UDC 903.27

Based on the materials of rock carvings in Central Asia and Southern Siberia, several theoretical aspects of the study of petroglyphs are identified and analyzed: 1) factors of the natural and cultural environment; 2) basic principles of the distribution of drawings over time; 3) planigraphic method of research by analogy with the methods of studying settlements; 4) the degree of similarity and differences between petroglyphs and objects of small plastic; 5) chronological parameters of determining the style in a particular visual tradition; 6) polysemantic interpretation of petroglyphs, basic semantic blocks; 7) substantiation of the concept of "pictorial layer" as a form of existence and study of petroglyphs. The study of rock carvings from these points of view allows us to reproduce the "creative laboratory" of their creators with the greatest degree of reliability, to present petroglyphs as an integral part of the culture of a particular historical era.

Keywords: petroglyphs, art, style, chronology, plot, semantics, tradition, layer.

Introduction

Petroglyphs are the pictorial memory of mankind. Almost on all continents since ancient times, there are amazing drawings that reflect the spiritual world of people who lived in different historical eras, but equally used the natural "canvas" of the rock surface to tell about the world around them, mythological characters, the most significant events, sacrifices, various kinds of ritual actions, etc. Naturally, in different regions they look like in different ways. The general direction of studying these monuments was called "petroglyphology" [Devlet E. G. 2002, pp. 205-206].

A huge number of petroglyphs are concentrated in the mountain-steppe regions of Central Asia and Southern Siberia - one of the main areas of rock art [Devlet M. A., 1988]. The pioneer of scientific study of petroglyphs in this region can be considered A. P. Okladnikov, who attached great importance to this type of archaeological sites. His article" Petroglyphs of Siberia and the Far East as a source on the ethnic history of North Asia (methodology and general conclusions)", which can be called programmatic, most clearly reflects the value system that rock carvings represent [1969]. In the 40 years that have passed since the publication of this work, a lot has been done in the study of petroglyphs in Central Asia and Siberia: new localities have been discovered, in particular, on the Yenisei and in the mountains of the Mongolian Altai; in fact, a complete procedure for archaeological research of petroglyphs has been carried out according to the scheme: classification-dating-semantics; large-scale studies on rock carvings have been published. Three major scientific conferences were held: "Problems of studying rock art in the USSR "(Moscow, 1990), "International Conference on Primitive Art" (Kemerovo, 1998) and " World of Rock Art "(Moscow, 2005), very significant in terms of summing up the results and

page 92
raising new questions, including discussion questions. Since 2004, the journal "Archeology, Ethnography and Anthropology of Eurasia" has published works on rock art as part of the discussion "Problems of Studying Primitive Art". Among them, I would like to highlight the theoretical articles of V. I. Molodin " Rock art of Northern Asia: problems of study "[2004], A.-P. Frankfort and E. Jacobson "Approaches to the study of petroglyphs of Northern, Central and Central Asia" [2004], Ya. A. Sher "Controversial issues of studying primitive art" [2004a] D. V. Cheremisina " On the discussion of the informative value of petroglyphs and methods of their study "[2006], O. S. Sovetova "On the question of "art criticism" and "archaeological" approaches to the interpretation of pictorial monuments" [2007]. Not all researchers agree with each other, but for the discussion it has only a positive, activating value. It seems appropriate to consider the following aspects of theoretical understanding of petroglyphs.

Context

According to the accepted definition, a context (from the Latin contextus - close connection, connection) is "a semantic fragment of written or oral speech that is necessary to determine the meaning of a word or phrase separately included in it" [Modern Dictionary..., 1993, p. 304]. In historical and cultural studies, context refers to the conditions that accompany a particular phenomenon( artifact) and help determine its internal content (or purpose). In petroglyphology, the meaning of this definition is probably closest to the original meaning - "close connection, connection", i.e. the study of the natural or cultural environment of rock carvings, which contributes to understanding the semantic purpose of the monument.

The factor of the natural environment (natural context) or the special conditions of the location of petroglyphs is now recognized by all researchers in one way or another. It was first noted by K. D. Laushkin, who described the petroglyphs of Lake Onega as a natural sanctuary, where "the dome was the sky itself, the iconostasis was granite rocks with petroglyphs, and the altar was the horizon with the living solar god" (1959, p.96). It looks somewhat different in the mountainous conditions of Central Asia, but the general (initial) idea of sacralization of a large petroglyph site is obvious. Describing the petroglyphic complex in Chuluut (Northern Mongolia), E. A. Novgorodova notes that "the place where the most interesting subjects are concentrated is isolated on three sides by a sheer rock and a river. The bend of the river formed a small platform here, bounded on one side by a sheer cliff, and on the other by a steep bank that ends in a fast river... The place is hidden from the uninitiated, and at the same time there is a small flat area in front of the rock with drawings, which in ancient times was convenient for performing sacred actions and rituals invisible to the prying eye" [1984, p.90]. Based on the Yandex Advertising Agency's description. Altaic shrines are located near the most dangerous places (bomas or rock faces against a turbulent river) with special acoustics, which corresponded to the goal of organizing theatrical mysteries, which were an integral part of rituals [1995, p. 222]. It is obvious that these most tangible manifestations of the sacral essence of the natural environment (water - mountain) caused the appearance of ancient petroglyphic centers here.

In Russian petroglyphology, the concept of "cultural context" is less developed. On the one hand, it refers to the characteristics of archaeological sites located in the immediate vicinity, which helps to identify any connection between them and nearby rock carvings. Research in this area, as a rule, is not carried out to a sufficient extent. On the other hand, the term refers to the purposeful "landscaping" of the petroglyphic complex itself. V. D. Kubarev's description of the Turu-Alta monument (Gorny Altai) is significant in this regard: "In a small paddy protected on three sides by mountains and resembling an amphitheater, in the center there is a stone mound of a platform mound. This point has excellent acoustic capabilities... On the rock ledges of this natural "theater" dozens of different drawings are applied and giant structures are built, more like mounds of the Bronze Age. The "amphitheater" is crowned by a rocky plane, on the southern side of which there are about a hundred different images. Among them, two large deer figures are distinguished by their size (more than 1 m), which are dated by analogy with the deer stones of the Early Scythian period (VIII-VI centuries BC)." According to V. D. Kubarev, "blood sacrifices were performed at this peculiar "deer altar" [2002, p. 8]. E. Jacobson-Tepfer interprets such large images of stylized deer differently - as a sign of "dominance", establishing "control over more ancient places of worship" [2004, p. 131], but the essence of the particular cult context of a particular monument does not change from this.

No less interesting is the contextual connection traced by M. A. Devlet on the location of the Mozaga-Komuzhap petroglyphs in Tuva.-

page 93
a bone divided by a crack into two parts (the meaning of a crack, a gorge as a place of "entrance" to the other world is generally a special topic of research. - D. S.), there are images of deer, different in style, but clearly forming one composition associated with the idea of sacrifice. On the left - more realistic animals prepared for sacrifice; on the right - stylized figures of already sacrificed "flying away" deer. According to M. A. Devlet, "it is possible that real sacrifices were made here, on the site in front of the rock composition, against the background of petroglyphs illustrating the idea of the "transition" to another world, of the connection between the world of the living and the world of the dead " [2008, p. 196].

As a real embodiment of the cultural context, various kinds of "altars" located at the base of the planes with rock carvings, as well as any other traces of human activity that indicate the functional purpose of the monument, are of great importance.

Dating

Determining the time of drawing rock carvings is the key to the correct or most accurate interpretation of petroglyphs. As you know, rock art dating can be done on different grounds. Currently, the date is most often determined by the results of comparative stylistic analysis, in particular, by dated analogues - object images or small-form art samples; by images of any dating objects, so-called realities, on the rock carvings themselves; on the basis of comparison with planar images (colorful or engraved) from funerary monuments. (less often settlement) complexes; taking into account the connection of certain images with the cultural layer (if archaeological excavations were carried out at the base of the rock with drawings).

The least controversial definitions of the relative chronology of two or more images on the same visual plane are obtained by analyzing palimpsests-overlays of some drawings on others. However, it should be borne in mind that the interval between the time of drawing images connected in this way is still unknown, especially if they belong to the same historical epoch.

In recent years, the results of multidisciplinary methods of studying petroglyphs, including data from radiocarbon dating, have been actively used. However, as noted by V. I. Molodin, " unfortunately, the accuracy of dating by natural methods (although they probably have the future) is not sufficient." it can't satisfy us yet " [2004, p. 58]. In our opinion, the use of trace analysis methods to elucidate the technique of applying petroglyphs is very promising. Thus, the tracological study of petroglyphs of Pegtymel (Chukotka) brought completely unexpected results. According to the researchers 'conclusion," the use of iron tools is most likely to be used to make most of the images" [Girya and Devlet E. G., 2008, p. 15], which significantly changes the idea of the monument.

Some of the listed methods of dating petroglyphs should be mentioned in particular. It should be borne in mind that in most cases some sample of images that can be determined chronologically is dated, while the bulk of the petroglyphs located here remain virtually undated (the drawings are simply "tied" to an already defined historical period). V. I. Molodin notes that sometimes, "correlating certain images without much argument with any epoch: Paleolithic, Neolithic, Bronze or Iron Age, the author does not even try to explain why he dates this or that image so, and not otherwise" [2004, p.58].

The method of determining the age of petroglyphs based on their comparison with images on dated objects was first used by A. P. Okladnikov in the study of Trans-Baikal writings (Okladnikov, 1952) and since then has remained leading in determining the temporal affiliation of rock carvings. However, the researcher of petroglyphs turns out to be a "hostage" of the archaeological date established for subject analogues, which is not always determined with sufficient accuracy. The dating of petroglyphs based on the realities depicted on them is similar in meaning; in this case, the accuracy of definitions may be higher than when compared with figurative (zoomorphic) images. Among the successful examples, we can mention the conducted AND. In Kovtun, there is a convincing comparison of the "bell pendants" on the horns of a fantastic beast from Byrganovo (Khakassia) with the Late Karasuk pendant earrings (Kovtun, 2001, Table 42), which proved the existence of the Okunev pictorial tradition up to the Late Bronze Age.

To create a chronological scale of successively applied petroglyphs, it is important to excavate areas with a cultural layer adjacent to rock planes with drawings. They allow, firstly, to open new (previously hidden) drawings; secondly, to correlate images with certain periods of formation of a cultural layer, especially if overlapping drawings correspond to different cultural layers.

page 94
In Gorny Altai, such excavations were carried out at the petroglyphic complex Kucherla-1 (Derevyanko and Molodin, 1991; Molodin and Efremova, 2005). As a result, a layer of images of the Afanasyev culture was first identified by correlation with the finds in the cultural layer (Molodin, 1996). Field studies of the Shalabolinsky scribble on the Yenisei, which include an analysis of a series of expressive palimpsests, are also very promising (Zaika and Drozdov, 2008).

As for images similar to petroglyphs on objects located directly in burial or settlement complexes, unfortunately, they are quite rare. The most striking examples are the remarkable colorful paintings of stone slabs from the Karakol burial ground in Altai, which opened up new opportunities for studying the phenomenon of Okunev's pictorial tradition [Kubarev, 1988]; stone tiles with images of horses in the Karasuk style from the Torgazhak settlement in Khakassia [Savinov, 1996, Fig. 6]; a series of plates with petroglyphs from the Arzhan-2 mound in Tuva, which once again demonstrated the stability of the Arzhan-Mayemir style (Chugunov, 2008).

Chronostratigraphy

In a paper published back in 1964, we noted that "in a certain sense, classification and dating of rock images can be compared with work on a multi-layered settlement, with the only difference being that when working with rock images, there is practically no stratigraphy and almost no dating objects are found" [1964, p. 139]. Stratigraphy here refers to the sequential drawing of images on the same plane (in addition to palimpsests). This is what can be called "vertical stratigraphy". At best, such stratigraphy is determined by" extreme " images, from the point of view of the estimated date, which are most often chronologically separated and of little use for further historical and cultural reconstructions.

The currently generally accepted definition of rock art monuments as long-term functioning sanctuaries allows us to use the method of determining chronostratigraphy as one of the ways to study them. Our joint work with V. V. Bobrov is devoted to this topic, and it is appropriate to quote an excerpt from it here. "The main premise in this case (introduction of the principle of chronostratigraphy. - D. S.) is the fact that most of the monuments of rock art contain images and compositions of different times. In this respect, their study is comparable to the study of multi-layered and non-stratified settlements. When dealing with such settlement complexes, the researcher typologically and planigraphically identifies cultural and chronological groups of archaeological materials and thus restores the sequence of development of the habitat. The same principle, but based on their own methods (stylistic and iconographic features of images), lies in the procedure of scientific research of petroglyphs "(Bobrov and Savinov, 2005, p. 36). This approach, which can be called "horizontal stratigraphy", makes it possible to identify planigraphic contours of the distribution of certain images on the plane, determine the places of their greatest concentration, and also outline transition or contact zones.

By establishing the sequence of drawing drawings in this way, we become "eyewitnesses" of the creation of the sanctuary in different historical periods. Of course, the source state does not always allow this, although there are examples of successful application of this approach. For example, the brilliant planigraphic analysis of the known Tamgaly locality in Southern Kazakhstan, conducted by A. E. Rogozhinsky [2001]. To recreate such a chronological series (according to A. E. Rogozhinsky), not only the stylistic features of images should be taken into account, but also their size, orientation, mutual arrangement, application technique, etc. All this is directly related to the method of studying and fixing petroglyphs in place, otherwise, with all the perfection of the technique of copying drawings, the development of chronostratigraphy of each individual monument will be problematic.

Petroglyphs and object images

The name "subject images" is conditional. Objects are primarily three-dimensional images made of stone, bone and bronze, less often wood (most often these are finials), bone products with engravings, various kinds of jewelry, including objects of toreutics, etc. In terms of its content, this term is broader than commonly used ("mobile art objects", "small plastic art" or "small form art"), because it refers not only to figurative images, but also to the entire field of decorative design of objects that have a specific (most often domestic) purpose. Cave paintings, unlike object images, are created in a slightly different, mainly ritual and mythological, sphere of culture, which is why there are significant differences between them. Why among the hundreds of thousands of cave paintings in Central Asia

page 95
There are no images of small livestock in the northern and Southern Siberian regions that clearly belong to pastoral societies, although sheep bones are found everywhere in burials? Why are there so few petroglyphs made in the characteristic Pazyr style on the rocks? There are only two or three known images of animals with the back of the body turned out in petroglyphs, while objects with animal figures in this position are constantly found. There are virtually no scenes of animals being tortured on the rocks. The "Pazyryk plots" identified by V. D. Kubarev in the Altai petroglyphs [1999, Tables I-VI] are extremely few against the background of the carved wooden products of the Pazyryk culture that are amazing in their perfection and originality. Why does the Karasuk style of rock art have nothing in common with the design style of zoomorphic pommels of Karasuk knives and daggers?

The list of these "whys" can be continued. There may be different explanations: differences in the technique of execution, material, the fact that when working on rocks, the artist was not so constrained in the visual plane as when creating object images, where the very shape of the products dictated their more compact design, etc. But the main reason, in our opinion, is that petroglyphs and object images belong to different forms of visual activity by their purpose. Each of them has its own origins, scope and genesis.

V. I. Molodin also noted these differences in connection with the problem of dating petroglyphs: "A very tempting and seemingly very evidential way of comparing rock carvings with works of small plastic art, images of animals from closed complexes does not always work, although it is precisely on this approach that a number of chronological schemes for Siberian petroglyphs are built" [1993, p. 12]. One of the reasons for the failure of the method based on comparison is a possible discrepancy in time: petroglyphs and object images, as different forms of visual activity within the same historical epoch (Neolithic, Bronze, etc.), may belong to different, smaller periods. It is also impossible to determine the semantics of a particular rock art based only on the corresponding analysis of animal-style objects, for example, proposed by D. V. Cheremisin for the Pazyryk culture [2007], although considering them in the light of the "aura" of the spiritual culture of one historical epoch is not only possible, but also necessary.

At the same time, there is an unmistakable, though not so obvious, connection between petroglyphs and object images. It is most clearly shown in the works of the Early Scythian period (Arjan-Mayemir style) and engravings of the Tashtyk culture: both decorative and applied (figurative) and petroglyphic art reflect the same expressive techniques of image. As O. S. Sovetova notes in an article devoted to the analysis of similarities and differences between petroglyphs and small plastic art of the Tagar culture, among the samples of the latter, anthropomorphic figures are completely absent, which occupy one of the leading places in the repertoire of rock carvings, as well as drawings on the slabs of fences of Tatar mounds. In her opinion, "the reason for the absence of this image (of a person. - D. S.) in plastic art is still a mystery, but it is certain that petroglyphs and plastic, harmoniously complementing each other, are united by the general concept of "Tatar art", which provides an opportunity to judge not only the aesthetic ideals of the era, but also the worldview of its creators" [20076, p.76].

Analyzing materials from different areas of rock art, researchers come to similar conclusions. For example, V. V. Bobrov believes that the" skeletal " style of Kulay openwork bronze casting was borrowed from petroglyphics [2004]; according to S. A. Zinchenko, the specifics of the style of gold jewelry of the Early Scythian period, in particular, the carved figures of wild boars from the Chilikta mound, may be related to the style of rock carvings [2005]. It is obvious that the dialectical connection between these two types of pictorial activity - rock art and the creation of object images-deserves the closest attention in connection not only with the search for simple chronological coincidences, but also with the solution of problems of more thorough and comprehensive analysis.

Style and chronology

The concept of style does not lend itself to an unambiguous definition at all. As E. F. Korolkova notes, referring to the work of A. N. Sokolov, published in 1968, "the word' style ' is one of those definitions that are not the monopoly of any one science. This term is used by at least five scientific disciplines: linguistics, literary studies, art studies, aesthetics, and archeology. In each of these sciences, the concept of style has acquired a special meaning-depending on the subject of science." Moreover, the latter (archeology - D. S.) "includes style among the criteria that characterize a part of archaeological materials and give grounds for specific conclusions regarding the chronological and cultural affiliation of monuments" * [Korolkova, 1996, p. 6].

* It is obvious that rock art is also meant in this case.

page 96
The inconsistency of the criteria for identifying the style is due to the differences between the "archaeological" and "art history" approaches to the interpretation of petroglyphs, which were noted by D. V. Cheremisin [2006] and O. S. Sovetova [2007a] during the discussion organized by the journal. Ya. A. Sher was the first to pay special attention to this problem [1980, pp. 25-43; 2004a]. The categories of pictorial invariants identified by him, as well as the concepts of "plan of content" and "plan of expression" introduced by him, became the theoretical basis of modern petroglyphology. However, this approach does not give a clear definition of the concept of "style" in relation only to rock carvings; they are considered in general terms along with other monuments of primitive art. Perhaps the clearest definition of the style for petroglyphs was given by V. I. Molodin: under the style "one should understand the features of the expression of a pictorial plot" [2004, p. 58]. You can interpret a rock art in different ways (as a motif - a single figure or a plot - several interrelated figures), but the main idea is clear: style is how a particular image is made.

Petroglyphs represent a planar reproduction of three-dimensional objects (this is one of their main features), i.e. initially they are characterized by the convention of transmission. While preserving the internal content, this requires certain image techniques, thanks to which this convention becomes understandable for perception. These techniques, repeated many times to express the necessary content, are the concrete manifestation of style in rock art. In some cases, the style is embodied in a clear outline of the figure (Arzhano-Mayemir and bitreugol styles), in the second-in the silhouette (rock paintings in the "deer stone style"), in the third - in emphasizing one or several specific details (Seimin visual tradition and Tashtyk style), in the fourth-in an intentional, almost symbolic schematics of the image (Karasuk style), etc. As a result of the constant repetition of such techniques, the pictorial material becomes an integral part of the archaeological whole characteristic of a given historical epoch.

The concept of visual invariant is the most convenient "key" to identifying the features of a particular style. It is not for nothing that this method was successfully applied in the analysis of images in the bit-angle style and works of art of the Early Scythian period, where these features are particularly expressive [Sher, 1980, pp. 28-32, Figs. 1, 3, etc.]. The selected invariants convincingly demonstrate the relevance of individual visual elements (features of reproduction of the ear, eye, specifics of transmission torsos), which, regardless of the species of animals, remain unchanged. In fact, the selection of pictorial invariants can also be considered as a kind of classification of animal images by consistently repeating features within the same pictorial tradition. How these images relate in time, in other words, what their typology is, remains unknown. The theory of pictorial invariants was further developed in the works of I. V. Kovtun (2001, 2005) and is generally quite positive, although somewhat confusing. In contrast to Ya. A. Sher, who considered the formation of pictorial invariants on a single chronological cross-section, I. V. Kovtun focused on the transformation of invariants in time, i.e. the typology of style.

Each style is based on a specific visual canon, which concentrates its most characteristic features. It is difficult to say whether this clear contamination of features is due to the author's artistic abilities, proximity to the intended archetype, or time spent creating images. But, apparently, the primary role here was played by the development of style over time - from the most perfect samples to later and less skilful repetitions. For example, A. A. Tishkin refers the rock carvings of animals near Mount Khrustalnaya (Gorny Altai) to the Arzhano-Mayemir style [2004]. In principle, this is correct, but these drawings most likely reflect the decline of this pictorial tradition. A striking example of the degeneration of the canon is the western (territories of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Uzbekistan) images in the "deer stone style" (Savinov, 2008a, Fig. 7), which were undoubtedly created later than similar samples in Central Asia. In the development of the Arjan-Mayemir style, two stages can be distinguished: the Arjan style itself, associated with the heritage of Karasuk artistic bronzes, and the later Mayemir style, best represented by finds from the Arjan - 2 mound, although it is difficult to draw a clear boundary between them.

The problems of establishing a correspondence between chronology and style within the same visual tradition were discussed by A. I. Martynov and V. I. Molodin during their discussion on the dating of images of the Angara style (on the example of materials from the Turochak (Northern Altai) and Tomsk scribbles). Initially, such drawings, mainly quite realistically shown moose figures, by A. P. Okladnikov from the images on the Hangar (hence the name "Angarsky style") were dated to the Neolithic era; then the same definitions as for the images of the "Angarsky style" were obtained by Tomsk [Okladnikov, Martynov, 1972] and Turochak [Okladnikov, Martynov,1972]. Molodin, 1978] pisani-

page 97
tsy. Later, V. I. Molodin attributed the Turochak scribble to the Bronze Age based on stylistic features of images known in the art of the Okunev culture on the Yenisei [1993]. A. I. Martynov insisted on the necessity of dating such images to the Neolithic period [1996, 1997], and V. I. Molodin - to the Bronze Age [1997]. The researchers referred to some observations that allow us to assume both the possibility of the appearance of such images before the Bronze Age, and their long-term existence in the subsequent time. In our opinion, both assumptions are quite legitimate. Images in the Angara style are concentrated in several regions : in the Baikal Region, in the Angara Region, in the south of the Krasnoyarsk Territory, in the Minusinsk Basin, in the Tom River basin, and in the Northern Altai (Turochak Pisanitsa is the westernmost point). On Lake Baikal and Angara, they are undoubtedly, as A. P. Okladnikov believed, Neolithic. It is difficult to say exactly what time the large number of such images presented in the Minusinsk basin belongs to (Pyatkin and Martynov, 1985). According to O. S. Sovetova and EA. Miklashevich, their " place in the chronological column is safe to determine the difference between the "Minusinsk style" (the earliest in the Minusinsk basin - D. S.) and Okunev images" [1999, p. 56]. The Angara style is one of the components of the Okunev visual tradition [Savinov, 2006, pp. 160-161, Fig. 2]. In this respect, the Okunev parallels given by V. I. Molodin to the drawings on the Turochak scribble are quite convincing, although the composition of the Angara style belongs to the Neolithic era. Another thing is how long the Neolithic tradition is preserved in the images of the Tomsk scribble. A. I. Martynov's chronological column for the development of the moose image in Tomsk Pisanitsa raises objections due to its length: in almost the same interpretation, the same image exists here from the Neolithic to the Early Iron Age, and in schematic execution-up to the first millennium AD, i.e. several thousand years [Martynov, 1997, p. 23]. It seems that the determination of the upper chronological position without taking into account individual schematic images depends on what was the " gap " between the time of drawing the late petroglyphs of the Tomsk Pisanitsa and the era of the Kulai openwork bronze products, which determine the age of the drawings. The definition of this "gap" is a very interesting but controversial issue. Perhaps the approach to dating also depends on how well we can understand this undisclosed mechanism of the "transition" of one type of image to another (Bobrov, 2004). In any case, such a "sliding" chronology in determining the development of the style seems to be the most justified.

Semantics

Semantics is the most hidden side of petroglyphs, and only the most general assumptions can be made about it. The question of the semantics of rock carvings was raised in Soviet archaeology in the mid-twentieth century in connection with the discussion of the content of petroglyphs of Karelia, which were then considered a standard for interpreting such monuments. Rock carvings of Karelia (Lake Onega and the White Sea) were considered either as illustrations to the real, primarily economic, life of local Neolithic tribes (A.M. Linevsky, A. Ya. Bryusov), or as evidence of a cult-cosmogonic worldview and ideas about the afterlife (V. I. Ravdonikas). Further studies of rock carvings, mainly in Central Asia and Siberia, have shown that this contrast is not entirely correct.

Semantic differences in petroglyphs can manifest themselves both in the content as a whole, and in the meaning of individual most expressive plots. This understanding was first expressed by A. N. Bernshtam, who identified several groups of images (hunting scenes, ritual and cult scenes, everyday objects) with different content of subjects in the materials of the Saimaly-Tash locality (Kyrgyzstan) [Bernshtam, 1952, pp. 60-65]. Naturally, this does not mean that the same images can be interpreted from different points of view, but it is also possible (for example, some mythological characters can be shown with quite real weapons). The meaning of the polysemantic nature (ambiguity of semantic content) of rock paintings is that, since they are the only pictorial form of reflection of the culture of their time, the spectrum of manifestation in them of all elements of a particular culture should be quite wide. Ultimately, whatever our knowledge of a given culture is, so is the degree of accuracy in" reading "petroglyphic" texts." And it is very limited: in archaeological sources - by the very specifics of the material, in ethnographic sources - by the special conditions for "translating" diachronic phenomena into synchronous ones, in written sources-by the small number and fragmentary nature of coinciding plots. Ya. A. Sher's statement that petroglyphs are "the oldest pictorial folklore" [1997] is quite correct in essence, but the original folklore materials are also given to us in very distant reminiscences.

The most correct way is to define the semantics of certain images not on the os-

* The idea of polysemantic petroglyphs was developed in one of our works [1964, p. 140-143].

page 98
Instead of using general definitions and concepts that are most often universal in nature (mythology, magic, etc.), it is possible to decipher consistently recurring plots. In this way, the "non-randomness" factor of a particular interpretation is provided. Ya. A. Sher identified several such consistently recurring plots and suggested their semantic interpretation. Among such "classic" subjects is "The Horse at the World Tree", which later took shape in the extremely vivid image of "The Lord of Horses on the Yenisei"; "Mother-progenitor", or, more precisely, "Woman and bull"; "Earthly and heavenly chariots" [Sher, 1980, p. 257-287; 1993]. Semantic research in this direction based on the materials of petroglyphs of the Minusinsk basin was successfully continued by O. S. Sovetova; she paid special attention to the iconographic features of petroglyphs, i.e. the possibility of transmitting the figurative "language" of the creators of these images themselves. Her interesting studies on this topic have been published: "Displaying the state of defeat and death in rock art", "Sign language in rock art", "The story with giants on the rocks of the Yenisei", "Horses with original tails on the rocks of the Yenisei", "On the question of the nakedness of "Tatar men", etc., later combined in the monograph "Petroglyphs of the Tatar era on the Yenisei (plots and images)" [2005]. A number of subjects are highlighted and considered in detail by M. A. Devlet in the works "The image of the way-road in the rock art of Siberia and Central Asia" [2000], "Images of skiers in the rock art of Siberia and Central Asia" [2003], "Ancient dwellings of the peoples of North and Central Asia (based on petroglyphs)" [2006] * Several plot interpretations were proposed by us [2003, 2005, 20086]. In general, a fairly significant repertoire of subjects has been "deciphered" in various ways, but it is clear that the proposed interpretations do not exhaust the entire richness of the content of rock art monuments.

Currently, a mythological explanation of the semantics of petroglyphs prevails [Devlet E. G., Devlet M. A., 2005; et al.]. However, the interpretation of the meaning of rock carvings exclusively in this plane leaves out of consideration a very important component of petroglyphic art-the display of very real characters that actually existed ("deified" or "heroic"), as well as the corresponding attributes used in performing ritual actions. Based on the materials of petroglyphs of Central Asia and Southern Siberia of the Bronze Age, we have identified three groups of such images representing the ritual sphere of existence : special structures( buildings), statuary images and ritual objects [2005]. Studying petroglyphs from other historical eras can probably expand this category of images.

In this regard, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that the content (and purpose?)of the program is very important. rock art is unlikely to have remained the same - it most likely changed from epoch to epoch. Most significantly, such "milestone changes" could occur at three chronological levels.

The first level is the transition from the Stone Age to the Bronze Age, when from the depths of the primitive (totemic?) a certain mythological system of representations was formed, which was reflected in rock carvings. Throughout the entire territory of Central Asia and Southern Siberia, with the exception of the Minusinsk basin, instead of individual large figures of ungulates, numerous petroglyphic plots were distributed, usually related to some action (characters in mushroom-shaped headdresses, "tailed" figures, archers, chariots, etc.). According to I. Molodina and D. V. Cheremisina, they represent " pictorial embodiments of an extremely significant myth, transferred over vast distances, transmitted and perceived in the mobile environment of pastoralists and hunters of the Eurasian steppes." This "determines the existence of many iconographic variants, generally uncanonical, the deployment of diverse plots with the participation of the main character..." [1997, p.250]. Figuratively speaking, the plots of petroglyphs are a kind of" Manas "or" Geser "written on the rocks of that time, as diverse as it is understandable to all the creators and recipients of such images. This mythological "horizon" with the personification of the hero's image was destroyed (or modified) in the Scythian period with the appearance of the Scythian-Siberian animal style.

The second level is the Early Middle Ages, most likely dating back to the Hunnic period, when rock carvings were dominated by narrative, epic compositions. It is also quite likely that the content of some of the plots related to real historical events is also memorialized. The repertoire of rock carvings of this time changes: battle compositions, images of knights, horsemen, scenes of heroic hunting, migrations predominate, and tamga-like (iconic) images appear.

The third level is ethnographic time, when the everyday sphere of culture becomes the main object of attention for people who have made rock paintings.

* For a list of works by M. A. Devlet, see [Path of the Millennia, 2008, pp. 6-16].

page 99
images. It is characterized by the transmission, most often with ethnographic accuracy, of various kinds of details and a final break with the former mythological tradition. In fact, these drawings are illustrations of quite specific phenomena observed on a daily basis. The relationship between the second and third levels of development of petroglyphic art corresponds to the "gap" that exists between archaeological and ethnographic sources, which has not yet been filled in.

Pictorial layer

One of the main achievements of Russian petroglyphology is the identification of stylistic features of images characteristic of a particular historical period, or a reasonable selection of stylistically homogeneous drawings that can be correlated with a particular section of archaeological periodization. Petroglyphs of the Karasuk (Pyatkin, 1977) or Varchinsky (according to N. V. Leontiev) styles of the Late Bronze Age were identified, and for earlier times - the Angara and Minusinsk styles (Podolsky, 1973; Sher, 1980, pp. 187-193), and the Seimin-Turbinsky pictorial tradition (Pyatkin and Miklashevich, 1990], for later periods - rock carvings in the "deer stone style", stylistic features of drawings of the Early Scythian period (or Arjan-Mayemir style) and Tashtyk culture. Images of the Okunev culture are well "recognizable" (although they do not form a single style). Magnificent engravings of the ancient Turkic period have a certain stylistic expressiveness [Novgorodova, 1984, pp. 125-135; Cheremisin, 2004].

Being arranged by researchers in chronological order, the selected "styles" demonstrate the change of visual traditions in rock art. Summary tables constructed in this way [Kubarev, 2003, Fig. 1; Miklashevich, 2004; et al.] are essentially made on the same principle as archaeological periodizations and, undoubtedly, are important at a certain stage of systematization of the material. However, in our opinion, it is more promising in terms of further research to single out the visual layer as a form of existence and study of rock art.

The word "layer" is quite often found in specialized literature: stylistic, chronological, artistic, semantic, historical and cultural. In the same row - the concept of "pictorial layer", which has a completely independent meaning. The pictorial layer is the spatial and temporal distribution of images made in one pictorial tradition corresponding to a certain state of spiritual culture. The theoretical basis for identifying the concept of "pictorial layer "is the idea of three-dimensionality of cultural space with its own laws of development," sliding " chronology, shifting boundaries of cultural areas, etc. (Savinov, 2001), applicable to all archaeological materials.

The basis for identifying the visual layer is a series of homogeneous, stylistically definable images. Core to the definition of each visual layer is the concept of "style". Within the framework of the pictorial layer, stylistically defined images can have not only different dates, but also generally "go" beyond the periods established by archaeological periodization. Thus, horse drawings in the typical Seimin-Turbin style survive the Andronovo era, for which the presence of figurative images is generally problematic, and are preserved in petroglyphs of Kazakhstan until the Saka period (Savinov, 2007). The Okunev pictorial tradition was established in anthropomorphic guises on the territory of Tuva, probably dating back to a later time (Mugur-Sargol). The practice of depicting moose in the Angara style, as noted, continued to exist in the Bronze Age and even later; however, there is no doubt that this style belongs to the Neolithic tradition. In this regard, the question of the most ancient images on open planes in the Southern Altai (Kalguty) should be decided in favor of their Paleolithic affiliation (Molodin and Cheremisin, 1999); it is not a question of the exact date (it is elusive in this case), but of preserving the Paleolithic tradition. The application of the term "epipaleolithic" to such images seems to be the most justified.

The selection of a particular pictorial layer implies the presence of a center of addition of this pictorial tradition and vectors of its distribution, taking into account the "sliding" chronology from earlier images to later ones, some of which are already replicas of half-forgotten samples. On the periphery of the visual layer, the number of such images is usually reduced, and their characteristic stylistic features are simplified (transformed). Trends in the development of stylistically homogeneous images within the same image layer may have different directions. Thus, the drawings in the "deer stone style" in the extreme western regions of their range - in Central Asia and Kazakhstan - are far from the "original". On the contrary, rock carvings in the Seimin style, the layer of which is mainly concentrated on the ter-

page 100
The regions of Kazakhstan, in the more eastern regions (Altai, Mongolia), are much less representative. Images of moose in the Ural scribbles are already "rehashes" of the Angara style, however, many elements of Okunevsky art clearly have Western origins, etc.

In some cases, images of different layers overlap and form a complex chronostratigraphy; this makes it possible to restore the order of filling and, accordingly, the functioning of this sanctuary, taking into account the nature of the location of certain drawings and palimpsests. Single-layer petroglyphic complexes belonging to one clearly defined pictorial layer are usually associated with the equally stable existence of one economic and cultural type. Such monuments are very rare in Central Asia and Southern Siberia. In the north of Asia, the most striking example is the famous petroglyphic complex Pegtymel.

The large number of rock carvings creates the appearance of a plot variety of petroglyphs. In fact, if we use the concept of a pictorial layer, the number of consistently repeating compositions is relatively small. Behind each of them is a certain mythological (epic or narrative) plot, the meaning of which can be revealed by the features of the images themselves (iconography, the composition of the "participants" of a particular composition, the mutual encounter of figures, specific attributes, etc.). There are also certain semantic blocks that reveal the meaning of certain compositions. So, antipodal figures mean confrontation, inverted ones - defeat or death, raised hands-adoration, circular compositions - reincarnation( rebirth), the selection of one, larger figure-a sign of dominance (or multiple strengthening) of this character, etc. Systematic consideration of such semantic blocks makes it possible to move away from obviously impersonal universals and turn to the" language " of the pictorial source itself, as well as, if possible, to folklore materials of specific ethnic communities living in the same cultural and ecological space.

Thus, the visual layer as our way of understanding the form of existence of rock art monuments allows us to focus equally on the data of archeology (conditions of location, context, realities), art studies (stylistic analysis) and on solving semantics issues (the paradigm of mythology), i.e. to implement what modern petroglyphology strives for.

Conclusion

None of the topics discussed above-both those that have been discussed for a long time (definition of age and semantics), and those that have been raised again here (style and chronology, pictorial layer) - can be considered exhausted. With the opening of each new monument, the field of scientific study of petroglyphs is enriched not only with new images (or drawings that complement the already known series), but also with the possibilities of their theoretical understanding. However, in this area, the degree of knowledge of the source still lags behind the accumulation of actual material.

In recent years, petroglyphology has been particularly concerned with the accuracy of recording and publication quality of rock images, as well as the conservation and preservation of this most important part of the cultural heritage. Without any doubt, both are of paramount importance, since the very fact of the existence of this type of archaeological sources and the reliability of their scientific study depend on them. As for the analytical aspect of the study, it has been successfully formalized and is often reduced to the original petroglyphic triad: as a natural procedure - classification; as a solution to the main problem - dating; as the least definite component - semantics. To some extent, this is similar to the solution of the problem of determining the sex and age in the excavation of burials, which is usually limited to archaeologists, but behind this material rises an iceberg of problems, proven methods and numerous developments that anthropology presents that have received recognition. I would like petroglyphology, along with the discovery of new materials as one of the branches of human science, to actively develop along this path.

List of literature

Bernshtam, A. N., Rock images of Saimala-Tash, SE. - 1952, No. 2, pp. 50-68.

Bobrov V. V. Petroglyphs of Siberia and Kulay metalplastics // Pictorial monuments: style, epoch, Compositions: Materials of the Thematic Scientific Conference, St. Petersburg, 2004, pp. 309-313.

Bobrov V. V., Savinov D. G. The principle of chronostratigraphy in the study of petroglyphs as ancient sanctuaries // Mir naskalnogo iskusstva: Sb. dokl. International Conference, Moscow: Publishing House of IA RAS, 2005, pp. 36-38.

Girya E. Yu., Devlet E. G. Tracological study of Pegtymel petroglyphs // Tr. II (XVIII) Everything is clear. archeol. Congress in Suzdal, Moscow, 2008, vol. III, pp. 12-15.

Derevyanko A. N., Molodin V. I. Relative chronology and cultural affiliation of the monument Kucherla-1 (Gorny Altai) / / Problems of chronology and periodization

page 101
archaeological sites of Southern Siberia: Proc. Vsesoyuz. science. Conf. - Barnaul, 1991, pp. 3-7.

Devlet E. G. Monuments of rock art. Izuchenie, sokhranenie, ispol'zovanie [Study, preservation, use], Moscow: Nauch. mir Publ., 2002, 239 p.

Devlet E. G., Devlet M. A. Myths in stone. Mir naskalnogo iskusstva Rossii [The World of Rock Art in Russia], Moscow: Aleteya Publ., 2005, 470 p.

Devlet M. A. Arealy naskalnogo iskusstva Severnoi Azii [Areas of rock art in Northern Asia]. Nekotorye problemy sibirskoi arkheologii [Some problems of Siberian Archeology], Moscow: Publishing House of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 1988, pp. 54-83.

Devlet M. A. Obraz puti-dorogi v naskalnom iskusstve Sibiri i Tsentral'noi Azii [The image of a road in the rock art of Siberia and Central Asia]. Special issue, after eating. 70th anniversary of V. I. Matyushchenko. Omsk, 2000, pp. 76-83.

Devlet M. A. Izobrazheniya skizhnikov v naskalnom iskusstvo Sibiri i Tsentral'noi Azii [Images of skiers in the rock art of Siberia and Central Asia]. - Kemerovo: Kuzbassvuzizdat, 2003, pp. 59-63.

Devlet M. A. Drevniye zhilishcha narodov Severnoi i Tsentral'noi Azii (po materialam petroglifov) [Ancient dwellings of the peoples of Northern and Central Asia (based on petroglyphs)]. Miroponimanie drevnykh i traditsionnykh obshchestv Evrazii: Sb. statei pamyati VN Chernetsova [World Understanding of ancient and traditional societies of Eurasia: Collection of articles in memory of V. N. Chernetsov].

Devlet M. A. On two stylistic groups of images of the "Scythian deer" in Central Asia // Window to the unknown world: Collection of articles on the 100th anniversary of A. P. Okladnikov. Novosibirsk: Izd-vo IAET SB RAS, 2008, pp. 194-197.

Zaika A. L., Drozdov N. I. New petroglyphs of the Shalabolinsky pisanitsa // Tr. II (XVIII) Bcepoc. archeol. Congress in Suzdal, Moscow: Publishing House of IA RAS, 2008, vol. III, pp. 28-30.

Zinchenko S. A. Petroglyphs as a possible stylistic prototype for the formation of monuments of Early Scythian art. Mir naskalnogo iskusstva: Sb. dokl. International Conference, Moscow: Publishing House of IA RAS, 2005, pp. 116-117.

Kovtun I. V. Pictorial traditions of the Bronze Age of Central and North-Western Asia. Novosibirsk: Izd-vo IAET SB RAS, 2001, 181 p. (in Russian)

Kovtun I. V. Invariantnyj analiz izobrazhitel'nykh stilj [Invariant analysis of visual styles]. - 2005. - N 1. - p. 40-50.

Korolkova, E. F. Theoretical problems of art and "animal style" Scythian era. - St. Petersburg: State Publishing House. Hermitage, 1996. - 78 p.

Kubarev V. D. Ancient paintings of Karakol. Novosibirsk: Nauka Publ., 1988, 170 p. (in Russian)

Kubarev V. D. Pazyryk plots in the petroglyphs of Altai / / Results of studying the Scythian epoch of Altai and adjacent territories. Barnaul: Alt. State University Publ., 1999, pp. 84-92.

Kubarev V. D. Rock art of Altai (From the expedition notes of an archaeologist). - Novosibirsk; Gorno-Altaisk: Publishing House of IAET SB RAS, 2002. - 123 p.

Kubarev V. D. Altai-Mongolia: results and prospects of studying rock art // Antiquities of Altai. Gorno-Altaisk, 2003, No. 10, pp. 46-61.

Laushkin K. D. Onega Sanctuary, Part 1 (New interpretation of some petroglyphs of Karelia) / / Scandinavian Collection. Tartu, 1959, vol. 4, pp. 83-111.

Martynov, A. I., On the principles of dating the rock art of Siberia, Aktual'nye problemy sibirskoi arkheologii: Tez. Dokl. konf. - Barnaul, 1996, pp. 8-12.

Martynov A. I. O datirovke pamyatnikov naskalnogo iskusstva Sibiri [On the dating of rock art monuments in Siberia]. Kemerovo: Kem. state University Press, 1997, issue 2, pp. 17-24.

Miklashevich E. A. Monuments of the Minusinsk basin (Republic of Khakassia. Krasnoyarsk Krai) // Monuments of rock art in Central Asia. Social significance, management, conservation, documentation. Almaty: Ministry of Culture of Kazakhstan; UNESCO, 2004, pp. 15-28.

Molodin V. I. Once again on the dating of the Turochak scribbles (Some problems of studying and cultural belonging of petroglyphs of Southern Siberia). Kul'tura drevnykh narodov Yuzhnoy Sibiri [Culture of ancient peoples of Southern Siberia]. Barnaul: Alt. State University Publ., 1993, pp. 4-25.

Molodin V. I. Naskalnye izobrazheniya afanas'evskoy kul'tury (k postanovke problemy) [Rock images of the Afanasiev culture (to the problem statement)], in Novye arkheologicheskie i etnograficheskie otkrytiki v Sibiri: Materials of the IV Annual Final Session of the IAET SB RAS, Novosibirsk, 1996, pp. 178-181.

Molodin V. I. On the dating of Siberian petroglyphs (letter to the editor) / / RA. - 1997. - N 4. - pp. 224-229.

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., Efremova N. S. Sanctuary of Kucherla-1 (Kuylyu) in Gorny Altai. The problem of correlation of rock images and cultural strata / / Archeology of Southern Siberia: ideas, methods, discoveries. To the 100th anniversary of S. V. Kiselyov. Krasnoyarsk: Publishing House of the Krasnoyarsk State Pedagogical University. unta, 2005, pp. 176-179.

Molodin V. I., Cheremisin D. V. Petroglyphs of the Bronze Age of the Ukok plateau / / Problems of Archeology, Ethnography and Anthropology of Siberia and adjacent territories: Materials of the V Annual Final Session of the IAET SB RAS, Novosibirsk, 1997, vol. III, pp. 247-251.

Molodin V. I., Cheremisin D. V. The oldest rock images of the Ukok plateau. Novosibirsk: Nauka Publ., 1999, 158 p. (in Russian)

Novgorodova E. A. The World of petroglyphs in Mongolia. east lit. Nauka Publishing House, 1984, 166 p.

Okladnikov A. P. O datirovke zabaikalskikh pisanits [On the dating of Trans-Baikal writings]. Buryat-Mongolian Research Institute. Ulan-Ude, 1952, issue XVI, pp. 57-62.

Okladnikov A. P. Petroglyphs of Siberia and the Far East as a source on the ethnic history of Northern Asia (Methodology and some general conclusions) / / Materials of the conference "Ethnogenesis of the peoples of Northern Asia". Novosibirsk, 1969, issue 1, pp. 3-27.

Okladnikov A. P., Martynov A. I. Treasures of Tomskikh pisanits, Moscow: Iskusstvo Publ., 1972, 255 p.

Okladnikov A. P., Molodin V. I. Turochakskaya pisanitsa (Altai, valley of the Biya River) / / Ancient cultures of Altai and Western Siberia. Novosibirsk: Nauka Publ., 1978, pp. 11-21.

Okladnikova E. A. Model of the Universe in the system of rock art images of the Pacific coast of North America. St. Petersburg: MAE RAS Publishing House, 1995, 317 p.

Podolsky N. L. On the principles of dating rock images. About the A. A. book. Formozova "Essays on primitive art" / / SA. - 1973. - N 3. - pp. 266-275.

Pyatkin B. I. Some issues of dating petroglyphs of Southern Siberia //Archeology of Southern Siberia. - By whom-

page 102
rovo: Kem. gosudarstvennogo unita Publ., 1977, pp. 60-67. archeol. research; issue 9).

Pyatkin B. N., Martynov A. I. Shalabolinsky petroglyphs. Krasnoyarsk: Publishing House of the Krasnoyarsk State University, 1985, 187 p.

Pyatkin B. N., Miklashevich E. A. Seiminsko-turbinskaya izobrazhitel'naya traditsiya: plastika i petroglyphi [Seiminsko-turbinskaya izobrazhitel'naya traditsiya: plastika i petroglyphi]. Problemy izucheniya naskalnykh izobrazheniy v SSSR [Problems of studying rock images in the USSR], Moscow: Izd - vo IA AN SSSRD990, pp. 146-153.

Rogozhinsky A. E. Pictorial series of petroglyphs of the Bronze Age of the Tamgaly sanctuary // History and archeology of Semirechye. 2001, Issue 2, pp. 7-44.

Savinov D. G. Rock images of Central Asia and Southern Siberia (Some general issues of study) // West LSU-1964. - N 20: Ser. ist. yaz., lit., issue 4. - pp. 139-145.

Savinov D. G. Ancient settlements of Khakassia. Torgazhak. - St. Petersburg: Petersburg, vostokovedenie Publ., 1996, 105 p. (in Russian)

Savinov D. G. O tridimensionnosti kul'turnogo prostranstva (arkheologicheskiy aspekt) [On the three-dimensionality of cultural space (archaeological aspect)]. Zapadnaya Sibir ' i sopredel'nye territorii: Mat-ly XII Zap. Sib. archeol. - etnogr. konf. - Tomsk, 2001, pp. 188-189.

Savinov D. G. K interpretatsii Boyarskikh pisanits [On the interpretation of Boyar writings]. articles dedicated to the 70th anniversary of A. I. Martynov. Novosibirsk: Izd-vo IAET SB RAS, 2003, pp. 100-105.

Savinov D. G. Ritual sphere of being in the rock images of the Bronze Age of the Sayano-Altaisk highland // Mir naskalnogo iskusstva: Sb. dokl. International Conference, Moscow, 2005, pp. 219-225.

Savinov D. G. On the selection of styles and iconographic groups of images of Okunevsky art // Okunevsky collection-2. Culture and its environment. Saint Petersburg: Elexis Print Publ., 2006, pp. 157-190.

Savinov D. G. Seiminskaya izobrazhitel'naia traditsiya v petroglyphs Yuzhnoy Sibiri i Kazakhstana [Seiminskaya pictorial tradition in petroglyphs of Southern Siberia and Kazakhstan]. To the anniversary of T. M. Potemkina. Kurgan: Publishing House of Kurgan State University, 2007, pp. 98-103.

Savinov D. G. In the beginning there was the Ivolginsky stone (on rock paintings in the style of "deer stones") / / Homo Eurasicus in the depths and spaces of history. K 100-letiyu A. P. Okladnikov: Sb. Mezhdunar. konf. - SPb.: Asterion, 2008a. - pp. 158-166.

Savinov D. G. "Sword-kladenets" on the rocks of Central Asia and Southern Siberia. For the anniversary of MA. Devlet. Kemerovo: Kuzbassvuzizdat, 20086. - pp. 40-52. - (Tr. Sib. associations of Primitive researchers. art; issue IV).

Sovietova O. S. Petroglyphs of the Tatar era on the Yenisei (plots and images). Novosibirsk: IAET SB RAS Publ., 2005, 137 p. (in Russian)

Sovetova O. S. K voprosu o "iskusstvovedcheskom" i "arkheologicheskom" podkhodakh k interpretatsii izobrazhitel'nykh pamyatnikov [On the question of "art history" and "archaeological" approaches to the interpretation of visual monuments]. - 2007a. - N 3. - p. 103-114.

Sovetova O. S. Melkaya plastika i petroglyphi tatarskoy epokhi (obshchee i osobennoe) [Small plastic and petroglyphs of the Tatar era (general and special)]. Barnaul: Azbuka Publ., 20076. - P. 75-76. - (Tr. Sib. assotsiia issledovatelei pervobytn. arts; vol. III).

Sovietova O. S., Miklashevich E. A. Khronologicheskie i stilisticheskie osobennosti Sredneeniseyskikh petroglyphs (po totogam raboty Petroglyphicheskogo otryada Yuzhnosibirskoi arkheologicheskoi expeditsii KemGU) [Chronological and stylistic features of the Middle Yenisei Petroglyphs (based on the results of the work of the Petroglyphic detachment of the South Siberian Archaeological Expedition of KemSU)]. 47-74.

Modern dictionary of Foreign Words, Moscow: Russkiy yazyk Publ., 1993, 740 p. (in Russian)

Tishkin A. A. Izobrazheniya zhivotnykh v arzhano-mayemirskom stile u podstviya gory Khrustalnoy (Gorny Altay) [Images of animals in the Arzhano-Mayemir style at the foot of Mount Khrustalnaya (Gorny Altai)]. Izobrazhitel'nye pamyatniki: stil', epokha, kompozitsii: Mat - ly tematich. nauch. konf. - SPb., 2004, pp. 276-279.

The path of the millennia. For the anniversary of MA. Devlet. - Kemerovo: Kuzbassvuzizdat, 2008. - 187 p. - (Tr. Sib. assotsiia issledovatelei pervobytn. art; issue IV).

Frankfort A.-P., 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 1. - p. 39-50.

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. - p. 39-50.

Cheremisin D. V. On the discussion of the informative value of petroglyphs and methods of their study // Archeology, Ethnography and Anthropology of Eurasia. - 2006. - N 3. - p. 89-100.

Cheremisin D. V. K diskussii o semantike iskusstva zverinogo stilya i rekonstruktsii mirovozzreniya nositelei pazyrykskoy kul'tury [On the discussion of the semantics of animal-style art and reconstruction of the worldview of native speakers of the Pazyryk culture]. - 2007. - N 3. - p. 87-102.

Chugunov K. V. Plates with petroglyphs in the complex of the Arzhan-2 mound (On the chronology of the Arzhan-Mayemir style). Kemerovo: Kuzbassvuzizdat Publ., 2008, pp. 53-69. (Proceedings of the Siberian Association of Primitive Researchers). art; issue IV).

Sher Ya. A. Petroglyphs of Central and Central Asia, Moscow: Nauka Publ., 1980, 327 p.

Sher Ya. A. "Master of Horses" on the bank of the Yenisei river // The Scythians. Sarmatians. Slavs. Russia. - SPb.: Farn, 1993. - p. 17-22. - (SURFACTANT; N 6).

Sher Ya. A. Petroglyphs - the oldest visual folklore / / Rock art of Asia. Kemerovo: Kuzbassvuzizdat, 1997, issue 2, pp. 28-35.

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

Sher Ya. A. Stil 'v pervobytnom iskusstve [Style in primitive art] / / Izobrazitel'nye pamyatniki: stil', epokha, kompozitsii: Mat-ly tematich. nauch. konf. - SPb., 20046. - pp. 9-13.

E. Jacobson-Tepfer. Stylized images of deer in petroglyphs and on deer stones of the Mongolian Altai / / Sixth Historical Readings in memory of M. P. Gryaznov. Omsk: Omsk State University, 2004, pp. 128-132.

The article was submitted to the Editorial Board on 15.02.09.

page 103

Permanent link to this publication: