Szőllősy Csilla - Pokrovenszki Krisztián (szerk.): Alba Regia. Annales Musei Stephani Regis - Szent István Király Múzeum közleményei. C. sorozat 45. (Székesfehérvár, 2017)

Tanulmányok/közlemények - Régészet - Keszi Tamás: A nagyrévi kultúra szimbolikus ábrázolásokkal díszített urnái Kiapostag - Dunai-dűlő lelőhelyről. Alternatív javaslat a Budapest - Pannonhalmi úti edény ábrázolásának értelmezésére

Tamás Kes%i: Cinerary urns from the Nagyrév Culture ornamented with symbolic representations found at the Kisapostag — Dunai-dűlő site

developed independendy of the Middle Eastern phenomenon77 (Fig. 11, No. 6). The latter possibility is raised by the horned/andered creatures depicted in Palaeolithic cave art,78 or by the Mesolithic burials of Bad Dürrenberg,79 even if there is no proof of continuity' stretching over several millennia. It is conceivable that similar concepts may have developed independendy of one another during the various phases of European history. The depiction of horned but headless figures is not unprecedented80 (Fig. 12, No. 1).

Where a figure has horns, their arms were drawn using only two lines and not three. Based on this representation logic, something similar can be expected in the case of legs as well: they also are constituted by two lines, and a vertical line along the backbone splits the entire body into two symmetrical halves. This representation principle can be observed in some of the drawings identified as headless and legless people: the presumed arms are made up of two lines and the body is split into two halves by a vertical line.

The three lines between the two legs, however, need further explanation. They can be interpreted as some sort of a seat. In certain cases, this has been used to emphasise the figure’s supernatural nature since the Neolithic Age,81 and is common in the case of idols from the Cycladic culture as well.82 We have data about the representation of chairs with legs and backrest since the Middle Bronze Age in the Carpathian Basin,83 and recently, the Bronze Age find from Hasfalva has also been interpreted as an accessory of a throne.84

When interpreting the scene, it is a key question to determine what does the zigzag that originates from the hands of the central figures symbolise. In theory', this can be done in three interpretative frameworks. The most fortunate case would be if the representation were clear. This motif, however, is so stylised that interpretation is not possible simply based on the representation. This motif cannot be interpreted even in the context of the Nagyrév Culture, as the scene has no parallels in contemporaneous representations. Independent occurrences of zigzag are not much of a help either. Therefore, only comparative external materials can be used for the interpretation. This also is what Rózsa Schreiber did when she used texts from early written cultures, identified the zigzag as water,85 and associated the whole scene with the genesis, and the separation of the earth from the waters.86

When searching for similar simplified motifs, of course, one can easily walk on thin ice, so firstly, I seek comparisons from merely an iconographie point of view, and then examine whether there may be any cultural relationship between these representations beyond their mere similarity', and whether there is any scientific interpretative framework that can give an explanation for this possible connection.

Iconographie parallels for the interpretation of the zigzag

Europe

In prehistoric European representations, anthropoid figures can only hold one thing in their hands that can be depicted as a zigzag: a snake. Of these, the Minoan snake goddesses are the closest chronologically.87

Starting from the Iron Age, we are aware of many deities and spirits that were portrayed with a snake in their hands. Among Romano-Celtic deities, the visual representation of Cernunnos is believed to be traceable back to the earliest times.88 An antlered/horned creature wearing torques and holding a serpent on a stone carving in Val Camonica, Italy, is the oldest one, since it is dated to the 4th century BC (Fig. 12, Fig. 2).89 Chronologically, it is followed by the Gundestrup

KRISTIANSEN - LARSSON 2005, Fig. 155, No. 1, 4, 5.

78 ARNOLD-COUNTS 2010.

79 HANSEN 2010,20-21.

80 KRISTIANSEN - LARSSON 2005, Fig. 154; LING - ROWLANDS 2015, Fig. 8, 8; 8, 10.

81 See the Szegvár - Tűzköves ‘god’ with a sickle and the ‘Venus figurines’ from Kökénydomb: KALICZ 1970, 32-37.

82 DICKINSON 1994, 5.17.

83 KISS 2007,120, XXIII, i-m.

84 KRISTIANSEN - LARSSON 2005, 202-204, Fig. 90a.

85 SCHREIBER 1984a, 16.

86 SCHREIBER 1984a, 25—26; MAKKAY (1964) used data originating from the Middle East and Aegean Region in a similar context.

87 EVANS 1921, 500-510, Fig. 360; 1935, Fig. 150, XLVH, Fig. 110; MARINATOS 2000, Fig. 6.9. Recently, the Boston statuette (EVANS 1930,438^443, Fig. 305, 307) has been excluded from the group of snake goddesses, as it is considered to be forged (LAPATIN 2002). The possibility that the statuettes hold a rope in their hands, instead of a snake, has been raised (BONNEY 2011). The statuette of Kannia (Crete) (MARINATOS 2000, Fig 6.9, end of the 2n<i millennium BC), however, proves that female figures with snakes in their hands actually existed in Bronze Age Crete, even if these snakes were sometimes spotted - when it comes to mythological creatures, one must always expect unusual features to appear. Animals with unique colours, e.g. blue monkeys, occur in Bronze Age frescoes anyway.

88 BOBER 1951; GREEN 1989, 92-93; 2002, 227-228.

89 GREEN 1989, 87, Fig. 35.

28