PROBLEMS OF STUDYING PRIMITIVE ART

Introduction

The study of rock art in Mongolia has been going on for more than a century, but the country is so rich in petroglyphs that even in the near future it is unlikely to be possible to name the exact number of monuments located on its territory. A prominent researcher of Central Asia, academician A. P. Okladnikov, in his last generalizing work "Petroglyphs of Mongolia" (1981), published rock carvings from 46 sites located in 11 aimags of the Mongolian People's Republic (MNR). They were discovered and studied by him and his collaborators in the course of field work since 1949. But the materials of many other localities prepared for publication [Ibid., p. 3] remained unpublished.

The expeditions led by A. P. Okladnikov were constantly attended by young Mongolian archaeologists, who later became major scientists. These include Professor Dadmiy Tseveendorzh, a specialist in petroglyphology in Central Asia. His scientific publication " The History of studying the ancient Art of Mongolia "[1999] provides information about rock carvings already from 60 points, including those discovered and researched by the author himself. In recent years, our Mongolian colleagues have independently investigated a number of locations of new petroglyphs (Tseveendorj, Batchuluun, and Batbold, 2004; Tseveendorj and Batbold, 2005). However, rock carvings found 570 km south of Ulaanbaatar, in the Southern Gobi aimag of Khanbogd Somon, on Mount Zhavkhalant are particularly interesting (Tseveendorzh et al., 2004). Their content (various signs, schematic figures of people and animals) and conciseness of their plots are very similar to the petroglyphs of Inner Mongolia published by the Chinese scientist Gai Shanlin [1986, 1989].

However, despite intensive research, the total number of rock art monuments on the territory of the MNR has not yet been calculated. There is also no archaeological map of the country. A positive experience in this regard is the mapping of various archaeological sites, which were carried out during 11 field seasons (1993-2001, 2003, 2004) by a small expedition organized under the auspices of the Russian - Mongolian-American project "Altai". Their main goal was to survey and determine the coordinates of ancient monuments of the Bayan-Ulegey, Uvsu-Nur and Kobdo aimags. As a result of the work carried out, several previously unknown petroglyph sites were discovered in the localities of Tsagaan-Nuur, Har-Yamaa, Tsagaan-Salaa, Baga-Oygur, Aral-Tolgoi, Har-Salaa, Shivet-Khair-khan, Tsagaan-Gol, Bumbugur-Had, Hatuugiin-Gol, etc. The new monuments are the largest and most prominent among the known sites of rock art of the MNR, not only in terms of the number of images, but also in terms of their quality and variety of subjects. Three monographs can be called a unique result of our research in Mongolia. One of them (two volumes) has already been published in France [Jacobson, Kubarev, Tseveendorj, 2001], the second manuscript has been submitted to the press and will also be published in Paris, in the well-known series "Corpus of Petroglyphs of Central Asia". The third book was published in Russia [Kubarev V. D., Tseveendorzh, Yakobson, 2005]. In addition, the staff of the international expedition published more than 100 scientific articles and reports on petroglyphs and other ancient monuments.

page 111

published in archaeological journals in the United States, France, Germany, Japan, and South Korea.

Petroglyphs of Central Asia have been created for many millennia, and the primary tasks of researchers are their interpretation, classification and dating. To date, one of the most urgent problems remains determining at least the relative date of many rock art monuments. The mass of similar subjects and characters of Asian petroglyphs, made in a uniform style and the same technique, significantly complicates their analysis in cultural and historical terms. The discussion on the problems of primitive art that has developed on the pages of the journal in recent years allows us to imagine how complex and diverse these tasks are [Bednarik, 2004; Vishnyatsky, 2005; Molodin, 2004; Sovetova, 2005; Frankfort and Jacobson, 2004; Sher, 2004; Shvets, 2005; etc.]. To a certain extent, their solution is also supported by the publication of new visual materials from Central Asia in the journal [Kubarev V. D., Tseveendorzh, 2000; Kubarev V. D., 2001b; 2004a; Frankfort, 2002; Cheremisin, 2003, 2004; Yakobson, 2002]. However, as A. P. Okladnikov rightly noted, "the more new rock art sites are discovered, the more problems arise" (1981, p.80).

History of discovery and exploration

The first oral information about the previously unknown location of ancient drawings was received in 1996 from a Mongolian border guard officer. And already in 1998, when conducting exploration work on the western coast of Lake Baikal. Khoton-Nuur in the area of Aral-Tolgoi, a new rock art monument of the Mongolian Altai was discovered and surveyed (Figure 1). It is located in the zone of the MNR biosphere Reserve and differs from other petroglyphic monuments of Mongolia by the compact arrangement of drawings on a rock ridge oriented along the long axis along the east - west line (Figure 2), on the northern part of the Mongolian at an altitude of 2234 m above sea level (coordinates: 48° 44 '07.9" N, 88° 08 '45.3" E).

In August 1999, work on the complete copying of petroglyphs was continued on this monument (there are only about 300 separate drawings). Reports of the first studies were published in Russia and France (V. D. Kubarev, Tseveendorj, and Jacobson, 1999; Jacobson, Kubarev, and Tseveendorj, 1999). The article on recent discoveries in the Mongolian Altai identifies the problems of dating petroglyphs of the Aral-Tolgoi and provides basic information about the monument [Kubarev V. D., Tseveendorzh, 2000, pp. 48-50].

During the 2001 field season, the petroglyph layout plans were checked and corrected, previously omitted drawings were copied onto polyethylene film (Fig. 3) and taped paper (Fig. 4), and copies of palimpsest compositions taken in 1999 were clarified and corrected [Kubarev V. D., Tseveendorzh, Yakobson, 2001]. The drawings of the Aral-Tolgoi are attributed to the oldest petroglyphs of Western Mongolia (Neolithic - Early Bronze age) [Kubarev V. D., 2001a, p. 64]. In connection with the discovery of a small group of original bird images on this monument, an article was published that examined the image of a bird in rock art

1. Map of the Bayan-Ulegei aimag of Mongolia.

page 112

2. View from the south of the Aral-Tolgoi mountain range. The arrow shows the main cluster of rock carvings.

3. The process of copying petroglyphs onto a plastic film.

Fig. 4. The process of copying petroglyphs on micro-tape paper.

5. View from the west on the plane at N 34 and 35. Discussion at the petroglyphs.

Mongolian Altai [Kubarev V. D., 2002]. Some scenes from the Aral-Tolgoi region were used as parallels in the analysis of the Sayan-Altai images of deer and wild boar [Kubarev V. D., 2003a, b].A number of compositions of the monument were published in another recently published work [Kubarev V. D., 20046].

Thus, the location of the Aral-Tolgoi petroglyphs, even according to preliminary reports and individual articles, is already known to many researchers. Finally, Ulaanbaatar was the site of a complete publication of this undoubtedly basic rock art monument of Central Asia (Tseveendorzh, Kubarev, and Yakobson, 2005). Unfortunately, in Russia, and even more so in other countries, it is practically unknown to specialists engaged in the study of primitive art. Therefore, the main purpose of this article is to publish the results of stylistic analysis and determine the possible semantics of the most popular animal images of the Aral-Tol-

page 113

goya. Some controversial issues of dating Mongolian petroglyphs are also considered, for which the latest petroglyphic materials of the Russian Altai are used.

