REPEATED STUDIES OF THE SURUKTAH-KHAYA SANCTUARY (YAKUTIA): FIRST RESULTS AND PROSPECTS*

After the expeditions of A. A. Savvin in 1939 and A. P. Okladnikov in 1941, the Suruktah-Khaya sanctuary on the Markhe River (Yakutia) was not re-examined for a long time. Quite satisfactory preservation of its murals (in contrast to most of the writings of the middle Lena) made it possible to effectively conduct an additional study of this outstanding monument in August 2011, mainly by photographing it using digital photography equipment.

Keywords: Yakutia, sanctuary, rock art, photo fixation, preservation of the monument, factors of destruction of scribbles, reliability of graphic copies.

Introduction

In August 2011, employees of the Museum of Archeology and Ethnography of the North-Eastern Federal University (NEFU) conducted field studies of the Suruktah-Khaya sanctuary (translated from Yakut as " written rock "or"rock with writing"). on the Markha River, a left tributary of the Lena River. During the expedition, we have accumulated extensive material (photos, descriptions, measurements, control graphic copies). on this unique monument of rock art in Yakutia.

The beginning of scientific study of the sanctuary was laid in August 1939 by the Yakut ethnographer A. A. Savvin. During his reconnaissance of the Lena scribbles, which he carried out "carefully and with great energy" [Okladnikov, Zaporizhskaya, 1972, p.7], the researcher described the sacred rock, numerous drawings, sacrificial sites, recorded folklore materials and interrogative information about the rock and the corresponding beliefs [Savvin, 1940, p. 29]. Unfortunately, the report of A. A. Savvin remained only in the manuscript; extensive citations from it were published in the monograph of A. P. Okladnikov and V. D. Zaporozhskaya [1972, pp. 8-9, 78-79].

In the summer of 1941, the Lena historical and archaeological expedition consisting of A. P. Okladnikov, V. D. Zaporozhskaya, and I. I. Barashkov worked on Surukty-Khaya. The materials of these studies were fully presented in the monograph [Okladnikov, Zaporizhskaya, 1972, p. 4]. 16 - 31,78 - 88,125 - 132]. Prior to its publication, only a general view of the scribble and individual images were published [Okladnikov, 1949, Table XII; XV, 1; 1955, p. 101, Fig. 29; p. 166, fig. 54].

After the publication of the monograph by A. P. Okladnikov and V. D. Zaporozhskaya, the most effective graphic materials related to the sanctuary on the Markha were reproduced in publications (see, for example: [Alekseev and Penkov, 2006, figs. 9, 10, 12; Larichev, 2008, Figs. 1-4, 6, 8]). Scientists have described the sanctuary as "an outstanding monument of rock art in the northern taiga" [Devlet E. G., Devlet M. A., 2005, p. 292], "a surprisingly integral object of spiritual culture of the Lena Region" [Larichev, 2008, p. 170], etc., called it a unique monument of the Northern taiga.

* The work was carried out within the framework of the scientific project N 2.2.3.1/2652 of the Russian National Research University Higher School of Economics (2010 - 2011) and with the sponsorship of Almazy Anabara OJSC.

page 55
Suruktah-Haya is a "picturesque", "impressive", "unique", "mysterious", "mysterious" rock. However, from 1941 to the beginning of the XXI century, the monument was not studied by specialists. From the point of view of professionals, Suruktah-Hai's research could not provide any significant new information that would justify the effort and significant costs. This erroneous opinion was based, in particular, on the conclusion of researchers that "no entire rock planes with drawings were preserved on all the scribbles of the Middle Lena, all of them were subjected to intensive destruction" (Alekseev and Kochmar, 2003, p. 111). In addition, V. D. Zaporozhskaya's sketches made during the expedition in 1941 (Okladnikov and Zaporozhskaya, 1972, pp. 125-132, Tables 19-27) were considered exhaustive and not subject to corrections and additions. Thus, V. E. Larichev noted: "Markhinsky materials are a source of excellent quality" [2008, p. 170], and rejected "doubts about the accuracy of the copyist's work, who recorded every detail on paper" [Ibid., p. 175].

The situation changed dramatically in 2009, when the Suruktah-Khaya sanctuary on Markha was visited by a well-known traveler and amateur photographer in Yakutia, entrepreneur E. P. Makarov. He gave the NEFU Museum of Archeology and Ethnography a set of photographs taken by him and the right to use these materials for scientific and museum purposes [Makarov, 2010, p. 105]. Thanks to E. P. Makarov, we were able to assess the state of the rock and the drawings on the rock planes [Maksimova, 2011, p. 162-164], plan an expedition for re-study in 2011, identify the main problems and methods of their solution.

The purpose of this publication, which summarizes the results of the 2011 expedition for the first time, is to discuss the preservation of rock planes with images, the reliability of widely known copies made in 1941, as well as fundamentally new results of recent research. Information about the location of the object of research and the structure of the rock substrate, which predetermined many of the features of the sanctuary, also requires clarification.

General characteristics of the object

The Suruktah-Khaya sanctuary is located on the left bank of the Markha*, 22 km downstream from the mouth of the Namal-jylakh river , a right tributary of the Markha River, along which our party used to go by boat to the place of work. The distance to the confluence of the Markha river with the Lena River in a straight line is 59 km, taking into account the numerous bends - approx. 150 km. Coordinates of the place (using GPS-navigator (in the WGS system-84)): 61°05'0,8" nw and 122°53 '8.41" E

A rock ridge composed of Cambrian limestones with subhorizontal layers is fixed in the center of the river bend and traced along the right side of the stream** and the corresponding break-up (Fig. 1). At an altitude of 17-18 m, the ridge rises from the bank of the Markha River in a south-easterly direction, here its width is 6-13 m, then the ridge changes its course to the east, extends for another 26-28 m and narrows to 5-1.5 m. The height of the wooded surface of the terrace, measured 260 m from the river, is 90 m, to the next (downstream) ridge on the left bank it is separated by 560 m. All these rock ridges are composed of weathered limestones, forming a typical "ruin" relief. The weathering patterns are clearly visible in the photos of the general view of the rock ridge (Fig. 1) and the general view of the cliff with rock carvings (Fig. 2, upper right corner). The last of the above-mentioned photos also illustrates the features of rock erosion, which contributed to the preservation of the paintings. A rather wide (0.8 - 1.2 m) trough was formed along a subvertical crack (fault) of the north-eastern-south-western strike. Judging by the smoothed, water-polished walls, this washout drains the watershed of the rock ridge to a large extent. In the direction of this drain, the top of the cliff is sloped: the height of its north-eastern edge is 21.0 (23.6) m***, and the height of its south-western edge is 16.9 (19.5 m). The highest point of the entire ridge is at an altitude of 29.7 (32.3) m. Rain and meltwater, taking into account the characteristic traces of water erosion, flowed down the south-western ("end") part of the cliff and along the adjacent flank facing the river "front" (according to A. A. Savvin), or "facade" (according to A. P. Okladnikov) side of the cliff. The opposite (north-eastern) flank and the central part of this sheer wall were almost not eroded.

The structure of the rock substrate of the Suruktah-Khaya sanctuary was formed by two systems of subvertical cracks. The first of them, extending along the NE - SW line, is represented by the already mentioned wide and deep trough, which separates this exotic region from the south-south-east side.-

* This was also noted by A. A. Savvin [1940, p. 10], but the work of A. P. Okladnikov and V. D. Zaporozhskaya indicated that the rock is located on the right bank of the river [1972, p.16].

** The width of the stream at its mouth is 17 m, the width of the Markha for the period of our work (August 18 - 26) is 35 m. By the way, A. A. Savvin arrived at the sanctuary in 1939, just like we did in 2011, on August 18.

*** Hereafter, the first digit is the height from the foot of the cliff, the second (in parentheses) - from the water's edge in Markh on 24.08.2011. Note that in 1939 the height of the" limestone tower " was set at 22 m (Savvin, 1940, p. 10).

page 56

1. General view of a rock ridge with a "ruin" relief on the left bank of the Markha River.

a formation that is referred to in the literature as a "rocky outcrop" or "isolated picturesque outcrop". "pillar", "tower", "sacred mountain", etc. Parallel to this fault, a series of cracks is recorded, manifested with different intensity (depth, width, etc.). From this series, three well-defined cracks are distinguished, which control the localization of both groups of images and sacrificial sites.

The first of these cracks (Fig. 3, right edge) separates rock blocks 1 and 2 (the thickness of the blocks is about 1.5 m, i.e. extremely insignificant compared to the height (17-21 m) and width (8-9 m)). According to the observations of A. A. Savvin [1940, p. 12], later confirmed by A. P. Okladnikov [Okladnikov, Zaporizhskaya, 1972, p.79], "about 80 ancient arrows"were recorded in this crack. Two bone arrowheads were found here and by us. Block 3 is a very thin rock slab: from 20-18 cm in the upper part to 10 cm or less in the lower part (Fig. 3, left part). At the same time, the value of this miniature block-plate is large: on its plane facing the GCC, there are several groups of images (see the table), and two more figures are depicted on the end face ("cheek") this rock block faces south. The upper end of block 3 at a height of 10.8 (13.4) m forms a narrow step; perhaps it was this step that helped ancient artists create the uppermost composition. Block 4 with the upper platform at a height of 10.1 (12.7) m is thinned from the bottom up - from 2 - 2.5 to 0.5 - 0.4 m. It could also be used by scribbler creators for work. Block 5 (in Fig. 3, the last line is attached to the block

2. General view of Suruktah-Khaya rock with numerous rock paintings and altars.

page 57

Figure 3. Working moment of Pisanitsa research in 2011

Suruktah-Khaya Rock Art Groups

N groups

N figures in this article

Correspondence to drawings in the monograph by A. P. Okladnikov and V. D. Zaporozhskaya [1972]

Exposure azimuth and plane tilt angle

Placing a song

1

2 - 4,8

P. 126, Table 20

GCC 340, 90°angle(up to -88°)

Horizontal

II

4

P. 126, Table 21, top left; p. 132, fig. 3, 5

GCC 330, angle 88° (up to 90°)

Diagonal-vertical

III

3,4

Page 126, Table 21, top center

GCC 340, 82° angle (up to 88°)

Horizontal

IV

4

-*

GCC 350, 80°angle

Single image

V

2 - 5

P. 127, Table 22

GCC 340, 90°angle

Diagonal

VI

3

-

Z 280-290, angle 84° (up to 88°)

?

VII

2, 3

P. 126, Table 21, on the right**

GCC 330, angle 88°

Mostly vertical

VIII

2, 3

P. 126, Table 21, on the right**

GCC 330, 82°angle

" "

IX

3

-

SW 240, 70° angle (up to 76°)

Vertical

X

2, 3, 5, 6, 9

P. 128, Table 23**

NW 320, angle 78° (up to 90°)

Horizontal

XI

3, 5, 6

P. 129, Table 24**

Uneven surface

?

XII

3, 5, 6

P. 129, Table 24, bottom left

SW 240, angle 80°

Vertical

XIII

3, 5, 6

P. 129, Table 24, top right

3 270, 75°angle

Mostly vertical

XIV

3, 6

-

SW 220, angle 80°

?

XV

3, 5

-

NW 320, 80° angle (up to 88°)

Horizontal

XVI

3, 5 - 7

-

NW 320, 80° angle (up to 90°)

Diagonal-horizontal

* Not mentioned in the monograph.

** Partial compliance.

page 58
stairs on the left) with a stepped top platform: 5,6 (8,2); 5,2 (7,8); 4,7 (7,3) M. He is well known from descriptions and photographs taken in 1941 [Okladnikov and Zaporizhskaya, 1972, p. 4]. 18, 25 - 26, 78 - 80], it is with this block and a deep crack separating It is located in block 2, connected with the discovery of the first rich altar in the Lena Region by A. A. Savvin and A. P. Okladnikov. In 2011, an iron plate plate was found on the top of Block 5 and several objects were found at the foot of the cliff: a stone arrowhead, a Neolithic chisel, and two wooden shankens.

Grouping of Suruktah-Khaya rock paintings

We have previously identified 16 groups of rock carvings. This grouping is basically similar to what was planned by A. P. Okladnikov (four "topographic groups", "eight compositions", "tiers of images", etc.), so in the table that we present in this article, the correspondence of each group to A. P. Okladnikov's divisions is indicated in a separate column (see the table). The main criteria for selecting groups are: the degree of isolation in space, the correspondence to one or another element of the rock substrate structure, the nature of the microrelief of the rock plane, the exposure and angle of inclination of the plane, the geometric dominant of the composition (the placement vector of individual images). Additional grouping criteria: color and tone of the dye, lighting features, image sizes, plot and stylistic similarities and differences.

Hypsometrically selected groups are divided into three main levels ("floors"):

1. Upper - from 11.1 (13.7) to 12.1 (14.7) m-only group I (rock block 2).

2. Average-from 9.1 (11.7) to 10.4 (13.0) m-groups II, III (block 3), IV (niche in block 3), V (block 2).

3. Lower-from 6.3 (8.9) to 8.4 (11.0) m-groups VI (block 4), VII, VIII (block 3), IX (block 3, end face), X (block 2), XI, XII, XIII (block 2, end face), XIV (block 1, end face).

The lower "floor" is adjacent to the relics of the now almost destroyed image complex. At the level of 6.0 (8.6) - 6.3 (8.9) m, two small groups are identified: XV (block 2) and XVI (block 2, including the horizontal bottom of the formation-cornice). The last group includes images made on mutually perpendicular planes, but showing the plot and stylistic unity (Figs. 4, 5).

The exception is Group V, whose images are located at a height of 8.1 (10.7) - 10.1 (12.7) m.

This composition is unique in several aspects: in the size of the figures (0.9-1.1 m), in the geometric dominant (diagonal), in the absence of ledges-steps from which this rock plane could be painted (see Figs. 3, 6, 7). The construction of a very high staircase and risky actions on it could be undertaken only for a very important purpose - for example, images of the sacred pantheon [Alekseev and Penkov, 2006, pp. 15-20].

Safety of rocks and planes with images

A detailed comparison of modern photographs with a sketch and a photo taken in 1941 allows us to state that there are no noticeable changes in the contours of the rock. Consequently, no major landslides have occurred in 70 years. Only the right flank of Block 5 was destroyed: stepped projections disappeared (see Derevyanko and Zakstelsky, 2008, p. 99, photo), which were probably destroyed and carried away by ice drifts. Perhaps not without the "human factor": these blocks prevented access to the lower part of the altar crack, so souvenir hunters could "contribute" to the destruction.

As for the rock paintings, the only provable collapse of a small block from the zone of intense fracturing corresponding to the central part of the uppermost composition with the well-known "line" of 14 anthropomorphic figures led to the disappearance of the fifth (counting from left to right) figure (Fig. 8). Of the five "tiers" of various signs that make up this composition only one (the middle one) is damaged in the above way: in place of the fifth figure, recorded in 1941, a shallow trapezoidal niche (height 17 cm, width 8 - 5 cm) yawns. As for the other two niches (one triangular in shape (to the left of the zoomorphic images of the fourth tier), the other in the form of an elongated rectangle (separating the two signs of the fifth, lowest, tier of images)), according to some signs, the rock blocks were dumped here even before the creation of rock paintings. Thus, the degree of preservation of the upper composition, or group I (Okladnikov and Zaporozhskaya, 1972, p. 126, Table 20), is quite satisfactory, even good, if we take into account the general condition of most scribbles of the middle Lena.

Comparison of the photos of Group X (see Figs. 7, 9) with the sketches of 1941 [Ibid., p. 128, Table 23] allowed us to estimate the dynamics of the process of desquamation of the surface of the rock plane, during which a thin (2 - 3 mm thick) crust is "exfoliated"

page 59

4. Groups of drawings on the right flank of the lower level: XI (in the end part of block 2, separated from group XII due to the extremely uneven microrelief), XII (located also in the end of block 2, separated from group XI by microrelief, differs in the specifics of the plot), XIII (separated from XII by a crack, located with it at an angle of 30° and differs in the plot), XIV (at the end of block I), XVI (on two mutually perpendicular planes, in the lower left corner of the photo).

rock formation. As a comparison of the white band (desquamation zone) in Figure 7 and the blank space in the graphic copy of this composition shows, the area of this zone of destroyed murals has remained virtually unchanged over 70 years; only in one section of the composition has the band expanded, but only very slightly. It is more difficult to assess the damage caused to the scribble over 70 years by the phenomena of "smudging colors with smudges" [Ibid., p. 78], because graphic copies do not reflect this, and the instructions in the text of descriptions are not specific enough.

Unlike other scribbles in Yakutia, the damage caused by human actions is insignificant here: only a few groups of initials left in the 1940s - 1980s at the foot of the rock (on a plane without ancient images) are marked, and letters scratched over the drawings of the lower composition on the side edge of the rock. These damages, of course.

Figure 5. Group XVI (details).

page 60

Figure 6. Groups of drawings of the upper and middle levels: I (top, center), II (to the right of the upper part of the vertical rail), III (two anthropomorphic figures are viewed under the center of group I), IV (niche above the center of the horizontal rail), part V (lower right corner of the photo).

7. Groups of lower-level drawings: VI (far left, drawn on the plane of block 4, which is at an angle of 60° to the plane of block 2), VII (in its upper part - three anthropomorphic figures of the same type with a trapezoid head), VIII (conventionally separated from VII by a sinuous crack), IX (at the end of the block there are two anthropomorphic figures facing upside down), X (one of the largest and most famous compositions of pisanitsa, occupies the central and right part of the photo).

page 61

8. Group I (length 2.7 m, height 1.0 cm; stone "anthropomorphic figure" in the crack to the right of the vertical rail measuring 0.7 x 0.25 m).

Figure 9. Group X (detail).

page 62
they are not comparable to those found in the Srednelensk scribble Churan*.

Ethnographer A. A. Savvin, who conducted reconnaissance studies on ten pisanitsy of the Middle Lena River in 1939, described in detail the various types of destruction of monuments. He considered the main factor of harm to be the activity of people [Okladnikov, Zaporizhskaya, 1972, p. 8]. A. A. Savvin explained the destruction of ancient inscriptions by the local population: 1) the tradition of using stone-scraped paint as a magical medicine; 2) the desire to check the rumors that inscriptions cannot be destroyed, because they are written by the spirit; 3) the desire of militant atheists to destroy superstition. Among the writings that were particularly severely destroyed by "both conscientious atheists and people who deeply believe in magical means, in the existence of spirits" [Ibid., p. 9], he noted Suruktah-Haya on Markh. In our opinion, today the local population seems to have become more careful about the ancient scribbles, although we did not see much respect for the monument from the old-timers. The sanctuary on Markha is still saved by its remoteness from busy roads and navigable rivers, the inaccessibility of rock cliffs; the crisis of the tourism industry in the republic is also important. But all this, of course, can not be a reason for reassurance.

Reliability of copies made in 1941

Comparison of Group I photos (see Fig. 8) with a copy made by V. D. Zaporozhskaya [Okladnikov, Zaporizhskaya, 1972, p. 126, Table 20], gives grounds to draw the following conclusions:

1. Graphic copies of anthropo-and zoomorphic figures, as well as signs and symbols (they were called by A. P. Okladnikov "bird-shaped", "four-beam figures", etc.) are flawless. The quality of the artist's work is admirable, because for the first time in difficult conditions, during a difficult wartime, she recorded the ancient masterpieces of the Markhinsky scribble.

2. There are inaccuracies in the reproduction of dashes in the topmost tier of the composition. As stated in the 1972 description, "this solid horizontal band of vertical dashes in the middle is interrupted by an anthropomorphic figure." An anthropomorphic figure similar in shape to the "central" one (intensely lightened and somewhat smaller) is also shown on the left flank of this row (see Figure 8).

It is quite obvious that 70 years ago, researchers did not attach importance to the number of dashes. It is different in two sketches - a detailed one [Ibid., Table 20] and a schematic one [Ibid., Table 26]. On the first: 23 + 1A (anthropomorphic figure) + 48 = 72, on the second: 22 + 1 (A) + 36 = 59. We have identified the following number of such elements (see Fig. 8): 2 + 1(A) + 19 + 1(A) + 28 (or 29) = 51 (or 52). We emphasize that there can be no question of complete "erasure" of some elements from the rock bed.

With the advent of the astroarchaeological hypothesis, such dashes and spots in rock carvings often began to be considered as "counting signs", and groups of such signs-as "calendar and astronomical records"**.

3. The images of the upper tier of Group I in 1941 were clearly copied "by eye". Perhaps some circumstances forced the artist to hurry. This can explain the inaccuracies in rendering the number of dashes that make up a row and the shape of this row: subhorizontal, tilted only on the left flank, on the graphic copy it is represented strongly curved in several sections***.

4. At the level of the two lower tiers of the composition under consideration, the remains of rock carvings can be traced, which were not reflected in the copies of 1941. Of particular interest is the palimpsest revealed here: an image of a large animal head, the outline of which is overlapped at the top by the legs of an anthropomorphic figure (seventh from the left), and at the bottom by the back of the right zoomorphic figure from the fourth tier (see Figure 8).

In this article, of course, it is impossible to discuss issues related to other groups, each of which has been recorded dozens of times by digital photography equipment: in different angles, under different lighting conditions, etc.**** The marked observations relate to-

* Here, a large inscription is stamped on top of the figures of running elks: "132 otr. A. N. 1950".

** One of the co-authors of this article tried to interpret the graphic (inaccurate) information given in V. D. Zaporozhskaya's detailed sketch as a counting sign entry of a calendar nature [Kochmar, Penkov, Knurenko, 1999, pp. 224-225; Alekseev, Penkov, 2006, p. 47]. Later, V. E. Larichev gave the same astroarchaeological interpretation of these "counting signs"; he published a whole system of astronomical, cosmogonic, and calendar constructions based on inaccurate information and a number of arbitrary assumptions [2008, pp. 165-184].

*** Minor carelessness of the copyist became the basis for the interpretation of this series as a "snake-like wriggling creature" - a Dragon cut into "slices" [Larichev, 2008, p. 181].

**** In total, more than 1.5 thousand were made. photos of the images of the discussed scribble, video shooting was carried out, including in 3D format, as well as control calculation of all available groups of drawings. All the material needs careful processing and analysis. "One of the best ways to document rock art is to find out more about it.-

page 63
all the scribbling. It can be stated that the copies of almost all the "figurative" images made in 1941 are quite reliable. Inaccuracies relate to details that were not given scientific significance 70 years ago.

Results of the 2011 expedition

Re-examination of the scribble involved, in particular, identifying images that were not marked by their predecessors, as well as inaccuracies in previously made and published copies. Given the scale of such an object as Suruktah-Khaya, it should be recognized that full coverage of numerous additions and corrections is possible only within the framework of a series of publications or in a monograph. In the most general form, we can formulate the following additions:: 1) groups VI, XIV, XV - images that have undergone intensive weathering processes and are mainly represented by hard-to-read fragments, were not recorded by A. P. Okladnikov's team; 2) distinct and rather interesting images (groups IV, IX, XVI) are confined to specific structural elements of rock blocks (niches, canopies, ends), so probably were not copied in 1941; 3) images of different degrees of clarity and significance, located on the periphery of known compositions, for unclear reasons were not recorded 70 years ago (groups VII, VIII, etc.).

The details of the 1941 copies relate to the images of Groups I and X. In the center of the upper tier of its images on the 1941 copy, next to a linear anthropomorphic figure with an animal head, a certain design of the large bow type is presented [Okladnikov and Zaporozhskaya, 1972, p. 128, Table 23]. The photos from 2009 to 2011 clearly show an anthropomorphic figure facing downwards, with the foot and knee joint drawn out, and the neck and head of a defeated (very long-legged) person being trampled under foot by a stockier winner with an animal head (see Figure 9).

During the re-examination of the scribble, the azimuths of the exposure and the angles of inclination of the planes with the drawings were measured. Based on the average values of these measurements (see the table), we can draw conclusions: 1) the predominant part of the images is plotted on planes facing the CVD (groups I-V, VII, VIII, X, XV, XVI). For pisanits in Yakutia, such an exposition of planes with paintings is very rare [Kochmar, Penkov, Knurenko, 1999, pp. 217-222]. It is possible that the high degree of preservation of paintings on the planes of these groups is associated with the almost strict verticality of these planes (up to negative angles of inclination); 2) several groups of paintings have a south-western (groups IX, XII, XIV) and western (groups VI, XIII) exposure, as in most scribbles of Yakutia [Tam ibid., pp. 217-222]. According to A. P. Okladnikov, " they were obviously applied later... because they occupy an unfavorable place on the rock compared to all other drawings" [Okladnikov, Zaporizhskaya, 1972, p. 88]. In the field, the dimensions of figures and their proportions are determined, the analysis of which can provide additional information about the sequence of drawing creation [Maksimova, 2006]. For the time being, it is advisable to refrain from making judgments about the relative and "absolute" chronology of Suruktah-Khaya murals until a thorough review of the palimpsests identified here and the results of dye sample analysis is obtained.
Our study of high-quality photographs of the Suruktah-Khaya sanctuary prior to the expedition [Makarov, 2010, p. 102-106] allowed us not only to plan field studies, but also to discover an interesting feature of the sacred rock, which, in our opinion, makes it clear: 1) the criteria for its sacralization; 2) the reasons that prompted drawing images "at an almost inaccessible vertex, although it was easy to find suitable planes for drawing at the bottom" [Larichev, 2008, p.168]; 3) what is the reason for some parameters of sign entries in group I images.

The feature under discussion is captured in the upper-left corner of the Group I frontal photo (see Figure 8). In a deep vertical crevice extending to the north-east (to the left) the combination of multidirectional intersecting fracturing systems formed the illusion of a powerful anthropomorphic figure with a triangular "torso", a columnar "head", and spaced "legs". This fissure is one of the manifestations of a system of subvertical fractures extending from the CVD to the SE. The fractures of this system have a rather "whimsical" character: they often narrow and widen, turn from rectilinear to stepped and curved, etc. (see Figs. 6, 8). These features distinguish this system of fracturing from the one described above (extending along the NE-SW line), which formed rock blocks-carriers of ancient paintings and sacrificial sites: its cracks and fractures are sustained in width, form a smooth vertical-

V. I. Molodin notes that photofixing, especially with the help of modern digital technology, is an innovation" [2004, p. 54]. In any case, the studied scribble has characteristics (brightness and distinctness of many images) that allow us to consider photo-fixation as the main way to document it.

page 64
linear planes, etc. All this confirms the statement made at the beginning of the article that the structure of the rock substrate largely predetermined the parameters of the Suruktah-Khaya sanctuary.

Let's return to the illusory anthropomorphic "sculpture". It is undoubtedly created by microtectonic and erosion processes without the involvement of an anthropogenic factor, although it is worth noting, perhaps (?), the embossed sign (the angle facing the top up) at the base of the columnar "neck" that merges with the "head". It is difficult to judge whether the sign mentioned is significant. The stone figure itself, powerfully "advancing" from the bowels of the rock, may have been noticed by an ancient artist. There are the following reasons for this assumption:: 1) the first (upper) tier of images on the left side is shifted down from the horizontal axis (see Fig. 8) in such a way that the anthropomorphic figures and their symbolizing lines respectfully "fall at the feet" of the stone giant; 2) in the appearance of 14 anthropomorphic creatures of the central (third) tier of images, some features of the "stone idol" are clearly visible - triangular torsos, spread legs, etc.; 3) the anthropomorphic figure on the far left is depicted emerging from the cave.- with the exception of a large four-ray grapheme, which long before the appearance of E. P. Makarov's photographs was identified by A. N. Alekseev and A.V. Penkov with an ancient Chinese pictogramshan - "mountain" [2006, p. 40-42].

To the presented specific arguments, we can add a general consideration: ancient people "a washout in the stone, a crevice, a crack in the rock, a cave were perceived as natural variants of the womb giving birth" [Devlet M. A., Devlet E. G., 2005, p. 252]. It is natural to assume that the figure of a stone anthropomorphic creature frozen in the "giving birth womb" was associated by the ancient founders of the sanctuary with the ancestor of people, a mythical ancestor. Thus, it is the natural uniqueness of the rock that could determine the choice of an object for veneration and sacralization. In this regard, we should pay attention to the upper sign of Group V of drawings, which was previously compared with the ancient Chinese pictogram shang di - "the first ancestor, the first and supreme being" (Alekseev and Penkov, 2006, pp. 15-17).

The thesis about the "tower-like" rock (its similarity to a temple, bell tower, etc.) as a reason for sacralization hardly deserves attention: ancient man could not have seen such architectural forms, so he could not have had such comparisons, and there are not so few picturesque rock remains in the vicinity of Suruktah-Khai! Visual effects associated with the sun's illumination of the rock at different times may have been important. These effects are numerous and varied; they stun and fascinate even the modern person, who is saturated with all kinds of information. Of course, this aspect of sanctuary research needs a separate and detailed description. If the appearance of a huge rock undergoes amazing transformations (sometimes it disappears in the blinding rays of sunrise, then it seems to be illuminated from the inside, and the drawings become brighter), then the following legends recorded among the local population in 1939 by A. A. Savvin probably deserve attention: "... inscriptions on the rock often change, new ones appear in place of the old ones"[Okladnikov, Zaporizhia, 1972, p. 79], " ... the inscriptions are inscribed by a powerful spirit dwelling on this cliff. He is sometimes represented as a female spirit, the owner of the Markha River, and sometimes as the spirit-owner of the Bai-Bayanai forest " [Ibid., p. 78]. Are these beliefs related to the lighting of the rock and rock paintings, changes in humidity, and the angle of view? Of course, it is not easy to prove the reality of optical effects and visual illusions. Note, however, that Suruktah-Khaya compares favorably with many other similar objects: here A. A. Savvin recorded long-standing evidence not only that the phenomena of visual illusions were observed, but also about the content of these phenomena. In our opinion, the anthropomorphic stone figure on the left flank of group I of Suruktah-Khaya rock paintings can be considered an example of "including natural features of the rock surface texture in the pictorial series" (Devlet M. A., 1998, p.234). "Co-authorship with Nature" [Ibid., p. 235] is an apt and succinct formula for creating ancient sanctuaries!

Did A. P. Okladnikov pay attention to such natural phenomena of Suruktah-Khaya? He took that secret with him three decades ago. But is it by chance that among his many ideas, the following was expressed: "Who knows, maybe nature itself gave birth to the first sculptor and the first artist with its creations?" [Derevyanko and Zakstelsky, 2008, p.181].

Conclusion

The Suruktah Haya shrine on Markh is worthy of a thorough re-examination and is in a state that allows it to be carried out. The famous Markhinskaya rock is not only a unique and grandiose object, but also in many ways paradoxical. At the first and distant view of the cliff's facade, it appears to be an indestructible monolith. When viewed closely from the flanks, the relative stability of this exotic remnant, consisting of several vertical plates and plates with extreme-

page 65
unusually narrow (in comparison with the height and width) base. The rock remnant has been preserved for 70 years (as shown by an experiment conducted by the history of studying this object itself) almost without significant changes for the study of rock paintings. The latter, fortunately, have retained the brightness and distinctness that favor photo fixation using modern digital technology.

A fundamentally important result of studying the sanctuary on the March in 2011 is the identification of a close relationship between all the main features and parameters of the sanctuary and the structure of the rock substrate. In this aspect, Suruktah-Haya is a vivid example of a sacred object created by ancient man in "collaboration with Nature".

* * *

Participants in the study of the monument, which began in 2011, thank E. P. Makarov, whose photographs marked the beginning of a new stage of research in Suruktah-Hai.

List of literature

Alekseev, A. N. and Kochmar, N. N., Repeated studies of the writings of the Middle Lena, Izv. Mezhdunar. academy of Sciences of higher education. Moscow, 2003, No. 1, pp. 101-122.

Alekseev A. N., Penkov A.V. New approaches to cognition of spiritual culture of taiga tribes of ancient Yakutia: pictographic "texts" on Lena scribbles of the Bronze Age // Antiquities of Yakutia: Art and material culture. Novosibirsk: Nauka Publ., 2006, pp. 12-56.

Devlet M. A. Devlet E. G., Myths in stone. Mir naskalnogo iskusstva Rossii [The World of Rock Art in Russia], Moscow: Aleteya Publ., 2005, 471 pp.

Devlet M. A. Petroglyphs at the bottom of the Sayan Sea (Mount Aldy-Mozaga). - M.: Monuments of historical thought, 1998. - 286 p.

Derevyanko E. I., Zakstelsky A. B. The Path of distant millennia. Novosibirsk: Infolio Publ., 2008, 200 p. (in Russian)

Kochmar, N. N., Penkov, A.V., and Knurenko, P. S., Expositions of Yakutia's Writings and the astroarchaeological aspect of Interpretation, in Archeology of North-East Asia. Astroarchaeology. Paleometrology. Novosibirsk: Nauka Publ., 1999, pp. 214-229.

Larichev V. E. Markhinsky Dragon and Time (astronomical, calendar and cosmogonic-mythological aspects of the semantics of the heavenly monster and zooanthropomorphic figures of the Suruktah-Khaya sanctuary, upper composition) // Theory and practice of archaeological research. Barnaul: Alt. State University Publ., 2008, issue 4, pp. 165-185.

Makarov E. P. Svyatylishche Suruktakh-Khaya na r. Markhe [The sanctuary of Suruktakh-Khaya on the Markhe River]. - 2010. - N 2. - p. 102-106.

Maksimova M. V. Paleometrologicheskii analiz i nekotorye aspekty semantiki pisanitsy Paleometrological analysis and some aspects of the semantics of the Baasynai script II p Olekma // Antiquities of Yakutia. Art and material culture. Novosibirsk: Nauka Publ., 2006, pp. 136-154.

Maksimova M. V. Suruktah-Khaya Sanctuary (Markha river): Naskalnoe iskusstvo v sovremennom obshchestve (k 290th letiyu nauchnogo otkrytiya Tomskoy pisanitsy): mat-ly Mezhdunar. nauch. konferentsii [Rock art in modern society (to the 290th anniversary of the scientific discovery of the Tomsk scribble)].: Kuzbassvuzizdat, 2011. - pp. 162-164. - (Tr. Sib. associations of Paleolithic researchers. arts; vol. 2, issue VIII).

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

Okladnikov A. P. Istoriya Yakutii [History of Yakutia]. Yakutsk: Yakutgoizdat Publ., 1949, 437 p.

Okladnikov A. P. Istoriya Yakutskoy ASSR [History of the Yakut ASSR], Moscow; L.: Izd-vo AN SSSR, 1955, vol. I: Yakutia before joining the Russian State. - 432 p.

Okladnikov A. P., Zaporozhskaya V. D. Petroglyphs of the Middle Lena, Nauka Publ., 1972, 272 p.

Savvin A. A. Materials for the study of Lena inscriptions. 1940. Archive of the Institute for Humanitarian Research and Problems of Small-numbered Peoples of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences. f. 4. Op. 12. Ed. chr.89a.

The article was submitted to the Editorial Board on 16.11.11, and the final version was published on 26.12.11.

page 66

Permanent link to this publication: