Various Aspects of the Image of a Dragon-serpent in Armenian and South-Caucasian Sculpture of the 7th–14th Centuries

Q3 Arts and Humanities Actual Problems of Theory and History of Art Pub Date : 2021-01-01 DOI:10.18688/aa2111-02-19
Lilit Mikayelyan
{"title":"Various Aspects of the Image of a Dragon-serpent in Armenian and South-Caucasian Sculpture of the 7th–14th Centuries","authors":"Lilit Mikayelyan","doi":"10.18688/aa2111-02-19","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction The image of a dragon is one of the universal archetypes of world culture and, at the same time, the most multifaceted in its artistic manifestations and symbolism. If one gives a very generalized definition of its functions in Indo-European mythology including ancient Armenian, then dragon personified the primordial chaos and chthonic forces, whereas fighting the dragon was the leading theme of the victory of a cultural hero over evil and disorder and the act of consecration of a hero, the transition to another level, overcoming death. In many cultures, the snake was primarily associated with the earth and water elements and the underworld. At the same time, in the ancient cosmogonic concepts of many peoples, the body of the celestial serpent-dragon (ouroboros) was thought as the boundary of the inhabited macrocosm. According to astrological notions, its head and tail cause solar and lunar eclipses, as well as determine the change of day and night [14]. Due to their liminal position between the inferior and upper worlds, the dragon and serpent were associated with fertility and rebirth, and were also endowed with apotropaic functions, that is, they initially had explicit bipolar symbolism [12]. With the advent of Christianity, along with the rejection of pagan notions and cults, especially in the early Middle Ages, the dragon retained mainly its destructive hypostasis becoming a symbol of the devil and hell. Only on the turn of the 9th–10th centuries in the Armenian and South-Caucasian art, we find a certain appeal to the archaic, positive functions of this monster, which was especially expressed in the monuments of the 12th–14th centuries. The centuries-old veneration of the dragon-serpent in Armenia had its own local manifestations. It was called Վիշապ (vishap), which meant a monster, an enormous snake, especially a water one. The word was also used in the meaning — huge, gigantic. At the same time, vishap is the traditional name for unique megalithic stelae in the Armenian Highlands of the 3rd–2nd millennium BC. Most of them are hewn in the fish shape and bear images of the bull’s head and skin as the evidence of ritual sacrifices. The latter were placed vertically in high mountains, at sacred precincts, and were associated with the veneration of springs and reservoirs2. The dragon image is also reflected in Armenian toponyms and natural phenomena: the Lake Van","PeriodicalId":37578,"journal":{"name":"Actual Problems of Theory and History of Art","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Actual Problems of Theory and History of Art","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18688/aa2111-02-19","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Introduction The image of a dragon is one of the universal archetypes of world culture and, at the same time, the most multifaceted in its artistic manifestations and symbolism. If one gives a very generalized definition of its functions in Indo-European mythology including ancient Armenian, then dragon personified the primordial chaos and chthonic forces, whereas fighting the dragon was the leading theme of the victory of a cultural hero over evil and disorder and the act of consecration of a hero, the transition to another level, overcoming death. In many cultures, the snake was primarily associated with the earth and water elements and the underworld. At the same time, in the ancient cosmogonic concepts of many peoples, the body of the celestial serpent-dragon (ouroboros) was thought as the boundary of the inhabited macrocosm. According to astrological notions, its head and tail cause solar and lunar eclipses, as well as determine the change of day and night [14]. Due to their liminal position between the inferior and upper worlds, the dragon and serpent were associated with fertility and rebirth, and were also endowed with apotropaic functions, that is, they initially had explicit bipolar symbolism [12]. With the advent of Christianity, along with the rejection of pagan notions and cults, especially in the early Middle Ages, the dragon retained mainly its destructive hypostasis becoming a symbol of the devil and hell. Only on the turn of the 9th–10th centuries in the Armenian and South-Caucasian art, we find a certain appeal to the archaic, positive functions of this monster, which was especially expressed in the monuments of the 12th–14th centuries. The centuries-old veneration of the dragon-serpent in Armenia had its own local manifestations. It was called Վիշապ (vishap), which meant a monster, an enormous snake, especially a water one. The word was also used in the meaning — huge, gigantic. At the same time, vishap is the traditional name for unique megalithic stelae in the Armenian Highlands of the 3rd–2nd millennium BC. Most of them are hewn in the fish shape and bear images of the bull’s head and skin as the evidence of ritual sacrifices. The latter were placed vertically in high mountains, at sacred precincts, and were associated with the veneration of springs and reservoirs2. The dragon image is also reflected in Armenian toponyms and natural phenomena: the Lake Van
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
7 - 14世纪亚美尼亚和南高加索雕塑中龙蛇形象的各个方面
龙的形象是世界文化的普遍原型之一,同时在艺术表现和象征意义上也是最多方面的。如果我们对龙在印欧神话(包括古亚美尼亚神话)中的作用给出一个非常笼统的定义,那么龙就是原始混乱和民族力量的化身,而与龙战斗是文化英雄战胜邪恶和混乱的主要主题,是英雄的奉献行为,过渡到另一个层次,战胜死亡。在许多文化中,蛇主要与土、水元素和地下世界联系在一起。与此同时,在许多民族的古代宇宙观念中,天蛇龙(衔尾蛇)的身体被认为是有人居住的宏观宇宙的边界。根据占星术的概念,它的头和尾引起日月食,并决定昼夜的变化。由于处于低等世界和上层世界之间的界限位置,龙和蛇与生育和重生联系在一起,也被赋予了守护功能,也就是说,它们最初具有明确的两极象征主义bbb。随着基督教的出现,以及对异教观念和邪教的排斥,特别是在中世纪早期,龙主要保留了其破坏性的本质,成为魔鬼和地狱的象征。只有在9 - 10世纪之交的亚美尼亚和南高加索艺术中,我们才发现这种怪物的古老而积极的功能具有一定的吸引力,这在12 - 14世纪的纪念碑中得到了特别的表达。在亚美尼亚,数百年来对龙蛇的崇拜有其当地的表现形式。它被称为Վ(vishap),意思是怪物,巨大的蛇,尤指水中的蛇。这个词也有巨大的、巨大的意思。与此同时,vishap是公元前3 - 2千年亚美尼亚高地独特的巨石石碑的传统名称。它们大多被切割成鱼的形状,并带有牛头和牛皮的图像,作为祭祀仪式的证据。后者被垂直放置在高山上,在神圣的区域,并与泉水和水库的崇敬联系在一起。龙的形象也反映在亚美尼亚的地名和自然现象:凡湖
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Actual Problems of Theory and History of Art
Actual Problems of Theory and History of Art Arts and Humanities-Visual Arts and Performing Arts
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: Actual Problems of Theory and History of Art conference is an international academic forum held biannually by Lomonosov Moscow State University and Saint Petersburg State University, supported by major Russian museums. The conference takes place alternately in Moscow and Saint Petersburg. In Saint Petersburg, the State Hermitage Museum acts as its permanent partner. In 2018, the conference is held in Moscow, with the State Tretyakov Gallery as partner museum. The conference is dedicated to a wide range of issues related to history and theory of visual arts and architecture, conservation and interpretation of Russian and international cultural heritage, and interaction between academic science and museum experience. The chronological scope of this interdisciplinary forum spans from prehistoric era to contemporary stage. The conference welcomes art historians, culture theorists, archaeologists, art conservators, museum practitioners, and other humanities scholars whose research areas include architecture, visual and decorative arts.
期刊最新文献
Regional Interpretation of Constantinopolitan Models in Byzantine 11th-Century Architecture Ambulatories and Chapels in the Churches of Thessaloniki of the 8th–12th Centuries: The Main Approaches to the Research Likeness Is in the Eye of the Beholder: Byzantine Portraiture in Art Historiography and Byzantine Perception The Study of the Architectural Heritage of Ani: Current Issues and Recent Publications Dwellings of the Medieval City of Ani. Historiography and Research Results
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1