Interpretation: z
Okumaya devam et...
← Previous revision | Revision as of 20:32, 2 May 2024 |
| Line 36: | Line 36: |
| The very first published record of the Heysham hogback, in 1811, confessed that "it is not so easy to discover the Artist's meaning in the figures represented thereon".<ref>https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=rEQTAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA126 pp. 125-126</ref> This has not stopped scholars from forming their own theories, some of which were presented to the Lancashire and Cheshire Antiquarian Society towards the end of the 19th century. The archaeologist George Forrest Browne wrote in 1887 that the scenes depicted could scarcely be anything but an animal hunt, pictured for its own sake rather than as a religious allegory.<ref>https://books.google.co.uk/books?id...rcely be anything but an animal hunt"&f=false</ref> To this Thomas Lees objected that "The persons are represented less as hunters than as themselves hunted by wild beasts."{{sfn|March|1891|p=69}} His own view, given in 1891, was that the subject of the sculpture was the Death of Adam, a story found in Greek [[New Testament apocrypha|apocryphal]] Christian sources: the ''[[Life of Adam and Eve#Greek Apocalypse of Moses|Apocalypse of Moses]]'', the [[Gospel of Nicodemus]], and the ''[[Acts of Philip]]'', as well as in Islamic legend.<ref>https://archive.org/details/transactionslan00socigoog/page/n103/mode/2up?view=theater pp. 38-46</ref> The same year, Henry Colley March criticised this interpretation, the story of Adam's death being in his view too little-known in the early Middle Ages, too fragmentary, and capable of explaining too few of the figures on the hogback. He explained the scenes there as being a depiction of the story of Ragnarök, the end of the universe in Norse mythology, reinterpreted by the Christian artist to proclaim Christ the Conqueror and Christ the Redeemer.{{sfn|March|1891|p=68–87}} | The very first published record of the Heysham hogback, in 1811, confessed that "it is not so easy to discover the Artist's meaning in the figures represented thereon".<ref>https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=rEQTAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA126 pp. 125-126</ref> This has not stopped scholars from forming their own theories, some of which were presented to the Lancashire and Cheshire Antiquarian Society towards the end of the 19th century. The archaeologist George Forrest Browne wrote in 1887 that the scenes depicted could scarcely be anything but an animal hunt, pictured for its own sake rather than as a religious allegory.<ref>https://books.google.co.uk/books?id...rcely be anything but an animal hunt"&f=false</ref> To this Thomas Lees objected that "The persons are represented less as hunters than as themselves hunted by wild beasts."{{sfn|March|1891|p=69}} His own view, given in 1891, was that the subject of the sculpture was the Death of Adam, a story found in Greek [[New Testament apocrypha|apocryphal]] Christian sources: the ''[[Life of Adam and Eve#Greek Apocalypse of Moses|Apocalypse of Moses]]'', the [[Gospel of Nicodemus]], and the ''[[Acts of Philip]]'', as well as in Islamic legend.<ref>https://archive.org/details/transactionslan00socigoog/page/n103/mode/2up?view=theater pp. 38-46</ref> The same year, Henry Colley March criticised this interpretation, the story of Adam's death being in his view too little-known in the early Middle Ages, too fragmentary, and capable of explaining too few of the figures on the hogback. He explained the scenes there as being a depiction of the story of Ragnarök, the end of the universe in Norse mythology, reinterpreted by the Christian artist to proclaim Christ the Conqueror and Christ the Redeemer.{{sfn|March|1891|p=68–87}} |
 | Writing in 1950, H R E Davidson found the Adamic interpretation far-fetched, preferring March's Ragnarök interpretation of face A attractive, though she was more sceptical of its relevance to face B since it fails to explain several of the beasts. She concluded that March's theory explains the evidence more plausibly than any other.<ref>https://books.google.co.uk/books?id...XoECAsQAg#v=onepage&q=heysham hogback&f=false pp. 131-132</ref> |
| === 20th and 21st centuries === | |
| ==== Christian ==== | |
| In 1950 H R E Davidson finds the Adamic interpretation far-fetched. https://books.google.co.uk/books?id...XoECAsQAg#v=onepage&q=heysham hogback&f=false | |
| ==== Pagan ==== | |
| In 1950 H R E Davidson finds March's Ragnarök interpretation of face A attractive, and though she is more sceptical of its relevance to face B since it fails to explain several of the beasts she concludes that March's theory explains the evidence more plausibly than any other. https://books.google.co.uk/books?id...XoECAsQAg#v=onepage&q=heysham hogback&f=false pp. 131-132 |
| Ragnarök. https://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/archives/view/wist_ahrc_2019/fullrecord.cfm?casss_mon_id=2716 | Ragnarök. https://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/archives/view/wist_ahrc_2019/fullrecord.cfm?casss_mon_id=2716 |
Okumaya devam et...