Archaeological interpretation models often use parallels that relate to groups living in the Arctic and subarctic regions of Siberia that are close to modern times. These parallels are very important for understanding archaeological materials that are static in nature, since they allow us to take into account the dynamics of social and symbolic systems of communities close to modern times. The article analyzes electronic databases, as well as scientific literature on zoomorphic and therianthropic figurines collected during the Jesup North Pacific Expedition. The possible meaning and mythological context of zoomorphic images are discussed. Some aspects of the paleoethnological data are partially applicable to Upper Paleolithic zoomorphic sculpture.

Keywords: Dzhesupovskaya North-Pacific Expedition, mythology, paleoethnology, Siberia, Upper Paleolithic art, zoomorphic figures.

Introduction

Studies of the processes of economic and cultural adaptation in the near-modern Arctic and subarctic groups of Siberia have revealed ethnological parallels that can be more or less successfully applied to reconstruct the way of life of primitive man. Since the second half of the 19th century, human collectives living in these regions have been considered as ethnological analogues of Upper Paleolithic hunter collectives (Mortillet 1883; Jochelson, 1908; Marshack, 1991; Abramova, 1995; Owen, 2005; Svobodaetal., 2011). As a rule, the search for such parallels is aimed at reconstructing everyday life, but they are often also used to understand Upper Paleolithic thinking and symbolism. Animal images created by representatives of the Northern peoples are interesting in many ways, in particular, from the point of view of interpreting monuments of Upper Paleolithic mobile art. The variety of animals whose images are represented in ethnographic collections is very large-mammoths, rhinos, deer, horses, bison, lions, bears, owls, wolverines and other creatures whose species cannot be accurately determined. The materials used for making figurines are also diverse - tusk, bone, ornamental stone, ceramics.

Usually, the ratio of zoomorphic images in sculpture is compared with paleozoological data for a particular locality (Klima, 1979; Vandiver et al., 1989; Der Lowenmensch..., 1994; Svoboda, 1997; Verpoorte, 2001; Djindjian, 2004; Sauvet and Wlodarczyk, 2008) and its correspondence to the actual ratio of animal species is estimated. After that, each image is assigned a likely social function. There are four main approaches to the interpretation of zoomorphic images in the literature. Each of them is associated with a particular intended function. The possible functions are as follows.

1. Solving problems related to hunting. This or that zoomorphic image was intended to attract the corresponding animal. At the same time, the figurine represented a promise to the spirit of the victim that the hunter would not kill more animals than necessary. Another possible explanation for this approach is the symbolic curbing of hunting excitement, which could become a hindrance in real hunting. The traces of blows to the heart or head of an animal found on several zoomorphic figures indicate in favor of such interpretations.

2. Depletion of an animal's strength or the acquisition of animal qualities that are lacking in the human body, such as the strength of a mammoth, the endurance of a deer, or the agility of a lion. In accordance with this hypothesis, the zoomorphic figurine was an amulet and at the same time a source of certain qualities of the animal. Among the Upper Paleolithic materials, you can find several zoomorphic figures with traces of blows or other injuries, which are usually interpreted as attempts to deprive the animal of favorable abilities or acquire them (in order to exclude competitors or equalize the chances of humans and animals in hunting).

3. Solving problems and conflicts within the Upper Paleolithic society by transferring human relations to the animal world. Allegorical and comical images could serve to relieve stress in a difficult situation for the team.

4. Images of totemic ancestors, mythological protectors, or helper spirits (Gerasimov, 1931; Absolon, 1938, 1945; Klima, 1979, 1989; Gamble, 1982; Hahn, 1986; Delporte, 1990; Gvozdover, 1995; Davidson, 1997; Hunters..., 2000; Lewis-Williams, 2002; Boric, 2007; Porr, 2010]. The mythological significance of each zoomorphic image could be related to the totemic views of people of the late Paleolithic.

All these interpretations were based on ethnological parallels. Taking into account the dynamics of social and symbolic systems of the near-modern Arctic and subarctic groups of Siberia, it is possible to expand the scope of application of archaeological materials that are static in nature (Binford, 1962; Stiles, 1977; Lewis-Williams and Dowson, 1988; David and Kramer, 2001).

In this paper, of course, we do not seek to equate the perception of animals by people of the Upper Paleolithic and groups close to modern times. We are simply trying to overcome the traditional approach of Western culture to the relationship between humans and animals, presenting this relationship from a completely different point of view - the one that some indigenous peoples of Siberia held in the recent past.

Siberian materials of the Dzhesupov North-Pacific Expedition

The Jesupov North Pacific Expedition, organized on the initiative and under the leadership of Fr. Boas, was carried out at the expense of M. K. Jesup in 1897-1902. Its goal was to identify contacts and connections between aboriginal groups living on both sides of the Bering Strait. This article is limited to the work of the expedition in Siberia. This work began in 1898, and three main groups took part in it (Figure 1). The first of them, headed by B. Laufer, collected materials on the Nanai and Nivkhs of the Amur basin and Sakhalin in 1898-1899. The second group, whose members were V. G. Bogoraz (Tan) and his wife Sofia, since 1900 worked in the north-east of Siberia in the habitats of Chukchi, Koryak, Kerek, Siberian Eskimos, Itelmen and Evens. The third group, consisting of V. I. Yochelson and his wife Dina Yochelson-Brodskaya, studied Koryaks and Yukagirs (Laufer, 1900; Boas, 1903) (see the correspondence of the expedition members, archived in the Anthropology Department of the American Museum of Natural History in New York*).

Description of the collection. Using the electronic database of the American Museum of Natural History in New York, 1,023 zoomorphic or therianthropic images belonging to various ethnic groups were studied (Table 1). 1) [Sazelova, 2012]. According to the form, they can be divided into two groups. The vast majority of subjects (94.5%) are zoomorphic or therianthropic images. A small part of the collection (5.5 %)

*Full name Boas B. Laufer, 02.05.1898 (from Victoria, British Columbia), 27.10.1898 (from New York), 09.12.1898 (from New York) and 23.01.1899 (from New York).

V. G. Bogoraz F. Boas, 30.10.1899 (from St. Petersburg), 16.04.1901 (from Novo-Mariinsk post) and 22.12.1900 (from Kamenskoye village).

S. Bogoraz (?) F. Boasu, 14.04.1901 (from the post Novo-Mariinsk).

M. Jesup to V. I. Yochelson, 24.03.1900 (from New York).

V. I. Yokhelson F. Boas, 21.06.1899 (from Bern), 20.05.1900 (from Vladivostok), 11.08.1900 (from the village of Kushka), 03.12.1900 (from the village of Kamensky), 21.07.1901 (from the village of Kushka), 27.04.1902 (from Yakutsk) and 04.07.1902 (from the steamer "Gromov").

B. Laufer F. Boas, 10.07.1898 (from Aleksandrovsk), 18.09.1898 (from Aleksandrovsk) and 04.03.1899 (location not specified).

All electronic documents were kindly provided by the Anthropology Department of the American Museum of Natural History.

Figure 1. Map of the travels of B. Laufer (1898-1899), V. G. Bogoraz (1900-1901), and V. I. Yochelson (1900-1902). Compiled on the basis of the map published by F. A. Yochelson. Boas (1903, p.72), including travel notes and travel maps from 1902 (provided by the Anthropology Department of the American Museum of Natural History).

Table 1. Analyzed sample of zoomorphic images

It is represented by natural objects whose shape is somehow connected with zoomorphic or therianthropic images - either a general appearance or individual features. The cultural context, the degree of stylization, the symbolic meaning and function of the object served as determining factors when depicting the animal's body or any part of it. Taking these factors into account, it can be noted that almost all objects (96.6 %) are images of a specific zoomorphic or therianthropic character with more or less natural proportions. A strong distortion of proportions, in particular, a disproportionate increase in the body in relation to the head and limbs, was noted in several toy figures, which were given this or that shape primarily for the convenience of the child.

The individual parts of the body represented in small plastic art include, first of all, the head. Limbs, as a rule, are elaborated in detail or at least outlined schematically (they are completely absent mainly in images of pinnipeds, as well as birds). The least attention was paid to modeling hooves, paws, or fingers. Here the main requirement was the stability of the figurine.

Skulypurks were usually made from a single piece of material, but there are exceptions, for example, Kerek and Koryak figurines of birds with movable wings or on wheels. Sexual dimorphism is observed both in anatomical details (for example, the image of the penis in males) and in the reflection of behavior (for example, caring for offspring, competition between males, hunting). However, it is sometimes difficult to determine the gender based on stylized images. Therianthropic figurines always represent a creature with a human head and the body of an animal, usually some marine mammal (for example, a seal or walrus), a bird or a quadrupedal, whose species cannot be accurately determined. It can be assumed that they reflect mythological ideas, as evidenced by the greater number of such figures in the group of amulets.

Analysis of the source material of figurines and their use. According to the source material, natural objects (natural facts) and artefacts can be divided into two categories::

1) strong (used for a long time), made of locally resistant materials-walrus tusk, deer antler, bone (especially from vertebrae or whale shoulder blades) - or imported metal;

2) fragile (used for a short time), which are divided into three subgroups: a) products made of animal materials, in particular tendons, bird beaks, claws of various predators, feathers, leather and fur; b) handicrafts made of plants - wood (mainly birch and cedar pine root), dry wood, etc. grass and other plant fibers; c) items made from imported materials, such as industrial fiber, ropes and fabrics (Bogoras, 1907; Jochelson, 1908, 1926; Mitlyanskaya, 1996; Davidson, 1997; Soffer, 2000).

Durable materials were usually used to make jewelry and household items, so such items were almost entirely artificial in origin. They could also be decorated with drilled animal teeth, feathers, claws, pieces of fur or plant fibers. Sculptural images of these categories are very realistic; they thematically reflect the everyday life of people, although the use of mythological motifs is not excluded. Usually, such figures convey the body (or parts of it) of a zoomorphic or therianthropic character with realistic, albeit simplified, detail or stylization (the latter especially applies to images of the head). Anatomical details are emphasized in their decoration. In addition, the decor conveys a whole range of different symbolic meanings (Figure 2). Individual figurines could be deliberately grouped into complex compositions depicting everyday scenes (grooming or feathers, rest, running, dog or bear fighting), certain animal states (curiosity, alertness, fear, etc.its diet (for example, hunting or feeding on pasture), as well as reflecting reproductive behavior and caring for offspring (see the figure of a fawn standing up for the first time, Fig. 3).

Jewelry, especially for women, was intended to bring joy to its owners. The literature has repeatedly described how women occasionally removed figurines from their bags and enjoyed simply looking at them (Jochelson, 1908; Potapova and Levina, 1956; Mithen, 1991; Guthrie, 2005).

Figurines and natural artifacts used as talismans or amulets were the embodiment of a certain spirit, its temper and habits. To fulfill its role as an intermediary in the communication of man and spirit, each object had to meet all the ritual requirements [Gurvich, 1962; Popular Beliefs..., 1968; Taksami, 1976; Vdovin, 1976; Pedersen, 2001]. Presumably sacred natural artifacts include the skull of a wolf, the head of a crow (Fig. 4), the fur of a brown fox and the beaks of puffins among the Chukchi, the nose of a wolf among the Koryaks, and the shoulder blades of deer among the Russified representatives of indigenous peoples. All these small fragments were symbolic "cuts" of the whole animal with its special disposition and habits and were intended for ritual actions.

Artificially created talismans (amulets) were very crudely processed and usually left unfinished, possibly for later processing. In addition, it was believed that the more carefully worked out the details on the talisman, the more difficult it is for a person to maintain control over it. According to beliefs, such objects could animate the spirits inhabiting them or attract the unwanted attention of the world of evil forces that bring disease and death. If the owner of the amulet took care of the idol, offering him bloody or bloodless sacrifices, then he could count on the help of the spirit inhabiting the object. Despite all human efforts, the magical power of talismans (amulets) gradually weakened, and they were replaced from time to time with new ones (Czaplicka, 1914; Potapova and Levina, 1956; Gurvich, 1962; Vdovin, 1976; Shamanism..., 1978).

Zoomorphic or therianthropic figures could also be used as toys. The toy for the child was the best friend, mentor and helper. But it could turn into a terrible enemy, especially when it was inhabited by a demon that threatened the child with illness and death. It was believed that the life of each toy reflected the fate of its owner. Therefore, in the manufacture of toys, as well as amulets-

2. A carved figure of a walrus made of walrus tusk, purchased by V. G. Bogoraz from the Kereks. Department of Anthropology, American Museum of Natural History, No. 70/6265. Dimensions: length 5.4 cm, width 2.5 cm, height 2.5 cm.

Fig. 3. A carved figure of a fawn made of horn, purchased by V. G. Bogoraz from the Chukchi people. Department of Anthropology, American Museum of Natural History, No. 70/6862. Dimensions: length 3.3 cm, width 1.8 cm, height 1 cm.

People followed certain rules, especially those that strictly regulated the form of the object (Jochelson, 1908; Popular Beliefs..., 1968; Arefieva, 2008).

Toy figures are usually stylized, and their facial features are sketchy. In many cases, the limbs are completely or partially missing. Toys were usually made of unstable plant materials, mainly wood, while Kerek toys were usually carved from bone. In the game, instead of the image of an animal, its bones, feathers, a piece of fur or a branch could appear. In addition, sometimes tendons were attached to toys, with which the child could tie, pull or fasten their figures. According to V. Bogoras (1907). children were not restricted in their choice of toys and handling, while the use of amulets had a number of ritual restrictions. Often, children made their own toys and improved the skills needed for the future life in the game [Nelson. 1900; Bogoras, 1907; Jochelson, 1926; Potapova and Levina 1956].

Zoomorphic images in artefacts, natural facts, and mythology

In some cases, the exact definition of the biological species is extremely difficult due to the strong stylization of the figures (Figure 5) [Blix, 2005; Banerjee et al., 2006]. The perception of such images depends on the economic, symbolic or mythological views of a particular ethnic group-

4. Shamanic amulet made of raven's head and wolf's skull, acquired by V. G. Bogoraz from the Chukchi people. Department of Anthropology, American Museum of Natural History, No. 70 / 6559AB. Dimensions: length 25 cm, width 37.5 cm.

5. A wooden duck figurine (toy?) purchased by B. Laufer from the Nivkhs. Department of Anthropology, American Museum of Natural History, No. 70/1175. Dimensions: length 45.1 cm, width 6.4 cm, height 10.5 cm.

It does not necessarily correspond to the zoological classification of real animals [Nelson, 1900; Bogoras, 1907; Jochelson, 1908, 1926; Taksami, 1976; Vdovin, 1976; Krapnik, 1993; Ingold, 1994; Pedersen, 2001; Willerslev, 2004] and does not necessarily correspond to the zoological classification of real animals [Mithen, 1991; Guthrie, 2005]. In some cases, we have separately identified zoomorphic themes that are not recorded in the catalogues of the American Museum of Natural History, especially when a large and very diverse group of carvings is presented under a common name. Various zoomorphic images were grouped into categories in order to better understand their meaning (Table 2). But sometimes we could only state that the figures represent a variety of four-legged animals and may have been inspired by mythological representations. This group was not counted.

There are a number of patterns in the collection. One of them is related to the geographical and ecological distribution of certain animal species. The distribution of white and brown bear figurines coincides with the ranges of these species (tundra and taiga, respectively). The absence of images of salmon in the Chukchi can probably be explained by the fact that there are no rivers suitable for spawning in the territory of their settlement. Another trend is related to the excessive fishing of pinnipeds and cetaceans by Russian, American and Japanese whaling companies. This circumstance forced the Koryaks, Chukchi and Kereks to use these animals only as an additional source of food and switch from sea hunting to fishing and reindeer husbandry. In this case, the images of pinnipeds and cetaceans seem to indicate the preservation of their symbolic and ritual significance.

At the next stage, we tried to analyze the distribution of zoomorphic images in figurines, as well as in mythological texts collected by V. G. Bogoras [Bogoras, 1910] among the Chukchi and V. I. Jochelson [Jochelson, 1908] among the Koryaks. The calculation is complicated by the fact that, according to the views of the aborigines, animals take on their own appearance only in the presence of humans, while in the absence of humans they are anthropomorphic. Perhaps this explains the complex images that combine the features of an animal and a person. Such images were combined into groups of human animals that have both human characteristics and features of various animals - deer, hares, bears, gulls. Aborigines believed that these creatures, like humans, live with their families in settlements and engage in hunting, fishing, games, etc. An additional difficulty is associated with the totemic nature of some ethnonyms. Thus, the Chukchi people called the Koryak reindeer herders people-deer. In our analysis, only characters with uniquely zoomorphic features were considered (Fig. 6).

Table 2. Groups of animals represented in zoomorphic and therianthropic images

Note: undetectable images of animals are not included.

b. Zoomorphic images in figurative art and mythology of the Chukchi (1) and Koryak (2). a-figurative art; b-mythology.

For a better understanding of each image and its mythological significance, three main functions of zoomorphic images were considered.

The economic significance of animals is reflected in the mythological representations of cetaceans (humpback whales, belugas and killer whales), bovids (snow sheep) and Hares (Arctic whites). The corresponding views are also known in relation to fish, rodents (beavers), martens (wolverines and ermines), ungulates (domestic horses) among the Chukchi, as well as pinnipeds (sea lions, pied and ringed seals, sea hares and walruses) and marine mollusks among the Koryaks. Animals were associated not only with the nutritional value of their meat, bone marrow, or fat, but also with bones, tendons, hides, and internal organs (especially stomachs) - they were used in building dwellings, making clothing, shoes, and bags for storing supplies, and constructing traps. Rodents and martens had a special meaning for the Chukchi people: the fur of these animals was metaphorically connected with the idea of wealth. In Chukchi and Koryak myths, whales, seals, and walruses appear as sled animals of sea spirits.

The economic and symbolic role of animals is emphasized in both mythological systems - Chukchi and Koryak. Among the Chukchi, this role was played by representatives of the families of reindeer (wild and domesticated reindeer), canine (wolf, polar and common fox, dog) and bear (polar and brown bears), as well as pinnipeds (sea lion, pied and ringed seal, sea hare and walrus) ; among the Koryaks-fish (salmon, flounder, trout, minnow, ray-finned fish) and rodents, in particular mice. Deer, co-

buckets and bears were an important source of meat, bone marrow, and fat; their fur, sinews, bones, and horns were used in the construction of dwellings and for making clothing, shoes, personal effects, various tools, and weapons.

The animal's habits or appearance could be interpreted metaphorically, for example, "sniffing the ground like a deer", "obeying orders like a dog","having a toothy muzzle like a wolf". Deer and dogs were also used as draught animals (even mice are credited with this role in myths); they were specially trained to participate in hunting or racing. These animals were sacrificed in various rituals. The sounds made by walruses, deer and dogs had a special ritual meaning-they were protected from evil spirits. Parts of the bodies of deer, dogs, and bears were used to treat these animals, and their excrement could be used to make figurines intended for divination and to determine the location of the corresponding animal using a special spell.

Supernatural animals are represented by characters with metal / silver bodies, deer/fish/mice in flames, two-headed deer, a mythological wolf, or an evil and voracious creature-a descendant of deer, but also a deer eater. Finally, in the myths there are references to the transformation of a person into a wolf or a polar bear, as well as the ability of a deer or bear to take the form of a dog.

A purely symbolic role is typical for birds (ravens, eagles, puffins, white owls, partridges, gulls, cormorants, grebes, pintails), which appear as mythological creatures ("white owl made of metal"," giant bird "or" thunder bird " among the Chukchi) or heroes (Big Raven among the Koryaks). This role is also shown in the transformation of a person or individual parts of the human body into a bird. In both Chukchi and Koryak mythology, a symbolic role is attributed to spiders (they help heroes in trouble with wise advice), insects (ants, bumblebees) and annelids. The Koryaks attached special importance to the kuni (wolverines and ermines), and the Chukchi - to mammoths, which appear in myths as powerful spirits whose body consists of giant ancient bones.

Discussion of the results: a paleoethnological approach

In the usual Western sense, animals are an integral part of nature. Man, with his "biological" body and culturally formed mind, is perceived as an exceptional being, opposed to nature and capable of defeating any of its representatives. This understanding of its role is not typical for nomadic hunter-gatherer groups in Siberia, where human-animal relationships are not considered random. They are formed as a result of many complex ritual actions and their symbolic interpretation. All this takes place in a special world where animal people are just as real as other people [Potapova and Levina, 1956; Bird-David, 1990; Ingold, 1994; Willerslev, 2004; Nadasdy, 2007]. Thus, the differences in understanding the relationship between humans and animals in the West and in Siberia offer a glimpse into an alternative reality that should be taken into account in the interpretation of archaeological data.

We must clearly understand that the existing paleoethnological reconstructions cannot be implicitly transferred to the relations of man and animals in the Paleolithic era. We don't know how these perceptions have changed over the last 30 millennia. Ecological changes were accompanied by the disappearance of some typical Ice Age animal species and the emergence of new, domesticated ones.

The changes affected not only the use, but also the symbolic meaning of raw materials - mammoth tusk, ceramics, ornamental stone. Although tusks have recently been used in fine plastics, the perception of mammoths in Siberia has recently been quite different from that of Upper Paleolithic hunters and artists [Gerasimov, 1931; Ivanov, 1949; Gamble, 1982; Delporte, 1990; Mithen 1991; Der Lowenmensch..., 1994; Abramova, 1995; Gvozdover, 1995; Svoboda, 1997; Hunters..., 2000; Djindjian, 2004; Guthrie, 2005; Owen, 2005; Boric, 2007]. Baked clay, soft rocks, and other typical Upper Paleolithic materials made it possible to create figurines and use them in various practical and symbolic activities [Vandiver et al., 1989; Davidson, 1997; Soffer, 2000; Verpoorte, 2001; Svoboda, 2011], but ceramic zoomorphic images are not common in the areas of the considered ethnic groups. groups. We have seen several descriptions of unburned clay figurines, but ethnologists have not recorded their function. Apparently, such objects were not preserved in the moist tundra soil. Soft rocks (for example, talc) have recently been used in fine plastics, but this is due to the lack of other traditional Siberian materials, such as walrus tusk (Nelson, 1900; Jochelson, 1908; Potapova and Levina, 1956; Krupnik, 1993; Mitlyanskaya, 1996). In addition, there are clear differences in the artistic style and final processing of zoomorphic figures of the Upper Paleolithic. When referring to ethnological data

parallels such differences can be partly explained by the practical purpose of the figurines.

In general, zoomorphic figures that represent the actual use of animals by humans are much more realistic and detailed. They are ornaments or household items and were usually made from resistant materials such as walrus tusk, bone, or horn. Amulets and toys made of wood or horn are often made roughly and schematically-perhaps so as not to attract evil spirits.

Finally, it should be noted that the Upper Paleolithic zoomorphic and therianthropic plastic exhibits a predominance of fragments over whole figures. Fragmentation may be caused by some taphonomic processes. Some authors (Klima, 1979; Kralik, 2011) suggest that the fragments were part of larger objects, probably made of unstable organic material. Another possible explanation is that the fragments are finished products that symbolically represent the prototype in a "reduced" form. It is also impossible to exclude the deliberate destruction of sculptures by means of thermal effects or purposefully applied blows that lead to damage or destruction of the figures, after they have fulfilled their function. Similar actions were recorded, for example, in Dolni-Vestonitsa I, Pavlovo I, Zaraysk, and Kostenki I (Absolon, 1938, 1945; Efimenko, 1958; Klima, 1979, 1989; Delporte, 1990; Abramova, 1995; Soffer, 2000; Hunters..., 2000; Verpoorte, 2001; Dupuy,2001). 2007; Amirkhanov et al., 2009; Svoboda, 2011]. When using Siberian ethnological parallels, one should take into account the possible reasons for such actions. People might think that the" shelf life " of the figurines has expired and they will no longer be needed, moreover, these figurines can attract evil spirits or enemies who could cause harm through ritual influence [Bogoras, 1907; Jochelson, 1908; Czaplicka, 1914; Gurvich, 1962; Popular Beliefs..., 1968; Taksami, 1976; Vdovin, 1976; Shamanism..., 1978; Pedersen, 2001]. Therefore, people deliberately destroyed objects used for performing rituals, for example, by throwing them into the fire. In this connection, some parallels should be noted with the damage to the Gravetta zoomorphic figures, which, apparently, was conscious, and not accidental.

Conclusion

This paper presents the features of the use of zoomorphic themes in small plastic art, natural artifacts, and mythological materials collected during the Jesup North Pacific Expedition. Analysis of the collection shows the relationship between raw materials, artistic style, final processing of the product and its use. Some questions still remain unanswered due to insufficient descriptions of objects and limited ethnological data. The latter can be explained by the narrow scientific interests of one or another ethnologist or by the fact that the researcher was not allowed to perform ritual actions. The incompleteness of our information may be due to the lack of specific archaeological data for cultures close to modern times or their insufficient study. Despite these and other problems, the paleoethnological approach expands our understanding of the unique features of communities of the distant and recent past. It helps you understand the dynamic and complex context surrounding each zoomorphic image in any culture.

Assessing the social significance of these images is extremely difficult. As we have seen, symbolic meanings associated with zoomorphic themes not only reflect the current situation, but are also the most important integral feature of cultural memory, which tends to fix zoomorphic images that gradually disappear from the spiritual culture of hunter-gatherer collectives (cf. Connerton, 1989; Assmann, 2008; Porr, 2010)..

Acknowledgements

I am grateful to L. Kendall, N. Gregorev, and B. Landois (Department of Anthropology, American Museum of Natural History, New York, USA) for their access to the databases and archives of the Jesup North Pacific Expedition and for permission to reproduce images of several objects from this collection. I am also grateful to I. Svoboda (Department of Anthropology, Faculty of Natural Sciences, T. Masaryk University and Institute of Archaeology, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Brno) for guidance and comments, and to Dr. I. Mlikowski (Zoological Department of the National Museum, Prague, Czech Republic) for advice on bird figurines.

List of literature

Amirkhanov Kh. A., Akhmetgaleeva N. B., Buzhilova A. P., Burova N. D., Lev S. Yu., Mashchenko E. N. Paleolithic studies in Zaraysk, 1999 - 2005. - Moscow: Paleograf, 2009. -466 p.

Istoriya Yamala: vzglyad iz muzeynykh storazhishch [History of Yamal: a view from museum storages]. Yekaterinburg: Ural, rabochy Publ., 2008, issue 1, pp. 51-57.

Vdovin I. S. Priroda i chelovek v religioznykh predstavleniyakh chukchi [Nature and man in religious representations of the Chukchi]

representations of the peoples of Siberia and the North (the second half of the XIX-beginning of the XX century). - L.: Nauka, 1976. - pp. 217-253. Gerasimov M. M. Malta: Paleolithic site: The result of works in 1928-1929. - Irkutsk: Irkut Regional Museum, 1931. - 34 p.

Gurvich I. S. Koryak fishing holidays / / Siberian Ethnographic Collection, Moscow: Publishing House of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 1962, issue 4, pp. 238-257.

Efimenko P. P. Kostenki I.-M.; L.: Publishing House of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 1958. - 450, [2] p.

Ivanov S. B. Mamont v iskusstve narodov Sibiri [The Mammoth in the art of the peoples of Siberia]. - 1949. Issue 11, pp. 132-154.

Potapova M. G., Levina A. P. Narody Sibiri [Peoples of Siberia], Moscow: Leningrad: Publishing House of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 1956, 1114 p.

Priroda i chelovek v religionnykh predstavleniyakh narodov Sibiri i Severa (vtoraya polovine XIX - nachalo XX v.) [Nature and man in religious representations of the peoples of Siberia and the North (the second half of the XIX-beginning of the XX century)].

Abramova Z.A. L'art paleolithique d'Europe orientale et de Siberie. - Grenoble: Jerome Mllon, 1995. - 367 p.: ill., maps.

Absolon K. Vyzkum diluvialni stanice lovcu mamutu v Dolnich Vestonicich na Pavlovskych kopcich na Morave: (Pracovni zprava za prvni rok 1924). - Brno: Barvic a Novotny, 1938. - 46 str.; 7 tab.

Absolon K. Vyzkum diluvialni stanice lovcu mamutu v Dolnich Vestonicich na Pavlovskych kopcich na Morave: (Pracovni zprava za treti rok 1926). - Brno: Moravske knihtiskarny polygrafie, 1945. - 241 str; 18 tab.

Assmann A. Transformations between history and memory // Social Research. - 2008. - Vol. 75. N 1. - P. 49 - 72.

Banerjee S., Kazlowski S., Rose H., Hoshino M., Morris A. Arctic wings: Birds of the arctic national wildlife refuge. - Seattle: Mountaineers books, 2006. - 192 p.

Binford R.A. Archaeology as anthropology // American Antiquity. - 1962. - Vol. 28. - P. 217 - 225.

Bird-David N. The giving environment: Another perspective on the economic system of gatherer-hunters // Current Anthropology. - 1990. - Vol. 31. - P. 189 - 196.

Blix A.S. Arctic animals and their adaptations to life on the edge. - Trondheim: Tapir Academic Press, 2005. - 296 p.

Boas F. Jesup North Pacific Expedition // The American Museum J. - 1903. - Vol. 5. - P. 69 - 117.

Bogoras W. The Chukchee. - Leiden; N.Y.: E.J. Brill Ltd, 1907. - 260 p. - (The Jesup North Pacific Expedition Publications; vol. 7, pt. 2). - (Memoir of the American Museum of Natural History; vol. 11).

Bogoras W. Chukchee mythology. - Leiden, N.Y.: E.J. Brill Ltd, 1910. - 197 p. - (The Jesup North Pacific Expedition Publications; vol. 8, pt. I). - (Memoir of the American Museum of Natural History; vol. 12).

Boric D. Images of animality: Hybrid bodies and mimesis in early Prehistoric art // Image and imagination / eds. C. Renfrew, I. Morley. - Oxford: Oxbow Books, 2007. - P. 83 - 99.

Connerton P. How societies remember. - Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989. - 121 p.

Czaplicka M.A. Aboriginal Siberia: A study in social anthropology. - Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1914. - 436 p.

David N., Kramer C. Ethnoarchaeology in action. - Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001. - XXVII, 476 p.

Davidson I. Power of pictures // Beyond art: Pleistocene image and symbol / eds. M.W. Conkey, O. Soffer, D. Stratman, N. Jablonski. - Berkley: University of California Press, 1997. -P. 125 - 159.

Delporte H. L'image des animaux dans l'art prehistorique. - P.: Picard, 1990. - 254 p.

Der Lowenmensch: Tier und Mensch in der Kunst der Eiszeit / Hrsg. K. Wehrenberger, B. Reinhardt. - Sigmaringen: Jan Thorbecke Verlag, 1994. - 141 S.

Djindjian F. L'art paleolithique dans son systeme culturel II: De la variabilite des bestiaires representee dans l'art parietal et mobilier paleolithique // La spiritualite: Actes du Colloque international de Liege (10 - 12 decembre 2003) / ed. by M. Otte. - Liege: Universite de Liege, 2004. - P. 127 - 152. - (ERAUL; N 106).

Dupuy D. Fragments d'images, images de fragments: La statuaire gravettienne, du geste au symbole: these de doctorat Nouveau Regime / Universite de Provence, Aix-Marseille I. -Marseille, 2007. - 321 p.

Gamble C.S. Interaction and alliance in Palaeolithic society // Man. N. S. - 1982. - Vol. 17. - P. 92 - 107.

Guthrie R.D. The nature of Paleolithic art. - Chicago; L.: University of Chicago Press, 2005. - 520 p.

Gvozdover M. Art of the Mammoth hunters: The finds from Avdeevo. - Oxford: Oxbow Books, 1995. - 186 p. - (Oxbow monographs; N 49).

Hahn J. Kraft und Aggresion: die Botschaft der Eiszeitkunst im Aurignacien Suddeutschlands? - Tubingen: Institut fur Urgesichte der Universitat Tubingen, 1986. - 254 S. -(Archaeologica Venatoria; Bd. 7).

Hunters of the golden age / eds. W. Roebroeks, M. Mussi, J. Svoboda, K. Fennema. - Leiden: University of Leiden, 2000. - 420 p.

Ingold T. From trust to domination: An alternative history of human-animal relations // Animals and human society / ed. by S. Manning. - L.: Routledge, 1994. - P. 1 - 22.

Jochelson W. The Koryaks. - Leiden; N.Y.: E.J. Brill Ltd, 1908. - 460 p. - (The Jesup North Pacific Expedition Publications; vol. 6, pt. 2). - (Memoir of the American Museum of Natural History; vol. 10).

Jochelson W. The Yukaghir and Yukaghirized Tungus. -Leiden; N.Y: E.J. Brill Ltd, 1926. - 127 p. - (The Jesup North Pacific Expedition Publications; vol. 9). - (Memoir of the American Museum of Vatural History; vol. 13).

Klima B. Les representations animales du Paleolithique superieur de Dolni Vestonice: 3e Colloque de la Societe Suisse des Sciences Humaine. - Fribourg, 1979. - P. 323 - 332.

Klima B. Figurlichen Plastiken aus der palaolitischen Siedlung von Pavlov (CSSR) // Religion und Kult. - 1989. -Bd. 6. - S. 81 - 90.

Kralik M. Ancient ceramics and imprints on their surfaces // Pavlov - Excavations 2007 - 2011 / ed by J. Svoboda. -Brno: Institute of Archaeology at Brno, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, 2011. - P. 207 - 244. - (Dolni Vestonice studies; N 18).

Krupnik I. Arctic adaptations: Native whalers and reindeer herders of Northern Eurasia. - Hanover; L.: University Press of New England, 1993. - 355 p.

Laufer B. Preliminary notes on explorations among Amoor tribes // American Anthropologist. - 1900. - Vol. 2, N 2. -P. 297 - 338.

Lewis-Williams D.J. The mind in the cave: Conciousness and the origins of art. - N.Y: Thames & Hudson, 2002. - 320 p.

Lewis-Williams D.J., Dowson T.R. The signs of all times: Entoptic phenomena in Upper Paleolitic art // Current Anthropology. - 1988. - Vol. 29, N 2. - P. 201 - 245.

Marshack A. The roots of civilization: the cognitive beginnings of mans first art, symbol and notation. - N.Y.: Moyer Bell Ltd; Mount Kisco, 1991. - 445 p.

Mithen S. Ecological interpretations of Paleolithic art // Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society. - 1991. - Vol. 57, N 1. - P. 103 - 114.

Mitlyanskaya T. Native carvers and outsider artists: Patterns of interaction in Siberia Eskimo/Chukchi ivory carving // Arctic Anthropology. - 1996. -Vol. 33, N 1. -P. 67 - 88.

Mortillet G., de. Le Prehistorique: antiquite de l'homme. - P.: С Reinwald, 1883. - 642 p. - (Bibliotteque des Sciences contemporaines).

Nadasdy P. The gift in the animal: The ontology of hunting and human-animal society // American Ethnologist. - 2007. -Vol. 34. - P. 25 - 43.

Nelson E.W. The Eskimo about Bering Strait. -Washington: Government Printing Office, 1900. -518 p. - (Annual Report of the Burea of American Ethnology; vol. 18).

Owen L. Distorting the past: Gender and the division of labor in European Upper Palaeolithic. - Tubingen: Kerns Verlag, 2005. - 240 p.

Pedersen M.A. Totemism, animism and North Asian indigenous ontologies // J. of the Royal Anthropological Institute. - 2001. - Vol. 7, N 3. - P. 411 - 427.

Popular Beliefs and Folklore Tradition in Siberia / ed. by V. Dioszegi. - Budapest: Akademiai Kaido, 1968. - 500 s.

Porr M. Paleolithic art as cultural memory: A case study of the Aurignacian art of Southwestern Germany // Cambridge Archaeological J. -2010. -Vol. 20, N 1. -P. 87 - 108.

Sauvet G., Wlodarczyk A. Towards a formal grammar of the European Paleolithic cave art // Rock Art Research. -2008. - Vol. 25. - P. 165 - 172.

Sazelova S. Symbolismus u mobilnich spolecnosti Sibife: Lide a zvifata v etnologicke analogii a archeologickem kontextu: disertacni / Masarykova univerzita. - Brno, 2012. - 205 s.

Shamanism in Siberia / eds. V Dioszegi, M. Hoppal. -Budapest: Akademiai Kiado, 1978. - 532 s.

Soffer O. Gravettian technologies in social context // Hunters of the golden age / eds. W. Roebroeks, M. Mussi, J. Svoboda, K. Fennema. - Leiden: University of Leiden, 2000. - P. 59 - 75.

Stiles D. Ethnoarchaeology: A discussion of methods and applications // Man. N. S. - 1977. - Vol. 12. - P. 87 - 103.

Svoboda J. Symbolisme Gravettien en Moravie: Espace, temps et formes // Bull, de la Societe Prehistoire de L'Ariege. - 1997. - Vol. 52. - P. 87 - 103.

Svoboda J. Pocatky umeni. - Praha: Academia, 2011. -336 s.

Svoboda J., Sazelova S., Kosintsev P., Jankovska V., Holub M. Resources and spatial analysis at actual Nenents camp sites: Ethnoarchaeological implications // J. of Anthropological Archaeology. - 2011. - Vol. 30. - P. 30 - 43.

Vandiver P., Soffer O., Klima В., Svoboda J. The origins of ceramic technology at Dolni Vestonice, Czechoslavakia // Science. - 1989. - Vol. 246. - P. 1002 - 1008.

Verpoorte A. Places of art, traces of fire: A contextual approach to anthropomorphic figurines in the Pavlovian (Central Europe, 29 - 24 kyr BP). - Leiden; Brno: University of Leiden, Institute of Archaeology, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, 2001. - 144 p.

Willerslev R. Not animal, not not-animal: Hunting, imitation and empathetic knowledge among the Siberian Yukaghirs // J. of the Royal Anthropological Institute. - 2004. - Vol. 10. -P. 629 - 652.

The article was submitted to the Editorial Board on 01.02.13, in the final version-on 17.08.14.

Permanent link to this publication: