Introduction

Interpretation of pictorial sources is one of the most complex and controversial problems (see, for example, [Rayevsky, 1999, p. 118-123; Molodin, 2004, p.59-60]). Immediately note that in this article we will focus on a specific type of visual monuments-rock carvings. Answer to the question: what is depicted? It is one of the key elements in the study of petroglyphs and always causes research interest. Many historical conclusions depend on this answer (for example, related to images of certain realities (and their use), certain animal species, etc.), as well as an understanding of many worldview issues of a particular era. It is quite obvious that this problem is still far from being exhausted, and its understanding is impossible without a multi - level approach-the completeness and depth of our ideas about the life, worldview and worldview of people of the past depends on it.

In the third issue of the journal "Archeology, Ethnography and Anthropology" for 2006 published an article by D. V. Cheremisin "On the discussion of the informative value of petroglyphs and methods of their study", which touches on interesting and exciting questions for many researchers of primitive art. But perhaps the most acute topic was the correlation between "art criticism" and" archaeological " approaches to the interpretation of rock art. I fully understand the pathos of D. V. Cheremisin's article, but I would like to look at some aspects of this large and independent problem from a slightly different angle. First of all, D. V. Cheremisin's harsh judgments about the use of art criticism methods in the analysis of visual monuments are noteworthy: their use "does not provide decisive arguments for adequate coverage of the historical problems of primitive art" [Cheremisin, 2006, p.98]. His main opponents A.-P. Frankfort and E. Jacobson also very categorically note: "... researchers of rock art... they usually avoid discussions about the perfection of individual images and compositions" and complain that the study of petroglyphs by archaeologists is connected with the analysis of the exclusively material aspect of culture within the framework of human economic activity. "However, artistic creation is a documentary reflection of very specific features of culture," they note, " so rock art should be considered in this light. The time has come for specialists to turn to its aesthetic aspects and try to identify the artistic features of each particular image" [2004, p. 66].

It seems that the eternal dispute between" physicists and lyricists " is entering a new stage, but in essence it does not bring anything productive. And in general, in my opinion, the watershed between "art historians" and" archaeologists " in this case is largely artificial and hinders the process of comprehensive study of fine monuments. After all, art historians themselves note that, in principle, "the subject fields of archeology and art history are the same."-

page 103

research interests in the field of rock art largely overlap. Common issues at the opening of each new monument are the problems of dating, cultural affiliation, regional and historical relationships, clarification of the meaning and semantics of the image. Moreover, they are solved not only by comparing the content of the monument, but also based on the analysis of its artistic features" [Matochkin, 2000, p. 113]. Different approaches depend primarily on the tasks that a particular researcher sets for himself. Therefore, appeals to archaeologists to give a mandatory "quality assessment" of drawings or to an art critic to refuse to study the latter using the methods of art criticism will remain untenable. After all, in the end, each specialist has the right to his own point of view and mutual claims in this case are inappropriate. More than a quarter of a century ago, J. A. Sher wrote: "... primitive art... It is possible to study petroglyphs from different angles and by different methods: some authors prefer a purely archaeological approach to petroglyphs as a source of cultural and historical knowledge; others, using their results, consider rock carvings from the standpoint of art criticism; still others-from the standpoint of the history of knowledge, the psychology of creativity... Each of these approaches not only has the right to exist, but is also necessary. There can be no question about which of them is more important or better" [1980, p. 8]. The above is still relevant today. The main advantage of the archaeological approach is the combination of methods used in the analysis of sources. The artificial narrowing of the concept of "archaeological approach" leads to the division into "friends" and"strangers". Such differentiation is particularly inappropriate when it comes to interpreting visual sources (perhaps the most difficult and vulnerable part of research). After all, sometimes even the most seemingly extravagant ideas can have a rational grain and provide an important service in unraveling the meaning inherent in them. For example, let's try to look at the content of rock scenes from a somewhat unusual angle. Today, some of the preferences of artists of a particular historical period in choosing themes and images are already explained, typical plots are known, etc., but are we able to understand the emotional context inherent in them? In this article, I would like to focus only on one aspect of the problem raised and try to answer the questions: what were the aesthetic needs of the creators and consumers of the "products" of rock art and whether their disclosure contributes to a deeper penetration into the spiritual culture of ancient peoples? What is the psychology of perception of rock art images by" viewers " - contemporaries?

On the emotional context of pictorial monuments

D. V. Cheremisin writes:"...references to the special "emotional" and "artistic" nature of rock art monuments are untenable, in which, according to E. Jacobson, the individual creative potential of ancient "artists" was realized, which, in her opinion, determined the very special "informative value" of petroglyphs when "displaying life" in comparison with funerary complexes..." [2006, p. 92]. In this case, in my opinion, it is necessary to determine what is generally meant by the "emotional" nature of rock art monuments. Perhaps it is worth assessing the impact of the "narrative picture" created by the artist on the viewer, the images of which (or some specific topic) probably caused a response of joy/anger or, conversely, peace in him? Of course, there is no doubt that " behind the types of funerary structures it is impossible not to see the emotions of their creators, human feelings associated with the death of relatives and tribesmen... "[Ibid.]. The potential of archaeological reconstructions really allows us to imagine and reconstruct real events that took place*. Rock art makes it possible, in particular, tosee and understand a lot of things that archaeological reconstructions fail to reveal, such as the emotions of the characters in rock paintings, which reflect certain aesthetic ideas of their creators.

I think no one doubts that from an aesthetic point of view, many drawings from different eras are made with amazing skill. At the same time, many different-time images are so unsophisticated and unimpressive that it seems as if they were created by a completely dispassionate hand. In this case, how can we understand the emotional implications of rock art images? What visual means could the ancient artist use to convey strong emotions (pain, fear), manifestations of some borderline states (between life and death, or death itself)? After all, as you know, a huge number of rock scenes are devoted to events related specifically to the murder of an animal or a person - on a hunt or in battle. The themes of suffering and death were popular in the works of many peoples and are well known to us from the pictorial sources of the ancient world (chronologically close to the Russian Empire).-

* For example, reproduced in plaster by the method of J. R. R. Tolkien. Fiorelli the bodies of people who died in the Pompeii disaster convey their terrible death throes.

page 104

Figure 1. Animal victims in stalking/attacking scenes and in sacrificial poses.

1-Aldy-Mozaga, Upper Yenisei (according to [Devlet M. A., 1976, table. 37, 7]); 2, 6, 14 - Mongolian Altai (according to Kubarev, Tseveendorzh, and Yakobson, 2005, fig. 125); 3-Khaya-Bazhi, Upper Yenisei (according to [Devlet E. G., Devlet M. A., 2005, Fig. 107]); 4-Mount Kedrovaya (according to [Semenov et al., 2000, Table 8]); 5, 7-Eshkiolmes, Semirechye (according to [Baipakov et al., 2005, Fig. 22 77]); 8-Oglakhty I (according to [Sher, 1980, Fig. 120, 6]); 9, 11 - Abakan-Perevoz, Khakassia (from Rusakova, Martynov, and Pokrovskaya, 1997, fig. 1]); 10-Kunya, middle Yenisei; 72,13-Ortaa-Sargol, Upper Yenisei (according to [Devlet M. A., 1982, Tables 14, 77]).

rock art), because they found the most direct reflection in them. Some rock compositions, despite the modesty of the visual means available to the ancient artist, are filled with real drama. This is especially evident in scenes involving animals. The stalking of ungulates by predators and hunting depicted on rocks often show the victim animal in suffering poses: with an unnaturally elongated neck and slightly open mouth, propped up on one or two legs*, etc. (Fig. 1). However, it seems that the artist did not seek to show strada-

* In general, such drawings are typical for rock art of different epochs and regions; on the territory of the Sayano-Altai, they were probably most widespread in the Bronze and Early Iron eras.

page 105

It was much more important to express the defeat, agony, or death of the latter solely for the sake of demonstrating victory, the triumph of the attacker - whether predator or human. So the strength, luck, and superiority of the winner were sung. Often the theme of the power of the victorious animal is illustrated in scenes of attack or pursuit. It is characteristic that in such compositions, the hunted animal remains as if indifferent to what is happening, while the attacker often looks extremely furious [Sovetova, 2005, p. 57]. The predator is magnificent in the scene on Mount Kedrovaya [Semenov et al., 2000, Tables 8, 7.3; Sovetova, 2005, Fig. 22, B] or, for example, on the Eshkiolmes monument in Semirechye [Mar'jasev, Gorjacev, Potapov, 1998, fig. 135] (Fig. 1, 4, 5). The snarling mouths and clawed feet betray the intent of these embittered creatures; the doom of their victims is felt. A whole series of images of animals can be considered "sacrificial" ("weak-willed" - "subdued", subordinated to the power of man). The position of animals with bent legs is interpreted as sacrificial (see, for example, [Ermolova, 1980, p. 362]) (Figs. 1, 6-8). There are well-known images of Scythian deer made in the "on tiptoe" ("on pointe shoes") pose, which many researchers, following D. G. Savinov (1987, pp. 112-117), define as sacrificial (Figs. 1, 12, 13). In many images, deer have a neck with their head stretched forward and up. This position is typical for slaughtered animals, when their legs were tied in pairs, between which a pole was inserted. This pole was carried by two people, and the animal was turned upside down. In this position, the body stiffened [Ibid., p. 114]. Images of animals with a hanging head (i.e. dead ones) are found in the art of the Early Scythian period in Southern Siberia (Sher, 2006, Figs. 6, 52).

Sometimes the drama of the situation is enhanced by the completely unnatural pose of the animal with its croup turned out [Rusakova, 2003, p. 96-99; Jacobson, Kubarev, Tseevendorj, 2001, p. 81, fig. 349, 1142; Devlet E., Devlet M., 2005, fig. 100 et al.] (fig. 1, 6-8). According to researchers, this pose is also a sacrificial one, since a sacrificial or dead animal was depicted in this way [Rudenko, 1953, p. 4-6; Akishev, 1984, p. 33; Barkova, 1984, p. 86; Rusakova, 2003, p.96-99]. Disputes also persist regarding the semantics of peculiar images of deer with beaked faces ("pigalitsy"), which are most often called flying deer (according to M. P. Gryaznov), deer-birds (according to A. P. Okladnikov), trumpeting males (according to D. V. Cheremisin), etc. a deer in a summoning pose during the rut, and a mortally wounded animal roaring in pain [2002, p. 76] (Fig. 1, 14).

No less interesting in this context are the anthropomorphic series. Since the creators of the rock scenes were limited in visual means, it is difficult to identify the emotional manifestations of the characters shown. Nevertheless, we can still reconstruct some of the states of the participants in the rock compositions based on certain poses, gestures, and other signs. In this case, the most revealing scenes of hunting and battles (Figure 2). Realistic antique reliefs, paintings on vases and other sources clearly convey the suffering reflected on the faces of the defeated - wounded, frightened, captured, etc. 3, 4). Unfortunately, there is nothing like this in the rock carvings; nevertheless, the drawings on the rocks can reveal the display of similar emotions, for example, experienced by a fighter during a battle. But here the essence of what is happening is not given out by the grimaces of pain, rage and fear, but by the poses in which the participants in the battles are depicted. Thus, the warrior depicted on the Baga-Uygur IV monument looks confused and weak-willed, crouching down with his hands raised in the air, surrendering to the mercy of the winner [Jacobson, Kubarev, Tseveendorj, 2001, fig. 1131] (see Fig. 2, 1)*. In the scene of the duel reproduced in Tsagaan Salaa, one of the soldiers, struck by the opponent's spear, lost his balance and fell to the ground (he is shown sitting, with his legs outstretched) [Kubarev, 2004, Fig. 21] (see Figs. 2, 3). In other cases, the tilt of the head (or body) indicates the pain experienced by the fighter at the moment when the opponent grabbed him by the hair [Mar'jasev, Gorjacev, Potapov, 1998, fig. 97] (see Figs. 2, 7, 8). Having lost the ability to resist, he obviously awaits the decision of his fate. As is known from written sources and works of ancient art, this is followed by a brutal reprisal - beheading. Petroglyphs do not record such actions; here events develop according to a different scheme - a blow to the head with a minted coin or a club is "supposed" (see Figs. 2, 9, 10). Often, at the moment of stunning, a person falls to his knees or is flattened on the ground at all (Kubarev and Jacobson, 1996, fig. 453) (see Fig.. 2, 8 - 10)**. The method of depriving the enemy of the ability to resist and the subsequent reprisal (cutting off the head, striking with a mace or other weapon) are clearly reflected in the art of many peoples (see Fig. 3, 1 - 3). Similar images of submission are depicted on Assyrian bas-reliefs. On one of the

* Assyrian bas-reliefs of the seventh century BC depict conquered Palestinian civilians in a similar pose of submission.

** Indo-European poetic cliche: "let the enemy fall at your feet."

page 106

Fig. 2. Scenes of defeat of one of the opponents.

1,3 - Mongolian Altai (according to: [Kubarev, Tseveendorzh, Yakobson, 2005, fig. 1203, 130]); 2, 10 - Sukhanikha, Middle Yenisei; 4, 6, 7-Yeshkiolmes, Semirechye (from [Baipakov et al., 2005, Figs. 22, 11, 98]5, 9-Kunya, middle Yenisei; 8-Abakan-Perevoz, Khakassia (according to Rusakova, 1998, Fig. 2).

in them, the defeated Elamite king is depicted in a pose of submission-crouching at the feet of the victor. The superiority of the Assyrian king is shown in his posture: he stepped on the back of the defeated enemy with one foot, holding a weapon aimed at the prisoner [Dolnik, 2004, Fig. on page 103]. On the rock relief of Zar-i Pul, the Lullube king Anubanini also stepped on the defeated enemy with one foot, and the prisoners shown next to him, kneeling, had their hands tied behind their backs and ropes around their necks [Istoriya Drevnogo Vostoka..., 2004, Fig. 108]. Scenes of the triumph of the victor (Pharaoh) were also popular in the art of Ancient Egypt.

Egypt. A symbolic representation of the victory of Upper Egypt over Lower Egypt is depicted on the Narmer palette, which in the center depicts the king intending to kill the prisoner; with one hand he grabbed the defeated enemy by the hair, and with the other he raised the mace [World History, 1955, Fig. on p. 155] (see figs. 3, 7).

Similar scenes are displayed on many other monuments of fine art of the Ancient East [Avdiev, 1948, fig. 33, fig. 8, ill. on pages 351, 542; Myths..., 1987, Fig. on p. 310]. They were reproduced by the Chinese-images on a bronze wine vessel from Chengdu (Sichuan) [History of Ancient Vosto-

page 107

3. Symbolic representation of victory over the enemy in the art of the ancient world.

1-Narmer's palette with a symbolic image of the victory of Upper Egypt over Lower Egypt, I dynasty (according to: [World History, 1955, Fig. on p. 155]); 2-image on a Persian seal cylinder (according to: [Pozdnyakov and Polosmak, 2000, fig. 1, 2]); 3-image on a cap from Perederiev's grave (according to: [Rusyaeva, 1999, fig. 2 on p. 211]); 4 - Alkionei, fragment of the eastern frieze of the Pergamon altar (II century BC) (from [Myths..., 1987, Fig. on p. 60]); 5-image of the killed Lower Egyptian opponents of King Hasekhem at the foot of his statue, Hierakonpol, II dynasty (according to: [World History, 1955, Fig. on p. 156]).

ka..., 2004, fig. 27], as well as Scythian images on the gorite lining from the Solokha mound, a gold object from the Perederieva grave (Rusyaeva, 1999, fig. 2 on p. 211), battle scenes on a plate from the Collection of F. S. Romanovich (Ilinskaya, 1978, Fig. 1), etc.

This theme was not alien to medieval art (see, for example, [Abdulloev, 1993, fig. 1]). Drawings by artists of the American continent also often depict scenes of sacrifice by decapitation (again with a preliminary capture).

page 108

hair) [Dolnik, 2004, fig. on page 63]. Such scenes are particularly popular in ancient art [Myths..., 1987, Fig. on pages 32, 281, 626; 1988, fig. on the page. 153, 261, 295, 305, 503; Sokolov, 1990, fig. 121; Balonov, 1988, Fig. 1]. Although in written sources there is evidence that the winner could have pardoned the defeated.

So, in rock scenes, the options for depicting a defeated opponent are different: he can be shown still standing, but pierced by a spear or arrow, stunned by a mace or struck by another type of weapon; fallen and lying at the feet of the opponent, as well as dead (Fig. 4, 5). On ancient Eastern reliefs reproduced a variety of-

4. Inverted graves-a symbol of death.

1,4-Abakan-Perevoz, Khakassia (according to [Rusakova, 1998, Fig. 2, C; 3]); 2-Bolshoe Ozero VI, Kurgan 28, Krasnoyarsk Krai (according to [Semenov et al., 2003, Table 58, a]); 3-Zevakino, Kazakhstan (according to [Samashev, 1992, Fig. 155]).

page 109

Figure 5. Images of dead characters.

1-Baga-Oygur, Mongolian Altai (according to [Jacobson, Kubarev, Tseveendorj, 2001, fig. 1131]); 2, 8-Abakan-Perevoz, Khakassia (according to [Rusakova, 1998, Fig. 1]); 3-Fourth Chest, Khakassia (according to [Larichev 17]); 4-Eshkiolmes, Semirechye (according to [Baipakov et al., 2005, Fig. 37]); 5 - Mount Sukhanikha, Middle Yenisei (fragment); 6-Moynak, Kazakhstan (according to [Samashev, 1992, Fig. 86]); 7-Oglakhty I (according to [Sher et al, 1994, fig. 14.16]).

various versions of scenes of the death of soldiers. For example, a palette from Abydos (Egypt) shows a battlefield littered with the bodies of dead people lying in incredible poses; they are pecked by birds of prey, and the central figure is torn apart by a lion [British Museum..., 1980, Fig. 2]. In bizarre poses lie the slain Lower Egyptian opponents of King Khasekhem, depicted at the foot of his statue in Hierakonpol [World History, 1955, Fig. On p. 156] (see Figures 3, 5), etc., similar poses depict those who died on the battlefield and in rock compositions, for example, in one of the scenes on the Fourth Chest monument in Khakassia (Larichev, 2003, Fig. 17] (see Figs. 5, 3). It is characteristic that the dead were often shown lying face down (see, for example: [Kolobova, 1951, fig. 29]); similar images are also found in rock carvings (see, for example: [Samashev, 1992, Fig. 161; Cuba- rev, 2006, fig. 20]).

In Early Iron Age rock art, the dead are often depicted upside down (see Fig. 4, 1 - 3; 5, 2, 5 - 8). Inverted figures are found as in scribbles (Samashev, 1992, Fig. 86; Larichev, 2003, fig. 17; Sovetova, 2005, figs. 34, 35; Tables 25, 7-10], and on barrow stones [Rygdylon, 1959; Semenov et al., 2000, figs. 8; 61, 33, 34; tab. 58]. This theme has not lost its popularity in the Middle Ages*. Images of a stricken person falling headfirst are also known among medieval petroglyphs**. As you know, in ancient times, both an inverted image and an inverted object meant demise, death. Archaeological materials reflect the practice of ritual turning of individual objects - vessels, statues, etc., which is confirmed in ethnographic data [Kosarev, 2001, p. 447; Olkhovsky, 2005, Fig. 25; Usmanova, 2005, pp. 93-95; et al.] and in pictorial sources (fig. 6). In the art of ancient peoples, you can find parallels to rock scenes. Inverted figures represented mainly falling figures-thrown from the walls of fortresses, from a cliff or from a ship into the water, etc. (Fig.. 6, 7 - 4)***. Dead soldiers fall headfirst into the water in the scene of the naval battle of the Egyptians with the "peoples of the sea" under Ramesses III, depicted in the relief from the temple of Medinet Habu [World History, 1955, Fig. on p. 355] (see figs. 6, 7). In the same way, slain soldiers slide off the fortress wall on Assyrian reliefs of the IX-VII centuries BC in the palace of Ashurnasirapal II (Sadaev, 1979, Fig. on p. 78], on the relief of the bronze paneling of the Balavat gate (IX century BC)

* For example, on the silver dishes of Anikovsky and Iz Nildin, two dead people are depicted hanging from the fortress wall with their heads down [Baulo, 2004, p. 127, Fig. 1].

** D. V. Cheremisin published a scene from Chaganka: a warrior struck by a spear in the chest is knocked out of the saddle and falls to the ground. The character is shown upside down, with his hair hanging down unnaturally. The drawing conveys a semantically unambiguous image of a dead warrior falling under the hooves of the horses of armed opponents [Cheremisin, 2004, p. 44, Fig. 14].

*** In a relief representing the Battle of Kadesh, the dead fall headfirst from the tower walls [World History, 1955, Fig. on p. 351].

page 110

Figure 6. Inverted characters in the visual arts of the ancient world and inverted objects.

1-relief in the temple of Medinet Habu (according to: [World History, 1955, Fig. on p. 355]); 2-fragment of the Balavat gate (according to [Baulo, 2004, fig. 4]); 3-fragment of the image on the tomb of the "diver", Paestum (according to [Kolpinsky, 1977, fig. 198]); 4-inventory from the burial of a rich woman in the middle of the IX century. 2, b); 5 - a Scythian statue from the village of Attica (according to [Tumans, 2002, Fig. 2, b]). Mesketes, Black Sea region (according to [Olkhovsky, 2005, fig. 25]).

with the image of the Assyrian siege of the Urartian fortress [Baulo, 2004, Fig. 4] (see Fig. 6, 2); ancient monuments show scenes with a dead Phaeton falling into the river [Mythological, literary and historical plots..., 1978, Fig. on p. 134]; a ritual jump from a cliff into the sea conveys the idea of death-rebirth [Kolpinsky, 1977, fig. 198; Sokolov, 1990, Fig. 69] (see Figs. 6, 4). According to researchers, diving, flying strictly vertically upside down symbolizes the overturned cosmos, and this act itself is part of the ritual of rebirth [Akimova and Kifishin, 1994, pp. 193-216].

In the visual arts, slaughtered or sacrificial animals are also often depicted suspended by their legs (i.e., head down) [Savinov, 1987, Fig. 1, 2; Gurevich, 1989, Fig. 35; Sokolov, 1990, fig. 97]. It is known that hunters traditionally hang dead animals by their hind legs for butchering. In rock art, in many hunting scenes, a dead animal is often also depicted upside down (Kubarev and Jacobson, 1996, fig. 195, 184, 303, 467, 473 et al.] (fig. 7).

Even from these relatively few examples given, it is clear that for the author of the rock compositions, the transfer of emotional states of the depicted characters was not accidental. At the same time, he did not express himself, but conveyed the main ideas that were of concern to the entire community for which the drawings were created. The analysis of petroglyphs shows that starting from the Bronze Age and throughout the Early Iron Age, several extremely important themes are being developed in rock art, reflecting, obviously, the main epochal ideas. The theme of the victim was expressed through separate images-animals in sacrificial poses, victims of persecution and attack (predator, hunter), etc., victims of battles (a fighter who was defeated or fell on the battlefield, etc.), and also "encrypted" in independent semantic compositions. Artists conveyed emotions (fear, pain, confusion, powerlessness, etc.) of specific characters mainly through characteristic poses. The theme of sacrifice is directly intertwined with other general themes-triumph (glory), victory, praising the strength, dexterity and luck of the winner-decisive, bold, agile (man), as well as ferocious (beast) - and death (dedicated to the deceased sacrificial animal, death on the hunt, battlefield, scenes of "transition" to the afterlife, etc.). Such themes are characteristic of the heroic age; not without reason, since the end of the age of Bron-

page 111

7. Scenes with inverted figures in rock art.

1-Koibagar, South Kazakhstan (by: [Mar'jasev, 1994, fig. 82]); 2-Ortaa-Sargol, Upper Yenisei (according to [Devlet M. A., 1982, Table 26, 1]); 3-Turu-Alty, South-Eastern Altai (according to [Marsadolov, 2004, Fig. 5, 1]); 4, 5 - Bychikha, middle Yenisei; 6-Kalbak-Tash, Altai (according to [Kubarev and Jacobson, 1996, fig. 467]).

The repertoire of rock art includes the image of a human being, and battle scenes are widely used. It is in them that the basic values that were so vividly sung in the heroic epic are clearly reflected. Thus, the rock scenes clearly show one of the main ideological themes - the theme of death (usually violent) with its accompanying emotions: pain, fear, suffering, as well as the triumph of victory over a rival. This "reading" of some images and scenes was due to the possibility of referring to the visual monuments of developed civilizations, in which such themes found greater expressiveness and their interpretation is confirmed by information from written sources. At the same time, the proposed interpretation of petroglyphs using pictorial parallels (which, in fact, is what archaeologists are doing), as well as elements of art history analysis, is only one, but, as it seems to me, very interesting

page 112

an important component of a full-fledged research involving the use of data from written, material, and ethnographic sources. Consequently, understanding the most important emotional manifestations embedded in the main images and themes of rock art serves to some extent as a bridge connecting the material context and aesthetic subtext.

Conclusion

Thus, in order to minimize the subjectivity of interpretation, the most complete and comprehensive assessment of visual monuments is necessary; only then will they become a truly full-fledged historical source not only for material and spiritual culture, but also for the art history of the peoples who created them. I would like to hope that with the participation of specialists in various scientific fields (with a truly multidisciplinary approach [Molodin, 2004, p. 56]) , it will be possible to better understand a particular epoch and its people, because rock carvings allow us not only to visually represent the objects that filled this epoch (a complex of weapons and household objects, vehicles, dwellings, clothing and others), but also at least partially recreate the inner world of their creators.

List of literature

Abdulloev D. Sogdian heritage in the culture of the Caliphate / / KSIA. - 1993. - N 209. - pp. 41-44.

Avdiev V. I. Voennaya istoriya Drevnego Egypt [Military History of Ancient Egypt]. nauka Publ., 1948, 353 p. (in Russian)

Akimova L. I., Kifishin A. G. On the mythological meaning of the umbrella // Etruscans and the Mediterranean: XXIII Wipper Readings. Moscow: Izd-vo Gosudarstvennogo muzeya izobraz [Izobraz State Museum]. Pushkin Academy of Arts, 1994, pp. 167-244.

Akishev A. K. Iskusstvo i mifologiya sakov [Art and Mythology of the Saks]. Alma-Ata: Nauka KazSSR Publ., 1984, 176 p.

Baipakov K. M., Maryashev A. N., Potapov S. A., Goryachev A. A. Petroglyphs in the mountains of Eshkiolmes. - Almaty: OST - XXI vek, 2005. - 226 p.

Balonov F. R. Semantics of κεραυνη and φαρμακον in Greek iconography and mythology. Vipper's Readings, Moscow: Soviet Artist, 1988, issue 18, part 1, pp. 173-199.

Barkova L. L. Carvings of animals on a sarcophagus from the 2nd Bashadar kurgan / / ASGE. - 1984. - Issue 25. - pp. 83-89.

Baulo A.V. Svyaz vremeni i kul'tury (serebryannoe dish iz Verkhnego Nildin) [Connection of times and cultures (silver dish from the Upper Nildin)]. - 2004. - N 3. - p. 127-136.

The British Museum. London: Album / Ed. - Comp. by B. I. Rivkin. - Moscow: Izobraz. iskusstvo Publ., 1980. -256 p.: ill.

World History, Moscow: State Publishing House of Political Literature, 1955, vol. 1, 747 p.: maps, ill.

Kul'tura i obshchestvo srednevekovoi Evropy glam sovremennikov [Culture and Society of medieval Europe through the eyes of contemporaries].

Dolnik V. R. Neobushnoe ditya biosfery [Naughty child of the Biosphere], St. Petersburg: Chero-na-Neve, Petroglyph Publ., 2004, 352 pp.

Devlet E. G., Devlet M. A. Myths in stone. Mir naskalnogo iskusstva Rossii [The World of Rock Art in Russia]. - 2005. - 471 p.: ill.

Devlet M. A. Petroglyphs of Ulugh-Khem, Moscow: Nauka Publ., 1976, 120 p.

Devlet M. A. Petroglyphs on the nomadic path, Moscow: Nauka Publ., 1982, 128 p.

Ermolova N. M. K voprosu ob interpretatsii izobrazheniy zhivotnykh [On the question of interpretation of animal images]. Kemerovo: Kem. state University Press, 1980, pp. 358-366.

Ilinskaya V. A. Zolotaya plastina s izobrazheniyami skifov iz kollektsii Romanovicha [Golden plate with images of Scythians from the Romanovich collection].

History of the Ancient East. From early state formations to ancient empires / Ed. by A.V. Sedov, Moscow: East. lit., 2004. - 895 p.: ill., maps.

Kolobova K. M. Iz istorii rannegrecheskogo obshchestva [From the History of the Early Greek Society], Leningrad: Leningr State University Press, 1951, 340 p.

Kolpinsky Yu. D. The great heritage of ancient Greece and its significance for modernity. - Moscow: Izobraz. iskusstvo Publ., 1977, 344 p. (in Russian).

Kosarev M. F. Prostranstvo i vremeni v sibirsko-yazycheskom miroponimanii [Space and Time in the Siberian-pagan worldview]. Mirovozzrenie drevnykh narodov Evrazii, Moscow: TOO "Stary sad", 2001, pp. 439-454.

Kubarev V. D. The image of a deer in the Altai petroglyphs // Steppes of Eurasia in Antiquity and the Middle Ages: Proceedings of the International Scientific Conference dedicated to the 100th anniversary of the birth of M. P. Gryaznov. - SPb., 2002. - Book 2. - pp. 70-76.

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

Kubarev, V. D., Myths and rituals depicted in the petroglyphs of Altai, in Archeology, Ethnography and Anthropology of Eurasia. - 2006. - N 3. - p. 41-54.

Kubarev V. D., Tseveendorzh D., Yakobson E. Petroglyphs of Tsagaan-Salaa and Baga-Oygur (Mongolian Altai). Novosibirsk: Izd-vo IAEt SB RAS; Ulaanbaatar: Yudzhin, 2005. - 142 p., 116 fig., 61 photos.

Larichev V. E. Tatar heroic epic in the images of rock art in Northern Khakassia. Paleoinformatics. Novosibirsk: Izd-vo IAEt SB RAS, 2003, pp. 200-235.

Marsadolov L. S. Raboty Sayano-Altaiskoi expeditsii v 2003 g. [Works of the Sayano-Altaisk expedition in 2003]. - St. Petersburg: State Publishing House. Hermitage, 2004, pp. 48-59.

Matochkin E. P. Iskusstvoznanie i problemy izucheniya pervobytnogo iskusstva Sibiri [Art studies and problems of studying the primitive art of Siberia]. Kemerovo: Nikals Publ., 2000, vol. 1, pp. 110-117.

Mythological, literary and historical subjects in painting, sculpture and tapestries of the Hermitage. - L.: Aurora, 1978. - 158 p.: ill.

Mifi narodov mira [Myths of the Peoples of the World], Moscow: Sov. encikl., 1987, vol. 1, 671 p. (in Russian); 1988, vol. 2, 719 p. (in Russian).

page 113

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

Olkhovsky V. S. Monumental sculpture of the population of the Western part of the Eurasian steppes of the Early Iron Age, Moscow: Nauka Publ., 2005, 299 p, 156 ill.

Pozdnyakov D. V., Polos'mak N. V. Vsadniki, natyagivayushchie luk [Riders pulling the bow]. - 2000. - N 3. - p. 75-80.

Rayevsky D. S. Nekotorye zapiski ob interpretatsii drevnikh izobrazhitel'nykh pamyatnikov [Some comments on the interpretation of ancient visual monuments]. Kemerovo: Nikals Publ., 1999, vol. 1, pp. 118-123.

Rudenko S. I. Kul'tura naseleniya Gornogo Altay v skifskoe vremya [Culture of the population of the Altai Mountains in the Scythian period].

Rusakova I. D. Batalnye kompozitsii na pisanice Abakan-Perevoz [Battle compositions on the Abakan-Perevoz pisanice]. Vestn. Sib. assotsiia issledovatelei pervobyg. the arts. Kemerovo: Nikals Publ., 1998, pp. 21-24.

Rusakova I. D. K voprosu o mifologicheskikh predstavleniyakh rannikh kochevnikov [On the issue of mythological representations of early nomads]. Novosibirsk: IAEt SB RAS Publ., 2003, pp. 96-99.

Rusakova I. D., Martynov A. I., Pokrovskaya A. F. Results of the petroglyphic expedition of the Tomskaya Pisanitsa Museum-Reserve near the village of Abakan-Perevoz in Khakassia (1996). Kemerovo: Kuzbassvuzizdat Publ., 1997, pp. 118-119.

Rusyaeva M. V. Zolotoy ob " ekt ritualno-kul'tovogo naznacheniya iz kurgana Perederieva mogila [The golden object of ritual and cult purpose from the Perederieva Grave mound]. Scientific Conference, St. Petersburg, 1999, pp. 208-215.

Rygdylon E. R. Pisanitsy bliz ozero Shira [Scribbles near Lake Shira]. SA. -1959. - N29 / 30. - pp. 57-72.

Savinov D. G. The image of a" hanging " deer on a rhyton from Kelermes / / Scythian-Siberian world. Art and ideology. Novosibirsk: Nauka Publ., 1987, pp. 112-117.

Sadaev D. Ch. Istoriya drevnoi Assyrii [History of Ancient Assyria], Moscow: Nauka Publ., 1979, 247 p. (in Russian).

Samashev Z. S. Rock images of the Upper Irtysh region. Alma-Ata: Gylym Publ., 1992, 288 p.

Semenov V. A., Kilunovskaya M. E., Krasnienko S. V., Subbotin A.V. Petroglyphs of Karataga and Cedar Mountain. - St. Petersburg: IIMK RAS Publishing House, 2000. - 66 p., 33 tables.

Semenov V. A., Kilunovskaya M. E., Krasnienko S. V., Subbotin A.V. Images on slabs of Tatar mounds. St. Petersburg: IIMK RAS Publishing House, 2003, 121 p. (in Russian).

Sovetova O. S. Tatar petroglyphs on the Yenisei (stories and images). Novosibirsk: Izd-vo IAEt SB RAS, 2005, 140 p. (in Russian)

Sokolov G. I. Iskusstvo etruskov [The Art of the Etruscans], Moscow: Slovo, 1990, 207 p.

Tumans X. The Birth of Athena: The Athenian Path to Democracy from Homer to Pericles (VIII-V centuries BC). - St. Petersburg: Gumanitar. akademiya Publ., 2002, 543 p. (in Russian)

Usmanova E. R. The Lisakovsky I burial ground: facts and parallels. - Karaganda; Lisakovsk: [B. I.], 2005. - 232 p.

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 2. - p. 53-78.

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.

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

Sher Ya. A. Primeval art. - Kemerovo: Kuzbassvuzizdat Publ., 2006, 351 p. (in Russian)

Jacobson E., Kubarev V., Tseevendorj D. Mongolie du Nord-Ouest Tsagaan Salaa / Baga Oigor // Repertoire des Petroglyphes d'Asie Centrale. - P.: Diffusion de boccard, 2001. - Fasc. - N6. - 482 p., 1323 fig.

Kubarev V.D., Jacobson E. Siberit du Sud 3: Kalbak-Tash I (Republique de P'Altai) // Repertoire des Petroglyphes d'Asie Centrale. - P.: Diffusion de boccard, 1996. - Fasc. N 3. - 45 p., 662 fig.

Mar'jasev A.N. Petrogliphs of South Kazakhstan and Semirechye. - Almaty: [S.a.], 1994. - 84 p., 236 fig.

Mar'jasev A.N., Gorjacev A.A., Potapov S.A. Kazakhstan 1: Choix de Petroglyphes du Semirech'e (Felsbilder im Siebenstromland) // Repertoire des Petroglyphes d'Asie Centrale. - P.: Diffusion de boccard, 1998. - Fasc. N 5. -56 p., 451 il.

Sher J.A., Blednova N., Legchilo N., Smirnov D. Siberie du sud 1: Oglakhty I-III (Russie, Khakassie). - P.: Diffusion de boccard, 1994. - Fasc. N 1 - 163 p., 9 pl.

The article was submitted to the Editorial Board on 25.01.07.

page 114

Permanent link to this publication: