The thesis is structured in such a way as to examine, after an extensive historical introduction in which issues arising from the comparison of various written sources are discussed, several case studies, differentiated by theme. The first are cases related to Urartian epigraphy and language: the use of the Assyrian language in the Kingdom of Urartu is analysed from different perspectives (proper use of the Assyrian language, use of the Assyrian formulary, use of Assyrian loanwords), as it is the influence of the hieroglyphic Luwian language on Urartian. Secondly, a brief discussion on the different writing systems in use in Urartu gives the opportunity to study the introduction of the Assyrian cuneiform, which later developed independently, and the vexata quaestio concerning the so-called Urartian “hieroglyphic”: in this contribution, the scripts are clearly divided into “linear” and more properly “hieroglyphic”, with a systematization never explicitly introduced before. The most numerous case studies, however, are those concerning Urartian art: all categories of objects that bear some resemblance to foreign materials (Assyrian, Neo-Hittite, Caucasian, Phrygian, Iranian) are analysed, ending with an overview of the decorative motifs and artefacts typical of Urartian culture, and above all of the external influences that can be recognised in them. It is here that one recognises how Urartian culture in its formation was the result of Assyrian elements, often linked to “local” Caucasian elements. An important criterion adopted by the candidate is the exclusive use of materials from regular archaeological excavations, and not from the antique market: a large part of Urartian art history has in fact been written thanks to the analysis of materials whose provenance is unknown, which has led to elements being considered typical of Urartian art that are not actually found in excavated artefacts. The importance of recognising and isolating the truly typical elements of the “Urartian style” lies in being able to analyse them in order to recognise a possible external origin. The conclusions drawn allowed to recognise a sort of Assyrian cultural substratum, superimposed on a previous Caucasian substratum, on which the Urartian culture proper was based. The external influences on Urartian culture, recognisable in art thanks to the presence of imports and in language thanks to the introduction of a new writing system, are on the other hand punctual and more or less datable events, which did not modify Urartian culture, which instead appears rather closed to external stimuli. The conclusion reached thus allows us to reformulate and rethink the circumstances underlying the formation of the Urartian Kingdom itself and the introduction, in the Southern Caucasus, of a new ruling dynasty evidently connected in ways not yet clear to the Assyrian sphere and, nevertheless, a bitter rival of the Mesopotamian rulers. The thesis is combined with a comprehensive catalogue of the art objects examined, which brings together all the materials known to date and associated with Urartian art.
La tesi è strutturata in modo da prendere in esame, dopo un’ampia introduzione storica in cui vengono discusse problematiche emerse dal confronto tra le diverse fonti scritte da cui si evince la storia di Urartu, diversi casi studio, differenziati per tematica. I primi sono casi attinenti all’epigrafia e alla lingua urartea: si analizzano sia l’uso dell’assiro nel Regno di Urartu, declinato in secondo diverse prospettive (uso della lingua assira, uso del formulario assiro, uso di prestiti assiri), sia l’influenza esercitata sull’urarteo dalla lingua luvia geroglifica. In secondo luogo, una breve trattazione dei diversi sistemi di scrittura in uso in Urartu dà modo di studiare l’introduzione del cuneiforme assiro, sviluppatosi poi in modo indipendente, e la vexata quaestio che concerne invece il cosiddetto “geroglifico” urarteo: esso è, in questa trattazione. chiaramente diviso e articolato in scrittura “lineare” e più propriamente “geroglifica”, con una sistematizzazione mai esplicitamente introdotta in precedenza. I casi studio più numerosi sono però quelli che riguardano l’arte urartea: di essa si analizzano tutte le categorie di oggetti che presentano una qualche somiglianza con materiali stranieri (assiri, neo-ittiti, caucasici, frigi, iranici), per poi terminare con una panoramica dei motivi decorativi e dei manufatti tipici della cultura urartea, e soprattutto delle influenze esterne riconoscibili in essi. È proprio in questo caso che si riconosce come la cultura urartea alla sua formazione sia il risultato di elementi assiri, spesso legati ad elementi “locali” caucasici. Un importante criterio adottato dalla candidata è l’utilizzo esclusivo di materiali provenienti da scavi archeologici regolari, e non dal mercato antiquario: gran parte della storia dell’arte urartea è stata infatti scritta grazie all’analisi di materiali la cui provenienza è ignota, il che ha portato a considerare come tipicità urartee elementi che in realtà non si ritrovano nei manufatti da scavo. L’importanza nel riconoscere e isolare gli elementi veramente tipici dello “stile urarteo” sta proprio nel poterli poi analizzare per riconoscerne un’eventuale origine esterna. Le conclusioni tratte hanno permesso di riconoscere una sorta di sostrato culturale assirizzante, sovrappostosi a un ancora precedente sostrato caucasico, sul quale si è poi impostata la cultura urartea vera e propria. Le influenze esterne alla cultura urartea, riconoscibili nell’arte grazie alla presenza di importazioni e nella lingua grazie all’introduzione di un nuovo sistema scrittorio, sono invece avvenimenti puntuali e più o meno databili, che non hanno però modificato la cultura urartea, la quale appare invece piuttosto “chiusa” agli stimoli esterni. La conclusione raggiunta permette di riformulare e ripensare le circostanze sottostanti la formazione stessa del Regno di Urartu e l’introduzione, nel Caucaso Meridionale, di una nuova dinastia regnante, evidentemente connessa, secondo modalità non ancora chiare, all’ambito assiro e, tuttavia, acerrima rivale dei sovrani mesopotamici. Alla tesi si accompagna un nutrito catalogo di oggetti d’arte presi in esame, il quale raccoglie tutti i materiali ad oggi noti e associati all’arte urartea.
Creating a Culture. An analysis of the culture of the Kingdom of Bia / Urartu in its geographical and historical context
BONFANTI, ANNARITA STEFANIA
2022
Abstract
The thesis is structured in such a way as to examine, after an extensive historical introduction in which issues arising from the comparison of various written sources are discussed, several case studies, differentiated by theme. The first are cases related to Urartian epigraphy and language: the use of the Assyrian language in the Kingdom of Urartu is analysed from different perspectives (proper use of the Assyrian language, use of the Assyrian formulary, use of Assyrian loanwords), as it is the influence of the hieroglyphic Luwian language on Urartian. Secondly, a brief discussion on the different writing systems in use in Urartu gives the opportunity to study the introduction of the Assyrian cuneiform, which later developed independently, and the vexata quaestio concerning the so-called Urartian “hieroglyphic”: in this contribution, the scripts are clearly divided into “linear” and more properly “hieroglyphic”, with a systematization never explicitly introduced before. The most numerous case studies, however, are those concerning Urartian art: all categories of objects that bear some resemblance to foreign materials (Assyrian, Neo-Hittite, Caucasian, Phrygian, Iranian) are analysed, ending with an overview of the decorative motifs and artefacts typical of Urartian culture, and above all of the external influences that can be recognised in them. It is here that one recognises how Urartian culture in its formation was the result of Assyrian elements, often linked to “local” Caucasian elements. An important criterion adopted by the candidate is the exclusive use of materials from regular archaeological excavations, and not from the antique market: a large part of Urartian art history has in fact been written thanks to the analysis of materials whose provenance is unknown, which has led to elements being considered typical of Urartian art that are not actually found in excavated artefacts. The importance of recognising and isolating the truly typical elements of the “Urartian style” lies in being able to analyse them in order to recognise a possible external origin. The conclusions drawn allowed to recognise a sort of Assyrian cultural substratum, superimposed on a previous Caucasian substratum, on which the Urartian culture proper was based. The external influences on Urartian culture, recognisable in art thanks to the presence of imports and in language thanks to the introduction of a new writing system, are on the other hand punctual and more or less datable events, which did not modify Urartian culture, which instead appears rather closed to external stimuli. The conclusion reached thus allows us to reformulate and rethink the circumstances underlying the formation of the Urartian Kingdom itself and the introduction, in the Southern Caucasus, of a new ruling dynasty evidently connected in ways not yet clear to the Assyrian sphere and, nevertheless, a bitter rival of the Mesopotamian rulers. The thesis is combined with a comprehensive catalogue of the art objects examined, which brings together all the materials known to date and associated with Urartian art.File | Dimensione | Formato | |
---|---|---|---|
Creating_a_culture_Thesis Catalogue.pdf
accesso aperto
Dimensione
22.48 MB
Formato
Adobe PDF
|
22.48 MB | Adobe PDF | Visualizza/Apri |
I documenti in UNITESI sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14242/85418
URN:NBN:IT:UNIPV-85418