ENTRY 35

7250-6150  CATAL HÜYÜK, ANATOLIA (CENTRAL TURKEY)

-

-

INTRODUCTORY CITATIONS

Catal Hüyük, 1989.

 

Forty of the 139 compact buildings excavated

were shrines that included stunning wall reliefs,

animal skulls and renderings, red ochre on human burials (MHE: 97),

goddess (female deity) iconography and images in various postures

such as birthing or raised (KA) arms analogous to bullhorns/fallopian tubes,

wombs with concentric labyrinthine circles, double goddesses

along with other extensive artefacts including knot tying and spinning.

(LOG: 171: TGG: 32.)

 

Ҫatal Hüyük, 2012.

 

There remains the insight that this Tell,

which is visible from a great distance on the plain,

provides a unique [discovery] with as much evidence

for rituals as provided by no other site –

an almost over-flowing find context on the ritual sphere.

(GT: 58.)

 

 

Old European Anatolia.

 

Part of an unbroken continuity

From Upper Paleolithic times.

(COG: vii.)

ENTRY NARRATIVE

Ҫatal Hüyük, the largest Neolithic site in the Near East is on the Konya plain of Southern Anatolia, present Turkey. Location is an easy hour’s drive from Konya (ancient Iconium). Between 7250 to 6150 BCE, 3000 years before the rise of Sumeria, Çatal Hüyük was a significant city–type settlement. (Alternate dates are 7500-5700 BCE.) British archaeologist James Mellaart discovered Çatal Hüyük in 1957/58 CE followed by four excavations between 1961 and 1965. Mellaart’s archaeological and ethno–historical finds are unparalleled relative to any other Neolithic site. In 1986, Çatal Hüyük included 13 building levels of houses, grains, trade items, temples, pillar cults and statues. In the multileveled Neolithic town of Çatal Hüyük, 40 of the 139 compact buildings excavated were shrines that included stunning wall reliefs, animal skulls and renderings, red ochre on human burials (MHE: 97), goddess (female deity) * iconography and images in various postures such as birthing or raised (KA) arms analogous to bull horns/fallopian tubes, wombs with concentric labyrinthine circles, double goddesses (LOG: 171), along with other extensive artifacts including knot tying and spinning. (TGG: 32.)
* Excavation director at Çatal Hüyük, Ian Hodder in a ‘goddess/female deity’ conversation (7-17-2003) with Kathryn Rountree. (AGFC: 23-26.)

 

Çatal Hüyük observations on the ancient Anatolian art of weaving and spinning is summarized as follows. Spinning and then tying of knots to weave designs has prevailed in Turkey for the last 8000 years (6400-5700 BCE) starting with the diamond pattern at Çatal Hüyük in ancient Anatolia. (CH: 152-155; EW: 64.) There is significant evidence that the figure of the diamond (among other patterns) woven into textile designs reflects a female deity as the Source not only of life but also the mysteries of death and re–birth. Spinning, tying of knots and weaving the rites of life, death and re–birth patterns is a unique art of women that has continued cross-culturally (including the Caucasus regions, northern Iraq plus the Armenians and Kurdish) for some 30,000 years into the iconography of Judeo–Christian [Jewish Christian] art. Marie-Louise von Franz says, “The mystery of giving birth is basically associated with the ideas of spinning and weaving.” (EW: 64.) (EW: 64-69.)

 

After 1965, Turkish authorities strictly limited Mellaart’s archaeological permits due to the Dorak Affair misunderstandings. Consequently, Mellaart excavated only a fraction of the site. * Mellaart estimated that there were 7000 inhabitants living, gathering, hunting and farming on these thirty–two acres. Houses were beehive or Pueblo style. In 1986, the Çatal Hüyük site was above another twelve levels. “When the houses of one level were destroyed, either by fire or simply by abandonment, a new house was built directly on top of the previous one (SGM: 28).” The bottom level is related to Syrian and Palestine cultures. Mellaart’s evidence suggests that Çatal Hüyük and sister site Hacilar were settled, prosperous, balanced matrilineal societies that show little evidence of social or political stratification. He adds that these settlements owed their size and prosperity to the likelihood of being the ‘spiritual center of the Konya plain.’ (NNE: 106; SGM: 34; PRR: ix, n.1.)

* (Currently under the direction of Ian Hodder.)

 

In Çatal Hüyük and Hacilar, Anatolia as well as Mesopotamia and Mesoamerica, a mother goddess (female deity) was preeminent–and–women were key players in the development of agriculture, art, plus seasonal and cultural rituals. Applicable is Judith Plaskow’s suggestion that the mother goddess is a ‘source of being.’ (SAAS: 146.) Although women’s association with agriculture is well documented in R. F. Willetts’ discussion on the women’s ritual festival of Hellotia, he believes that the connection to herbal magic was much older than agriculture (WCC: 160), which may also speak to the healing arts and shamanism? “The male was usually a subsidiary figure, an associate or paredros of the goddess … [or] husband to the goddess, in a relationship which left its mark on subsequent legend (OGR: 11). ”


From 6500 BCE onward, the use of herbs in some form of a ritual context appears to have continued in southeast Europe and later throughout Europe, until its demise c. 4500-2500 BCE, due to Indo–European invasions. As a result of a fire, the community of Çatal Hüyük ended in 6150 BCE. Given notable similarities of culture, settlers from Anatolia may have subsequently established Crete c. 7000. (OGR: 21.) Although Malta was flourishing 2000 years later than Çatal Hüyük, the goddess images are nevertheless very similar. (COG: 22-23; ROG: 56; CH: 77-203; MHE: 97; HNC: 227; PPSF: 60; AITA: 260; CB: 68-69, 252; WP: 77-107; WHH: 66; MK; CAH: Vol. 1, Part 1, 258.)

 

When launching the 1989 Çatal Hüyük fieldwork, Gobekli Tepe was not on my research schedule, but 26 years it later deserves mention: especially given that the Çatal Hüyük project is under the direction of Ian Hodder. *

It was [is] important for us to know the [Çatal Hüyük] site, because there many features can be observed in a splendidly developed state which, at the time when Gobekli Tepe came into the light of history, was just starting to develop. Çatal Hüyük is at the beginning of the Pottery Neolithic. Its history starts in the second half of the 8th millennium BCE, and its culture flourished most of the 7th and the 6th millennia. The history of Gobekli Tepe, on the other hand begins as early as the 10th millennium BCE. It thus belongs to a different, much older world, (GT: 59.)

* Thanks to the Ancient Art Council and the Global Heritage Fund, welcomed an opportunity to attend updates presented by Klaus Schmidt, (Gobekli Tepe, 7-31-2013) and Ian Hodder (Çatal Hüyük, 3-12-2012).

FURTHER RESEARCH RECOMMENDATIONS

Further research on first villages: 7040-3500, Hacilar, Anatolia; 7000, Jericho; and 7000, Qal’at Jarmo. (RGS.)

 

Further research on the first Neolithic villages: 8300-4500, Sha’ar Hagolan (Sha’ar HaGolan); 7040-3500, Hacilar, Anatolia; 7000, Jericho, Canaan/Palestine: Mesolithic to Neolithic; and 7000, Qal’at Jarmo. (RGS.)

 

Further research on Neolithic Anatolia, origin of tree/pillar cults: 7100-6300, Cathedra Goddess of the Beasts; 4000, Garden of Eden, Sacred Trees, and Pillar Cults; 4000-3000, Egypt, Africa, and Cathedra Goddesses; 2000, Asherah; 1800, Re-Visioning Goddess Sarah and Abraham; 1490-1470, Hathor’s Dendera (Denderah) Temple, Egypt; 1479-1425, Tuthmosis III, Egyptian King; 800, Tanit (Also Taanit, Ta’anit, Tannit, or Tannin); 814, Carthage, Africa, the Goddess Tanit and Sacrifice; and 100 Mecca, the Ka’aba and Sacred Stones. (RGS.) (Also, CE entry: 16th Century, Kabbalah.) (RG.)

 

Further research on women, healing and herbs: 16 Century Paracelsus. (RGS.)

 

Further Hacilar research: 7040-3500, Hacilar. (RGS.)

 

Further Crete research: 7000-5000, Early Neolithic Crete; 2600-2000, Early Bronze Age Crete; 2600-2150, Myrtos; 2000-1450, Middle Bronze Age Crete; 1600, Mycenaeans Dominant on Greek Mainland;

and 1450-1100, Late Bronze Age Crete. (RGS.)

 

Further research on cathedra goddesses: 8300-4500, Sha'ar Hagolan (Sha’ar HaGolan); 7100-6300, Cathedra Goddess of the Beasts; 5500-3500, Cucuteni (Tripolye)) Culture, Eastern Europe; 5400-3500, Ancient Aphrodite: Chalcolithic or Copper Age; 4400-2500, Olympus Hera; 4000-3000, Egypt, Africa, and Cathedra Goddesses; 3250, Scorpion Tableau, Earliest Egyptian Proto-Hieroglyphics; 3000-2000, Anatolia, Kubaba and the Hittites; 2500, Inanna, Holder of the Me; 2000, Asherah; 800-700, Kuntillet Ajrud and Khirbet El-Qom; 750-650, Cybele and King Midas, Anatolia; 550, Cathedra Goddess Kourotrophos, Megara Hyblaea, Sicily; and 400, Cathedra Goddess Isis. (RGS.)

 

Further research on protohumanity, foraging and sedentarization research:

Reiter, Rayna Rapp.  “The Search for Origins: Unraveling the Threads of

Gender Hierarchy.”  Critique of Anthropology 3.9 (Winter 1977): 5-24.

(SFO.)

BIBLIOGRAPHIC CONCIDERATIONSDATIONS

Further gather–hunter theory suggests that ancient female foragers supplied more than half of the food and medicinal herbs:

Dahlberg, Frances, Ed.  Woman the Gatherer.  New Haven, CT: Yale

University Press, 1981. (WG.)

Ehrenberg, Margaret.  Women in Prehistory.  Norman, OK: University of

Oklahoma, 1989. 77-107. (WP.)

Eliade, Mircea.  A History of Religious Ideas: From the Stone Age to the

Eleusinian Mysteries.  1976. Tran. W. R. Trask. Chicago, ILL: U. of Chicago Press, 1978. 29-55. (HR.)

Flinders, Carol Lee.  At the Root of this Longing: Reconciling a

Spiritual Hunger and a Feminist Thirst.  San Francisco, CA: Harper Collins,1998. 104-7. (ATRL.)

Leakey, Richard E., and Roger Lewin.  People of the Lake: Mankind and

Its Beginnings.  Garden City, NY: Anchor Press, 1978. (POTL.)

Miles, Rosalind.  Who Cooked the Last Supper? The Women’s History

of the World.  New York, NY: Three Rivers Press, 2001. 20, n. 6-7. (WCLS.)

Reid, Andrew.  “Interaction, Marginalization, and the Archaeology of

The Kalahari.”  Ann Brower Stahl, Ed.  African Archaeology: A Critical Introduction.  Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub., 2005. 353-377. (IMA.)

Reiter, Rayna R. Ed.  Toward an Anthropology of Women.  New York,

NY: Monthly Review Press, 1975. (TAAW.)

Turnbull, Colin.  The Forest People.  New York, NY: Simon and

Schuster, 1961. (TFP.)

Willetts, R. F.  Cretan Cults and Festivals.  New York, NY: Barnes and

Noble, 1962. (WCC.)

Zour, Maryam, Saman Farzin, and Babak Aryanpour.  “Women in

Ancient Elam (According to the Archaeological and Historical Evidence).”  Anahita: Ancient Persian Goddess and Zoroastrian Yazata.  Ed. Payam Nabarz. London, England: Avalonia, 2013. 216-235.  (WA.)

 

 

Further agriculture and expansion research:

Özdoğan, Mehmet.  “Archaeological Evidence on the Westward

Expansion of Farming Communities from Eastern Anatolia to the Aegean and the Balkans.”  Current Anthropology 52.S4 (October 2011): S415-S430. (AE.)

Shryock, Andrew, Daniel L. Smail, and Timothy K. Earle.  Deep

History: The Architecture of Past and Present.  Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2011. (DH: 242-272.)

Zimmer, Carl.  "The First Farmers."  New York Times, Oct. 18, 2016:

D31, D6. (TFF.)

Further research on ancient gather-hunters: 8000/7000-5000, Early Neolithic; 7250-6150, Çatal Hüyük, Anatolia (Central Turkey); and 7000, Jericho, Canaan/Palestine: Mesolithic to Neolithic. (RGS.)

 

Further Anatolian plus Hittite research: 7100-6300, Cathedra Goddess of

the Beasts, Çatal Hüyük, Anatolia; 7040-3500, Hacilar, Anatolia; 4400-2500, Kurgan Invasions Bring Catastrophic Destruction to Old Europe; 4000, Alaca Hüyük, Anatolia; 3500, Anatolia, Arinna, and Other Goddesses; 3000, Founding of Troy; 3000-2000, Anatolia, Kubaba and the Hittites; 2500, Troy, Anatolia; 2000, Anatolia; 2000, Indo-European Tribes; 1790-1700, Goddess of Kultepe, Anatolia; 1450-1260, Hattusa and Yazilikaya, Anatolia; 1400, Cybele and Buyukkale/Bogazkoy, Anatolia; 1320, Palestine - Assyria - Exodus of Hebrews from Egypt; 1260, Hittites, Anatolia; 1200, Perge, Anatolia; 1200-1000, Phrygians in Anatolia: 1184, Hittites and Trojan War, c. 1200; 1100-800, Mediterranean Dark Ages; 1050-850, Kubaba and Kubat, Anatolia; 750-650, Cybele and King Midas, Anatolia; 650-550, Anatolia; 630-620, Goddess Kore, Izmir Turkey; 588-587, Cybele’s Dedication, Rome; 585-300, Lydia Replaces Phrygia, Anatolia; 282-263, Demeter’s Priene Temple, Anatolia; 204, Cybele to Rome; 200, The Great Cybele: Magna Mater at Santoni Sicily; and 200, Greece and Pergamon, Anatolia. (RGS.) (For CE entries see: 324, St. Peter’s Basilica; 432-440, Santa Maria Maggiore; 410, Cybele and Fall of Rome; 1207-1273, Rumi and Mother; and 1870, Lyon’s Basilica Built Over Cybele’s Pagan Temple.) (RG.)

 

 

For Çatal Hüyük electronic resources:

http://www.catalhoyuk.com:8080/archive_reports/2005/index_backup.html

 

Further double/twin goddess and double axe research:

30,000 Labyrinths, Spirals, and Meanders; 26,000, Grimaldi Caves; 25,000-20,000, Goddess of Laussel; 6000, Sicilians to Malta: 5500-3500, Cucuteni (Tripolye) Culture, Eastern Europe; 5400-4100, Vinca Culture and Bird and Snake Culture; 5200, Malta and Gozo; 4400-2500, Olympus Hera; 4000, Alaca Hüyük, Anatolia; 3500, Anatolia, Arinna, and Other Goddesses; 3000, Middle Indo-European Bronze Age; 3,000, Tell Brak; 2600-2000, Early Bronze Age, Crete, Chthonian; 1790-1700, Goddess of Kultepe, Anatolia; 1750, Ishtar; 1000, Double Goddess Transition; 630-620, Goddess Kore, Izmir Turkey; 500, Greek Mysteries; and 282-263, Demeter’s Priene Temple. (RGS.)

Further hunter – gatherer other androcentric organizing principles, as well as gatherer – hunter considerations:

Arthur, Kathryn Weedman.  “Feminine Knowledge and Skill

Reconsidered: Women and Flaked Stone Tools.”  American Anthropologist 112.2 (Jun. 2010): 228-243. (FK.)

Conkey, Margaret Wright, and Joan M. Gero.  “Tensions, Pluralities, and

Engendering Archaeology: An Introduction to Women and Prehistory.”  Engendering Archaeology: Women and Prehistory.  Eds. Margaret Wright Conkey, and Joan M. Gero. Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell, 1991. 3-30. (TPE.)

Harding, Sandra G.  The Science Question in Feminism.  Ithaca, NY:

Cornell University Press, 1986. (SQF.)

_____.  Whose Science? Whose Knowledge: Thinking from Women's

Lives.Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1991. (WS.)

Longino, Helen E.  Science As Social Knowledge: Values and

Objectivity in Scientific Inquiry.  Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1990. (SSK.)

Muhammad, Noor.  Historical Dimensions of Agriculture.  New Delhi,

India: Concept Pub. Co, 1992. (HD.)

Nelson, Lynn Hankinson.  “‘Man the Hunter’ Theories.”  New

Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Science. Eds. Willis W. Harman and Jane Clark. Sausalito, CA: Institute of Noetic Sciences, 1994. 35-46. (MTH.)

Rohrlich-Leavitt, Ruby.  “Gather-Hunters.”  Peaceable Primates and

Gentle People: Anthropological Approaches to Women's Studies.  New York, NY: Harper & Row, 1975. 17-38. (PPG.)

Slocum, S.  “Woman the Gatherer.”  Toward an Anthropology of

Women.  Ed. Rayna R. Reiter. New York, NY: Monthly Review Press, 1975. 36-50. (WTG.)

Tanner, Nancy and Adrienne Zihlman.  “Women in Evolution. Part I:

Innovation and Selection in Human Origins.”  Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 1.3 (Spring 1976): 585-608. (WIE.)

Weedman, Kathryn J.  “An Ethnoarchaeological Study of Hafting and

Stone Tool Diversity among the Gamo of Ethiopia.”  Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 13.3 (Sep. 2006): 188-237. (ES.)

Zihlman, Adrienne L.  “Women in Evolution, Part II: Subsistence and

Social Organization among Early Hominids.”  Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 4.1 (Autumn 1978): 4-20. (WIE2.)

Further Çatal Hüyük research:

Anthony, David W.  The Horse, the Wheel, and Language: How Bronze–

Age Rides from the Eurasian Steppes Shaped the Modern World. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2007. (HWL.)

Dietrich, Bernard C.  The Origins of Greek Religion.  Berlin, Germany:

Walter de Gruyter, 1974: 11, 96-106. (OGR.)

Gimbutas, Marija Alseikaite.  The Civilization of the Goddess: The

World of Europe.  San Francisco, CA: Harper, 1991. 238-9. (COG.)

Hodder, Ian.  Towards Reflexive Method in Archaeology: The Example

at Çatalhöyük.  Cambridge, England: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, University of Cambridge, 2000. (TR.)

_____.  “Archaeological Reflexivity and the ‘Local’ Voice.”

Anthropological Quarterly 76, no. 1 (2003): 55–69,  (ARL: 56.)

_____.  "Women and Men at Çatalhöyük."  Scientific American 290.1

(2004): 76-83. (WMC.)

_____.  The Leopard's Tale: Revealing the Mysteries of Çatalhöyük.

New York, NY: Thames & Hudson, 2006. (LT.)

Hodder, Ian, Ed.  Religion in the Emergence of Civilization.  Cambridge

University Press, New York: 2010. (REC.)

Mellaart, James.  Çatal Hüyük: A Neolithic Town in Anatolia.  New

York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 1967. (CH.)

_____.  Excavations at Hacilar.  Edinburgh, Scotland: Published for

British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara. Edinburgh University Press, 1970. (EAH.)

_____.  The Neolithic of the Near East.  London, England: Thames &

Hudson, 1975. (NNE.)

Rountree, Kathryn.  “Archaeologists and Goddess Feminists at

Çatalhöyük: An Experiment in Multivocality.”  Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion 23.2 (Fall 2007): 7-26. (AGFC.)

Schmidt, Klaus, and Mirko Wittwar.  Göbekli Tepe: A Stone Age

Sanctuary in South-Eastern Anatolia.  Berlin, Germany: Ex Oriente e.V., 2012. (GT.)

For a comparative study of Jomon Dogu and Neolithic figures:

Bailey, Douglass, Andrew Cochrane, and Jean Zambelli.  Unearthed: A Comparative Study of Jomon Dogu and Neolithic Figurines.  Norwich,

England: S. I. Sainsbury Centre, 2010. (U.)

Carter, Susan Gail.  “The Dogu Figures of the Jomon: An Introduction.”  The

Journal of Archaeomythology 5 (Winter 2009): 41-60. (DF.)

Habu, J.  Ancient Jomon of Japan.  Cambridge, England: Cambridge

University Press, 2004.  (AJJ.)

Oh, Amana Chung Hae.  Comparative Structural Analysis of the Pottery

Decorations from the Katsusaka Culture in the Chubu Highlands, Japan (c. 3,300-2,900 BCE). Diss. CIIS, 2006. Ann Arbor, MI: ProQuest/UMI, 6 Feb. 2011. (Publication No. AAT 3218524.) (CWJ.)

ENTRY 35 GODDESS SITES AND ARTIFACT IMAGE COLLECTIONS

GSA IMAGE REFERENCES

IMAGE: MAP: BLACK ANATOLIAN GODDESSES INC. PERGE: (ANATOLIA) TURKEY, BCE.

PHOTO: © GSA. DESCRIPTION: MAP OF BLACK ANATOLIAN GODDESSES INCLUDING ANA TANRICA, (ANATOLIA) TURKEY.

CO_TUR_S45A_R1_SL1_S436.jpg

SHOT ON LOCATION: EPHESUS MUSEUM (EFES MUZESI): SELCUK, (ANATOLIA) TURKEY.

NOTE 1: FIELDWORK PROJECT 1986.

 

IMAGE: SITE OF ÇATAL HÜYÜK IN OCTOBER 1989: NEAR KONYA, (ANATOLIA) TURKEY, BCE.

PHOTO: © GSA. DESCRIPTION: AERIAL VIEW OF ÇATAL HÜYÜK IN OCTOBER 1989.

CO_TUR_S74_R1_SL5_S974

SHOT ON LOCATION: ÇATAL HÜYÜK: NEAR KONYA, (ANATOLIA) TURKEY.

NOTE 1: ACCORDING TO THE ÇATAL HÜYÜK SITE SUPERVISOR IN 1989, OVER TWO HUNDRED SITES REMAINED TO BE EXCAVATED. FOR CURRENT UPDATES, SEE REPORTS BY ARCHAEOLOGIST IAN HODDER.

NOTE 2: FIELDWORK PROJECT 1986.

 

IMAGE: MAP: BLACK ANATOLIAN GODDESSES INC. PERGE: (ANATOLIA) TURKEY.

PHOTO: © GSA. DESCRIPTION: MAP OF BLACK ANATOLIAN GODDESSES, (ANATOLIA) TURKEY, BCE.

CO_TUR_S45A_R1_SL1_S436.jpg

SHOT ON LOCATION: EPHESUS MUSEUM (EFES MUZESI): SELCUK, (ANATOLIA) TURKEY.

NOTE 1:

THE VENERATION OF THE DARK MOTHERS BEGAN TO SPREAD THROUGHOUT ALL CONTINENTS FOLLOWING THE AFRICAN INTERCONTINENTAL DISPERSIONS, INCLUDING ANATOLIAN TRADE ROUTES (AO: 1-2; RGS).

NOTE 2: FIELDWORK PROJECT 1986.

 

IMAGE: DEITY ANA TANRICA: ÇATAL HÜYÜK, (ANATOLIA) TURKEY, 6500-6000 BCE.  *

PHOTO: © GSA. DESCRIPTION: ANA TANRICA (LADY OF THE BEASTS) SEATED BETWEEN LIONESSES/FELINES: NEOLITHIC SITE OF ÇATAL HÜYÜK, ANATOLIA.

CO_TUR_S45_R1_SL5_S425a.jpg

SHOT ON LOCATION: MUSEUM OF ANATOLIAN CULTURES: ANKARA, (ANATOLIA)  TURKEY.

NOTE 1: * LADY OF THE ANIMALS, EARLIEST KNOWN FIGURE OF CYBELE. ÇATAL HÜYÜK, LEVEL II. (CAA: FIG 5; 13-37; LOG: 107.) AN ICONOGRAPHIC

INTERPRETATION OF THE CATHEDRA (THRONE) GODDESSES INCLUDES HIEROS GAMOS. (APL: 2-23-1999.)

NOTE 2: “THE HIEROS GAMOS FROM WHENCE A ROYAL SOVEREIGN GETS HIS [OR HER] POWER AND THIS IS THE GODDESS HERSELF (APL: 2-23-1999).”

NOTE 3: CAMERON PROPOSES THAT THE LADY OF THE BEASTS (ANA TANRICA) IS SEATED NOT BETWEEN LIONS BUT LIONESSES. (SA: 8.)

NOTE 4: FIELDWORK PROJECT 1986.

 

IMAGE: LADY OF THE BEASTS (CYBELE): ÇATAL HÜYÜK, (ANATOLIA) TURKEY, 6000 BCE.

PHOTO: © GSA. DESCRIPTION: LADY OF THE BEASTS OR LADY OF THE ANIMALS * (EARLIEST KNOWN FIGURE OF CYBELE), SEATED BETWEEN TWO LIONS/FELINES: ÇATAL HÜYÜK.

IT_RPT_S2_R3_SL5_S583.jpg

SHOT ON LOCATION: MUSEUM OF ANATOLIAN CULTURES: ANKARA, (ANATOLIA)  TURKEY.

NOTE 1: * LADY OF THE ANIMALS, EARLIEST KNOWN FIGURE OF CYBELE. ÇATAL HÜYÜK, LEVEL II. (CAA: 15, FIG. 5; LOG: 107.)

NOTE 2: AN ICONOGRAPHIC INTERPRETATION OF THE CATHEDRA (ENTHRONED) GODDESS INCLUDES HIEROS GAMOS. (APL: 2-23-1999.)

NOTE 3: “THE HIEROS GAMOS FROM WHENCE A ROYAL SOVEREIGN GETS HIS [OR HER] POWER AND THIS IS THE GODDESS HERSELF (APL: 2-23-1999).”

NOTE 4: CAMERON PROPOSES THAT THE LADY OF THE BEASTS IS SEATED NOT BETWEEN LIONS BUT LIONESSES. (SA: 8.)

NOTE 5: FIELDWORK PROJECT 1986.

 

IMAGE: SEATED GODDESS IN LOTUS POSITION: ÇATAL HÜYÜK (HÖYÜK), (ANATOLIA) TURKEY6TH MIL. BCE.

PHOTO: © GSA. DESCRIPTION: SEATED (OR CATHEDRA) GODDESS IN LOTUS POSITION, LIMESTONE, ÇATAL HÜYÜK, (ANATOLIA) TURKEY.

IT_RPT_S2_R3_SL4_S576.jpg

SHOT: MUSEUM OF ANATOLIAN CULTURES: ANKARA, (ANATOLIA) TURKEY.

NOTE 1: FIELDWORK PROJECT 1986.

 

IMAGE: MYTHOLOGY OF THE MOON CONCEIVED AS A FEMALE: ÇATAL HÜYÜK, (ANATOLIA) TURKEY, 7250-6150 BCE.

PHOTO: © GSA. DESCRIPTION: ÇATAL HÜYÜK (HÖYÜK) MODEL INC. FROG GODDESS AND BIRTHING BULL SHRINE VI.

IT_RPT_S2_R3_SL3_S566.jpg

ON LOCATION: MUSEUM OF ANATOLIAN CULTURES: ANKARA, (ANATOLIA) TURKEY.

NOTE 1: ALSO SEE A SIMILAR FROG REPTILE-LIKE ICONOGRAPHY AT ANATOLIAN GÖBEKLI TEPE. (GT: 92, FIG. 25.)

NOTE 2: FIELDWORK PROJECT 1986.

 

IMAGE: ÇATAL HÜYÜK DOUBLE DISK GODDESSES: (ANATOLIA) TURKEY.

© GSA. DESCRIPTION: ÇATAL HÜYÜK (HÖYÜK) DOUBLE GODDESSES, (ANATOLIA) TURKEY.

NOTE 1: FIELDWORK PROJECT 1986.

PHOTO NOTE: FOR FURTHER INFORMATION ON THE IMAGE OF THE DOUBLE

GODDESS SEE: (DG: 43, FIG. 1.25; 14, FIG. 0.9.) (ALSO, ACI: 55, FIG. A 50; CH: 201,

FIG. 70 -71.)

PHOTO NOTE: FOR FURTHER RESEARCH AND IMAGES:

RESOURCE: (OSSEMAN’S ANATOLIAN/TURKISH INDEXES.)

RESOURCE: (MUSEUM ART RESOURCE.)

RESOURCE: (BRITISH MUSEUM: LONDON, ENGLAND.)

RESOURCE: (ARCHAEOLOGY, ARCHITECTURE & ART.)

 

IMAGE: VULTURES: ÇATAL HÜYÜK, (ANATOLIA) TURKEY.

PHOTO: © GSA. DESCRIPTION: ILLUSTRATION OF VULTURE (REGENERATION) SHRINE FRESCO FROM A ÇATAL HÜYÜK, SYMBOL OF ANATOLIA.

CO_TUR_S51_R2_SL1_S561.jpg

SHOT ON LOCATION: MUSEUM OF ANATOLIAN CULTURES: ANKARA, (ANATOLIA) TURKEY.

NOTE 1: FOR FURTHER VULTURE REFERENCE, SEE VULTURE BIRD DEITY NEKHBET (ALSO NECHBET, NEKHEBIT) IN:

(RGS: 2300-2100 BCE, EDFU, EGYPT, AND 1500 BCE, KARNAK, EGYPT.)

NOTE 2: FIELDWORK PROJECT 1986.

PHOTO NOTE: FOR FURTHER VULTURE RESEARCH AND IMAGES:

RESOURCE: (OSSEMAN’S ANATOLIAN/TURKISH INDEXES.)

RESOURCE: (MUSEUM ART RESOURCE.)

RESOURCE: (BRITISH MUSEUM: LONDON, ENGLAND.)

RESOURCE: (ARCHAEOLOGY, ARCHITECTURE & ART.)

 

IMAGE: CATHEDRA THRONE DEITY: UR, BABYLON, 2000-1050  BCE.

PHOTO: © GSA. DESCRIPTION: TERRACOTTA CATHEDRA THRONE DEITY, UR.

CU_NEA_S11_R3_SL3_S13.jpg

SHOT ON LOCATION: BRITISH MUSEUM: LONDON, ENGLAND.

NOTE 1: AN ICONOGRAPHIC INTERPRETATION OF THE CATHEDRA (THRONE) INCLUDES HIEROS GAMOS. (APL: 2-23-1999.)

NOTE 2: “THE HIEROS GAMOS FROM WHENCE A ROYAL SOVEREIGN GETS HIS [OR HER] POWER AND THIS IS THE GODDESS HERSELF (APL: 2-23-1999).”

NOTE 3: FIELDWORK PROJECT 1998-2002.

 

IMAGE: CATHEDRA MOTHER GODDESS ASHERAH: TEL TAANACH, CANAANITE (NORTHERN ISRAEL.)

© GSA.  CATHEDRA MOTHER GODDESS ASHERAH: TEL TAANACH, CANAANITE (NORTHERN ISRAEL.)

DESCRIPTION: MOTHER GODDESS ASHERAH (OR ASTARTE) (GGL: 147)

SEATED ON A CATHEDRA THRONE BETWEEN TWO LIONESSES. LOCATION TEL TAANACH. ILLUSTRATION, CHRIS PLEASE UPDATE CODING AND ADVISE.

NOTE 1: ASHERAH WAS THE PROTOTYPICAL MOTHER GODDESS OF THE SEVENTY CANAANITE GODS AND KNOWN AS “QNYT ‘LIM, ‘PROCREATRESS OF THE GODS’ OR ‘UM L(M’): ‘MOTHER OF THE GODS’”  (AMST: 4).

NOTE 2: GODDESS ASHERAH WAS WORSHIPED IN ISRAEL FROM THE DAYS OF THE FIRST SETTLEMENT IN CANAAN, AS THE HEBREWS HAD TAKEN OVER THE CULT [CULTURES] OF THIS GREAT MOTHER GODDESS FROM THE CANAANITES. (HG: 45.)

NOTE 3: AN ICONOGRAPHIC INTERPRETATION OF THE CATHEDRA GODDESS  INDICATES HIEROS GAMOS. (APL: 2-23-1999.)

NOTE 4: “THE HIEROS GAMOS FROM WHENCE A ROYAL SOVEREIGN GETS HIS [OR HER] POWER AND THIS IS THE GODDESS HERSELF (APL: 2-23-1999).”

NOTE 5: FIELDWORK PROJECT.

 

IMAGE: FRIEZE WITH BULL AND HORNS: ÇATAL HÜYÜK, (ANATOLIA) TURKEY, , 7250-6150 BCE.

PHOTO: © GSA. DESCRIPTION: PAINTED RED OCHER * FRIEZE OF BULL AND HORNS, ÇATAL HÜYÜK, (ANATOLIA) TURKEY.

SLIDE LOCATION TURKEY, SHEET 51, ROW 3, SLEEVE 5, SLIDE #570, 7250-6150 BCE NEOLITHIC.

CO_TUR_S51_R3_SL5_S570.jpg

SHOT ON LOCATION: MUSEUM OF ANATOLIAN CULTURES: ANKARA, (ANATOLIA) TURKEY.

NOTE 1: * PAINTED WITH RED OCHER (SYMBOL OF BLOOD).

NOTE 2: USE OF OCHER WAS THE BEGINNING OF SYMBOLIC CULTURES THAT “LONG ANTEDATE[S] THE PRODUCTION OF REPRESENTATIONAL IMAGERY ON INANIMATE SURFACES (I.E. UPPER PALEOLITHIC ROCK PAINTING.)” (ECC: 509-510; RGS.)

NOTE 3: FIELDWORK PROJECT 1986.

 

ReGenesis

ENCYCLOPEDIA

GSA "Goddess, Sites and Artifacts Collection "  curated by Eahr BA Joan