Plots, characters and their interpretation

The images of various animals carved on the stones are mostly on horizontal planes (Fig. 5). They are made in an archaic contour technique, strongly weathered and covered with a dark gray, almost black patina. Large single images of commercial animals - deer, bulls, horses, goats, rams, wild boars-predominate. There are also scenes of hunting them. Let us briefly consider (in descending order) the most important images and their place in the plot compositions of the monument under study.

6, 1, 2). The total number of images is about 80, i.e. almost 1/3 of the drawings of the Aral-Tolgoi. On this monument, the deer is undoubtedly the main character.

6. Rock paintings of the Mongolian and Russian Altai. 1 - 12 - Арал-Толгой; 13 - 18, 20, 22, 24 - 28, 31 - 34, 37 - Калбак-Таш; 19 - Джазатер; 21, 35 - Цагаан-Салаа; 23 - Калгуты; 29, 30 - Каракол; 36 - Бага-Ойгур.

page 114

7. Maral (Cervus elaphus sibiricus) and predator. The Aral Sea-Tolgoi.

Figure 8. Reindeer (Rangifer tarandus). The Aral Sea-Tolgoi.

9. Bull and deer (geometric style). The Aral Sea-Tolgoi.

10. Marals, bull, horse, goat and hunter armed with a bow. The Aral Sea-Tolgoi.

By the massive horns in the drawing, it is not difficult to recognize the maral (Cervus elaphus sibiricus) (Figure 7) - an inhabitant not only of forests, but also of open spaces. In the summer period, fleeing from the midge, these animals also enter the high-altitude zone. In Mongolia and Altai, the maral is usually called bugu (literally, male, bull).

The petroglyphs of the Aral-Tolgoi region also contain rare images of reindeer (Rangifer tarandus), easily recognizable by the branching pattern of their horns (Fig. 8). Here they are as few in number as in the Tsagaan-Salaa/Baga-Oygur complex (Mongolian Altai) and on the deer "iconostasis" in Turu-Alty (Russian Altai).

Images of deer are mostly contoured, sometimes with a silhouette of the neck and head. Very often, the contour shape is crossed by a strip that separates the torso from the head. It may not have a semantic load, but only marks the border of the silhouette of the neck and head of the animal, which for some reason was not completed. A number of images of maral deer have vertical stripes on the body, in two cases they are adjacent to or intersect with their horizontal ones. Several figures of deer are embossed in silhouette technique, i.e. solid embossing. Along with realistic ones, there are also images of marals and maral women made in a geometric style (Fig. 9). There are few such figures and they may have been carved at a later time - in the era of the developed or late Bronze Age.

In the Aral-Tolgoi region, marals and maralukhs are represented not only as single figures, but also in combination with images of bulls, horses, goats, wild boars, and various predators (see Figures 7, 9, and 10). Often there are drawings with different-sex pairs of deer, often they are captured at the moment of copulation. This obviously indicates the existence of a hunting cult of fertility, which is based on archaic ideas about the reproduction and reincarnation of slaughtered wild animals.

Direct parallels can be drawn between the images of deer in the Aral-Tolgoi and Kalbak-Tash (Russian Altai), which is quite convincing.

page 115

11. Images of marals and other animals shown with three legs. 1 - 3-Aral-Tolgoi; 4 - Kuylu grotto (Kucherla-1); 5 - Kuyus grotto; 6-Jazater; 7-Muzdy-Bulak; 8 - 10 - Hoyt-Tsenker-Agui cave.

In our opinion, it is shown in the correlation table (cf. Figs. 6, 1, 2 and figs. 6, 13-16). On both monuments, the deer dominates among other zoomorphic characters (in Kalbak-Tash, there are more than 400 different images of deer in different styles). The same can be said about the Tsagaan-Salaa/Baga-Oygur complex [Ku-barev V. D., 2001a, p. 66, 81].

In the Aral-Tolgoi region, there are also images of only deer antlers or heads with horns. A similar pictorial technique is also typical for the Kalbak-Tash petroglyphs [Kubarev V. D., Jacobson, 1996, fig. 236, 282, 378, 413, 599 Probably, it was widely used in the rock art of Northern Asia. For example, in the famous Khoyt-Tsenker-Agui cave (Mongolian Altai), the antlers of deer and other animals represent a separate plot in the context of the main murals (Okladnikov, 1972, Tables 1, 2; 13). The Irkutsk cave also "contains a fragment of images of branched deer antlers" [Filipov, 1995, p. 129], which emphasizes their semantic similarity with the Mongolian, Baikal and Bolshekadinsky scribbles. A. G. Filipov dates the cave paintings to the Bronze Age - the beginning of the Iron Age [Ibid.].

On petroglyphs of the Aral-Tolgoi marals are depicted in a static state, mainly in profile; as a rule, two legs are shown, in very rare cases - four. An extremely interesting feature of the images of deer and elk on this monument is the presence of three legs (Fig. 11, 1-3). This characteristic detail would not have been of such fundamental importance if it had not been repeatedly repeated in the drawings in the Tsagaan-Salaa/Baga-Oygur complex, at the Kuylu and Kuyus grottoes (Figs. 11, 5, 6 ) and on a huge boulder in the lake's water area. 11, 7). The authors of the publication of the last monument date the images of marals to the Paleometallic epoch, and the overlapping drawings - "within the Bronze Age" (Molodin and Cheremisin, 2002, p. 62). However, even in the" Paleolithic"paintings of the Khoyt-Tsenker-Agui cave in Mongolia, some animals ("elephant", camel, and antelope) are also shown with three legs (Figs. 11, 8-10) (Okladnikov, 1972, Fig. 18, 20, 22]. How can we explain this apparently non-accidental similarity? And how could such an artistic tradition have existed in Mongolia and the Altai for tens of thousands of years (some such drawings are dated by some researchers to the time of the Afanasyev culture's existence)? Given that the" three-legged " figures of marals and other animals made in the Eneolithic-Bronze Age are known on several rock art monuments in Mongolia and Altai, can the paintings of the Khoyt-Tsenker-Agui cave continue to be considered Paleolithic? Moreover, in the Aral-Tolgoi there are many animalistic images similar to those reproduced in this cave. So, in addition to similar style contour images of birds, there were found embossed drawings identical to cave paintings, in which antelopes, goats, argali are shown with their horns unfolded full-face, bulls - with sharp horns in the form of a crescent. In the paintings of Hoyt-Cenker-Agua, there is a very unusual horned figure of an animal with a narrow muzzle in the form of a beak [Ibid., Tables 19, 5]. This figure shows a resemblance to

page 116

12. Syncretic" moose-like " creature. Kurman-Tau (Russian Altai).

13. Similar images of marals from Aral-Tolgoi (1) and Kurman-Tau (2).

two drawings of the Aral-Tolgoi: images of a maral with a beak-shaped muzzle, or rather, with a short trunk hanging down, and a fantastic animal with an elk's head, serpentine horns, an elongated and smoothly curved muzzle, a bull's body and tail [Tseveendorzh, Kubarev, and Yakobson, 2005, Tables 4, 2; 10, 10]. A similar pattern is found in the Kurman-Tau petroglyphs (Russian Altai). It is a contour figure of an animal that combines the characteristics of an elk (elongated beak-shaped muzzle) and a horse, and maybe even a bull (straight long tail) (Fig. 12). Interpretation of such syncretic images is rather complicated, but we must assume that the compared images were made in the same epoch and are close to each other in semantic interpretation. In the art of the Okunev and Karakol cultures of Sayan-Altai, there are many drawings depicting fantastic creatures that combine the characteristics of various animals. In the Aral-Tolgoi region, the only "moose-like" figure made in a geometric style is also fantastic in appearance [Ibid., Tables 16, 6].

