendine savunma duvarları inşa etmiş ve bir bakıma korkularını- kaygılarını dizginlemenin, kendini teselli etmenin ve sakinleştirmenin yollarını bulmuştur. Bu arayışın yansımaları ise sembolizasyonda, ritüellerde, inançta, dualarda kendini göstermiş gibidir.

🔖

Cite This Article

BULUT, H. (2022). SYMBOLIC PRACTICES ON BONE OBJECTS: CONCEALED SYMBOLISM OF PREHISTORIC AGES. Anadolu, Cilt: 0 - Sayı: 47, 201–223. https://ajindex.com/articles/435550

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (4)

  1. Alpagut 1985 B. Alpagut, “Fosil Kemiklerde Tarihleme Metotları”, Uluslararası Kazı, Araştırma ve Arkeometri Sempozyumu, Arkeometri Sonuçları Toplantısı, I, (1985), 35- 42. Arsuaga ve diğ. 1997 J. L. Arsuaga – I. Martinez – A. Gracia – J. M. Carretero – C. Lorenzo – N. Garcia, “Sima de losHuesos (Sierra de Atapuerca, Spain) the Site”, Journal of Human Evoloution 3, 1997, 109-127. Arsuaga ve diğ. 2003 J.L. Arsuaga – E. Carbonell – J. M. Bermudez de Castro, The First Europeans from the Hills of Atapıerca (New York, 2003). Aslan 2006
  2. T. Aslan, Öküzini Mağarası Paleolitik Dönem Süs Objeleri, Ankara Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Prehistorya Anabilim Dalı, Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, (2006). Bachofen 1967
  3. J. J. Bachofen, Myth, Religion and Mother-Right (London 1967). Backwell – d’Errico 2014 L. Backwell – F. d’Errico, “Paleolithic Bone Tools” Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology, Springer, (2014), 950-962. Baird ve diğ. 2016 D. Baird – A. Fairbairn – G. Mustafaoğlu, “Boncuklu: the spread of farming and the antecedents of Çatalhöyük”, Heritage Turkey 6, 2016, 15-19. Barnard 2012
  4. A. Barnard, Simgesel Düşüncenin Doğuşu (Çev. M. Doğan), (İstanbul 2012). Bednarik 1998 R. G. Bednarik,“The Australopithecine Coddle from Makapansgat, South Africa”, The South African Archaeological Bulletin 53, 1998,4-8. Bednarik 2003 R. G. Bednarik, “A Figurine from the African Acheulian”, Current Anthropology 44. 3, 2003, 405-412. Bednarik 2008 R.G.Bednarik, “The Origins of Symboling”, Signs 2, 2008, 82- 113. Bejenaru ve diğ. 2010 L. Bejenaru – D. Monah – G. Bodi, “A Deposit of Astragali at The Copper Age Tell of Poduri-Dealul Ghindaru. Romania”, Antiquity 323.84, 2010. Beyene ve diğ. 2013 Y. Beyene – S. Katoh – G. Woldegabriel – W. K. Hart – K. Uto – M. Sudo – M. Kondo – M. Hyodo – P. R. Renne – G. Suwa – B. Asfaw, “The characteristics and Chronology of the Earliest Acheulean at Konso. Ethiopia”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 29-110 (5), (2013), 1584-91. Bıçakçı ve diğ. 2009 Bıçakçı – S. Balcı- Ç. Algül, “Tepecik-Çiftlik 2007 Yılı Çalışmaları”, Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı, 30 (4), (2009), 205-218. Bıçakçı 2012 E. Bıçakçı, “Tepecik-Çiftlik Kazısı 2010 Yılı Çalışmaları”, Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı, 33(1), (2012), 69-90. Binford 1962. L. Binford, “Archaeology as Anthropology”, American Antiquity. 28, 1962, 217-225. Bordaz 1969 J. Bordaz, “A Preliminary Report of the 1969 Excavations at Erbaba, a Neolithic Site near Beyşehir, Turkey”, Türk Arkeoloji Dergisi 18,