The semantics of ancient Turkic statues in connection with their portrait similarity with real people or, on the contrary, with the stylization of facial features rarely became the subject of special consideration. Therefore, the choice of this topic by L. N. Ermolenko [2006] seems to be nontrivial. However, it is impossible to agree with the main idea put forward by the author: about the stylization of images on ancient Turkic sculptures, in particular, with the interpretation of the T-shaped image of the eyebrows and nose as eyebrows drawn together on the bridge of the nose and expressions of anger. We will give detailed arguments in favor of the failure of this assumption.

When considering this topic, it was necessary to refer not only to the article devoted to it, but also to the monograph of L. N. Ermolenko [2004], as well as a number of other articles by the researcher [Ermolenko, Getsova, Kurmankulov, 1985; Ermolenko, 1995a, b, 1998a, b, 2003; etc.]. and the lack of documentation of some of the statements of L. N. Ermolenko in the analyzed article, which are present in a detailed form in her other works.

In the article devoted to the stylization of ancient Turkic statues, there is no information about which array of objects is analyzed - only from the territory of Kazakhstan or all known to date in Central and Central Asia. It remains unknown what the total number of ancient Turkic statues under consideration is and how many of them are so-called stylized (i.e., with a T-shaped bas-relief of the nose and large eyes). The statement that "the faces of many statues are stylized" is extremely vague. Some idea of the number of such sculptures can be obtained from the monograph of L. N. Ermolenko. It analyzes 120 sculptures of ancient Turkic appearance from the territory of Kazakhstan, of which 76 are "big-eyed", and 68 - with a T-shaped image of eyebrows and nose [2004, p. 19]. Of the 42 "breast"* statues of the ancient Turkic appearance, 18 have large eyes and 14 have T-shaped eyebrows and a nose [Ibid., pp. 21-22]. Thus, only half or slightly more than half of the statues under consideration have signs of so-called stylization techniques. At the same time, large eyes are not always accompanied by fused brows and nose. For ancient Turkic statues of Altai

The work was carried out in the framework of the projects "Ancient nomads of Altai and Central Asia: habitat, cultural genesis, worldview" and "Development of a set of methods for absolute and relative dating of antiquities in Siberia and Central Asia" under the program of the Presidium of the Russian Academy of Sciences "Adaptation of peoples and cultures to changes in the natural environment, social and technological transformations", as well as in the framework of scientific schools of Academician V. I. Molodin N NSh-6568.2006.6.

* The term used by L. N. Ermolenko, in our opinion, is not entirely successful and introduces terminological confusion. It does not reflect the typical features and iconography of the largest group of ancient Turkic and Kipchak statues. Many researchers have long used for such figures the already familiar definition of "facial sculptures", i.e. with the image of only the face or the silhouette of a person's head. For example, more than 150 facial sculptures are currently known in Altai, which were previously identified by V. D. Kubarev as a special 4th type of stone figures [1984, p. 21].

page 136

1. Images of facial features on realistic ancient Turkic sculptures of Semirechye (1-6) and Tuva (7). 1-according to [Fedorov-Davydov, 1976]; 2-according to [Charikov, 1980]; 3-5-according to [Sher, 1966]; 6-according to: [Margulan, 2003]; 7-by: [Grach, 1961].

In Tuva, the researcher herself notes the rare use of these techniques [Ibid., p. 43].

The first thesis of L. N. Ermolenko that the images of the faces of ancient Turkic statues due to stylization cannot be recognized as realistic, much less portrait, raises an objection. In our deep conviction, the ancient Turkic statues are not a generalized image of the hero-warrior, they were dedicated to specific people and were their portrait images (Figs. 1-7). The desire of stonemasons-sculptors for portrait similarity is most clearly traced on the example of realistic and three-dimensional sculptures of representatives of the ancient Turkic nobility (see Fig. 1, 1, 2, 2; 1, 2; 3 - 7). There are many of them, including

2. Images of facial features on realistic ancient Turkic sculptures of Tuva (1, 2) and Mongolia (3). 1, 2 - according to [Grach, 1961]; 3 - according to [Potanin, 1881].

3. A statue from the area of Kem-Kechu, Altai.

page 137

4. Sculptural images of representatives of the ancient Turkic aristocracy from the territory of Mongolia (1,3 , 4) and Kyrgyzstan (2). 1, 3, 4 - by: [Bayar, 1997]; 2-by: [Charikov, 1984].

features on the territory of Mongolia [Bayar, 1997, p. 124, 130, 140, 143, 146, etc. 2, 9, Tables III, VIII, etc.; Margulan, 2003, Figures 24, 97, 98, etc.], which is quite understandable given the well-known historical fact-the unification of these territories within a single state - the First Turkic Khaganate, and then It is in these two regions that the political centers of the Eastern Turkic and Western Turkic Khaganates are formed. Such sculptures are distinguished by their individuality in the image of facial features, the cut of the costume (up to reproducing the ornament of the silk fabric of the caftan), the presence of signs of social and property status (hats, hryvnia, earrings, bracelets, belts, expensive weapons) (see fig. 1, 1, 2; 2, 1,2 ; 3 - 7). Such sculptures cannot be interpreted as an impersonal and mythical image of the hero-warrior, which L. N. Ermolenko compares with the description and characteristics of the heroes from the heroic epic of modern Turkic-speaking peoples of Asia.

Of course, among the total number of ancient Turkic sculptures of Central and Central Asia, the overwhelming majority are quite schematic and even primitive. However, the explanation for this, apparently, should be sought in the social and property status of ordinary members of ancient Turkic society-soldiers or civilians of other classes (the inability to hire a professional stonemason-sculptor,

5. Head of the ancient Turkic statue "Genghis Khan" Barlykskaya steppe. Tuva.

6. The head of the sculptural image of Kultegin. Mongolia.

7. Statue of "Dayan-batyr". Mongolia.

page 138

Compliance with the norms and cultural traditions of the funerary and memorial rites of the ancient Turks required the production and establishment of an image of the deceased in the form of a stone or wooden sculpture, apparently, even if a portrait resemblance to the deceased was not achieved. Perhaps this is why in various cultures of the Middle Ages facial sculptures are so widespread, which depict facial features or only the silhouette of a person's head is highlighted from a stone monolith. Finally, even an ordinary, untreated stele or an anthropomorphic stone could also symbolize a human figure. Near many Altai fences there are slabs or oblong (anthropomorphic) boulders, on the smooth surfaces of which the details of the face, belt, weapon and other accessories of the ancient Turkic costume could be painted with paint [Kubarev V. D., 1984, p. 82]. Presumably, a similar tradition that originated in Central Asia was inherited by Polovtsian masters who used black and red paint to paint sculptures [Pletneva, 1974, fig. 28a]. We also fully share L.'s point of view. R. Kyzlasova [1969, p. 26] and L. N. Ermolenko [2004, p. 42-43], that the stelae and facial statues could wear the clothes of the deceased and hang his personal weapons. These personal items could symbolize the image of the deceased and "compensate" for the absence or insufficient portrait similarity of the painted face with a specific person. Obviously, even in such cases, the customs and norms of funerary and memorial rituals of the ancient Turks were formally observed.

It should be noted that many archaeologists [Evtyukhova, 1952, p. 114, 116; Kyzlasov, 1969, p. 26; Charikov, 1980, p. 213; 1986, p. 101-102; Kubarev V. D., 1984, p. 83; Savinov, 1984, p. 59-60; 1994, p. 129; Hayashi, 2001, p. 224; Margulan, 2003, p. 36, 45; and others], contrary to the statement of L. N. Ermolenko [2004, p. 38], spoke in favor of portraiture of ancient Turkic statues, the desire to convey images of people who really lived at that time*. On the contrary, the archaeological literature only occasionally expresses an opinion about the stylization and idealization of the image of a warrior on ancient Turkic statues and about the "mask" of anger and rage on their faces (Ermolenko, 2004, p. 38). Cultural and art criticism approaches to assessing the portraiture of ancient Turkic statues, in our opinion, are associated with insufficient knowledge of specific archaeological material (familiarity with inaccurate and small drawings of ancient Turkic statues presented in most publications, ignorance of the originals or at least high-quality photographs of them).** and the archaeological and ethnographic context of funerary and memorial structures of the Turkic-speaking peoples. In the works of some art historians, there is a disdain for the monumental art and fine plastic of medieval nomads: "It was from this time in the centers of ancient urban culture with their developed pottery skills that a new image of a freak-a rider on a horse, which is alien to the aesthetics of the city dweller, appears, which is preserved in local coroplastics for many centuries. This is the horse god of the steppe people, a rough idol associated with witchcraft rites of shamanism, close to the worldview of nomad horsemen. The figurines are made by hand, with a careless pinch that forms a clumsy figure with schematically outlined shapes and an ugly face, impaled on an equally generalized shaped skate " (Pugachenkova and Rempel, 1982, p. 77). Approximately the same thing we read about the ancient Turkic statues: "Almost standard statues are carved out of pillar-shaped, carefully finished stone blocks or slabs in an extremely schematic way. Their sex would have been almost indistinguishable if it hadn't been for such unmistakable details as the moustaches and weapons of some, the circles of breasts of others. Facial features-slanted eyes, flattened nose.

* For example, A. A. Charikov gives a succinct and accurate assessment of the portraiture of ancient Turkic statues: "Almost all the stone sculptures considered have obvious portrait features. However, for a person who has a superficial understanding of the sculpture of Eurasian nomads, they seem exactly the same. But this similarity is very relative and is determined by the peculiarity of medieval plastic (low relief of hands tightly pressed to the body, flattened faces, weak silhouette modeling), largely due to the specifics of the material (granite). Of course, the identification of the created statues was largely based on the reproduction of attribution, but the main thing was not this, but the portrait similarity, which may seem insufficient from the point of view of modern perception, since it was carried out by emphasizing the most noticeable elements: a wide mouth... strabismus... close-set eyes... This ensured the recognition of the created image.

It must be assumed that due to the specific conditions under which the installation of a stone statue was part of the funeral rite, the ancient sculptor had to reproduce the appearance of the deceased from memory, and not from nature. Hence, perhaps, a certain conventionality of these works, sometimes close to the grotesque, caused by the desire to display characteristic or memorable features" [1986, pp. 101-102].

** For this reason, in this article we aim to present exactly photos of statues, since the contour drawing makes them schematic and creates a distorted idea of the object of research. We would like to take this opportunity to express our gratitude to A. N. Kubareva for preparing the illustrations.

page 139

nose, small mouth-outlined very schematically. The details of the costume and the half-bent arms are also schematically shown, one of which often holds a bowl at the waist. A cold, dispassionate idol - such is balbal (i.e., a statue. - G. K.)" [Ibid., p. 81]. We think that the idea of stylization and idealization of the image of a warrior, allegedly embodied in a stone statue, its epic heroized interpretation was borrowed by some archaeologists from art historians and cultural scientists. Thus, according to G. A. Pugachenkova and L. I. Rempel, the theme of the heroized knight, devoid of individuality, dominated in Central Asian coroplasty and painting of the early Middle Ages [Ibid., pp. 78, 93]. L. N. Ermolenko unreasonably ranks G. A. Fedorov-Davydov among the supporters of this point of view [Ermolenko, 2004, p. 38, note 1]. His assessment is differentiated in relation to Central, Central Asian (Turkic) and Eastern European (Polovtsian) sculptures: if the Polovtsian realistic sculptures were the embodiment of the cult of the heroized ancestor, then the ancient Turkic ones depicted a specific buried warrior [Fedorov-Davydov, 1976, p. 92]. A. Fedorov-Davydov compares an ancient Turkic statue not only with a temporary receptacle of one or several souls of a deceased person, but also with a substitute, a double of the latter [Ibid.]. The researcher cites numerous ethnographic data on the tradition that existed among many Siberian peoples of making a man's doll after his death, which was dressed, "fed" , etc., and after a certain time was buried or taken to the cemetery. In his opinion, realism and portrait likeness to the deceased were optional, and the doll and the stone statue were not the subject of a wide cult, but were revered only by the closest relatives [Ibid.]. This hypothesis about the sculpture as a double of the deceased seems to us the most convincing and well-founded.

L. N. Ermolenko is not confused by the fact that the so-called T-shaped bas-relief of eyebrows and nose, represented on a part of ancient Turkic sculptures, is so widely distributed chronologically and geographically. She herself refers to a fairly wide range of images in coroplastics and toreutics of the medieval East, sculpture of ancient Mesopotamia, plastic Celts and Mixtecs. And this list could go on. Where did the T-shaped image of the eyebrows and nose originate and how did it spread? Can it even be considered a stylization technique? If so, how is its meaning interpreted in other cultures - also as an expression of anger and narrowed eyebrows? L. N. Ermolenko does not even try to answer these questions, but they are fundamental in the framework of this topic.

The author of the analyzed article has no doubts that the combined image of the nose and eyebrows*, as well as large eyes, is a stylization technique, and not just an attempt to reproduce the anatomical features of a person's face. This stylization technique, with reference to Ya. A. Sher, is perceived by the researcher a priori. Here are some arguments in favor of the converse statement.

The very widespread use of this method of transmitting the human face in the art of peoples of different historical eras, as it seems to us, indicates not the stylization, but the reproduction of the most expressive facial features - the nose, brow ridges (eyebrows), eyes. Indeed, if we turn to the numerous medieval images of people in sculpture and toreutics in Central and Central Asia and the Far East, we can see the following pattern: the faces of realistic and carefully executed images, especially sculptural ones, have a T-shape of eyebrows and nose, or rather, relief brow arches connected to the nose (Fig. 8, 9)**. Since almost all medieval coroplasty and sculpture was painted, the eyebrows on the brow arches were painted with black paint (Fig. see 8, 2-4).

Large eyes, according to L. N. Ermolenko, are also a stylistic feature of ancient Turkic sculptures [2004, p. 17]. But if you carefully consider the three-dimensional and realistic ancient Turkic sculptures (the head of Kul-Tegin***, the statue from Lake Baikal. Dayan-Nuur, Baltakol sculpture, etc.) (see Fig. 3; 4, 2; 5, 6, 7), then you can see that they also have "big eyes". However, this is nothing more than an eyeball depicted under the brow arches, which shows the upper and lower eyelids (see Figures 6, 7). Sometimes, in addition to the eyelids, the pupil was also depicted. On such sculptures, "big eyes" do not attract much attention, because they look quite natural, unlike most sculptures made by women-

* The number of sculptures where the end of the eyebrows looks like curved lines is negligible in comparison with the bulk of sculptures.

** A man's large facial features (massive brow ridges, large chin, etc.) always emphasized his masculinity. As for the T-shaped image of the brow ridges and nose in anthropomorphized predators, this is not a stylization technique, but a way to emphasize the anthropomorphic "mask"by using the most characteristic details of the human face (nose and brow ridges).

*** It is possible that the sculpture of Kul-Tegin was made by Chinese craftsmen. However, this is not of fundamental importance, since other sculptures of the ancient Turkic nobility have very realistic reproduction of the brow arches connected to the nose.

page 140

8. Images of faces with T-shaped brows and nose (1 - 5), distorted by a grimace of anger (b). 1-4-China (according to: [China..., 1994; Excavation..., 2004]); 5, 6 - East Turkestan (according to: [Diakonova, 1995]).

but carefully (without images of the eyelids, pupils, or other details). So is it not possible to assume (quite in line with the hypothesis about the coloring of ancient sculptures) that these details of the face (eyelids, pupils of the eyes, eyebrows) were additionally painted in less skilfully executed ancient Turkic sculptures? Just as it was done, for example, with missing details in the image of a hairstyle, clothing, belt, etc.* A similar technique (a raised eyeball with the eyelids and pupil shown on it) is known in Chinese coroplasty (see Figures 8, 1-4).

L. N. Ermolenko tries to rely on ethology and the heroic epic to prove the presence of "grimaces" of anger and rage on the faces of ancient Turkic statues. However, this approach seems unconvincing to us, since the external manifestation of anger-rage is absolutely equally and unmistakably defined and understood in different cultures and societies.-

Figure 9. Images of faces with T-shaped brows and nose (1 - 3) distorted by a grimace of anger (4). 1, 2, 4 - East Turkestan (according to [Dyakonova, 1995]); 3-the Aral Sea region (according to [Rapoport, Nezdik, Levina, 2000]).

* There is no doubt that ancient Turkic sculptures, like all early medieval eastern sculpture, were painted [Kubarev V. D., 1984, p. 82; Ermolenko, 2003; 2004, p. 42].

page 141

the number of branches (see fig. 8, 6; 9, 4). In other words, we can easily tell whether a face in a portrait or sculpture is distorted by a grimace of anger or rage, or whether it expresses peace, joy, or surprise.

Highlighting the "big-eyed" statues, L. N. Ermolenko comes to far-reaching conclusions, then contrasting them with the "obvious" Mongoloids [Ermolenko, Getsova, and Kurmankulov, 1985, pp. 146-147], then declaring the eyes rounded in rage and anger to be a stylistic feature [Ermolenko, 2004]. Why doesn't it explain the fact that approximately half of all ancient Turkic sculptures have "normal" eyes, not combined in a single bas-relief eyebrows and nose (if this is so important!), calm and peaceful facial expression, and the other half-rounded eyes, drawn and frowned eyebrows, expressing anger and rage? But sculptures with peaceful expressions and "normal" eyes also depict warriors.

Undoubtedly, the established standard of beauty and the worldview of the ancient Turks left their mark on their pictorial canon. One must think that ideas about beauty, and in particular about the beauty of eyebrows, were also embodied in sculpture. According to Ya. A. Sher, the inhabitants of the state of Yueban, according to the custom of the Turks, trimmed their eyebrows and smeared them with paste [1966, p. 67]. This is quite consistent with the ideas about the beauty of eyebrows among the Turkic peoples, information about which is given by L. N. Ermolenko [2006, p. 84-85]. However, the beauty of thick or lined brows and brows that are furrowed in anger are two different and unrelated topics.

The presence of a small series of female statues (17 copies) in Semirechye and Tien Shan is not even mentioned in the article by L. N. Ermolenko. Their characteristic feature is the three-horned headdresses. The researcher herself wrote that these are female statues [1995b], but already in her monograph she interprets them as images of beardless individuals and cites formally similar headdresses of men as analogous to the three-horned headdress [2004, p.23, 30]**. Thus, it is actually denied that this group of ancient Turkic sculptures belongs to a special category of female sculptures. Some of them also have a T-shaped image of the eyebrows and nose. Isn't that why L. N. Ermolenko's point of view has changed so dramatically, because these statues don't really fit her concept of reproducing an idealized image of a fierce warrior in sculpture?

Many ancient Turkic statues depict people sitting in the Eastern way. Such realistic sculptures are found in Mongolia (Bayar, 1997, fig. 86, 92 - 95, 97, 127 Other statues show crossed legs (Sher, 1966, Tables XXIII, 105, Tables XXIV, 117, Tables XXV, 120, etc.). for the rest of the stone figures, the image of bent legs, which is technically difficult to perform, is absent, but it was implied, and the raw part of the sculpture was dug into the ground [Ibid., p. 26; Klyashtorny, 1978, p. 250]. The sitting position is quite consistent with the explanation of the purpose of the statues as images of the dead, taking a symbolic part in the memorial feast. However ,the" mask of anger or rage", which is present, according to L. N. Ermolenko, on many ancient Turkic sculptures, seems to us in this case completely inappropriate, inappropriate neither to such a pose nor to the actual memorial ceremony.

The frequently cited Chinese dynastic chronicles provide some valuable information about the funerary rites of the ancient Turks. In particular, they say:: "In the building built at the grave, they put a painted image of the deceased and a description of the battles in which he was in the course of his life" [Bichurin, 1998, p. 234]. Undoubtedly, the painted image of the deceased is understood as a sculptural image of it (stone or wooden). It is interesting that in authentic sources - ancient Turkic runic texts of Mongolia-sculptures depicting the deceased are constantly mentioned. The word bediz, as S. G. Klyashtorny convincingly proved, denotes sculptural (statuesque or bas-relief) images of people to whom the funeral rite is dedicated

* That is why it is not surprising that the ancient Turks "recognized" signs of anger similar to epic ones: wide-open eyes and a loud cry (Ermolenko, 2006: 86). To do this, it was not necessary to feel a living connection with the epic and rely on the traditions of the epic world in their judgments. There is nothing surprising in the descriptions of signs of anger in the epic - rounded eyes and eyebrows drawn together on the bridge of the nose. After all, the researcher herself cites the opinion of a specialist in human ethology that expressive movements that accompany equally experienced emotions everywhere are the same in all cultures, since emotions are accompanied by certain physiological and muscular reactions [Ibid.].

** Proofs in favor of the fact that the image in a three-horned headdress is female are given by us in a special article [Kubarev G. V., 2003]. This group of statues should be dated to the 7th-8th centuries, since it is precisely to this period that the materials of the burial of Suttuu-Bulak (Central Tien Shan) belong [Khudyakov, Tabaldiev, Soltobaev, 1996], in the accompanying inventory of which there is a horn plate with an engraved image of a woman in a three-horned headdress. This image is also known in the Altai (engravings on the Kudyrginsky boulder and in the Bichiktu-Boma petroglyphs).

page 142

[1978, p. 244-250]. Prior to this, the word bediz was broadly interpreted as "memorial (decorated) building", "ornaments" or "carved ornaments", "sculptural ornaments". Thus, bediz is part of the mandatory list of elements of the ancient Turkic royal funeral and memorial complex, which includes a temple, a statue and a stele with an inscription [Ibid., p. 248]. The memorial complex of ordinary members of the society included a fence that replaced a temple, a statue or an anthropomorphic stele. Guillaume Rubruk reported about the Turkic-speaking Polovtsians: "The Comans build a large hill over the deceased and erect a statue of him, facing east and holding a bowl in his hand in front of the navel" [Travel..., 1957, p.102].

It must be assumed that among the ancient Turks, statues were installed primarily in honor of soldiers, as well as wealthy and influential members of society. For example, it is reported about Tuvans that "if the deceased enjoyed the respect of the people, then his image is placed next to him, carved out of stone or wood" [Katanov, 1894, p. 128]. Tul (Kyrgyz) - an effigy of the deceased from his clothes, designed to preserve the image and be its temporary embodiment-was made for the deceased head of the family or a respectable person [Fielstrup, 2002, p. 129, 131]. Infidels from Nuristan (region of Afghanistan) are reported: "When leymoch (a man who killed seven male enemies-G. K.) or pyrymoch (a man who was perfect in everything, rich, brave, hospitable, former leymoch. - G. K.) died, a rough statue of the deceased was made of wood (highlighted by us - G. K.); after that, one of the slaves I took him on my back and jumped (danced? walk with him through the streets of the village. For seven days and seven nights the dead man was not buried, but his corpse was displayed on a high place. Meanwhile, his statue was being carried around the streets in this way... A wooden statue of him was placed on his grave" (Grunberg, 1971, p. 277). The tradition of posthumous production of his sculpture to a warrior is also reflected in the heroic epic. Thus, Ya. A. Sher quotes an excerpt from the Kyrgyz heroic epic "Manas": Master Bakay at the funeral of Manas

... cut down a poplar trunk,
He did his best,
He carved the statue:
Under his hands, a light appeared.
Wooden Manasa doppelganger!
Like Manas's hands,
Like Manas's legs,
Even the eyes look like his!

[1966, p. 54].

The sources discussed above and other historical and ethnographic evidence indicate that the statues served as images of specific deceased people, primarily warriors and respected, rich, and noble Turks. In the semantics of ancient Turkic sculptures, especially in the figures of noble warriors,

undoubtedly, there is an aspect of military glory, praise of heroic deeds. However, it is impossible to agree with the opinion of L. N. Ermolenko that this is an idealized, unpersonalized image of a fierce ancient Turkic warrior participating in a feast-sacrifice dedicated to the deity who patronizes bloodshed. This statement is not substantiated by anything and is not supported by concrete facts.

It should be noted that the modern Turkic-speaking peoples of Central and Central Asia-descendants of the ancient Turks - revered and glorified many ancient Turkic and Mongolian statues, gave them specific names and called them batyrs, thereby rethinking their purpose in their own way in line with the epic tradition. This is especially true for large and elaborately executed sculptures. They were called kos-alyp ('two heroes'), alyp-tas, myktyn-alyby ('stone-hero') [Margulan, 2003, p.40]. The most famous ancient Turkic statues have their own names: "Kezer"," Aktash " in Altai; "Dayan-batyr "(see Fig. 7), "Uvshkhai", "Lovkh"," Lam-chuluu "in Mongolia;" Genghis Khan " (Fig. 5) in Tuva (Kubarev V. D., 2004, pp. 32-33). Veneration of the statues was manifested in the form of "feeding" them, tying up handkerchiefs or belts, partially painting them, and sometimes erecting wooden structures over them. For example, a small sculpture brought by G. N. Potanin to Tomsk University had its lips, eyes, and eyebrows painted (see Fig. 2, 3)*. Undoubtedly, the most realistic statues were repeatedly personified and given the names of batyrs, shamans and well-known people, while the names of warriors and ancient Turkic aristocrats, to whom these statues were originally dedicated, were forgotten for more than a thousand years of history.

We agree that the heroic epic of the Turkic-speaking peoples of Central and Central Asia was already formed in the early Middle Ages. This is proved by the works of V. V. Radlov, V. M. Zhirmunsky, A. S. Orlov, S. S. Surazakov and other orientalists. However, taking into account all the above-mentioned facts about the so-called stylization of facial details of statues, we question the appearance or even preservation in the form of pictorial quotations of some fragments of Turkic epic folklore in the iconography of ancient Turkic statues. The method chosen by L. N. Ermolenko for the comparative analysis of the texts of the heroic epic and specific archaeological sites is characterized by illegality and groundlessness of comparisons.

* With painted eyebrows, a single T-shaped bas-relief of the nose and brows of the statue does not catch the eye and looks natural.

page 143

List of literature

Bayar D. Mongol tov nutag dakh turegiin khun chuluu (Turkic stone sculptures of Central Mongolia). Ulaanbaatar: Institute of History of the Academy of Sciences of the MNR, 1997, 148 p. (in Russian).

Bichurin I. Ya. (Iakinf). Collection of information about the peoples who lived in Central Asia in ancient times. Almaty: Zhalyn baspasy Publ., 1998, vol. 1, 390 p.

Grach A.D. Drevnetyurkskie izvayaniya Tuva [Ancient Turkic statues of Tuva], Moscow: Publishing House of Eastern Literature, 1961, 182 p.

Grunberg A. L. Nuristan: Ethnographic and linguistic notes // Countries and peoples of the East: Central and Central Asia (geography, ethnography, history). Moscow: Nauka Publ., 1971, issue 10, pp. 264-287.

Dyakonova I. V. Shikshin: Materials of the First Russian Turkestan expedition of Academician S. F. Oldenburg. 1909 - 1910. - M.: East lit., 1995. - 301 p.

Evtyukhova L. A. Kamennye izvayaniya Yuzhnoi Sibiri i Mongol'ii [Stone sculptures of Southern Siberia and Mongolia]. MIA, 1952, vol. 1, issue 24, pp. 72-121.

Ermolenko L. I. K voprosu o kartine mira drevnykh tyurkov (na materiale izvajanij i ogradok) [To the question of the picture of the world of ancient Turks (on the material of statues and fences)]. Kemerovo: Kem. gosudarstvenny Univ. Publ., 1995a, pp. 186-198.

Ermolenko L. I. On the problem of sculptures in "three-horned" headdresses / / Rock art of Asia. - Kemerovo: Kuzbassvuzizdat-19956. - Issue 1. - pp. 54-55.

Ermolenko L. I. Predstavleniya drevnykh tyurkov o voynoy [Representations of ancient Turks about war]. Altaica II: Sb. art.i mat-lov. - Moscow: Institute of Oriental Studies. Russian Academy of Sciences, 1998a. - P. 46-66.

Ermolenko L. I. " His eyebrows are connected...": (Semantics of artistic reception based on archaeological and folklore sources) / / Slovtsovskiye chteniya-98: Mat-ly nauch. - prakt konf. - Tyumen, 19986. - p. 126-128.

Ermolenko L. I. Could ancient Turkic statues be painted? / Steppes of Eurasia in Antiquity and the Middle Ages: Proceedings of the International Scientific Conference, vol. 100th anniversary of the birth of M. P. Gryaznov. - St. Petersburg: State Publishing House. Hermitage, 2003. - Book 2. - pp. 236-239.

Ermolenko L. I. Medieval stone sculptures of the Kazakh steppes (typology, semantics in the aspect of military ideology and traditional worldview). Novosibirsk: Izd-vo IAEt SB RAS, 2004, 132 p. (in Russian)

Ermolenko L. I. O smysche nekotorykh priemov stilizatsii detalei litsa drevnetyurkskikh izvayaniy [On the meaning of some stylization techniques for the details of the face of ancient Turkic statues]. - 2006. - N 3 (27). - p. 82-87.

Ermolenko L. I., Getsova N. S., Kurmankulov Zh. K. A new type of structures with sculptures from Central Kazakhstan / / Problems of protection of archaeological monuments of Siberia. Novosibirsk: IIFFSO of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 1985, pp. 137-161.

Katanov, I. F., On funeral rites among the Turkic tribes (from ancient times to the present), Izv. Department of Archeology, History and Ethnography at Imp. Kazan University. - 1894. - Vol. 12, issue 2. - pp. 109-142.

Klyashtorny S. G. Khram, izvayenie i stela v drevnetyurkskikh tekstakh: (K interpretatsii Ikhe-Khanynnorskoy napravisi) [Temple, statue and Stele in ancient Turkic texts: (On the interpretation of the Ikhe-Khanynnor inscription)].

Kubarev V. D. Ancient Turkic sculptures of Altai. Novosibirsk: Nauka Publ., 1984, 230 p. (in Russian)

Kubarev V. D. Drevniye stely i izvayaniya v obryadakh i superstitiyakh narodov Tsentral'noi Azii [Ancient stelae and statues in rituals and superstitions of the peoples of Central Asia]. - 2004. - N 1 (17). - p. 28-38.

Kubarev G. V. Zhanrovaya stena iz Bichiktu-Boma [Genre scene from Bichiktu-Bom]. Steppes of Eurasia in antiquity and the Middle Ages: Materials of the International Scientific Conference. 100th anniversary of the birth of M. P. Gryaznov. - St. Petersburg: State Publishing House. Hermitage, 2003, Book 2, pp. 242-246.

Kyzlasov L. R. Istoriya Tuva v sredniye veka [History of Tuva in the Middle Ages], Moscow: Moscow State University Press, 1969, 212 p.

Margulan A. H. Stone sculptures of Ulytau. Soch. - Almaty: Daik-Press, 2003. - Vol. 3/4. - pp. 21-46.

Pletneva S. A. Polovtskiye kamennye izvayaniya [Polovtsian stone sculptures], Moscow: Nauka Publ., 1974, 200 p. E 4-2).

Potanin G. N. Ocherki Severo-Zapadnoy Mongolia [Essays on North-Western Mongolia]. - St. Petersburg: [Kirshbaum's Press], 1881. - Issue 2. - 197 p. + 88 p. note.

Pugachenkova G. A., Rempel L. I. Ocherki iskusstva Srednoi Azii [Essays on the Art of Central Asia], Moscow: Iskusstvo Publ., 1982, 288 p.

Travel to the eastern countries of Plano Carpini and Rubruk. Moscow: Geogr. lit. Publishing House, 1957, 270 p.

Rapoport Yu. A, Nezdik E. E., Levina L. M. In the lower reaches of the Oxus and Yaxart: Images of the ancient Aral Sea region. - Moscow: Indrik, 2000. - 208 p, 56 ill.

Savinov D. G. Peoples of Southern Siberia in the Ancient Turkic era. - L.: Publishing House of Leningrad State University, 1984. - 174 p.

Savinov D. G. Drevnetyurkskie plemen v zerkale arkheologii [Ancient Turkic tribes in the mirror of archeology]. St. Petersburg: Farn Publ., 1994, pp. 92-165.

Fedorov-Davydov G. A. Iskusstvo kochevnikov i Zolotoy Hordy: (Ocherki kul'tury i iskusstva narodov Evraziyskikh steppei i zolotoyordynskikh gorod) [The Art of Nomads and the Golden Horde: (Essays on the culture and Art of the peoples of the Eurasian steppes and the Golden Horde cities)].

Fielstrup F. A. Iz obryadovoi zhizni kirghizov nachala XX veka [From the ritual life of the Kirghiz people of the early XX century]. Moscow: Nauka, 2002, 302 p.

Soltobaev O. A. Tabaldiev K. Sh., Khudyakov Yu. S., Mnogofigurnye kompozitsii na kostyanykh plastinakh iz pamyatnika Suttuu-Bulak [Multi-figure compositions on bone plates from the Suttuu-Bulak monument]. Novye arkheologicheskie i etnograficheskie otkrytiki v Sibiri: Mat-ly IV Godovoi utogovoi sessii IAEt SB RAS, Novosibirsk: Izd. IAEt SB RAS, 1996, pp. 242-245.

Charikov A. A. A new series of stone statues from Semirechye // Medieval antiquities of the Eurasian steppes, Moscow: Nauka, 1980, pp. 213-234.

Charikov A. A. Baltakolskaya sculptura [Baltakol sculpture]. Zapadnaya Sibir ' v epokhu srednevekovya [Western Siberia in the Middle Ages]. Tomsk: Publishing House of the Tomsk State University, 1984, pp. 58-63.

Charikov A. A. Izobrazhitel'nye osobennosti kamennykh izvayaniy Kazakhstanii [Visual features of stone sculptures of Kazakhstan].

Sher Ya. A. Kamennye izvayaniya Semirechya [Stone sculptures of the Semirechye region], Moscow, Nauka Publ., 1966, 140 p.

China: Eine Wiege der Weltkultur (5000 Jahre Erfmdungen und Entdeckungen). - Mainz/Rhein: Verlag Philipp von Za-bern. - 1994. - 589 S.

Excavation of a tomb of the sixteen kingdoms period at Pingling, Xianyang // Wenwu. - 2004. - N 8. - P. 4 - 28.

Hayashi T. Several problems about the Turkic stone statues // Turk dili arasjirmalari yilligi (Yearbook of Turkic studies): Belleten 2000. -Ankara: Turkish language institution, 2001. - P. 221 - 240.

The article was submitted to the Editorial Board on 28.06.06.

page 144

Permanent link to this publication: