- Email: [email protected]
PETROGLYPHS ON THE POPERECHNAYA KRASNOYARKA RIVER
ARCHAEOLOGY, ETHNOLOGY & ANTHROPOLOGY OF EURASIA Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 37/4 (2009) 83–91 E-mail: [email protected]
57
THE METAL AGES AND MEDIEVAL PERIOD
E.P. Matochkin A.V. Anokhin National Museum of the Altai Republic, Choros-Gurkina 46, Gorno-Altaisk, 649000, Russia E-mail: [email protected]
PETROGLYPHS ON THE POPERECHNAYA KRASNOYARKA RIVER
The current article describes a new petroglyphic site in the upper reaches of the Poperechnaya Krasnoyarka River in the Ust-Koksa Region of the Altai Republic. Engravings were found on massive slabs exposed above the earth’s surface. The petroglyphs mostly include pecked images of Siberian maral deer as well as carved and partially abraded representations of elk. Among the representations discovered engraved anthropomorphic images are of particular interest. The petroglyphs at Poperechnaya Krasnoyarka and those of the nearby sanctuary at Zelenoye Ozero demonstrate the emergence of distinctive features of Karakol-Okunev art in the Altai during the Middle Bronze Age. Keywords: Petroglyphic site, engraved images, Karakol-Okunev art, Middle Bronze Age.
Introduction The petroglyphs in question were discovered on level, horizontal rock exposures situated on the right bank of the Poperechnaya Krasnoyarka River. The Poperechnaya Krasnoyarka serves as the southwestern source of the Krasnoyarka River in the Ust-Koksa Region of the Altai Republic. The site is located at the border between alpine meadows and a steep waterfall at coordinates: 50°07ƍ03.7Ǝ N and 84°50ƍ27.6Ǝ E; altitude 1974 m asl (according to the Baltic system of elevation measurement). The site is located in a remote highland area at a considerable distance from human settlement. The site was reached after two days horse ride setting out from the village of Kaitanak. The last 10 km were especially dif¿cult involving crossing marshland and climbing up the northern face to reach the glacier on the rounded mount which dominates the landscape. Another petroglyphic site containing true masterpieces of rock art is located at the southeastern source of the Krasnoyarka close to Zelenoye Ozero (Green Lake) (Matochkin, 2004 a, b, c; 2005, 2006). Studies of the Poperechnaya Krasnoyarka rock art site were conducted during the ¿eld seasons of 2007 and 2008.
The petroglyphs are located on thick stone slabs running in an east-west direction and slabs which project from the ground forming a wavy feature and stretching from the north to the south (Fig. 1). The greatest number of petroglyphs is to be found on the Àat, westernmost monoliths situated near a small brook Àowing from a glacier. The slabs are composed of sericite-chlorite slate covered with a cherry-brown crust convenient for pecking and carving. Only the areas closest to the ground are so covered with lichen that it becomes impossible to trace any sign of tool working. Description of the petroglyphs The majority of petroglyphs are located over an area measuring 10 m from north to south and 30 m east to west. The area encompasses six rows of slabs on which 25 rock image bearing loci were recorded. In addition, four isolated stones with solitary images were discovered within a radius of 100 m from the main site. These areas are numbered and their distance to the east of the westernmost slab in the ¿rst northern line is indicated.
Copyright © 2010, Siberian Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences, Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.aeae.2010.02.010
84
E.P. Matochkin / Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 37/4 (2009) 83–91
Locus 10 (on the same rock after a ¿ssure); 0.6 m by 0.9 m. Carved image of an elk overlaid by a pecked representation of a maral deer with large antlers; below the elk’s legs stands a carved image of an ungulate. Locus 11 (0.5 m to the south); 0.4 m by 1.5 m. Carved images: elk, elongate mark, and two zoomorphic ¿gures. Abraded elk image. Pecked image of an unidenti¿able animal. Locus 12 (1 m to the north and parallel to locus 10); 1 m by 2 m. Maral deer. Line 2 (2 m south of line 1). Locus 13 (0.9 m by 4 m). Sixteen maral deer, one elk, one fox, and two unidenti¿able animals. Line 3 (2 m south of line 2). Locus 14 (1 m by 4.5 m). Twenty maral deer, a female elk, two zoomorphic ¿gures (lizards?), two birds, four bears, goat, predator, and three Fig. 1. General view of the Poperechnaya Krasnoyarka unidenti¿able animals. petroglyphic site. Locus 15 (1 m from locus 14); 0.8 m by 2.5 m. Pair of maral deer, lizard (?), Descriptions contain a reference number and the distance a carved anthropomorphic image, and a female maral to the east of the slab described previously. The shape deer. of the slab is speci¿ed where rock images are located Locus 16 (1 m from locus 15); 1.5 m by 1.5 m. Female on surfaces other than the horizontal. Most images were maral deer. executed in pecking technique with the exception of Locus 17 (2 m from locus 16). Stone of subtriangular instances of carving which are speci¿cally indicated in the shape (2 m by 2 m). Indistinct composition including a description. In addition to the images described below, the circle, anthropomorphic image, two maral deer, a female rock surfaces bear cup-like depressions, amorphous spots, maral deer, three wolves, dog, goat, and a hunting scene and curved lines. composed of an archer and two elks. Line 1. Locus 1. Elevated subtriangular stone 0.8 m Locus 18 (1 m from locus 17); 1.5 m by 3.5 m. by 1.6 m. Contour image of a Siberian deer (maral). Numerous carved lines. Carved images: female elk, Locus 2 (3 m from locus 1). Elevated round stone bird-elk, and a fruit. Pecked images: four elks, two 1.2 m by 1.8 m. Three pairs of maral deer (male and anthropomorphic ¿gures, snake, two wolves, two maral female); two unidenti¿able animals, and a carved elk. deer, an ungulate, and ¿ve goats. Locus 3 (1.5 m from locus 2); 0.6 m by 0.5 m. Pair Locus 19 (2 m from locus 18); 1 m by 2 m. Numerous of maral deer. carved lines. Indistinct abraded silhouette of a maral deer Locus 4 (1 m from the previous locus on the same and a pecked cross-like ¿gure. rock); 1 m by 0.8 m. Female maral deer. Locus 20 (on the same stone); 0.8 m by 2 m. Two Locus 5 (1 m east of locus 4 on the same rock). Three zoomorphic images (lizards?). maral deer. Line 4. Locus 21 (1.5 m south of line 3); 1.2 m by Locus 6 (1.5 m east of the previous locus); 1 m by 2 m. Female maral deer. 1.5 m. Two maral deer, bear, and carved images of male Locus 22 (19 m from locus 21); 1 m by 2.5 m. Three and female elk. maral deer. Locus 7 (1 m south of locus 6 and parallel to it); Line 5. Locus 23 (5 m south of locus 18 in line 4); 0.7 m by 1 m. Unidenti¿able schematic ¿gure. 1 m by 4 m. Fox. Locus 8 (3 m from locus 6); 1 m by 2.5 m. One maral Locus 24 (6 m from locus 23); 1 m by 3 m. Maral deer and three elk (including one carved image). deer. Locus 9 (2 m from locus 6); 1 m by 5 m. Numerous Line 6. Locus 25 (2.5 m south of line 5 and parallel to faint scratched lines. Carved images: three elk, a woman, locus 17 in line 3); 1 m by 4 m. Two maral deer. heads of elk and maral, and an ungulate. Two abraded Loci on separate slabs. ¿gures (lizards?). Pecked images: four maral deer and Locus 26 (15 m south of locus 25); 0.5 m by 1 m. three unidenti¿able animals. Goat.
E.P. Matochkin / Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 37/4 (2009) 83–91
Locus 27 (40 m northeast of locus 1); 1 m by 3 m. Female maral deer and an unidentifiable zoomorphic ¿gure. Locus 28 (100 m southwest of locus 1); 0.4 m by 1 m. Syncretic animal. Locus 29 (100 m west of locus 1); 0.7 m by 0.7 m. Maral deer. The repertoire of petroglyphs described above reÀects the art characteristic of taiga hunters. Two hunted animals dominate: the elk and the maral deer. Of the total 154 recorded drawings, maral images form more than 50 % whereas elk images constitute 15 %. Anthropomorphic images form 4 %; predators and goats 8 % and 4 %, respectively. Pecked animal images Most petroglyphs represent the Siberian maral deer. Their outlines are executed in pecking technique; some contours are wide and head and neck pro¿les are rendered in more detail. The large number of paired animals (primarily maral) represents a distinguishing feature of the site. Male and female animals depicted close to each other constitute 60 % of the representations. In some places, the silhouettes of separate animals overlap forming a palimpsest. In other cases, two images share a common outline or are connected by a pecked line. The animals are mostly rendered as if moving slowly one after another. One such composition can be seen at central locus 14, with which line 3 begins. As well as maral the composition shows pairs of moving birds and bears. Two ¿gures of chthonic creatures resembling lizards are pecked close to the other images (Fig. 2). Analogous zoomorphic clay figurines of the Bronze Age Irmen culture were recovered from the settlement of Abashino-1 in Western Siberia (Molodin, 1992: ¿g. 63, 64). Similar creatures are depicted in two other loci at Krasnoyarka. The images at locus 9 were made by scraping the cortex. These images demonstrate more pointed forms than others of this kind. The amorphous outlines barely stand out against the background of patina which differs little in shade from the rest of the rock surface. At locus 15, the lizard is pecked below the leg of a female maral. The leg and hoof overlaps the lizard’s front leg (Fig. 3). Two poorly identi¿able ¿gures are pecked at locus 20 (Fig. 4). The image to the west resembles Bronze-Age Irmen ¿gurines, while the image to the east represents a syncretic zoo-anthropomorphic creature shown en face, with a thick body and outstretched extremities. On the large slabs, images are seemingly located at random, making it impossible to determine which direction represents up and which down. Animals are shown as if soaring in space and depicted in various positions, falling downwards and flying upwards. It
Fig. 2. Pecked images at locus 14. The eastern part of the slab. Poperechnaya Krasnoyarka.
Fig. 3. Images of female maral and lizard (?) at locus 15. Poperechnaya Krasnoyarka.
Fig. 4. Two zoo-anthropomorphic ¿gures of lizards (?) at locus 20. Poperechnaya Krasnoyarka.
85
86
E.P. Matochkin / Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 37/4 (2009) 83–91
appears that the irregular placement of animal images over the surface and their multitude reÀect the wishful idea of the abundance and omnipresence of these creatures in nature. It is probable that the images depicted here were executed with the aim of realizing this idea in the material world. The petroglyphs located on the large, Àat, western slabs at the center of the site are distinctly vivid and impressively stylized. However, in peripheral areas, the iconographic canon deteriorates into arid schematism. This suggests that certain images were repeatedly reproduced over a signi¿cant period of time. The Poperechnaya Krasnoyarka petroglyphs are especially poetic in rendering sexual dimorphism. Females are normally represented as silhouettes and the pecking is thorough. The animals are shown with pendulous belly, high ears, and short legs. The artist intentionally lengthened the neck and rendered the antlers with delicate outlines, thus enhancing the grace of the entire image (Fig. 5). Scenes Several compositions are present at locus 17. In the southern portion of the slab, a large goat chased by a
wolf is depicted in pecking technique. The middle portion shows a running ungulate and two predators tracking it down. An anthropomorphic ¿gure and a dog are located above these compositions. All these images are executed in crude technique and differ stylistically from the petroglyphs found on the central slabs. The composition in the northwestern corner of this locus is more thorough. The picture shows an anthropomorphic ¿gure with an arch extending from its head which is interrupted by an indistinct ¿gure. Although this ¿gure is clearly outlined and all its elements are present, it remains impossible to interpret as it fails to evoke any known association (Fig. 6). The southeastern portion of locus 17 bears the smallest images recorded at this site involving a hunting scene executed in delicate, ¿ne pecking. The main character in the scene is an archer with legs placed apart and right hand stretched out. A goritos is attached to the belt. Although the hunter is shown aiming at the elks, no bow is actually depicted. Two animals with arched backs are located at some distance and are smaller than the hunter in size. The upper portion of the slab of locus 18 shows an anthropomorphic image with arms stretched out to the sides. The ¿ngers of the hands are huge and the
Fig. 5. Two maral images at locus 22. Poperechnaya Krasnoyarka.
0
Fig. 6. Compositions at locus 17. Poperechnaya Krasnoyarka.
10 cm
Fig. 7. Compositions at locus 18 (drawing). Poperechnaya Krasnoyarka.
E.P. Matochkin / Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 37/4 (2009) 83–91
male genitals are emphasized. The figure is shown moving southwards. A snake image is shown above it and a round spot is pecked to the right. Two predators, probably wolves, are depicted to the sides of the human ¿gure (Fig. 7). Researchers generally interpret figures with hypertrophied hands as gods of thunder (Semenov, 1999: 182; Martirosyan, 1981: 1–56). Similar images have been reported from the upper Yenisei, Armenia, the Trans-Caucasus, the Alps, and Mongolia (TsaganSalaa) (Jacobson, Kubarev, Tseveendorj, 2001: No. 604, 605, 608). The thunder god appears among the main personages of ancient Indo-European mythology. The thunder god usually resides on high, in the sky or on top of a mount or a cliff. His enemy in the form of a serpent-like creature lives lower down and hides stolen livestock behind the mount. The thunder god strikes and breaks the rock and sets the animals free. The serpent ¿rst hides itself under a tree or a stone and then escapes to the water (Ivanov, Toporov, 1975: 54; 1980: 530). No direct analogy between the myth and the composition under discussion can be seen as the snake here is shown above the ¿gure’s head. The composition may more closely represent the popular Altai motif of a partial defeat inÀicted by the Heavenly Hero upon a large worm Urker who escapes the battle by rising into the sky where it turns into the Pleiades (Ivanov, Toporov, 1974: 150). In some traditions, the thunder god participates in a Celestial Wedding and plays the role of the deceived husband (Ivanov, Toporov, 1980: 529). It cannot be excluded that the pecked anthropomorphic possibly female ¿gure with parted legs situated below is related to this composition. Graf¿ti Carved and abraded images have been found at several loci. Most are indistinct, defying interpretation. Carving was performed using a thin instrument producing long, shallow lines. The abraded figures are also barely discernible, making it impossible to clearly trace their outlines. The engraved images of elks can be divided into two major stylistic groups. The ¿rst group is represented by two drawings at loci 9 and 14 located at the center of the large, plain slabs. The animals are rendered in a realistic manner. The outlines are modeled with numerous ¿ne strokes: for example, no less than 12 such strokes occur on the foreleg of a she-elk at locus 14. No strokes are visible on the ears which are formed simply by removing the thin cortex from the rock. Abrasion was more intensively used at locus 9. The contour was formed either by incising several ¿ne lines close to each other or with the help of
Fig. 8. Palimpsest at locus 14. Poperechnaya Krasnoyarka.
Fig. 9. She-elk image at locus 9. Poperechnaya Krasnoyarka.
a wide tool. The line drawings are quite expressive and realistic and volume is rendered by hatching (Fig. 8). The animals are shown in slow movement with four legs rendered in conventional style. The she-elk at locus 14 is depicted without hoofs; in the image at locus 9 the legs are shown in the form of interwoven lines with pointed ends. The hind legs appear to be attached to the body and the forelegs also appear to be clumsily added to the belly (Fig. 9). Volume is not rendered at all, and the projections are different. A triangular image points towards the interior of the belly between the hind legs which may be a technique used by ancient artisans to accentuate the female genitals. Evidently, this original device of showing the hind part of the body en face was becoming common in Middle Bronze Age art. It seems that the noted combination of naturalism and conventional rendition reÀects the semantic duality of the elk image as a real animal and a sacred symbol of heavenly origin (Markdorf-Sergeyeva, 2003: 78). The
87
88
E.P. Matochkin / Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 37/4 (2009) 83–91
she-elk itself can be regarded as a symbol of the Universe (Okladnikov, 1959: 70). No analogues of such carved figures are known. They do not conform to the compendium of elk images recorded at Siberian petrogliphic sites by V.I. Molodin (1993: ¿g. 2). The female elk images at Poperechnaya Krasnoyarka are rendered in different ways. The elk at locus 14 for example, is shown with its head down which is atypical of similar images found at other Siberian rock art localities. The second stylistic group is more numerous and comprises images from peripheral loci. These consist of contour drawings of elks with two legs. The ¿gures are predominantly larger than those at the central loci. The image of a she-elk from locus 9 is shown with three legs: one fore leg and two hind legs with a deep curved notch between them (Fig. 10). According to V.D. Kubarev (2007: 116), three-legged ¿gures are typical of Chacolithic and Bronze Age petroglyphs at the Kuyus and Kuilyu Grottos, on the boulder at Lake Muzdy Bulak (Altai), as well as at Tsagan-Salaa/Baga-Oigur and the Aral-Tolgoi sanctuary (Mongolia). The drawings of the second stylistic group conform to a speci¿c iconographic canon. The images are
static. The outlines are smooth and the legs pointed. The silhouette is not hatched, rather, the stylized contour is rendered by one continuous line. The outlines of the head resemble a parabola, while the features of the muzzle are not shown (Fig. 11). Clearly, the noted development of the artistic style towards stamp-like strictness continued over a considerable period of time. The image of a deer with antlers at locus 10 occupies an intermediate position between these two groups. Several carved and abraded lines are added to the animal’s head and neck. Two thin forelegs almost join one another, while the hind legs show breaking of the outlines between them (Fig. 12). Two representations of elk at locus 6 can also be regarded as stylistically intermediate. These animals are shown one over the other. Their outlines are executed through a double line. The legs are very ¿ne and long as if hanging from the body without any hint of movement. The lines showing the fore and hind legs begin higher than the outline of the belly and the contour line between the legs is absent (Fig. 13). The graf¿ti of the second group includes an original composition recorded at locus 18. A female elk with fanlike ears and indistinct round ¿gures at the legs is shown
10 cm
0
10 cm
0
Fig. 10. She-elk image at locus 9. Poperechnaya Krasnoyarka.
0
10 cm
Fig. 11. Carved images at locus 9 (drawing). Poperechnaya Krasnoyarka.
Fig. 12. Palimpsest at locus 10 (drawing). Poperechnaya Krasnoyarka.
0
10 cm
Fig. 13. Carved elk images at locus 6 (drawing). Poperechnaya Krasnoyarka.
E.P. Matochkin / Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 37/4 (2009) 83–91
together with a small creature shaded with a number of parallel lines (the calf?). Above the female another elk, possibly male, is engraved positioned diagonally to the former. Regrettably, some portions of the rock surface bearing elements of petroglyphs are missing. Interestingly, the male elk is given the form of a bird’s head with a strange crestlike part and elongated pointed beak (Fig. 7). A similar paired composition with realistically rendered animals was later pecked over the carved composition. The female image shows three extensions coming out of her genital organ. It may be that the birth of a calf was perceived in such a way by the ancient hunters. One more carved elk image is to be found at locus 8 (Fig. 14, a). The image shows rough lines and geometric forms in place of the plain outlines that have been noted in other representations at this site. The legs are rendered as narrow, hatched triangles. Instead of static and inherent harmony, this picture demonstrates expressiveness and dynamism. The elk is placed diagonally as if falling downwards. This figure can be correlated with an elk image of the Okunev period found at Ozernaya Mount on the middle Yenisei (Fig. 14, b) (Leontiev, Kapelko, Esin, 2006: ¿g. 23). The carved elk at locus 8 is partially overlapped by a pecked image attributable to the Karakol culture. This fact suggests that the latest carved petroglyphs were created during the Karakol period, i.e., in the early 2nd millennium BC.
10 cm
0
ɚ
Fig. 14. Images of animals (drawing). a – locus 8, Poperechnaya Krasnoyarka; b – Ozernaya Mount, the Okunev culture (Leontiev, Kapelko, Esin, 2006: ¿g. 23).
0
Anthropomorphic images
89
5 cm
Fig. 15. Anthropomorphic female ¿gure at locus 9 (drawing). Poperechnaya Krasnoyarka.
An unusual carved anthropomorphic image can be seen at locus 9 (Fig. 15). The image is laconic with just two details shown: the oblate oval of the vulva and a round head with particular hairstyle. Such attention to hairstyle is typical of the miniature sculptures of the Okunev culture (e.g., a Bronze-Age anthropomorphic ¿gurine from the Ozernoe burial ground in the Altai (Pogozheva, Kadikov, 1979: 84)). Another carved anthropomorphic image has been recorded at locus 15 situated between two pecked deer (Fig. 16). It demonstrates the characteristic combination of projections, similar to the image on slab 1 at the Zelenoye Ozero sanctuary. The lines contouring the body and facial features are vague. The head is shown in front view and seems not to be obviously connected to the body.
b
0
5 cm
Fig. 16. Anthropomorphic male ¿gure at locus 15 (drawing). Poperechnaya Krasnoyarka.
Chronological af¿liation of images The carved ¿gure at locus 15 mentioned above, serves as the key image for the chronological attribution of the anthropomorphic representations shown. Its closest analogue is figure No. 5 on slab 2 of burial 2 at the Second Karakol kurgan (Kubarev, 1988: ¿g. 23). It is shown in the same inclined position and combination of projections, without arms (the arms are represented by faint strokes). Okunev engraved images recorded at Tas-Khazaa (Vadetskaya, Leontiev, Maksimenkov, 1980: ¿g. 12) represent spatially distant parallels of the ¿gure in question. The description of the Tas-Khazaa images
90
E.P. Matochkin / Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 37/4 (2009) 83–91
provided by E.B. Vadetskaya closely coincides with the appearance of the Altai ¿gure: “All the anthropomorphic ¿gures have two eyes, a line drawn across the face, and no nose… The bodies of Tas-Khazaa human images have long, ¿ne legs and no neck. The ¿gures are wide in the shoulders and narrow at the belly. The outlines of the body resemble those of a ‘swaddled’ man with arms stretched downwards and pressed close to the body” (Ibid.: 68). The af¿nity between Karakol and Okunev images on the one hand, and the Krasnoyarka ¿gure, on the other, is obvious. However, the former are shown in masks and appear closer to the artistic canon. The Krasnoyarka anthropomorphic ¿gure is distinguished by an expressive face and smoother outlines providing evidence of stylistic variability within Okunev-Karakol images. Images of female elks with certain naturalistic features on central slabs would also appear to date to the Middle Bronze Age since they display the same device (albeit in a rudimentary form) showing the back part of the body and hind legs en face. According to V.I. Molodin, this technique represents a characteristic feature of the Karakol-Okunev style (1993: 11). The image of the female maral at locus 18 provides grounds for estimating the age of the pecked petroglyphs. This image is surprisingly similar to the ¿gure on slab 1 at the Zelenoye Ozero sanctuary. On this basis, the pecked images at the Poperechnaya Krasnoyarka can be attributed to the Karakol culture. It may be inferred that the images forming palimpsests at Poperechnaya Krasnoyarka were executed during the Middle Bronze Age. This inference is supported by instances of overlapping images typical of the Okunev culture recorded in the Yenisei area and on the Karakol burial slabs. Moreover, as V.I. Molodin has noted, both the Karakol and Okunev petroglyphs are characterized by a combination of techniques in that both were created by pecking and carving (Ibid.: 13–16). Conclusion The petroglyphs at Poperechanya Krasnoyarka represent an impressive example of Middle Bronze Age art in Gorny Altai. The site reveals unique engraved and pecked animal images executed to a high level of artistic skill. The accompanying anthropomorphic ¿gures are also highly signi¿cant. The site is especially informative given its proximity to the Zelenoye Ozero sanctuary where Karakol petroglyphs have been found and which is likewise situated on the upper Krasnoyarka (the nature of the rock at this site precludes the graf¿ti technique). It may be concluded that both sites existed prior to the expansion of the early nomads in this territory, since no images rendered in the Scythian-Siberian animal style have been recorded. However, the representations at the two sites
differ thematically. The petroglyphs at Zelenoye Ozero include magical subjects, while images of paired and single deer and elks prevail at Poperechnaya Krasnoyarka. The question arises as to why most representations executed in graf¿ti show elk whereas the maral image prevails among pecked petroglyphs? The analysis of palimpsests shows that elk images are older than those of the maral. It is most likely that the domination of maral images is linked with changes in paleofauna and with the decrease in elk population during the sensible climate cooling in the Middle Bronze Age (Maloletko, 2002: 45). The cult of the elk was replaced by worship of the maral which explains why maral images overlap earlier elk images. The development of new ideas may have led to the creation of new images connected with notions of magical inÀuence on nature. Since the central slabs at Poperechnaya Krasnoyarka were already covered with petroglyphs, the process of development which had taken place there continued and ¿nally reached its peak at the Zelenoye Ozero sanctuary. All these events occurred during the same chronological period, manifesting in the rapid evolution of artistic activity. Aside from the transition from pecked paired maral ¿gures to complex magical compositions, the style of engraved elk images rapidly shifts from naturalism to a more generalized iconography. Notably, the artistic canon resulting from the evolution of the elk image (cf. the elk ¿gure in peripheral locus 8) resembles the Okunev style. This suggests that the petroglyphs of adjacent sites, Poperechnaya Krasnoyarka and Zelenoye Ozero, provide a rare opportunity to trace the formation of the characteristic features of the Karakol-Okunev style in the Altai during the Middle Bronze Age. References Ivanov V.V., Toporov V.I. 1974 Issledovaniya v oblasti slavyanskikh drevnostei. Moscow: Nauka. Ivanov V.V., Toporov V.I. 1975 Invariant i transformatsii v mifologicheskikh i folklornykh tekstakh. In Tipologicheskie issledovaniya po folkloru. Moscow: Nauka, pp. 44–76. Ivanov V.V., Toporov V.N. 1980 Indoevropeiskaya mifologiya. In Mify narodov mira, pt. 1. Moscow: Sovetskaya entsiklopediya, pp. 527–533. Jacobson E., Kubarev V., Tseevendorj D. 2001 Mongolie du Nord-Ouest: Tsagaan Salaa/Baga Oigor. Paris. (Mémoires de la Mission Archéologique Française en Asie Centrale, H.-P. Francfort, Ja.A. Sher (eds.); tome V.6). (Répertoire des Pétroglyphes d’Asie Centrale; fasc. N 6). Kubarev V.D. 1988 Drevnie rospisi Karakola. Novosibirsk: Nauka. Kubarev V.D. 2007 Aral-Tolgoi – new rock art site in Mongolia. Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia, No. 1: 111–126.
E.P. Matochkin / Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 37/4 (2009) 83–91
Leontiev N.V., Kapelko V.F., Esin Yu.N. 2006 Izvayaniya i stely okunevskoi kultury. Abakan: Khakas. knizh. izd. Maloletko A.M. 2002 Paleogeogra¿ya. In Istoriya Respubliki Altai. Gorno-Altaisk: Inst. altaistiki im. S.S. Surazakova, pp. 13–57. Markdorf-Sergeyeva N.M. 2003 Nekotorye voprosy semantiki obraza losya i ego kompozitsii. In Arkheologiya Yuzhnoi Sibiri. Novosibirsk: IAE SO RAN, pp. 78–83. Martirosyan A.A. 1981 Naskalnye izobrazheniya Gegamskikh gor. In Arkheologicheskie pamyatniki Armenii. Pt. 11: Naskalnye izobrazhenia, vol. 3. Erevan: Izd. AN ArmSSR, pp. 1–56. Matochkin E.P. 2004a Antropomorfnye personazhi Zelenogo Ozera. In Arkheologiya i etnogra¿ya Altaya, vol. 2. Gorno-Altaisk: Inst. altaistiki, pp. 26–37. Matochkin E.P. 2004b Lunno-solnechnye kalendari svyatilischa “Zelenoe Ozero”. Gumanitarnye nauki v Sibiri, No. 3: 11–15. Matochkin E.P. 2004c Petroglyphs of the Green Lake in the Altai Mountains. International Newsletter on Rock Art, No. 3: 13–16. Matochkin E.P. 2005 Drevnie personazhi svyatilischa Zelenoe Ozero. In Mir naskalnogo iskusstva: Sbornik dokladov Mezhdunar. konferentsii. Moscow: pp. 172–176.
Matochkin E.P. 2006 Petroglyphs at Green Lake: Altai Bronze Age monument. Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia, No. 2: 104–115. Molodin V.I. 1992 Drevnee iskusstvo Zapadnoi Sibiri. Novosibirsk: Nauka. Molodin V.I. 1993 Esche raz o datirovke Turochakskikh pisanits (nekotorye problemy khronologii i kulturnoi prinadlezhnosti petroglifov Yuzhnoi Sibiri). In Kultura drevnikh narodov Yuzhnoi Sibiri. Barnaul: Altai. Gos. Univ., pp. 4–25. Okladnikov A.P. 1959 Shishkinskie pisanitsy – pamyatnik drevnei kultury Pribaikalia. Irkutsk: Knizh. izd. Pogozheva A.P., Kadikov B.H. 1979 Mogilnik epokhi bronzy u poselka Ozyornoe na Altae. In Novoe v arkheologii Sibiri i Dalnego Vostoka. Novosibirsk: Nauka, pp. 80–84. Semenov Vl.A. 1999 Znaki-indeksy v naskalnom iskusstve Severnoi Evrazii. In Mezhdunarodnaya konferentsiya po pervobytnomu iskusstvu, vol. 1. Kemerovo: pp. 180–185. Vadetskaya E.B., Leontiev N.V., Maksimenkov G.A. 1980 Pamyatniki okunevskoy kultury. Leningrad: Nauka. Received March 5, 2009.
91
57
THE METAL AGES AND MEDIEVAL PERIOD
E.P. Matochkin A.V. Anokhin National Museum of the Altai Republic, Choros-Gurkina 46, Gorno-Altaisk, 649000, Russia E-mail: [email protected]
PETROGLYPHS ON THE POPERECHNAYA KRASNOYARKA RIVER
The current article describes a new petroglyphic site in the upper reaches of the Poperechnaya Krasnoyarka River in the Ust-Koksa Region of the Altai Republic. Engravings were found on massive slabs exposed above the earth’s surface. The petroglyphs mostly include pecked images of Siberian maral deer as well as carved and partially abraded representations of elk. Among the representations discovered engraved anthropomorphic images are of particular interest. The petroglyphs at Poperechnaya Krasnoyarka and those of the nearby sanctuary at Zelenoye Ozero demonstrate the emergence of distinctive features of Karakol-Okunev art in the Altai during the Middle Bronze Age. Keywords: Petroglyphic site, engraved images, Karakol-Okunev art, Middle Bronze Age.
Introduction The petroglyphs in question were discovered on level, horizontal rock exposures situated on the right bank of the Poperechnaya Krasnoyarka River. The Poperechnaya Krasnoyarka serves as the southwestern source of the Krasnoyarka River in the Ust-Koksa Region of the Altai Republic. The site is located at the border between alpine meadows and a steep waterfall at coordinates: 50°07ƍ03.7Ǝ N and 84°50ƍ27.6Ǝ E; altitude 1974 m asl (according to the Baltic system of elevation measurement). The site is located in a remote highland area at a considerable distance from human settlement. The site was reached after two days horse ride setting out from the village of Kaitanak. The last 10 km were especially dif¿cult involving crossing marshland and climbing up the northern face to reach the glacier on the rounded mount which dominates the landscape. Another petroglyphic site containing true masterpieces of rock art is located at the southeastern source of the Krasnoyarka close to Zelenoye Ozero (Green Lake) (Matochkin, 2004 a, b, c; 2005, 2006). Studies of the Poperechnaya Krasnoyarka rock art site were conducted during the ¿eld seasons of 2007 and 2008.
The petroglyphs are located on thick stone slabs running in an east-west direction and slabs which project from the ground forming a wavy feature and stretching from the north to the south (Fig. 1). The greatest number of petroglyphs is to be found on the Àat, westernmost monoliths situated near a small brook Àowing from a glacier. The slabs are composed of sericite-chlorite slate covered with a cherry-brown crust convenient for pecking and carving. Only the areas closest to the ground are so covered with lichen that it becomes impossible to trace any sign of tool working. Description of the petroglyphs The majority of petroglyphs are located over an area measuring 10 m from north to south and 30 m east to west. The area encompasses six rows of slabs on which 25 rock image bearing loci were recorded. In addition, four isolated stones with solitary images were discovered within a radius of 100 m from the main site. These areas are numbered and their distance to the east of the westernmost slab in the ¿rst northern line is indicated.
Copyright © 2010, Siberian Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences, Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.aeae.2010.02.010
84
E.P. Matochkin / Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 37/4 (2009) 83–91
Locus 10 (on the same rock after a ¿ssure); 0.6 m by 0.9 m. Carved image of an elk overlaid by a pecked representation of a maral deer with large antlers; below the elk’s legs stands a carved image of an ungulate. Locus 11 (0.5 m to the south); 0.4 m by 1.5 m. Carved images: elk, elongate mark, and two zoomorphic ¿gures. Abraded elk image. Pecked image of an unidenti¿able animal. Locus 12 (1 m to the north and parallel to locus 10); 1 m by 2 m. Maral deer. Line 2 (2 m south of line 1). Locus 13 (0.9 m by 4 m). Sixteen maral deer, one elk, one fox, and two unidenti¿able animals. Line 3 (2 m south of line 2). Locus 14 (1 m by 4.5 m). Twenty maral deer, a female elk, two zoomorphic ¿gures (lizards?), two birds, four bears, goat, predator, and three Fig. 1. General view of the Poperechnaya Krasnoyarka unidenti¿able animals. petroglyphic site. Locus 15 (1 m from locus 14); 0.8 m by 2.5 m. Pair of maral deer, lizard (?), Descriptions contain a reference number and the distance a carved anthropomorphic image, and a female maral to the east of the slab described previously. The shape deer. of the slab is speci¿ed where rock images are located Locus 16 (1 m from locus 15); 1.5 m by 1.5 m. Female on surfaces other than the horizontal. Most images were maral deer. executed in pecking technique with the exception of Locus 17 (2 m from locus 16). Stone of subtriangular instances of carving which are speci¿cally indicated in the shape (2 m by 2 m). Indistinct composition including a description. In addition to the images described below, the circle, anthropomorphic image, two maral deer, a female rock surfaces bear cup-like depressions, amorphous spots, maral deer, three wolves, dog, goat, and a hunting scene and curved lines. composed of an archer and two elks. Line 1. Locus 1. Elevated subtriangular stone 0.8 m Locus 18 (1 m from locus 17); 1.5 m by 3.5 m. by 1.6 m. Contour image of a Siberian deer (maral). Numerous carved lines. Carved images: female elk, Locus 2 (3 m from locus 1). Elevated round stone bird-elk, and a fruit. Pecked images: four elks, two 1.2 m by 1.8 m. Three pairs of maral deer (male and anthropomorphic ¿gures, snake, two wolves, two maral female); two unidenti¿able animals, and a carved elk. deer, an ungulate, and ¿ve goats. Locus 3 (1.5 m from locus 2); 0.6 m by 0.5 m. Pair Locus 19 (2 m from locus 18); 1 m by 2 m. Numerous of maral deer. carved lines. Indistinct abraded silhouette of a maral deer Locus 4 (1 m from the previous locus on the same and a pecked cross-like ¿gure. rock); 1 m by 0.8 m. Female maral deer. Locus 20 (on the same stone); 0.8 m by 2 m. Two Locus 5 (1 m east of locus 4 on the same rock). Three zoomorphic images (lizards?). maral deer. Line 4. Locus 21 (1.5 m south of line 3); 1.2 m by Locus 6 (1.5 m east of the previous locus); 1 m by 2 m. Female maral deer. 1.5 m. Two maral deer, bear, and carved images of male Locus 22 (19 m from locus 21); 1 m by 2.5 m. Three and female elk. maral deer. Locus 7 (1 m south of locus 6 and parallel to it); Line 5. Locus 23 (5 m south of locus 18 in line 4); 0.7 m by 1 m. Unidenti¿able schematic ¿gure. 1 m by 4 m. Fox. Locus 8 (3 m from locus 6); 1 m by 2.5 m. One maral Locus 24 (6 m from locus 23); 1 m by 3 m. Maral deer and three elk (including one carved image). deer. Locus 9 (2 m from locus 6); 1 m by 5 m. Numerous Line 6. Locus 25 (2.5 m south of line 5 and parallel to faint scratched lines. Carved images: three elk, a woman, locus 17 in line 3); 1 m by 4 m. Two maral deer. heads of elk and maral, and an ungulate. Two abraded Loci on separate slabs. ¿gures (lizards?). Pecked images: four maral deer and Locus 26 (15 m south of locus 25); 0.5 m by 1 m. three unidenti¿able animals. Goat.
E.P. Matochkin / Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 37/4 (2009) 83–91
Locus 27 (40 m northeast of locus 1); 1 m by 3 m. Female maral deer and an unidentifiable zoomorphic ¿gure. Locus 28 (100 m southwest of locus 1); 0.4 m by 1 m. Syncretic animal. Locus 29 (100 m west of locus 1); 0.7 m by 0.7 m. Maral deer. The repertoire of petroglyphs described above reÀects the art characteristic of taiga hunters. Two hunted animals dominate: the elk and the maral deer. Of the total 154 recorded drawings, maral images form more than 50 % whereas elk images constitute 15 %. Anthropomorphic images form 4 %; predators and goats 8 % and 4 %, respectively. Pecked animal images Most petroglyphs represent the Siberian maral deer. Their outlines are executed in pecking technique; some contours are wide and head and neck pro¿les are rendered in more detail. The large number of paired animals (primarily maral) represents a distinguishing feature of the site. Male and female animals depicted close to each other constitute 60 % of the representations. In some places, the silhouettes of separate animals overlap forming a palimpsest. In other cases, two images share a common outline or are connected by a pecked line. The animals are mostly rendered as if moving slowly one after another. One such composition can be seen at central locus 14, with which line 3 begins. As well as maral the composition shows pairs of moving birds and bears. Two ¿gures of chthonic creatures resembling lizards are pecked close to the other images (Fig. 2). Analogous zoomorphic clay figurines of the Bronze Age Irmen culture were recovered from the settlement of Abashino-1 in Western Siberia (Molodin, 1992: ¿g. 63, 64). Similar creatures are depicted in two other loci at Krasnoyarka. The images at locus 9 were made by scraping the cortex. These images demonstrate more pointed forms than others of this kind. The amorphous outlines barely stand out against the background of patina which differs little in shade from the rest of the rock surface. At locus 15, the lizard is pecked below the leg of a female maral. The leg and hoof overlaps the lizard’s front leg (Fig. 3). Two poorly identi¿able ¿gures are pecked at locus 20 (Fig. 4). The image to the west resembles Bronze-Age Irmen ¿gurines, while the image to the east represents a syncretic zoo-anthropomorphic creature shown en face, with a thick body and outstretched extremities. On the large slabs, images are seemingly located at random, making it impossible to determine which direction represents up and which down. Animals are shown as if soaring in space and depicted in various positions, falling downwards and flying upwards. It
Fig. 2. Pecked images at locus 14. The eastern part of the slab. Poperechnaya Krasnoyarka.
Fig. 3. Images of female maral and lizard (?) at locus 15. Poperechnaya Krasnoyarka.
Fig. 4. Two zoo-anthropomorphic ¿gures of lizards (?) at locus 20. Poperechnaya Krasnoyarka.
85
86
E.P. Matochkin / Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 37/4 (2009) 83–91
appears that the irregular placement of animal images over the surface and their multitude reÀect the wishful idea of the abundance and omnipresence of these creatures in nature. It is probable that the images depicted here were executed with the aim of realizing this idea in the material world. The petroglyphs located on the large, Àat, western slabs at the center of the site are distinctly vivid and impressively stylized. However, in peripheral areas, the iconographic canon deteriorates into arid schematism. This suggests that certain images were repeatedly reproduced over a signi¿cant period of time. The Poperechnaya Krasnoyarka petroglyphs are especially poetic in rendering sexual dimorphism. Females are normally represented as silhouettes and the pecking is thorough. The animals are shown with pendulous belly, high ears, and short legs. The artist intentionally lengthened the neck and rendered the antlers with delicate outlines, thus enhancing the grace of the entire image (Fig. 5). Scenes Several compositions are present at locus 17. In the southern portion of the slab, a large goat chased by a
wolf is depicted in pecking technique. The middle portion shows a running ungulate and two predators tracking it down. An anthropomorphic ¿gure and a dog are located above these compositions. All these images are executed in crude technique and differ stylistically from the petroglyphs found on the central slabs. The composition in the northwestern corner of this locus is more thorough. The picture shows an anthropomorphic ¿gure with an arch extending from its head which is interrupted by an indistinct ¿gure. Although this ¿gure is clearly outlined and all its elements are present, it remains impossible to interpret as it fails to evoke any known association (Fig. 6). The southeastern portion of locus 17 bears the smallest images recorded at this site involving a hunting scene executed in delicate, ¿ne pecking. The main character in the scene is an archer with legs placed apart and right hand stretched out. A goritos is attached to the belt. Although the hunter is shown aiming at the elks, no bow is actually depicted. Two animals with arched backs are located at some distance and are smaller than the hunter in size. The upper portion of the slab of locus 18 shows an anthropomorphic image with arms stretched out to the sides. The ¿ngers of the hands are huge and the
Fig. 5. Two maral images at locus 22. Poperechnaya Krasnoyarka.
0
Fig. 6. Compositions at locus 17. Poperechnaya Krasnoyarka.
10 cm
Fig. 7. Compositions at locus 18 (drawing). Poperechnaya Krasnoyarka.
E.P. Matochkin / Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 37/4 (2009) 83–91
male genitals are emphasized. The figure is shown moving southwards. A snake image is shown above it and a round spot is pecked to the right. Two predators, probably wolves, are depicted to the sides of the human ¿gure (Fig. 7). Researchers generally interpret figures with hypertrophied hands as gods of thunder (Semenov, 1999: 182; Martirosyan, 1981: 1–56). Similar images have been reported from the upper Yenisei, Armenia, the Trans-Caucasus, the Alps, and Mongolia (TsaganSalaa) (Jacobson, Kubarev, Tseveendorj, 2001: No. 604, 605, 608). The thunder god appears among the main personages of ancient Indo-European mythology. The thunder god usually resides on high, in the sky or on top of a mount or a cliff. His enemy in the form of a serpent-like creature lives lower down and hides stolen livestock behind the mount. The thunder god strikes and breaks the rock and sets the animals free. The serpent ¿rst hides itself under a tree or a stone and then escapes to the water (Ivanov, Toporov, 1975: 54; 1980: 530). No direct analogy between the myth and the composition under discussion can be seen as the snake here is shown above the ¿gure’s head. The composition may more closely represent the popular Altai motif of a partial defeat inÀicted by the Heavenly Hero upon a large worm Urker who escapes the battle by rising into the sky where it turns into the Pleiades (Ivanov, Toporov, 1974: 150). In some traditions, the thunder god participates in a Celestial Wedding and plays the role of the deceived husband (Ivanov, Toporov, 1980: 529). It cannot be excluded that the pecked anthropomorphic possibly female ¿gure with parted legs situated below is related to this composition. Graf¿ti Carved and abraded images have been found at several loci. Most are indistinct, defying interpretation. Carving was performed using a thin instrument producing long, shallow lines. The abraded figures are also barely discernible, making it impossible to clearly trace their outlines. The engraved images of elks can be divided into two major stylistic groups. The ¿rst group is represented by two drawings at loci 9 and 14 located at the center of the large, plain slabs. The animals are rendered in a realistic manner. The outlines are modeled with numerous ¿ne strokes: for example, no less than 12 such strokes occur on the foreleg of a she-elk at locus 14. No strokes are visible on the ears which are formed simply by removing the thin cortex from the rock. Abrasion was more intensively used at locus 9. The contour was formed either by incising several ¿ne lines close to each other or with the help of
Fig. 8. Palimpsest at locus 14. Poperechnaya Krasnoyarka.
Fig. 9. She-elk image at locus 9. Poperechnaya Krasnoyarka.
a wide tool. The line drawings are quite expressive and realistic and volume is rendered by hatching (Fig. 8). The animals are shown in slow movement with four legs rendered in conventional style. The she-elk at locus 14 is depicted without hoofs; in the image at locus 9 the legs are shown in the form of interwoven lines with pointed ends. The hind legs appear to be attached to the body and the forelegs also appear to be clumsily added to the belly (Fig. 9). Volume is not rendered at all, and the projections are different. A triangular image points towards the interior of the belly between the hind legs which may be a technique used by ancient artisans to accentuate the female genitals. Evidently, this original device of showing the hind part of the body en face was becoming common in Middle Bronze Age art. It seems that the noted combination of naturalism and conventional rendition reÀects the semantic duality of the elk image as a real animal and a sacred symbol of heavenly origin (Markdorf-Sergeyeva, 2003: 78). The
87
88
E.P. Matochkin / Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 37/4 (2009) 83–91
she-elk itself can be regarded as a symbol of the Universe (Okladnikov, 1959: 70). No analogues of such carved figures are known. They do not conform to the compendium of elk images recorded at Siberian petrogliphic sites by V.I. Molodin (1993: ¿g. 2). The female elk images at Poperechnaya Krasnoyarka are rendered in different ways. The elk at locus 14 for example, is shown with its head down which is atypical of similar images found at other Siberian rock art localities. The second stylistic group is more numerous and comprises images from peripheral loci. These consist of contour drawings of elks with two legs. The ¿gures are predominantly larger than those at the central loci. The image of a she-elk from locus 9 is shown with three legs: one fore leg and two hind legs with a deep curved notch between them (Fig. 10). According to V.D. Kubarev (2007: 116), three-legged ¿gures are typical of Chacolithic and Bronze Age petroglyphs at the Kuyus and Kuilyu Grottos, on the boulder at Lake Muzdy Bulak (Altai), as well as at Tsagan-Salaa/Baga-Oigur and the Aral-Tolgoi sanctuary (Mongolia). The drawings of the second stylistic group conform to a speci¿c iconographic canon. The images are
static. The outlines are smooth and the legs pointed. The silhouette is not hatched, rather, the stylized contour is rendered by one continuous line. The outlines of the head resemble a parabola, while the features of the muzzle are not shown (Fig. 11). Clearly, the noted development of the artistic style towards stamp-like strictness continued over a considerable period of time. The image of a deer with antlers at locus 10 occupies an intermediate position between these two groups. Several carved and abraded lines are added to the animal’s head and neck. Two thin forelegs almost join one another, while the hind legs show breaking of the outlines between them (Fig. 12). Two representations of elk at locus 6 can also be regarded as stylistically intermediate. These animals are shown one over the other. Their outlines are executed through a double line. The legs are very ¿ne and long as if hanging from the body without any hint of movement. The lines showing the fore and hind legs begin higher than the outline of the belly and the contour line between the legs is absent (Fig. 13). The graf¿ti of the second group includes an original composition recorded at locus 18. A female elk with fanlike ears and indistinct round ¿gures at the legs is shown
10 cm
0
10 cm
0
Fig. 10. She-elk image at locus 9. Poperechnaya Krasnoyarka.
0
10 cm
Fig. 11. Carved images at locus 9 (drawing). Poperechnaya Krasnoyarka.
Fig. 12. Palimpsest at locus 10 (drawing). Poperechnaya Krasnoyarka.
0
10 cm
Fig. 13. Carved elk images at locus 6 (drawing). Poperechnaya Krasnoyarka.
E.P. Matochkin / Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 37/4 (2009) 83–91
together with a small creature shaded with a number of parallel lines (the calf?). Above the female another elk, possibly male, is engraved positioned diagonally to the former. Regrettably, some portions of the rock surface bearing elements of petroglyphs are missing. Interestingly, the male elk is given the form of a bird’s head with a strange crestlike part and elongated pointed beak (Fig. 7). A similar paired composition with realistically rendered animals was later pecked over the carved composition. The female image shows three extensions coming out of her genital organ. It may be that the birth of a calf was perceived in such a way by the ancient hunters. One more carved elk image is to be found at locus 8 (Fig. 14, a). The image shows rough lines and geometric forms in place of the plain outlines that have been noted in other representations at this site. The legs are rendered as narrow, hatched triangles. Instead of static and inherent harmony, this picture demonstrates expressiveness and dynamism. The elk is placed diagonally as if falling downwards. This figure can be correlated with an elk image of the Okunev period found at Ozernaya Mount on the middle Yenisei (Fig. 14, b) (Leontiev, Kapelko, Esin, 2006: ¿g. 23). The carved elk at locus 8 is partially overlapped by a pecked image attributable to the Karakol culture. This fact suggests that the latest carved petroglyphs were created during the Karakol period, i.e., in the early 2nd millennium BC.
10 cm
0
ɚ
Fig. 14. Images of animals (drawing). a – locus 8, Poperechnaya Krasnoyarka; b – Ozernaya Mount, the Okunev culture (Leontiev, Kapelko, Esin, 2006: ¿g. 23).
0
Anthropomorphic images
89
5 cm
Fig. 15. Anthropomorphic female ¿gure at locus 9 (drawing). Poperechnaya Krasnoyarka.
An unusual carved anthropomorphic image can be seen at locus 9 (Fig. 15). The image is laconic with just two details shown: the oblate oval of the vulva and a round head with particular hairstyle. Such attention to hairstyle is typical of the miniature sculptures of the Okunev culture (e.g., a Bronze-Age anthropomorphic ¿gurine from the Ozernoe burial ground in the Altai (Pogozheva, Kadikov, 1979: 84)). Another carved anthropomorphic image has been recorded at locus 15 situated between two pecked deer (Fig. 16). It demonstrates the characteristic combination of projections, similar to the image on slab 1 at the Zelenoye Ozero sanctuary. The lines contouring the body and facial features are vague. The head is shown in front view and seems not to be obviously connected to the body.
b
0
5 cm
Fig. 16. Anthropomorphic male ¿gure at locus 15 (drawing). Poperechnaya Krasnoyarka.
Chronological af¿liation of images The carved ¿gure at locus 15 mentioned above, serves as the key image for the chronological attribution of the anthropomorphic representations shown. Its closest analogue is figure No. 5 on slab 2 of burial 2 at the Second Karakol kurgan (Kubarev, 1988: ¿g. 23). It is shown in the same inclined position and combination of projections, without arms (the arms are represented by faint strokes). Okunev engraved images recorded at Tas-Khazaa (Vadetskaya, Leontiev, Maksimenkov, 1980: ¿g. 12) represent spatially distant parallels of the ¿gure in question. The description of the Tas-Khazaa images
90
E.P. Matochkin / Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 37/4 (2009) 83–91
provided by E.B. Vadetskaya closely coincides with the appearance of the Altai ¿gure: “All the anthropomorphic ¿gures have two eyes, a line drawn across the face, and no nose… The bodies of Tas-Khazaa human images have long, ¿ne legs and no neck. The ¿gures are wide in the shoulders and narrow at the belly. The outlines of the body resemble those of a ‘swaddled’ man with arms stretched downwards and pressed close to the body” (Ibid.: 68). The af¿nity between Karakol and Okunev images on the one hand, and the Krasnoyarka ¿gure, on the other, is obvious. However, the former are shown in masks and appear closer to the artistic canon. The Krasnoyarka anthropomorphic ¿gure is distinguished by an expressive face and smoother outlines providing evidence of stylistic variability within Okunev-Karakol images. Images of female elks with certain naturalistic features on central slabs would also appear to date to the Middle Bronze Age since they display the same device (albeit in a rudimentary form) showing the back part of the body and hind legs en face. According to V.I. Molodin, this technique represents a characteristic feature of the Karakol-Okunev style (1993: 11). The image of the female maral at locus 18 provides grounds for estimating the age of the pecked petroglyphs. This image is surprisingly similar to the ¿gure on slab 1 at the Zelenoye Ozero sanctuary. On this basis, the pecked images at the Poperechnaya Krasnoyarka can be attributed to the Karakol culture. It may be inferred that the images forming palimpsests at Poperechnaya Krasnoyarka were executed during the Middle Bronze Age. This inference is supported by instances of overlapping images typical of the Okunev culture recorded in the Yenisei area and on the Karakol burial slabs. Moreover, as V.I. Molodin has noted, both the Karakol and Okunev petroglyphs are characterized by a combination of techniques in that both were created by pecking and carving (Ibid.: 13–16). Conclusion The petroglyphs at Poperechanya Krasnoyarka represent an impressive example of Middle Bronze Age art in Gorny Altai. The site reveals unique engraved and pecked animal images executed to a high level of artistic skill. The accompanying anthropomorphic ¿gures are also highly signi¿cant. The site is especially informative given its proximity to the Zelenoye Ozero sanctuary where Karakol petroglyphs have been found and which is likewise situated on the upper Krasnoyarka (the nature of the rock at this site precludes the graf¿ti technique). It may be concluded that both sites existed prior to the expansion of the early nomads in this territory, since no images rendered in the Scythian-Siberian animal style have been recorded. However, the representations at the two sites
differ thematically. The petroglyphs at Zelenoye Ozero include magical subjects, while images of paired and single deer and elks prevail at Poperechnaya Krasnoyarka. The question arises as to why most representations executed in graf¿ti show elk whereas the maral image prevails among pecked petroglyphs? The analysis of palimpsests shows that elk images are older than those of the maral. It is most likely that the domination of maral images is linked with changes in paleofauna and with the decrease in elk population during the sensible climate cooling in the Middle Bronze Age (Maloletko, 2002: 45). The cult of the elk was replaced by worship of the maral which explains why maral images overlap earlier elk images. The development of new ideas may have led to the creation of new images connected with notions of magical inÀuence on nature. Since the central slabs at Poperechnaya Krasnoyarka were already covered with petroglyphs, the process of development which had taken place there continued and ¿nally reached its peak at the Zelenoye Ozero sanctuary. All these events occurred during the same chronological period, manifesting in the rapid evolution of artistic activity. Aside from the transition from pecked paired maral ¿gures to complex magical compositions, the style of engraved elk images rapidly shifts from naturalism to a more generalized iconography. Notably, the artistic canon resulting from the evolution of the elk image (cf. the elk ¿gure in peripheral locus 8) resembles the Okunev style. This suggests that the petroglyphs of adjacent sites, Poperechnaya Krasnoyarka and Zelenoye Ozero, provide a rare opportunity to trace the formation of the characteristic features of the Karakol-Okunev style in the Altai during the Middle Bronze Age. References Ivanov V.V., Toporov V.I. 1974 Issledovaniya v oblasti slavyanskikh drevnostei. Moscow: Nauka. Ivanov V.V., Toporov V.I. 1975 Invariant i transformatsii v mifologicheskikh i folklornykh tekstakh. In Tipologicheskie issledovaniya po folkloru. Moscow: Nauka, pp. 44–76. Ivanov V.V., Toporov V.N. 1980 Indoevropeiskaya mifologiya. In Mify narodov mira, pt. 1. Moscow: Sovetskaya entsiklopediya, pp. 527–533. Jacobson E., Kubarev V., Tseevendorj D. 2001 Mongolie du Nord-Ouest: Tsagaan Salaa/Baga Oigor. Paris. (Mémoires de la Mission Archéologique Française en Asie Centrale, H.-P. Francfort, Ja.A. Sher (eds.); tome V.6). (Répertoire des Pétroglyphes d’Asie Centrale; fasc. N 6). Kubarev V.D. 1988 Drevnie rospisi Karakola. Novosibirsk: Nauka. Kubarev V.D. 2007 Aral-Tolgoi – new rock art site in Mongolia. Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia, No. 1: 111–126.
E.P. Matochkin / Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 37/4 (2009) 83–91
Leontiev N.V., Kapelko V.F., Esin Yu.N. 2006 Izvayaniya i stely okunevskoi kultury. Abakan: Khakas. knizh. izd. Maloletko A.M. 2002 Paleogeogra¿ya. In Istoriya Respubliki Altai. Gorno-Altaisk: Inst. altaistiki im. S.S. Surazakova, pp. 13–57. Markdorf-Sergeyeva N.M. 2003 Nekotorye voprosy semantiki obraza losya i ego kompozitsii. In Arkheologiya Yuzhnoi Sibiri. Novosibirsk: IAE SO RAN, pp. 78–83. Martirosyan A.A. 1981 Naskalnye izobrazheniya Gegamskikh gor. In Arkheologicheskie pamyatniki Armenii. Pt. 11: Naskalnye izobrazhenia, vol. 3. Erevan: Izd. AN ArmSSR, pp. 1–56. Matochkin E.P. 2004a Antropomorfnye personazhi Zelenogo Ozera. In Arkheologiya i etnogra¿ya Altaya, vol. 2. Gorno-Altaisk: Inst. altaistiki, pp. 26–37. Matochkin E.P. 2004b Lunno-solnechnye kalendari svyatilischa “Zelenoe Ozero”. Gumanitarnye nauki v Sibiri, No. 3: 11–15. Matochkin E.P. 2004c Petroglyphs of the Green Lake in the Altai Mountains. International Newsletter on Rock Art, No. 3: 13–16. Matochkin E.P. 2005 Drevnie personazhi svyatilischa Zelenoe Ozero. In Mir naskalnogo iskusstva: Sbornik dokladov Mezhdunar. konferentsii. Moscow: pp. 172–176.
Matochkin E.P. 2006 Petroglyphs at Green Lake: Altai Bronze Age monument. Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia, No. 2: 104–115. Molodin V.I. 1992 Drevnee iskusstvo Zapadnoi Sibiri. Novosibirsk: Nauka. Molodin V.I. 1993 Esche raz o datirovke Turochakskikh pisanits (nekotorye problemy khronologii i kulturnoi prinadlezhnosti petroglifov Yuzhnoi Sibiri). In Kultura drevnikh narodov Yuzhnoi Sibiri. Barnaul: Altai. Gos. Univ., pp. 4–25. Okladnikov A.P. 1959 Shishkinskie pisanitsy – pamyatnik drevnei kultury Pribaikalia. Irkutsk: Knizh. izd. Pogozheva A.P., Kadikov B.H. 1979 Mogilnik epokhi bronzy u poselka Ozyornoe na Altae. In Novoe v arkheologii Sibiri i Dalnego Vostoka. Novosibirsk: Nauka, pp. 80–84. Semenov Vl.A. 1999 Znaki-indeksy v naskalnom iskusstve Severnoi Evrazii. In Mezhdunarodnaya konferentsiya po pervobytnomu iskusstvu, vol. 1. Kemerovo: pp. 180–185. Vadetskaya E.B., Leontiev N.V., Maksimenkov G.A. 1980 Pamyatniki okunevskoy kultury. Leningrad: Nauka. Received March 5, 2009.
91