The images of marals from the Aral-Tolgoi region show an unmistakable stylistic similarity with the figures of deer from the ancient Kalbak-Tash sanctuary in the Russian Altai. They also correlate well with the drawings of numerous petroglyph localities in the high-altitude Chui Basin, located in the border zone with Mongolia. These are petroglyphs in the Elangash, Kok-Ozek, and Tarkhaty River valleys, in the Kurgak tract, and near Kurman-Tau Mountain (Fig. 13), which are located in the same cultural and historical microdistrict and are dated to the Early Bronze Age, i.e. not earlier than the 3rd-2nd millennium BC [Kubarev V. D., 1997, 2004b]. New data obtained in recent years confirm our definitions. For example, the most ancient of the recently discovered rock carvings in Irbistu are two maraluk contour figures and one bull (Kubarev G. V., 2003, p. 384; Jacobson and Kubarev, 2003). In the same year, in the valley of the Kok-Ozek River, on its right bank, on a separate huge boulder, contour images of maralukha, bull and horses were found, made in one step [Kubarev G. V., 2003, p. 385]. Similar "realistic" images of animals are also found on other petroglyph sites in the Mongolian and Russian Altai. These usually isolated, poorly preserved or even sketchy figures continue to be dated by individual researchers to the Paleolithic period or the "stone Age" (Molodin and Cheremisin, 1999, figs. 21, 26, 28, 39; Miklashevich, 2000, Fig. 1; Molodin et al., 2004, p. 203].

In the early single figures of marals of the Aral-Tolgoi and Altai monuments, some mythological subtext is not" read", which is clearly present in the mountain-Altai images of deer of the developed Bronze and early Iron Age. But it is quite possible to trace the continuity of the ancient pictorial tradition in rock art. Deer in the petroglyphs of Altai at all times - the main object of hunting. Both in archaic hunting scenes, and on single figures of deer, as well as in compositions of the early Iron Age, you can distinguish darts and arrows stuck into the animal's body, although there are no images of hunters. In the Aral-Tolgoi region, this pattern was observed in six cases. However, in five scenes there is a human image next to the "realistic" deer figures. These stories can be roughly divided into ritual and hunting. For example, one drawing shows a deer and two rather primitive and schematic anthropomorphic figures (Figure 14): in one of them (silhouette), you can distinguish a woman with short legs and a large belly (a sign of pregnancy?); the other, made in the contour technique (Figure 15), is apparently the same as in the previous drawing. men's clothing. The scene in question (as,

page 117

14. A maral and two anthropomorphic figures (a woman and a man?) depicted on the plane N 34. The Aral Sea-Tolgoi.

15. Drawing images on the N 34 plane. The Aral Sea-Tolgoi.

Fig. 16. Scene of maral hunting. Petroglyphs in the valley of the Khar-Salaa river (Mongolian Altai).

however, other laconic plots ("deer + man" in the compositions of Aral-Tolgoi) can also be attributed to the ritual or even mythological sphere. Scenes with the same content, where a deer is near a pregnant woman, are known in the published petroglyphs of Kalbak-Tash and the Mongolian Altai (Kubarev V. D., Jacobson, 1996; Kubarev V. D., 2001a). A separate article is devoted to this story, which received the conditional name "the woman in labor and the beast" [Kubarev V. D., 2000b].

Two other narrative scenes from Aral-Tolgoi should be attributed to hunting plots. One of them differs from the bulk of petroglyphs in its style, content, and execution technique (thin-line engraving, wiping). It reproduces a collective hunt (six to seven foot archers) for two deer and goats. Perhaps this is a corral hunt, because in the left part of the composition, hunters move to the right, driving animals in front of them, and two archers run towards them, probably being in ambush earlier. One deer is hit by an arrow in the neck and the final successful hunt is already a foregone conclusion. Due to the schematic nature of the images and the unusual technique of drawing drawings for this monument, it is very problematic to determine the time when the hunting scene was created. However, tree antlers in deer, quivers(?) behind the archers ' backs suggest that the drawings were made in the Late Bronze Age or even in the Early Iron Age.

Another hunting scene includes traditional characters for the Aral-Tolgoi region (two deer, a bull, a horse, a goat, and a small dog), stylistically not different from the others (see Figure 10). A profile figure of a hunter holding a bow with the ends facing out (the string is not marked) is located between two deer. In the chest of one of them is a feathered arrow, the trajectory of which can be determined by mentally drawing a straight line to the middle of the bow. Similar figures of hunters with similar bows are also known in the oldest petroglyphs of the Russian Altai (see Figures 6, 34, 35).

The presence in Mongolian and Altaic compositions of simultaneous images of deer, anthropomorphic figures of different sexes, hunters armed with a bow or club, as well as bulls, horses and large dogs allows us to date many "realistic" deer figures to the Early Bronze Age. The hunting scene discovered recently in the upper reaches of the Khar-Salaa River is particularly convincing in this respect (Fig.

Moose. In total, seven figures are known in the petroglyphs of Aral-Tolgoi. In this small group, perhaps, it would be necessary to include an image of another animal that resembles the muzzle and horns of an elk. But the short torso and long tail are clearly not moose-like, so we have classified the drawing as a syncretic image. Moose and moose figures are embossed in both contour and silhouette techniques. One image of an elk accompanied by a calf (?) is made in a decorative style (Fig. 17). Torso

page 118

17. An image of a moose made in a decorative style. The Aral Sea-Tolgoi.

18. An elk and a hunter with a club. The Aral Sea-Tolgoi.

19. An image of a moose (?) made with light red paint. Kurman-Tau (Russian Altai).

the animal is drawn with vertical and diagonal lines forming geometric shapes, the head with a long humped muzzle is completely filled with frequent dots, the horns are shown in the form of an oval ring with xiphoid processes. Such a decorative design of the body is typical for images of other animal species in the Aral-Tolgoi, and in general for many animalistic drawings of the Sayan-Altai in the Bronze Age.

In two realistic drawings depicting moose (Alces alces), the emphasis is placed on the animal's horns, which are shown full-face (see Figs. 11, 1). Moose have two front legs and one hind leg. Attention is drawn to the pair of figures in the two drawings. In the first case, these are horned males located one above the other, in the second-obviously, moose moose following each other.

In Aral-Tolgoi there are two laconic scenes of moose hunting: 1) a person stabs a sharp object into the animal's leg; 2)a person holds in his hand a tool shaped like a club or club, the upper end of which is directed towards the moose's muzzle (Fig.

The closest territorial analogs of the Aral-Tolgoi moose images and, more importantly, synchronous ones are the contour and silhouette figures of these animals known in the Tsagaan-Salaa/Baga-Oygur complex (Jacobson, Kubarev, Tseveendorj, 2001, fig. 130, 177, 313, 903, etc.]. Images of moose in a similar style can be found in Kalbak-Tash [Kubarev V. D., Jacobson, 1996, fig. 206, 219, 222, 350, 556 et al.], Kurgake [Kubarev V. D., 2001b, Table I, 1] and in Kurman-Tau in the Chui steppe. At the last point, located at the foot of Mount Kurman-Tau, on a separate rock ledge in 2003, a contour figure of an elk or moose was found, made in light red paint (Fig. 19). Its length is 28 cm; it is oriented with its head to the left. Here, on the vertical plane, you can also see traces of paint (stripes, spots, etc.) from other, possibly larger figures. Obviously, the paint, currently barely discernible, was much brighter. The preservation of this picture is explained by the fact that the rock plane does not get sunlight and it is largely protected from precipitation by an overhanging stone canopy. The painted image of the Kurman-Tau petroglyphs should be considered unique for the Eastern Altai (Kubarev G. V., 2003, Fig. 4; Kubarev G., Rozwadowski, Kubarev V., 2004, fig. 4). On the same plane there are similar-style figures of" moose-like " animals, published earlier [Kubarev V. D., 2000a, Fig. 1, a]. They are embossed along the contour and much larger in size than the one made with paint (see Figure 12 for one of the figures). Nevertheless, we can assume their chronological and cultural proximity, as well as the fact that the embossed figures were painted in ancient times.

In Central Asia, the closest analog of paint drawings made in Kurman-Tau is the paintings in the Hoyt-Tsenker-Agui cave, which were attributed by A. P. Okladnikov to the Paleolithic era [1972, p. 54]. It is necessary to say that images of moose were not found there, but in the murals of the eleventh

page 119

only one figure with its proportions and incompleteness [Ibid., Table 7] is very similar to the "moose" from Kurman-Tau. Another similarity is that to reproduce different animals on both monuments, the same pictorial technique is used: drawing the contours of figures with paint. In the contour technique, images of moose are embossed on the Karakol plates [Kubarev V. D., 1988, Tables I, 1, 3] and in the Kalbak-Tasha petroglyphs [Kubarev V. D., Jacobson, 1996, fig. 222]. It is assumed that the Altai figures of moose and deer embossed along the contour were also painted with ochre. Thus, in Kalbak-Tash, at the base of a rock with petroglyphs, a bowl-shaped stone with traces of red paint was found during excavations [Kubarev V. D., Matochkin, 1992].

In our opinion, the moose-like figure from Kurman-Tau shows a certain similarity with the images in the paintings of the Shishkinskaya pisanitsa [Okladnikov, 1959, Fig. 12, 13] and on the Yarma petroglyphs [Okladnikov, 1980, Fig. 8, 10, 11]. A. P. Okladnikov noted the most characteristic feature of such images: "This is an animal with the body of an elk. In all the drawings, such a characteristic feature of the male moose as powerful, developed horns is completely absent. Only short spoke horns are shown. This is clearly not about a male moose. It is possible that the Yarma drawings show moose females" [Ibid., p. 115]. Judging by the parallels drawn, the painted drawing in Kurman-Tau should be attributed to the Eneolithic - Early Bronze Age, although an earlier date is not excluded by analogy with the older images of moose in Karakol [Kubarev V. D., 1988, pp. 94-95].

In Tuva, neighboring Altai, drawings made with paint were known on the upper Yenisei, at the Joya threshold and in Sosnovka Joiskaya. Characters - elk, bull, horse; stories - boat with people, and approx. 30 oku Neva masks. Images of animals are made in contour and silhouette techniques. Ya. A. Sher dates these monuments to the Eneolithic period [1980, p. 133]. In Tuva, murals in the Yamalyk tract, located in an area close to the Basin of the Great Lakes of Mongolia, were also studied. The characters are bulls, horses, deer, moose, and sheep. There are also various signs, including oblique crosses. Researchers compare some animal figures with the images in the Khoyt-Tsenker-Agui cave, but date the Tuvan paintings to the Eneolithic or Early Bronze Age, up to the Scythian era (Kilunovskaya, 1990).

The image of the elk, an inhabitant of the taiga, in popularity among the ancient population of the Altai mountains was significantly inferior to the images of deer, bull and horse, which can be explained by the small population of this animal in the territory of the Mongolian Altai. And if in Kalbak-Tash, a real moose could have entered the mountains, possibly from the taiga regions of the Northern Altai, then there is no information about the moose's habitation in the high-altitude valleys of Altai. Some individuals may have entered the Chui Steppe from Tuva (where elk images are also known (Potapov, 1957, p. 430)) along the Chui Valley, in the floodplain of which a dense larch forest grew in the last century. Another route of migration of elk and deer to the Chui steppe could run from the taiga valley of the Bashkaus River (i.e. from north to south) and further to Mongolia and China through the easily traversed passes of the Sailugem range. It is likely that some small population of elk could also live in the larch forests on the southern shores of Lakes Khoton-Nuur and Khurgan-Nuur. They have survived to this day, and we must assume that the fauna of ancient times was incomparably richer. Therefore, the presence of moose images and hunting scenes in the high-altitude petroglyphs of the Aral-Tolgoi region becomes clear.

Goats and sheep. Images of these animals are quite numerous (more than 60 drawings). They are easily recognizable as the Siberian mountain goat (Capra sibirica) and bighorn sheep (Ovis ammori) (see Figures 6, 7, 8), which have been hunted for thousands of years. Images of goats are mostly made by punching along the contour and only a few in silhouette technique. Five figures have one or two vertical stripes on the body, and one has four vertical stripes on the body. These are mostly single images, and occasionally pairs. In some scenes, goats are depicted next to deer and bulls (see Figure 10). In many cases, they look very organic in the context of compositions with other animal species, obviously, these drawings were created at the same time. In other cases, the image of a goat overlaps the figure of a bull and, on the contrary, the outline of a horse is stamped on top of two silhouettes of goats (Fig. 20). The meaning of such palimpsest combinations is not entirely clear, but there is no doubt that this was done not accidentally, but intentionally.

In the petroglyphs of the Mongolian Altai, there are not so many images of goats made in the contour technique. In the Tsagaan-Salaa/Baga-Oygur complex, only a few figures are known that are similar in style to the Aral-Tolgoi ones (Jacobson, Kubarev, Tseveendorj, 2001, fig. 712; 1028), whereas in Kalbak-Tash and Karakol there are plenty of them (see Figs. 6, 25-30). This indicates that the Aral-Tolgoi images of goats and rams in stylistic terms tend more to Western traditions in the transmission of these animals than to the eastern, actually Mongolian ones.

Horses. The total number of shapes is approx. 20.Although the image of deer, goats, and bulls was inferior in quantity, the image of the horse was undoubtedly on a par with them in importance. Horse figures in the Aral-Tolgoi region are mostly made in the contour technique-

page 120

20. Hunting scene (?). Palimpsest: the contour image of a horse is overlaid with figures of goats made in silhouette technique. The Aral Sea-Tolgoi.

Figure 21. Paired images of horses (the lower figure is incomplete). The Aral Sea-Tolgoi.

They are similar in style and differ only in size. Nevertheless, among them we can distinguish realistic and schematic ones. Large figures are made with more careful embossing and are quite realistic (see Figures 6, 5; 20), smaller drawings are highly stylized, and they are sometimes difficult to distinguish from images of other cloven-hoofed animals. Judging by the exterior, the petroglyphs of the Aral-Tolgoi depict wild steppe horses. They are often depicted next to deer, wild bulls and goats, and in one case-in the scene of hunting them. There are also paired figures of horses (Fig. 21). It is possible that in some cases foaled individuals are depicted (see Figure 20). Large and, as it seems to us, more archaic horse figures are always solitary. Among them, the largest one stands out, reaching a length of 130 cm (see Figs. 6, 5). Inside its contour, on the chest and neck, a schematic figure (foal?) is engraved, from the head of which a sinuous line runs through the entire torso of the large figure to the croup, ending in a deep hole of natural origin, surrounded by small chips on the surface of the stone. The horse image is realistic and shares many stylistic features with similar drawings from the Tsagaan Salaa, Kalgutov and Kalbak Tasha Valley complexes (cf. Figures 6, 5, 6 and Figures 6, 23, 24). This is, firstly, a "contour technique", secondly, a complete correspondence in the proportions of the figures, and thirdly, the same method of depicting the line of the belly and legs of animals in one continuous strip. The similarity of the Aral-Tolgoi and Kalguta drawings also lies in the fact that individual figures do not have tails. They are also absent from the Eneolithic images of wild horses in Kalbak-Tash (see Figs. 6, 24). It is not yet clear what purpose the ancient artist pursued when depicting horses without tails, but the revealed pattern has some semantic load. It should also be noted that the horse figures in Aral-Tolgoi already contain additional elements and drawings. These are mostly wavy or straight lines drawn along or across the torso of horses (see Figs. 6, 5,6 ; 20). They are also noted, for example, on individual figures of horses in the Tsagaan-Salaa/Baga-Oygur complex [Ibid, fig. 314, 315].

Stylistic analysis of images of horses and direct analogs of another character from the Aral-Tolgoi in the petroglyphs of the Russian Altai indicate that the main part of the rock carvings of this complex belongs to the Eneolithic or even the Early Bronze Age.

In this series of traditional animal images for petroglyphs of the Mongolian Altai, birds should also be included, images of which are found on the flattened top of the Aral-Tolgoi ridge.

Birds. Several unusual images of them (seven in total) give the Aral-Tolgoi complex a unique look. The drawings are made in the contour technique, the birds are shown in profile. This is a common, though rare, character in the petroglyphs of the Altai Mountains. Aral-Tolgoi images of birds find stylis-

page 121

22. Images of birds from Mongolia, the Russian Altai and the Lower Tom region. 1 - 7 - Арал-Толгой; 8, 9 - пещера Хойт-Цэнкер-Агуй; 10 - Дэлийн уул; 11 - Омгийн Холийн оворт; 12, 13 - Хар-Салаа; 14 - Калбак-Таш; 15 - Каракол; 16 - Самусь; 17 - Цагаан-Салаа.

For example, in the paintings of the Hoyt-Tsenker-Agui cave, there are some fantastic parallels. But their connection is not as obvious as it seems at first glance. With formal similarities, differences are still noticeable. Thus, the images of birds in the Aral-Tolgoi look less realistic than in the Hoyt-Tsenker-Agui murals (compare Figures 22, 1-5 and 22, 8, 9). In addition, one of the Aral-Tolgoi figures is decorated with rows of stripes and embossed dots, which gives it an exotic appearance (Fig .23). The tail plumage of the bird is rendered in the same way as in the drawings in Kalbak-Tash and Karakol (compare Figures 22, 5 and Figures 22, 14, 15), which indicates the existence of common visual traditions and artistic techniques among the population of Central Asia in the Bronze Age. Another contour figure of a bird in the Aral-Tolgoi is also original and has nothing in common with the drawings in the Hoyt-Tsenker-Agui cave. It has a large rounded head, two short legs, a body divided by a vertical stripe, and an egg or heart is depicted in the chest part (see Figs. 22, 6). In our opinion, such detail is not typical for the oldest bird images in Central Asia, although D. Tseevendorj and E. Yakobson believe that the drawings of the Aral-Tolgoi depict ostriches and, on this basis, date them to the Paleolithic - Mesolithic epoch (Jacobson, Kubarev, Tseevendorj, 1999, p. 15). But this definition is subjective and highly controversial. While it is difficult to say which of the compared images of birds are the most ancient. If we follow the hypothesis of the stage development of images of Mongolian rock art - from realistic to schematic-then a clear preference should be given to the drawings in the Khoyt-Tsenker-Agui cave, which look more realistic than the Aral-Tolgoi ones. The latter find analogies also in the later pictorial monuments of Mongolia. These are drawings on the stone fence of a tile grave in the Delijn uul locality (see Figs. 22, 10) and on a deer stone (see Figs. 22, 11) from the Omggijn Holijn ovort locality (Volkov, 2002, Tables 109, 125). Very similar to the Aral-Tolgoi images of birds are known in the petroglyphs of the Khar Salaa Valley (see Figures 22, 12, 13) - another unique monument, the materials of which have not yet been published in full. A certain cultural and historical (possibly semantic) connection can be traced with similar bird images in the Karakol-Okunev art (see Figures 22, 14, 15) and in the visual art of the Samus community cultures of Western Siberia (see Figures 22, 16). First, it is the same interpretation of the bodies of birds in the form of an egg-shaped oval; secondly, the presence next to them or even inside the figures of specially embossed depressions of a rounded or oval shape - egg symbols (?); and thirdly, the presence of an ornament. Such detail in the images of birds, as is known, was dictated by the ancient solar cult and cosmogonic ideas about the World Egg [Ivanov and Toporov, 1992, p. 349; Kosarev, 1981, p. 254; Esin, 2001, p.52-53]. It is typical, for example, for drawings on Samuska ceramic dishes (see Figs. 22, 16), which existed in the middle of the second millennium BC (Kosarev, 1981, Figs. 80, 6, 10). The image of a bird with an egg is dated to approximately the same time.-

page 122

22, 17) [Kubarev V. D., 2002]. Based on the above, it is logical to assume that the images of birds in the Aral-Tolgoi also belong to the Bronze Age. The question about the type of birds depicted in the drawings of Aral-Tolgoi and Hoyt-Tsenker-Agui is not yet clear. Some researchers believe that this is an ostrich, others see them as a crane, bustard or swan, and even a goose. Today on the lake. In Khoton Nuur, you can see huge flocks of waterfowl, and at the southern foot of the Aral Tolgoi-cranes walking among grazing domestic horses. A similar picture could have been seen by an ancient artist several millennia ago.

The images of birds in the petroglyphs of the Aral-Tolgoi mountains are concentrated on the highest point of the mountain range (on a small section of rock outcrops with a total area of no more than 20 m2), stretching from east to west. It offers a magnificent panorama of the surrounding mountain and lake landscape (fig. 24). The topography of the ancient sanctuary and the natural context may have been associated with a universal model of the world, the central element of which is the World Mountain. The mountain range is washed from the north and south by numerous channels of two small rivers that flow into the huge lake in the east. Khoton Nuur, its water surface is lost over the horizon. The hill is a flattened pyramid. The path to the top of the mountain runs along gentle stepped rock outcrops on the east and west sides; on the south - steep bare rocks, the northern slope is covered with forest. All this suggests the similarity of the rock massif of the Aral-Tolgoi with the legendary world mountain Sumeru. In Buddhist mythology, it "sometimes takes the form of a four-sided pyramid of 3, 4, and 7 steps symmetrical to the layers of the sky "(Neklyudov, 1992, p. 172). It is also quite logical to place the images of birds on the very top of the mountain range associated with the World Mountain. As you know, many peoples in the cosmogonic myths about the creation of the world often feature the image of a bird diving into the depths of the world's waters for the earth and building the original hill. The plot scheme of the action "is built in accordance with the principle: one bird dives into the sea and stays there for one day. Then two birds dive and stay there for two days... Finally, seven birds dive and stay there for seven days, as a result of which the world was created" [Toporov, 1992, p. 9]. Whether this is a coincidence or not, the total number of bird images in the Aral-Tolgoi corresponds to the numerical symbolism of the creation myth.

Problems of dating petroglyphs in Central Asia

Judging by the comparative typological analysis of images, the compact cluster of drawings on the Aral-Tolgoi River has rather narrow chronologies-

23. Palimpsest: a bird image made in a decorative style overlaps the horse figure. The Aral Sea-Tolgoi.

24. Panorama opening from the top of the Aral-Tolgoi rock ridge.

page 123

technical framework. It should be dated within the Final Neolithic or Early Bronze Age, and only individual drawings should be dated to the Late Bronze and Early Iron Ages. Serious and convincing data are not yet available for attributing the complex to an earlier time (Mesolithic, Paleolithic). Some petroglyphs of the unique monument, as already mentioned, find parallels in the paintings of the Hoyt-Cenker-Agui cave, dated by A. P. Okladnikov to the Upper Paleolithic (1972, p. 47). But, in our opinion, the correlation between the drawings of the Aral-Tolgoi made by spot punching "in the open sky" and the paintings painted on the walls of the cave is not entirely correct. Such a comparison of pictorial materials of two different types of ritual monuments is doubtful. However, while there are no absolutely accurate methods for dating the oldest drawings, we must again compare the new petroglyphs with the already known paintings of the Hoyt-Cenker-Agui cave. The result remains the same: we should once again doubt that the paintings belong to the Paleolithic. This conclusion is dictated by many years of experience in studying the visual monuments of the Mongolian Altai and, in particular, the analysis of unique rock art samples of the Aral-Tolgoi region.

In general, the Aral-Tolgoi petroglyphs in their style, technique of execution and the characters considered not only reveal clear cultural and chronological connections with other ancient ritual and cult centers of the Mongolian Altai (Tsagaan-Salaa, Baga-Oygur, Khar-Salaa, etc.), but also find analogies in the rock carvings of the Russian Altai. They are particularly well correlated with the visual materials of Kalbak-Tash, Karakol, Kuyusu and Kuylu grottoes (Kucherla-1). Petroglyphs in the valleys of the Jazator, Elangash, and Kok-Ozek rivers, in the Kurman-Tau and Kurgak localities in the Chui Steppe, as well as rock carvings of Muzda-Bulak and the Ukok plateau are probably logical intermediate links in this cultural and chronological chain.

In one of the first articles devoted to the petroglyphs of the Aral-Tolgoi region, we tentatively dated the monument to the Neolithic - Early Bronze Age (Kubarev and Tseveendorzh, 2000, pp. 50-51, Fig. 4). At the moment, this conclusion is supported by new data and our observations, which even allow us to shorten the period of operation of the ancient sanctuary of Aral-Tolgoi. Perhaps most of the petroglyphs were created in the final Neolithic or at the beginning of the Early Bronze Age. Even in cases of palimpsests (see Fig. 20) there does not appear to be a large chronological gap between the drawings made earlier and the ones that overlap them. A similar situation is observed on synchronous petroglyphs of the Russian Altai, where deer figures made in the same iconographic canon overlap each other (see Figures 11, 5, 7). Perhaps this was done intentionally and almost simultaneously and was dictated by the norms of a ritual action that is still incomprehensible to us, captured in drawings on rocks.

Attribution of the petroglyphs of the Aral-Tolgoi region to specific archaeological cultures seems premature*, in contrast, for example, to the Kalbak-Tash monument, where, in addition to Neolithic drawings, pictorial layers of the Karakol and Afanasyev cultures of the Altai are identified (Kubarev V. D., 1992). The petroglyphs of the Aral-Tolgoi region are dominated by images of commercial animals and hunting themes. There are no characters or plots that would indicate the pastoral nature of the economy of the ancient tribes of the Mongolian Altai: domesticated animals, armed shepherds, scenes of nomadic bull riding, etc. Judging by the small number of drawings, it can be assumed that the Aral-Tolgoi sanctuary did not function for long. Our conclusion is confirmed by a small number of drawings of the Advanced and Late Bronze Age, which are also located on the periphery of the main cluster of petroglyphs. These include images of a single-axle chariot, an archer in a crescent-shaped headdress, the above-mentioned (engraved) deer hunting scene dating from the Late Bronze Age, several bull figures, and a composition with images of deer made in the Mongol-Trans-Baikal style.

According to Professor D. Tseveendorzh, the earliest drawings in the Aral-Tolgoi were created in the Mesolithic period. However, he still does not rule out that some of the petroglyphs belong to the Neolithic and Early Bronze Age (see [Tseveendorzh, Kubarev, and Yakobson, 2005, p.79]). Professor Ye Jacobson continues to date some drawings of the Aral Tolgoi to the Late Paleolithic (see [Jacobson, Kubarev, Tseevendorj, 1999, p. 11-15]), and other petroglyphs of this monument to the Neolithic and Bronze Age (Frankfort and Jacobson, 2004, Fig. 1, 3, 12, 18]. Let us hope that further research and application of the latest natural-scientific methods will solve the problem of dating the rock images of the Aral-Tolgoi.

* Despite the fact that the first Russian scientists more than 120 years ago noted the abundance of ancient monuments in the lake's water area. Khoton-Nuur, this area of the Mongolian Altai should be considered poorly studied from an archaeological point of view.

page 124

Conclusion

So, several points of view are expressed about the initial stage of creation and functioning of a unique monument of ancient art in Mongolia. This is not unusual; discussions always encourage a further scientific search for evidence that allows you to more thoroughly argue the assumptions made. Despite the conflicting conclusions of the Altai project participants regarding the dating of the Aral-Tolgoi petroglyphs, as well as completely different approaches to the interpretation of rock carvings, we believe that we have achieved the main goal. It was to investigate the monument in a short time and publish its materials. Currently, the copied drawings of Aral-Tolgoi have been fully processed and published in Mongolia. In the near future, it is planned to publish a separate album in Russia (in Russian, Mongolian and English).

The cultural and historical significance of the Aral-Tolgoi petroglyphs as a valuable and informative source on Mongolian paleoart is beyond doubt. Another monument of the ancient culture of Central Asia, which should be included in the UNESCO World Heritage List, has been opened. In the coming years, it is necessary to conduct a full monitoring of this unique archaeological site and develop a concept for further preserving its rock paintings for the entire world community.

List of literature

Bednarik R. Interpretatsiya dannykh o proiskhozhdenii iskusstva [Interpretation of data on the origin of art]. - 2004. - N 4. - p. 35-47.

Vishnyatsky L. B. Information explosion and visual activity //Archeology, Ethnography and Anthropology of Eurasia. -2005. - N 1 (21). - p. 51-54.

Volkov V. V. Olennye kamony Monoglii [Olenny stones of Mongolia], Moscow: Nauchn. mir Publ., 2002, 248 p.

Gai Shanglin. Ininan yanhua (Petroglyphs of the Yin-shan Mountains). Beijing: Wenwu Publ., 1986, 441 p. (English).

Gai Shanglin. Ulanchabu yanhua (Petroglyphs of the Ulanchab steppe). Beijing: Wenwu Publ., 1989, 355 p. (in Chinese).

Esin Yu. N. Semantics of decor on vessels of Samus culture / / Izv. Laboratorii arkheologii. Gorno-Altaisk, 2001, No. 7, pp. 39-54.

Ivanov V. V., Toporov V. N. Ptitsii [Birds] / / Myths of the peoples of the world. Moscow: Sov. encikl., 1992, vol. 2, pp. 346-349.

Kilunovskaya M. E. Naskalnye svyatylishcha Yuzhnoy Tuva [Rock sanctuaries of Southern Tuva]. Problemy izucheniya naskalnykh izobrazheniy v SSSR [Problems of studying rock images in the USSR], Moscow: Nauka Publ., 1990. - P. 198-205.

Kosarev M. F. Bronzovyi vek Zapadnoy Sibiri [The Bronze Age of Western Siberia], Moscow: Nauka Publ., 1981, 279 p.

Kubarev V. D. Ancient paintings of Karakol. Novosibirsk: Nauka Publ., 1988, 173 p. (in Russian)

Kubarev V. D. Karakol plots in new petroglyphs of Altai / / Problems of preservation, use and study of archaeological monuments. Gorno-Altaisk: Gorno-Altaisk State Pedagogical Institute, 1992, pp. 47-48.

Kubarev V. D. O petroglyphs Kalguta [About petroglyphs of Kalguta]. Kemerovo: Kem. State University, 1997, issue 2, pp. 88-97.

Kubarev V. D. Petroglyphs of Kurman-Tau // Antiquities of Altai: Izv. Laboratories of Archeology. Gorno-Altaisk: Gorno-Alt Publishing House. state University, 2000a. - N 5. - p. 15-21.

Kubarev V. D. Mythological plot: "the woman and the beast" and its evolution in the petroglyphs of Altai / / Problems of archeology, Ethnography, anthropology of Siberia and adjacent territories. Novosibirsk: IAEt SB RAS, 20006, pp. 312-317.

Kubarev V. D. Analysis of petroglyphs and comments / / Jacobson E., Kubarev V. D., Tseveendorj D. Mongolie du Nord-Ouest: Tsagaan Salaa/Baga Oigor. - P.: De Boccard, 2001a. - P. 60-83.- (Repertoire des Petroglyphes d'Asie centrale / Eds. J. A. Sher and H. - P Francfort; T. V. 6).

Kubarev V. D. Petroglyphs of Kurgak // Problems of archeology, ethnography, and anthropology of Siberia and adjacent territories. Novosibirsk: IAEt SB RAS, 2001, pp. 332-335.

Kubarev V. D. Plots of hunting and war in the ancient Turkic petroglyphs of Altai / / Archeology, Ethnography and Anthropology of Eurasia. - 2001v. - N 4 (8). - p. 75-107.

Kubarev V. D. The image of a bird in the Altai petroglyphs // Northern Eurasia in the Bronze Age: Space, Time, Culture. Barnaul: Alt. State University, 2002, pp. 77-81.

Kubarev V. D. The image of a deer in the Altai petroglyphs // Steppes of Eurasia in ancient and medieval times. Saint Petersburg: IIMK RAS Publ., 2003a. - Book 2, part 3. - p. 70-76.

Kubarev V. D. Obraz kabana v petroglyphakh Altay [The image of a wild boar in the Altai petroglyphs]. 70th anniversary of the birth of Anton Martynov. Novosibirsk: IAEt SB RAS, 20036, pp. 72-77.

Kubarev V. D. Armament of ancient nomads based on the petroglyphs of Altai / / Archeology, Ethnography and Anthropology of Eurasia. - 2004a. - N 3 (19). - p. 65-81.

Kubarev V. D. Drevneyshie izobrazhitel'nye pamyatniki Mongolii i Altay: problemy khronologii i interpretatsii [Ancient visual monuments of Mongolia and Altai: problems of chronology and Interpretation]. Problemy pervobytnoy arkheologii Evrazii: (K 75-letiyu A. A. Formozov): Sb. statey [Problems of Primitive Archeology of Eurasia: (To the 75th anniversary of A. A. Formozov): Collection of articles], Moscow: PA RAS, 20046, pp. 228-242.

Kubarev V. D., Matochkin E. I. Petroglyphs of Altai. Novosibirsk: IAEt SB RAS, 1992, 120 p. (in Russian)

Kubarev V. D., Tseveendorzh D. Terra incognito in the center of Asia / / Archeology, Ethnography and Anthropology of Eurasia. - 2000. - N 1. - p. 48-56.

Kubarev V. D., Tseveendorzh D., Yakobson E. Petroglyphs of the Aral-Tolgoi / / Problems of Archeology, Ethnography, and Anthropology of Siberia and adjacent territories. Novosibirsk: Publishing House of IAEt SB RAS, 1999. - P. 407-410.

Kubarev V. D., Tseveendorzh D., Yakobson E. Izuchenie petroglyphov Mongolskogo Altay [Studying the petroglyphs of the Mongolian Altai]. Problemy arkheologii, etnografii, antropologii Sibiri i sopredel'nykh territorii [Problems of Archeology, Ethnography, and Anthropology of Siberia and adjacent Territories]. Novosibirsk: IAEt SB RAS, 2001, pp. 336-340.

Kubarev V. D., Tseveendorzh D., Yakobson E. Petroglyphs of Tsagaan-Salaa and Baga-Oygur (Mongolian Altai). Novosibirsk: IAEt SB RAS Publ., 2005, 640 p.

page 125

Kubarev G. V. Issledovaniya v Chuyskoy stepi (Yugo-Vostochny Altay) [Research in the Chui Steppe (South-Eastern Altai)]. Novosibirsk: IAEt SB RAS, 2003, vol. 9, pp. 384-388.

Miklashevich, E. A., Petroglyphs of the Ursul River Valley (some results of stylistic and chronological analyses), Obozrenie 1994-1996, Novosibirsk: IAEt SB RAS, 2000, pp. 38-42.

Molodin V. I. Rock art of Northern Asia: problems of studying // Archeology, Ethnography and Anthropology of Eurasia. - 2004. - N 3. - p. 51-64.

Molodin V. I., Cheremisin D. V. The oldest rock images of the Ukok plateau. Novosibirsk: Nauka Publ., 1999, 160 p. (in Russian)

Molodin V. I., Cheremisin D. V. Palimpsest on a boulder from Lake Muzdy-Bulak (Ukok plateau) // Primitive Archaeology: Man and Art. Novosibirsk: Izd-vo IAEt SB RAS, 2002, pp. 57-62.

Molodin V. I., Polosmak N. V., Novikov A.V., Bogdanov E. S., Slyusarenko I. Yu., Cheremisin D. V. Archaeological sites of the Ukok plateau (Gorny Altai). Novosibirsk: IAEt SB RAS, 2004, 255 p. (in Russian)

Neklyudov S. Yu. Mongol'skikh narodov mifologiya [Mongolian peoples ' mythology] / / Myths of the peoples of the world, Moscow: Sov. encikl., 1992, vol. 2, pp. 170-174.

Okladnikov A. N. Shishkinskie pisanitsy-a monument to the ancient culture of the Baikal region. - Irkutsk: Kn. izd-vo, 1959. - 212 p.

Okladnikov A. N. Central Asian hearth of primitive art (cave paintings of Hoyt-Tsenker Agui (Sengri-agui), Western Mongolia). Novosibirsk: Nauka Publ., 1972, 76 p. (in Russian)

Okladnikov A. N. Zveri i znaki yarminskogo poroga [Animals and signs of the Yarminsky threshold]. Novosibirsk: Nauka Publ., 1980, pp. 96-116 (Primitive Art).

Okladnikov A. N. Petroglyphs of Mongolia, Nauka Publ., 1981, 228 p.

Potapov A. P. K istorii fauny Tsentral'noi Azii (o naskalnykh izobrazheniyakh zhivotnykh v gorakh Tannu-Ola i Mongun-Taigi) [On the history of the fauna of Central Asia (on rock images of animals in the mountains of Tannu-Ola and Mongun-Taiga)]. 18. - p. 429-431.

Sovetova O. S. O vozmozhnostei ispol'zovaniya naskalnykh izobrazheniy v kak istochnik po istorii voennogo dela plemen tatarskoy kul'tury [On the possibilities of using rock images as a source on the history of military affairs of Tatar culture tribes]. - 2005. - N 4 (24). - p. 77-84.

Toporov V. N. Kosmogonicheskie mifi [Cosmogonic myths]. Moscow: Sov. encikl., 1992, vol. 2, pp. 6-9.

Filipov A. G. Rock drawings and ceramics of the Irkutsk Cave / / Cultures and monuments of the Bronze and Iron Ages of Transbaikalia and Mongolia. Ulan-Ude: [B. I.], 1995, pp. 123-129.

Frankfort A.-N. Obrazy, izobraplennye na kamne i v ob " ektakh iskusstva (po materialam pogrebeniy zheleznogo veka Xintszyana i drevnoi Baktriya) [Images captured on stone and in objects of art (based on the materials of burials of the Iron Age of Xinjiang and Ancient Bactria)]. - 2002. - N 2 (12). - p. 62-73.

Frankfor A.-N., Yakobson E. Podkhody k izucheniyu petroglyphov Severnoi, Tsentral'noi i Srednoi Azii [Approaches to the study of petroglyphs in Northern, Central and Central Asia]. - 2004. - N 2 (18). - p. 53-78.

Цэвээндорж Д. Монголын эртний урлагийн туух (История древнего искусства Монголии). Ulaanbaatar: Gamma, 1999, 317 p. (in English).

Цэвээндорж Д., Батболд Н. Дундговь аймгийн дэл уулын билууний хадны зураг (Петроглифы горы Билуун Дэл. Srednegobiysky aimag). - Улаанбаатар: Монгол улс шинжлэх ухааны Академи археологийн Хурээлен, 2005. - 96 с. (in Mong).

Батболд Н. Батчулуун Л., Цэвээндорж Д., Молор Толгойн хадны зураг (Петроглифы Молор Толгой). - Улаанбаатар: Монгол улс шинжлэх ухааны Академи археологийн Хурээлэн, 2004. - 121 с. (на монг. яз.).

Tseveendorzh D., Kubarev V. D., Yakobson E. Aral tolgoin hadny zurag (Petroglyphs of the Aral-Tolgoi. Mongolia). -Улаанбаатар: Монгол улс шинжлэх ухааны Академи археологийн Хурээлэн, 2005. - 204 с. (на монг. яз.).

Цэвээндорж Д., Цэрэндагва Я., Гунчинсурэн Б., Гарамжав Д. Жавхлант хайрханы хадны зураг (Петроглифы горы Жавхалант). - Улаанбаатар: Менхийн усэг, 2004. - 313 с.

Cheremisin D. V. Rock composition with the image of a chariot and "dancers" from Chaganka (Kara-Oyuk), Altai / / Archeology, Ethnography and Anthropology of Eurasia. - 2003. - N 4 (16). - p. 57-63.

Cheremisin D. V. Rezul'taty novykh issledovaniy petroglyphs drevnetyurkskoy epokhi na yugo-vostoke Rossiiskogo Altay [Results of recent studies of petroglyphs of the Ancient Turkic era in the South-east of the Russian Altai]. - 2004. - N 1 (17). - p. 39-50.

Shvets N. N. Nekotorye aspekty sovremennogo sostoyaniya izucheniya naskalnogo iskusstva Tsentral'noi Azii [Some aspects of the current state of studying the rock art of Central Asia]. - 2005. - N 3 (23). - p. 130-139.

Sher Ya. A. Petroglyphs of Central and Central Asia, Moscow: Nauka Publ., 1980, 328 p.

Sher Ya. A. Disputable issues of studying primitive art / / Archeology, Ethnography and Anthropology of Eurasia. - 2004. - N 2 (18). - p. 36-52.

E. Jacobson. K voprosu ob informativnosti petroglyphicheskikh i pogrebal'nykh pamyatnikov epokhi bronzy [On the informative value of petroglyphic and funeral monuments of the Bronze Age]. - 2002. - N3 (11). - p. 32-47.

Jacobson E., Kubarev G. V. Rock art complex on the Irbystu river, Altai Republic // International newsletter on rock art. - 2003. - N 36. - P. 12 - 16.

Jacobson E., Kubarev V. D., Tseveendorj D. A new petroglyph site in the Altay mountains, Bayan Olgiy aimag, Mongolia // International newsletter on rock art. - 1999. - N 24. - P. 11 - 15.

Jacobson E., Kubarev V. D., Tseevendorj D. Mongolie du Nord-Ouest: Tsagaan Salaa/Baga Oigor. -P.: De Boccard, 2001. - 132 p., 346 taf, 399 photogrs. - (Repertoire des petroglyphes d'Asie Centrale / eds. JA. Sher and H. -P Francfort; T. V. 6).

Kubarev V. D., Jacobson E. Siberie du sud 3: Kalbak-Tash I (Republique de L'Altai). - P.: De Boccard, 1996. - 45 p., 15 pi., 662 fig. - (Repertoire des petroglyphes d'Asie Centrale; T. V. 3).

Kubarev G., Rozwadowski A., Kubarev V. Recent rock art research in the Altai mountains (Russia) // International newsletter on rock art. - 2004. - N 39. - P. 6 - 12.

The article was submitted to the Editorial Board on 30.06.05.

page 126

Permanent link to this publication: