Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Figure 1 – uploaded by Bettina Arnold

See full PDFdownloadDownload figure
Rationale and Scope

Figure 1 Rationale and Scope

Related Figures (11)

Of Ontologies and Phylogenies
Of Ontologies and Phylogenies
Fig. 7. Master of Animals pendant from the Aigina Treasure. ca. 1850-1550 BC. GR 1892.5-20.8. British Museum, London (© Trustees of the British Museum).
Fig. 7. Master of Animals pendant from the Aigina Treasure. ca. 1850-1550 BC. GR 1892.5-20.8. British Museum, London (© Trustees of the British Museum).
Fig. 8. Head of Cernunnos from the “Pillar of the Boatmen” (Pilier des nautes), ca. first century AD (after BIRKHAN 1999: Fig. 410; Réunion des Musées Nationaux, 10, rue de l’Abbaye, F-75006, Paris).
Fig. 8. Head of Cernunnos from the “Pillar of the Boatmen” (Pilier des nautes), ca. first century AD (after BIRKHAN 1999: Fig. 410; Réunion des Musées Nationaux, 10, rue de l’Abbaye, F-75006, Paris).
Fig. 9. Master of Animals motif from purse lid from Sutton Hoo, early seventh century AD. British Museum, London (© Trustees of the British Museum).
Fig. 9. Master of Animals motif from purse lid from Sutton Hoo, early seventh century AD. British Museum, London (© Trustees of the British Museum).
Several authors deal with the question of how complex concepts such as the Master of Animals may have been transformed through time and space (see especially WELLS, this volume). The Gundestrup cauldron (TAYLOR 1992) (Figs 10a—b) can be viewed as a material metaphor for the process by which exotic imagery and ideological concepts may be transmuted in the course of the transmission and appropriation of iconography. Archaeologically and iconographically, adoption and translation of concepts can be very hard to identify, even when the iconography appears superficially comparable between time periods and regions; this is especially true in cases where written sources are either unavailable or ambiguous.
Several authors deal with the question of how complex concepts such as the Master of Animals may have been transformed through time and space (see especially WELLS, this volume). The Gundestrup cauldron (TAYLOR 1992) (Figs 10a—b) can be viewed as a material metaphor for the process by which exotic imagery and ideological concepts may be transmuted in the course of the transmission and appropriation of iconography. Archaeologically and iconographically, adoption and translation of concepts can be very hard to identify, even when the iconography appears superficially comparable between time periods and regions; this is especially true in cases where written sources are either unavailable or ambiguous.
Fig. 11. Horned deity seal, Mohenjo-daro (reproduced with permission from JOSHI — PARPOLA 1987:M-304) (see KENOYER, Fig. 8c, this volume).
Fig. 11. Horned deity seal, Mohenjo-daro (reproduced with permission from JOSHI — PARPOLA 1987:M-304) (see KENOYER, Fig. 8c, this volume).
Fig. 12. Two decorated (stone?) slabs, Kola Peninsula, Arctic USSR (GRIBOVA 1975: Figs 9 and 10) showing the antler- headed Myndash flanked by several other animals including a serpent; in the left- hand version, the figure appears to have wings.
Fig. 12. Two decorated (stone?) slabs, Kola Peninsula, Arctic USSR (GRIBOVA 1975: Figs 9 and 10) showing the antler- headed Myndash flanked by several other animals including a serpent; in the left- hand version, the figure appears to have wings.
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved